Brabus2

Greetings all,

I'm a newbie in the Corvette scene and would like your recommendation/suggestion on a blower cam profile for my 2005 C6 Procharger P1. I'm hoping to gain some low-end torque (2500 rpm +) as well as a sizable power gain up top. What could I normally expect in regards to rwhp improvement?

I've used the search button and have found good info on this forum, but also looking for fresh ideas.

Any info is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Richard

R6_C5_CLS55

I run a 228 232 .588 .575 115 on my P1SC

dbvettez06

I would call one of the tuners on the forum....ECS or A&A , they have done many installs, good guys to talk to and very knowledgeable!

Brabus2

Thanks guys! Yes, I've talked to Andy & Charlie @ A&A about the cam possiblities for my C6, just wanted to get a feel of what others here are using.

exploder

224/228 on a 115+1 lsa on p1sc made 661 and 595.

Brabus2

Approx. rwhp/rwtq gains???

Thanks!

Brabus2

WOW!!! Stout numbers... Do you recall approx. rwhp/rwtq gains???

Thanks!

R6_C5_CLS55

Here is an excerpt from the post I made back in 2004 when the cam install was completed.

<<
Also added springs, titanium retainers & hardened push rods.

Comparing the new chart at 6,400 RPM to the baseline chart at 6,400 RPM (6,400 is the old rev limit on the motor) I picked up ~75 RWHP.

Comparing at the new rev limit (6,700 RPM) to the old baseline at 6,400 RPM, I picked up ~95 RWHP.

Now, you might be saying, "Dang, that is a lot for a cam install." If you are, keep in mind that the car has been retuned on a mix of 93 octane and Torco at a ratio of 10 gallions of 93 to 1 quart of Torco. As such, we were able to run 4 degrees more timing advance. So that 4 additional degrees of advance is adding some additional HP that would not be there otherwise (with just cam install and 93 pump gas). I suspect if you want to try to back out the numbers, I would guess 4 - 5 RWHP per degree of advance, so knock off 16 - 20 RWHP to get a better apples to apples comparison. One other variable might be that the Racetronix and KB BAP were installed after the last dyno tune I had put on the car before the cam etc install, so the car might have been running a little fat for the baseline dyno pull (and hence a few less ponies in the baseline pull than might have been possible with a less rich mixture).

That would suggest that the cam was good for 55 - 59 RWHP comparing 6,400 RPM on the baseline to 6,400 RPM on the final chart. Or, 75 - 79 RWHP comparing the peak value at 6,400 RPM on the baseline to the 6,700 RPM peak value on the final chart (accounting for the valvetrain upgrade).

The final dyno run was done with an outside temperature of 94.8 degrees. There was zero knock retard across the board on all pulls we made. I have done a small amount of EFI live datalogging on the street, and have seen no KR. >>

Brabus2

Thank you very much! 55rwhp -79rwhp is good for me.

BTW: Did you lose any TQ on the low-end, I find myself mostly putting around at 2500-4000 rpms.

R6_C5_CLS55

Here is the change in HP and TQ at RPM (note that values at and above 6,400 RPM are referenced to 6,400 RPM from the baseline numbers since that was the RPM limit before the cam and spring upgrade). To answer your question directly, yes, there is a decrease in torque below 4,000 RPM (about even at 3,500), but major gains above where you will be when racing (BTW, I also have 4.10 gears).

RPM Delta HP Delta TQ
2600 -10 -20
3000 -10 -18
3500 -3 -3
4000 10 17
4300 10 15
4500 15 16
5000 20 23
5225 30 26
5500 40 35
6000 70 60
6400 75 70
6500 80 65
6600 85 62
6700 95 62

peter pan

I use one on Andy's cams in my DS1C so it would be a close comparison. 224/244 581/581 115 LSA. I do not have comparison numbers as I changed from stock to 742/655 and love the setup and shut down my dyno runs at 6200 as I am a street guy and the power I have now is just insane on the street

Brabus2

Thanks to R6_C5_ML430 & peter pan for your inputs.

HurricaneZ

Was that a typo? 224/244? I'm asuming fly cutting would be nessasary?

C6vertboy

So have you decided yet Richard? Sounds like you have some sweet options!

peter pan

It was a typo 224/224

0Jeff @ TPE

224/224 .581 .581 114+2 or 224/227 .581 .588 114+2