AirBusPilot

It'd be cool to see other cam's dyno overlayed on top of the latest dyno.

OBSSSD

If you saw the difference you would fall out of your chair

PM the OP he will probably send it to you. He doesn't want to start a flame war by posting it up in public, and I understand his concern after seeing how the last thread went south.

FloydSummerOf68

It's a discussion forum. It would be silly to not post up an overlay simply for fear of others opinions.

Grats on hitting the 500 mark. Looks like a well built setup with obviously some quality tuning.

Gering

Sounds like the thread that I started. The good thing is that I did get some good info on my next upgrades.

theofel

Was flycutting necessary with this cam? Do you think this cam would work with a A6 with a 3600 stall and 3.15 gears? Any surging under 1500 rpm? Are you running stock gears? I know it's a lot of questions but I am in the process of putting a cam in my LS3 A6. Thank you...MIKE

dgoldenz

Just asking, but why is that timing chain $350? Seems pretty expensive for a timing chain...nice numbers.

C6-LS2-MN6

My LS3 block and heads are 100% factory and no fly cutting was required. I outlined all low speed/rpm driving in the multiple videos. I feel w/ your 3600 auto stall you should be fine w/ the cam I used and maybe able to actually go bigger if you're looking for more of a "track only" car.

For anybody interested in how the car drives and happens to be in the Austin area, feel free to PM me and stop by for a test drive.

After reading and doing some research, Cloyes did some independent testing and offers a very high tinsel strength timing chain available for the LSx market, however very pricy. Another option is Katech, who offers a quality upgrade to the factory LS2/LS3 chain that is more competitively priced at $150...really your own preference. Many feel a TC upgrade from the factory chain is a waste of money, until they're spending $5K-$10K grand on a new motor.

SpinMonster

You're just not going to stop are you? John at 21 cent wanted to not turn this into a bash so they didnt post results but you and your buddy tuner over there just had to take it to this level and now its all about telling everyone what your friend at 21 said to you on the phone. well if its going to be told we have to hear the whole story. So lets all post dyno sheets of all results from other tuners and see who should be credited for truth.

I fail to see why you take the worst result of my cam to compare it to the best result of this cam. In the last thread I posted the last result of the 227/239 and its TQ was way lower than mine from 2500 to redline by 20rwtq. I was going to stay out of it but a few facts since you had to start: The lowest result was from 21 cent. My cam was swapped out and the 227 cam put in with the same tune. The 227 cam was running within 5rwhp of optimum and for anyone who knows about tuning there is no way its that close unless the tune in the car was the tune they use a base for the 227 cam in the first place. I have never seen two cams have the same tune as optimum. Of course thereis no way to say what the car would have done with me tuning the cam I know so well. Obviously you get more power when you have a tune that gets dialed in over time. They tuned the 227 before so they know what works.

All the other cars that used my cam and were installed by other tuners made between 478 and 504rwhp....NONE of them had a FAST intake (helps TQ) and none had a 102 throttle body. Most also had no UD pulley. So take the car that LG said wouldnt make more than 465 that factually dyno'd 478 two days later at another dyno and add to it a FAST, UD pulley, and 102 TB.

Sorry but i dont think that the 230/234 cam had a fair tne nor was the tuner being shy about bashing it to others. You are or were a competing tuner (Robinson) and have openly bashed my cam forever. Why not post some of your results if you have any?

Here is the last dyno of the 227/239 that 21 cent tuned that had no low end TQ boost from a FAST. Note the TQ being at 380rw all the way up to 4200rpm:
[IMG][/IMG]

Now go overlay that against any dyno sheet from an independent tuner that properly tuned my cam. the tuner at 21cent had no issue spilling the beans and having a few other statements about my cam to others so if anyone thinks that a tuner with a cam in the race that bashes mine didnt have an agenda, I question the judgement.

You have had this same bashing attitude across the board and please be my guest and explain why you credit this tuner and not all the other tuners on this board that used it and got between 493 and 504 dont count. I'd go with the tuner's dyno that didnt have a cam in the race. I find it interesting that you want to use your budy's result as the only result my cam has gotten.

