81 Sport Coupe

I need to tune my 87 motor and was looking at installing a cam. I was looking at the crane 2030 http://www.cranecams.com/product/car...detail&p=24199


I am currently running 2 1/4 duels with an h-pipe and muffler eliminators, did some slight porting to the plenum, has bosch 3's, otherwise everything else is stock. It has 3.07 gears. I'm not sure if I should go with a miniram with this cam or not.
My goal is to get some more low end torque and to have the car pull harder, get it into the low 13's possibly high 12's.
Would set of 1.6 roller rocker's be beneficial?

cv67

Used it many yrs ago very tame (old school grind) never even tuned it (not saying thats good)
Honestly so close to stock id go a little bigger. Any of the more modern 256, 262 type cams work good
If youre going miniram dont bother youll need more of everything
Cam heads gear etc. Opinions will vary

THE 383 admiral

you will not beat the TPI low end. that is what they engineered the intake for. GM did a great job. it actually makes to much power down low. making it hard to hook up out of the hole. Then constricts air flow on the upperend. where as a Mini ram or similar. with shorter runners. takes away from the bottom end. provides much more flow mid - upper end.

grandspt

I ran that cam in my 1983 Z28 HO 305ci 4 barrel Qjet. With that cam, Edelbrock dual plane egr intake I went from 14.6 ets down to 14.2 ets. consistent.
It was pretty tame even for the 305 but I had good results with it.

BOOT77

I think that cam would work better on an iron head thirdgen, but as long as your exhaust flows well the c4 stock alum heads have a better head flow ratio. So I don't think as much exhaust is needed or I'd try 1.6 intake only with that cam, because the long runner intake is prob now the worst flow factor.

81 Sport Coupe

I guess im going to touch up the stock intake then. is 256, 262 a comp cam?

Tom400CFI

Right. Too much power down low. That's why the replacement engine, had even MORE low RPM tq.

cv67

Yes comp does have them back then I used the Lunati
Think they are owned now by guess who.
(would not use)

MDstar2

I installed a set of Edelbrock Corvette heads, TPIS Headers, a Lingenfelter 211/219 cam, 1.6 full rollers, gasket matched porting, and a 2400 stall converter. Mine runs high 12's with that and a PCM of NC tune.

THE 383 admiral

look's AWESOME on paper TOM. HEAR you go MR. WIZ guy.... a shoot out between TPI, Mini ram & Holley Stealth ram. with a ZZ4 Modded crate.. 2nd shoot out Siamesed TPI VS HSR

the TPI system makes more power down low. AS designed.. this would have been better for you. using a stock L98. and swap intakes only. But you can CLEARLY see the results!!! I have built Multi TPI setup's to clearly agree with these tests. short runner intakes shifting the power band. from mid to high.


http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/2028...mvsstealthram/

https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~davis/z2...age021105.html

Tom400CFI

"WIZ guy, huh? B/c I posted some fact, straight from GM? Doing that makes me a "WIZ guy"?? Excuse me then, while I go and take a "wiz".

Seen that test before. Nothing new there. The problem, though is that you said, in post number 3, that
"GM did a great job. it actually makes to much power down low. making it hard to hook up out of the hole." Not sure why there are 3 periods in one sentence, but at any rate, it appears you were trying to claim that "TPI makes too much low end tq" in stock form ("GM did a great job"), which is a bunch of hog wash and the later LT1, made MORE "low end tq". Neither car is hard to launch and stock, neither is special in any way, in the "low end tq" realm. Neither is a "low end TOWAK MONSAH". They both make almost 300 lb ft at 1000 RPM, which is pretty typical of the time.

Nice try, laying down sensationalized claims about a STOCK engine...then trying to back that up by posting an article of a modified one.

EDIT: Did you look at your own links?? The dyno chart starts at 3400 RPM. Hard to compare "low end torque" when you'r dyno runs starts above where teh stock motor makes it's PEAK tq. "

What the TPI does really well, compared to other period intakes, is make a lot of MID RANGE torque. Mid range.


