LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

Which cam would be better for me? 230/236 or 236/242?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 25, 2003 | 05:06 PM
  #31  
Camaro90RS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 331
From: IL
Originally posted by tnthub
I have the 236 242 in my stroker. It is not good on the street. I drive two footed. My 1-2 shift is at 6200, ans 2-3 shift is at 6400 at the track. I do have CNC heads, 1.6 rr's, and longtubes...

6500 is a fairly high shift point.

People make choices. For me having a deadly consistent bracket car thast I can drive on the street is what I choose so I put up with 10mpg, poor idle, poor ride, to get my 1.5-1.6 sixty foot time and ET's within .02 on a consistent basis.

In my opinion, if you want something that sounds good and idles well so you can look and feel cool, 235 242 is too much on a stock bottom end.
Well actually, I beg to differ on the street manners of the 236/242 XE grind. I have this is my car with a stock bottom end and I have had many and I mean many people compliment me on how great mine drives on the street. I have my idle set at 950 or 1000 rpm, and part throttle driving is excellent. I have driven this setup on the street for at least 2000 miles so far and everything has been great. The car has not died once on the street, and is excellent in stop and go traffic. On the interstate driving, I got 18 mpg and driving around town I get about 12-14 depending on how much my foot is in the gas. ANd if you knew me, you would know that I can keep my foot out of it. My car did dyno the numbers in my sig, but I think the lifters we starting to collapse even then. So once I get the new comp R's installed this weekend, its back to the dyno and see what it pulls then. Well talk to you later.
Brian
Old Jun 25, 2003 | 05:31 PM
  #32  
treyZ28's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Originally posted by tnthub
I have the 236 242 in my stroker. It is not good on the street. I drive two footed. My 1-2 shift is at 6200, ans 2-3 shift is at 6400 at the track. I do have CNC heads, 1.6 rr's, and longtubes...

6500 is a fairly high shift point.

People make choices. For me having a deadly consistent bracket car thast I can drive on the street is what I choose so I put up with 10mpg, poor idle, poor ride, to get my 1.5-1.6 sixty foot time and ET's within .02 on a consistent basis.

In my opinion, if you want something that sounds good and idles well so you can look and feel cool, 235 242 is too much on a stock bottom end.
thats it? thats all you shift?
383 right?


were expecting higher on my 236/242- aobut 300-400 rpm higher
Old Jun 25, 2003 | 09:07 PM
  #33  
GreenbeanZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 291
From: Easley, SC, USA
383's arent going to need to rev quite as high.
Old Jun 25, 2003 | 09:15 PM
  #34  
Mindgame's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,985
From: In a house by the bay
Originally posted by treyZ28
thats it? thats all you shift?
383 right?


were expecting higher on my 236/242- aobut 300-400 rpm higher
Trey,
I've tried to explain this before but it's all been in vain.....

It depends alot on the cylinder head! A smaller port is going to peak sooner while a larger port on the same engine would move that peak higher. Yeah, with that cam and a ~200 cc port, a 6200 rpm peak is about right (by my edumucated guesstimate).
Looking at the combos many of the guys here are running..... I'd say that they're probably shifting way higher than they need to. A 240-ish cam in a 383 with 200 cc heads is usually good for power to maybe ~6500 rpm peak... should give you an idea.

-Mindgame
Old Sep 13, 2003 | 02:35 PM
  #35  
bunker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,305
From: North Vancouver, BC
With Xe cams even the 236/242 you'll never peak past 6500rpm, those cams peak very early, my heads were destroyed when I got them & I never knew, all my exhaust valve guides were destroyed & I never knew leaking oil into the exhaust etc... & I made the power in the sig, also my exhaust seats were hammered so bad that they wouldn't pass a compression test if your life depended on it.

Also drivability is amazing, from 1700+rpm it pulls real hard, its all in the tune, when I first had the cam (with destroyed heads) I was like WTF have I done??? car would drive like crap, nothing lots of tunning didn't fix, it pulls hard at part throttle, ask Niterider, I let him drive the car & eve he agrees it pulls a lot harder then his 230/236 XE on the street, its all in the tunning

Last edited by bunker; Sep 13, 2003 at 02:38 PM.
Old Sep 13, 2003 | 02:56 PM
  #36  
97Z-M6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,058
From: near waco tx.
im soing to be honest ive got a buddy that lives about three miles from my house and hes over all the time. and from riding in his car alot and from doing the tuning on it. i think i want something aliitle bigger.

so my question is what do yall thnk about the 233 239 on a 110.
Old Sep 13, 2003 | 03:00 PM
  #37  
bunker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,305
From: North Vancouver, BC
sounds good, 110 is a little hard to deal with but nothing bad

guys with my car, I also have an alluminum flywheel & have no problem starting off the line, thing wants to jump off the line
Old Nov 22, 2003 | 02:01 AM
  #38  
AlexsZ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 199
From: Birmingham, AL
car got finished and the 236/242 cam drives great...cept for bad gas mileage, its very streetable.
Old Nov 22, 2003 | 02:39 AM
  #39  
bunker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,305
From: North Vancouver, BC
Hmm.. .My gas milage was awesome with that cam in 6th gear on the HWY, in the city, well thats a different story. But I got awesome near stock milage on the HWY, must have to do with tunning aswell. It was a good all around cam, definetly not too big at all.
Old Nov 22, 2003 | 12:04 PM
  #40  
got_hp?'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,456
From: sarasota, fl
i considered getting the 236/242 , but i searched and i havent seen anyone put down any impressive numbers with the stock bottom end.

anyone breaking 400rwhp with 236/242 and heads on a 350 lt1?
Old Nov 22, 2003 | 12:19 PM
  #41  
AlexsZ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 199
From: Birmingham, AL
well, i"ve got an auto with 3.73's, so that help contributes to my bad gas mileage.

As for the 400rwhp mark...I hope to be close to it, maybe upwards of 385-390 when I finally get it tuned and a new tranny.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rideordie
LS1 Based Engine Tech
9
Nov 5, 2019 04:52 PM
alex5366
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
0
Feb 17, 2015 08:12 PM
Queens94z28
LT1 Based Engine Tech
5
Nov 20, 2014 06:03 PM
slocody
LT1 Based Engine Tech
7
Feb 10, 2003 01:04 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.