SpinMonster

For the record, the 227/239 is a great cam. Its only 5 degrees overlap and if you can live with the .630 lift, I recomend it.

Being low overlap it will drive fine.

So how does it fit my take on splits: I never said big splits dont work. Its my belief that it would make the same power within a few HP if it was a 227/231 as I dont think big splits are needed to make power with the Ls3 head. As a 227/231 it would be only 1 degree overlap and would even be a great blower cam. I dont see how 4 degrees additional overlap for a few HP up top is a benefit for everyone especially if you dont want lope or its going in an automatic car. The low end TQ tends to be helped when overlap is lower due to higher vacume.

The 227 LSL lobe is used on comp cam's 227/235 and gets pretty much the same result with 3 degrees overlap.

Obviously the data of all the cams used in all these cars supports that the LS3 likes intake lobes in the 227 to 231 intake duration. Using a 114 LSA to peak at or around 6300 in a 6.2 liter without losing low end TQ. the remaining spec is the ex duration and that should be tailored to not let the overlap go over 5 or so. I used to think that the limit was around 4 but this 21 cent result shows 5 works optimumly too.

I think Texas speed has had a great result with a 231/236 which was also 5 degrees overlap.

Another area further proven is that the 6.2 liter seems to make 20rwtq more at peak when used with a 1 3/4 primary header. On the cars that used a 1 7/8 with my cam, we saw 435rwtq.

Anyway, we have some new data points.

C6-LS2-MN6

I asked both parties (Spinmonster and OBSSSD@work) to stop the "debating" within my thread. In an effort to keep it on topic this time I only wanted to talk about the initial results of Spin Cam through PM's for only those who asked, but everybody will not drop the topic it seems...

Also for the record, my tuner (Matt) does not have an agenda, other than to install/tune the best setup as possible in order to keep performance oriented customers satisfied. He's open minded to cam choices and would be willing to tune any vendor's cam for optimal results. He has NEVER mentioned anything negative about you or your cam designs and some of your statements suggest otherwise.

Here's the cold hard facts and feel free to debate it....

I never meant to leave the forum members hanging, but I did change my initial cam choice and here's my UPDATE...

The conclusions from my personal R&D testing w/ various parts on my personal car are different than Spinmonter's views, however we are both still friends and just have different view points on some things.
I know he does a lot of research and testing (free I might ad) for the Forum on here and contributes a wealth of information.

When people ask legit questions or concerns I don't mind sharing some of the data I have with you in hopes we all take a little from it and learn something. I chose to keep this info out of my thread at first and only discuss it through PM's when asked, but some would not drop it and I didn't want this topic on to spiral out of control and get locked.

I did spend a ton of money doing this cam swap twice, but after seeing the results first hand and discussing it with 21st Century and the tuner, they offered me a discount towards another cam choice. Due to the unimpressive numbers from the first 230/234 cam or the over expectations from the Forum, 21st preferred me not to post the 230/234 cam results and felt to stay out of any internet conflicts that might arise. Let the charts speak for themselves.

They spent MANY hours tuning the 230/234 cam and squeezing every last ounce of HP out of it because they knew the results/tune would be scrutinized on this forum. The results were within a few HP/TQ of what others have dyno'ed in the TX area with this cam.

21st Century knew everyone would claim the low numbers were from a bad tune w/ the 230/234 cam...so they even redyno'ed the new CMC-30 (227/239) cam with the old Spin Cam tune! And the numbers were, 493HP/455TQ before starting to retune the vette with the new 227/239 cam. The final numbers after being retuned for the 227/239 cam were 501HP/460TQ.

Here's the various charts I promised. I chose to keep this info out of my new thread at first and wished those who didn't would have respected my decision. There always seems to be a few "die hard loyalist" in every camp that tend to ruin the thread for everyone and I'm sharing this info w/ everybody so we can all learn a little more in every direction.