.

THE 383 admiral

Ohh look Mr. Wiz, the world - renown, Pulitzer prize WINNER!! Has been released from his padded room. To teach us. All about grammar. Yet uses more emoticons then a child! And actually has many Grammar imperfections. In your response. You should be elected to proof read all post’s before they go public. You can even grade everyone. Professor obvious.
Stock or Modded you still can see the difference between intake HP / TQ characteristics. Un-fortunately a typical DYNO pull is from 2k – RPM limit. So NO it did not show Mr. Wiz. Below 2K
Fact is the TPI system provides more TQ as Shown I’m going to consider 1.5K - 2.5K the Low end side!! approx. “800” – 3100



and dropped straight DOWN approx. 3300 “Mid Range” Every TPI car I built from about every stage. Was a burnout king. Especially at the track. Out of the HOLE. “LOW” end!! I could not hook up. I must be the only Person that had a hard time hooking up with a TPI setup? VS a Holley Stealth ram conversion. To a LT1 VS Holley Stealth ram Conversion.
Please enlighten us. Go get a virgin L98 then swap to a LT1 or design intake “only” post the DYNO results.

Your time is UP. Back to your padded room!

Tom400CFI

At least I can write a sentence w/o putting 3 or 4 periods in it.


So, you already know about your "period problem", then? Sorry for stating the obvious (that never seems to get fixed).


I can. I can see that the stock LT1 makes more "low end tq" than a stock TPI, that had "too much low end torque".


A dyno pull starts from what ever RPM you want it to start at. With my cars, I wanted to start recording at 1000 RPM. The dyno Op didn't hit the "start" button quite fast enough, so it started at 1200 or so, but, point is, a pull starts where ever you want it to start. These graphs that go from tq peak to hp peak are incomplete. The GM graph that I posted starts at ~800 RPM. IDK how you can make a case for "low end tq" of stock engines...then throw out graphs and data of peak tq on modified engines. Doesn't make much sense.
Here is one graph, starting about ~1200 RPM...





Oh no...not the venerable "Peel-o-meter"! I doubt that you're the "only person" who can't hook up...but admitting that you can't hook up in a 345 peak ft-lb car does nothing to endorse your driving skills. I've run cars at the track, quite successfully, that had more low end tq, more mid range tq, and more high end tq, than any stock or stockish TPI. So I guess b/c you can't do it, then GM screwed up and made an undriveable TQ monstah! Or something.


YOU post the results. I'm not the one you made the original "low end tork mostah!" claims. B/c I know in reality, it's not.


Right. Good one. And here is a "childish", but appropriate emoticon, for you;

"Admiral", I agree that TPI has the potential to make more mid range tq than other intakes, and even more peak tq, when modified. Don't disagree w/that at all. But w/regard to "low end tq", it makes about the same as most other period, 5.7L'ish engines did; a little under 300 lb ft. I guess the bottom line is that you say that for you, the TPI was too much; too much to launch. I can't argue that point, so I concede. The TPI is an unlaunchable, "low end TORK MONSTAH". For you, anyway.

RICHARD TILL

3.07 gears? If so, put them in file 13. 3.55 or 3.73 rear with 1.6 rockers on your intake valves only.

cv67

The airspeed with the TPI intake is so high the throttle response and lack of throttle angle needed can lead one to believe it makes more low end tq than it really does. Who cares? Its fun....thats the whole idea.

86C4Z51

Seems you two experts lost the OP in this d!ck swinging contest you're having.

Tom400CFI

Stirring the pot, 4 days later, are we? I think it's safe to say that the OP had already gotten quite a sufficient answer to his question.


.

86C4Z51

I have this spoon, Tom, and at the moment had no pot.

Still like your waterskiing avi; my ex wife could dip a shoulder on her Maharaja back in the day. Those La Point boys made awesome skis.

MrWillys

I'd run a comp 08-501-8 and put 1.6 rockers on it.

THE 383 admiral

providing the heads are in spec. and matching springs.
[7] Stock springs cannot be used<