Who says I have big heads? WTF? I have stock heads that were ported by the cheapest porter on the board, so what are you saying? I have very small heads thats why I'm so proud, ppl that had big heads was Payam, his heads were HUGE & flowed over 300cfm, mine only flow 269 PEAK, and you can't compare my cam because if you were to put a big cam like that on the LS1 it would be the slowest thing in the world, like Craig says, the LSX intake cannot support big cams, they will roll off regardless & you'll only loose power, so this is when the LT1 is got the major advantage cuz it can acctually utilize a big cam like mine, hold on, doesn't my cam pull from 1500rpm on the HWY? Yeah, & wait, doesnt it pull to 7k? Yeah I thought so LOL. So for comparison, lets see LS1 guys put big cams in like mine & we'll race to see what happens..

Also, I belive there are LT1s out there with 220/226 cams that make 400rwhp with stock ported heads, I belive the cam is from Joe Overton, but those heads might be better then mine. When I see guy's saying "you have a bigger cam thats why your faster" I call it BS, its all about the setup, some guys loose power by going bigger cams & some don't, just so happens my cam didnt.

Also, don't forget who ran pig rich & still pulled off 405rwhp SAE BTW I think I'm done tunning with a wideband I borrowed & got my A/F to 12.8-13.0, I'm hoping to see 420rwhp!

matt.

 

Matt can you post your dyno sheet....? I just want to see how the power curve is, also Dave can you post yours. Thanks

 

Those are big cams to me , bigger than I would want. Its a sign of effeciency if an engine can make more power with a smaller cam. Going to a HUGE cam to make the same power = poorly designed engine imo.


Heres a dyno of ls1's up at 7500 rpm with no roll off .

http://www.texas-speed.com/magicstick.jpg

BTW thats 400+ through an auto on stock heads . . . so that means the stock heads are flowing to 7500 rpm too

Theres way too much ls1 misinformation on this board it makes my head hurt.

 

http://www.akmcables.com/trdyno.jpg

 

Heres my graph for anybody that wants to see.

http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a74501/dyno.jpg

Cam specs are 224 220 581 581 116lsa or 224 220 581 576 116 depending on the version from MTI.

 

that dyno graph isnt a good one to look at as an example for power curve, the converter is screwing up the readings. If that were a 6-speed, it would roll off just like your graph

 

i have no idea where you get the idea that the engine makes the power. its all in the head design and port work.

the ls1 heads are a better design, therefore they respond to cams better then lt1 heads would. you take the sbc 18* heads and put em on a lt1 car and it would be see ya later ls1.

 

There is one guy with an LT1 & 18* heads on this board, fergot his name now but he made 530rwhp NA with a 355 I belive.

As for needing big cams inefficiency? Well what is the LS1 then? Cuz you put a big cam into an LS1 & it won't move, so how do you define efficiency? If you want to see efficiency then why does my inefficient engine make a ton of power down low even with a big cam? Isn't that called efficiency aswell? LS1s are awesome but there is a down side, & its that you can't go big cams like LT1s can, they are good with small cams but they are also limited to those small cams & don't run good at all with a big cam. Ussually a more efficient engine is the one that can still make power all over the place with a huge nasty cam thats inefficient.

Needless to say, I still hold the record & I'm damb proud of it, until I see someone else touch my numbers I remain king of N/A Dyno.

 

haha you LT1 guys are funny.

the slightest negative remark and all ya'll start cryin. :P

 

ill tell you whats funny, your driving skill mr "i must brake because there are cops on the opposite side of the highway pulled over and are busy with other speeders"


in all seriousness, theres ups and downs to both motors, i think thats why so far there isnt one FAR ahead of the other around here. what can be done with a ls1 can be repeated with a lt1. how effiencient is another matter, lol.

but hey, we own lt1s so we must defend lt1s. try going into the third gen section and tell em lt1s are better, get prepared for a 15 page war, lol.

 

remember the time when you almost rear ended me? haha that was funny too.

 

thats cause you change lines like a chinaman, you flip your signal and cut in like a doorknob, then hit your brakes.

i wanted to knock you out soooooo bad that night. you did that twice.

 

 

The others a six speed and its sweet past 7000. Jrod shifts at 7200 through the ls6.

 

So true. We all defend what we drive. Personally, I think both cars have enough advantages that I can't say one is clearly better than the other.

I will agree that matt's car is impressive in its output. With the size of cam I want, and being a stalled A4 with DRs, I won't likely achieve his output. That would take a lot for an A4. So I won't go there...

But as for LS1s not liking the big cams, I don't buy that. I'm not current with them because at this time, they don't interest me much - not interested in what I really can't use. Single 224 cams under 600 lift are all I have researched.

No doubt that the small (relative) 224 cams with fast ramp rates and aggressive lobes do well. Cam only can hit 405+ rwhp and be emissions compliant (with cutout). With S2 heads, 430-450+ readily possible. Thats good, IMO.

But the bigger cams (say the Trex at 242/248 608/612 110 or similiar) are reaching 430-450+ rwhp cam ONLY and stock LS6 intake. No LSX intake, no headwork at all. When someone gets the right combo of heads to match, strong #'s are pretty likely. Add a modified intake to that and its impressive. Though there hasn't been much experimenting with the heads yet with these cams... course, I don't pay attention too much to the big cams, so I may miss some things. Maybe someone has results...

Anyways, the LS6 intake isn't bad and the big cams do work on the LS1 with it. Its just a new field for the Ls1s - not making an excuse, its just the way it is. Theory always was that anything over 230 duration was a waste on an LS1 (up until 1 year ago). I think this has been proven wrong, starting with Lou Gigliotti. But the field is still in its infancy I would say. Give it 5 years for more R/D.

But we could debate this for weeks. What the heck... we all learn something from it I guess.