ALL THREE CHARTS ARE WITH THE SAME MODS/SAME DYNO/SAME SEASONAL WEATHER/SAME CAR/SAME TUNER...(fast 102mm intake/102mm NW TB/LG 1.75" headers/Super Bee 102mm intake)

Spin cam vs. factory LS3 cam


CMC-30 cam vs. factory LS3 cam


All 3 cams... Spin vs Factory vs CMC-30 (the two on the bottom are the Spin and Factory cams)
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

SpinMonster

If your intent was to keep it that way then you should have told OBSSSED @work to not post that stuff to this thread when he PM'ed you. If you did then your issue is with him. I posted nothing but compliments to this thread on the 227/239 cam and had no intention of getting into this. It wasnt until I am attacked that I should defend myself. Robinson posted to this thread to 'enlighten' others about the results and go public. Even without posting numbers he implied that they were bad. The guy has a consistent insulting attitude.

21 cent has tuned their cam many many times and thus has a tune that works fine from being dialed a ton of times. Saying they tuned my cam for every ounce of power in a few hours says it all. I have many weeks of time dialing that cam and no its never hits the best result the first day when you never tuned that cam. Other tuners got far higher a result than 21 cent and they spent more than a few hours. How do they explain the first day with INSOM's car being at 487/435 with the same cam? No parts were changed and weeks later it dyno'd higher. It illustrates that you dial in better over time with a few more shots at it and the other parts seat better. So how does a first tuning ever on a cam for a few hours say its optimum? I think readers see the point.

Sorry but lots of other tuners got a result as good as this one with my cam and I dont buy that they tuned it to perfection in a few hours. They started with a base tune that works for their 227/239 cam and thats the only way to explain how close it was to optimum with no tuning changes. If you or anyone else believes that the tune for two cams so different in specs can be the same you are fooling yourself. It cant be optimum for both and since the second cam was so close it says the tune wasnt close for the first.


Andrew's 501rwhp result with my cam has been verified on 3 dynos and one was owned by a tuner that so wanted it to be bad. He posted on another forum how he couldnt believe it when he saw it. I guess results can vary when you have tuned the cam in question a few times. You develope a base tune that gets you within a few HP. when I tuned Craigster05's car which was essentially the clone of mine at the time, I actually put in the tune from my car and we went to the dyno. I couldnt get but 3 more HP over what the tune did in my car with the exact same parts list. There's only one way to get that close on the first pull. Cranky and Big Turkey had my cam installed by an independent tuner with no cams of thier own. Both got results in line with your result here. Both stomped INSOM's initial result with a 227/239. So is it we only go by a cams best result or do we go by a cam's worst result? I guess for some forum members it depends on what cam you want to be better.

To everyone else: Use an average of the power published over a bunch of results and dont go by a single result.

C6-LS2-MN6

I did send him a respectful PM before all this started, but some prefer to debate. Feel free to discuss his cam views with him in this thread. I just ask that you two stay on topic and keep it civil.

OBSSSD

Spin,

Nobody is turning this into a bash fest here. Why can't people state factual information on the forum and let grown adults make their own decisions? My information did not come from John or his tuner - he doesn't give out or allow the release of information without his customer's consent. So you can probably figure out where I got the info from based upon that. What makes this comparison so interesting is that we have an all-out modded LS3 with untouched heads where we had a true back-to-back swap completed and tuned both times.

Do you really think that John or his employees would put some kind of a sub-par tune into a car to make himself look better and sell more parts? They actually spent way more time trying to tune your cam because they thought that there must have been some kind of mistake with the numbers. The car was tuned to max hp at WOT with both cams without using the same tune for each setup. This thread is only about one car tuned with two different cams, and the OP spent a great deal of time and money to be a test mule for a couple of leading cams in the vette community.

The bigger split simply kills the bigger tighter cam over the entire powerband in this LS3 powered car. Would the difference be the same with the stock intake and TB installed? I think in that case the 227/239 would still make more power in any LS3 car, but you know my position on splits for the L92 heads. GM High Tech Performance did a great cam comparison of 9 cams (which they cam doctored) against the stock LS3 cam here:

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...son/index.html

Cam specs are here:

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com.../photo_03.html

Some interesting info on power here:

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com.../photo_13.html

For example the little 218/228 cam made more torque at 3,000rpm's than every other cam including the 234/248, the 225/233, 236/240. It also put down within 10 ft/lb peak torque of all of the much bigger cams. Only in top end hp can you see the bigger differences, which if you look at the dyno charts I think is very high in the powerband. Ragtop 99 said in the last thread he looks at power around 2500-3000 below that doesn't matter - well look at the numbers for yourself.

This is why I'm using a 218/230 116+2 XFI cam in my LS3 powered GXP with the stock TC and a 224/236 115+4 in my C6 Grand Sport with the A6 and a Yank 3200. IMO the 227/239 is meant for a 3600+ stall or M6 with all the supporting bolt-on mods. As I've said many times before I think far too many people overcam their cars because they don't realize that going too big is far worse than going too small. I've always liked a moderate cam that makes bottom end very close to stock with an explosive top end. The 227/239 is a great cam but you will be shifting at or near 7,000rpm for max ET. I advised the OP to post the dyno graph which it looks like he has now done. Even though it is a single independent test I think it is very informative. I'm not disparaging you or your cam, and I think for LS2 applications it is a very good choice. I know he is very happy with the new cam - being a friendly cam discussion and all

C6-LS2-MN6

I appreciate the links, I'll have to spend some time reading them

SpinMonster

Go back and read your post. "If you saw the results you would fall out of your chair". It is an insult and you know it. why is it that you only look at the high for his cam? Why only look at the low for mine? Why dont you credit Cranky's 504rwhp reult for my cam? Big Turkeys result was great too. None of them count to you.

You were asked not to go down this road and you still posted against his request. Not saying numbers doesnt mean you didn do it. All you need to do is imply it. People then read into it. If they wanted the info public they would have posted it themselves. The guy wanted to share a great result and you had to turn it into a comparison.

Im tired of thread after thread you say the exact same things. Sir, again, the GMperformance test is a farce. Its on an engine dyno with the exact same mods for all the cams. Some like LG's some like AR's. You cant have it optimized with the same parts. All of those cams made 530-550 flywheel HP which is far lower than the average at the wheels that thes two cams make.

Ignore what you want about splits but this is a fact I've said 1000 times to you:

One of the fastest H/C cars on the LS3 list has a single pattern 236/236 cam with a 133 trap speed.

LS3 heads dont work only with big splits and track results are the end of the line for accuracy of how a cam performs. You dont need a big split.

I never said big splits dont work. Single patterns and small splits drive better and can make the same power.

SpinMonster

It didnt on INSOM's car. That car didnt hit 400rwtq until 4200rpm and 21 cent tuned it. 435rwtq at peak. Are we still only counting the low result on cams? Now overlay that dyno sheet to Cranky's or Andrew's and fall out of your chair again.

OBSSSD

I'm not attacking you and let me publicly apologize for any time that I insulted or disparaged you personally in any way. Even if I don't agree with your conclusions or interpretations of the results, it doesn't mean I don't appreciate a fellow enthusiasts time and effort in trying to help others. We all love the same things and can respectfully disagree about what is best for modding vettes. As for dialing in cams by tuning I have done this over 400 times on the LSx platform so I believe that my experience and reputation speaks for itself. There's no need to bash others personally to gain credibility, and in this case I think the dyno results tell a clear story

SpinMonster

Appology accepted. OK, I call a truce. Lets all let it rest there now that everyone had a say. I'd rather have civility and let people give constructive criticism. We arent in a communist state and we dont silence opinions here.

21 Cent: Great result and thanks not only for sharing cam specs but for sharing the resulting data points for everyone to consider. You have a livable daily driver cam there that makes a load of power.

TwinSpin

So a performance tune for a cam only car works on all cams?

SpinMonster

dont start, drop it.