sleeper cam results - LS1GTO.com Forums

Vendors


Go Back   LS1GTO.com Forums > GTO Tech > Tuning/Dyno Results

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 12-10-2012, 08:26 PM   #1
666GOAT
Registered User
 
666GOAT's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 85


Offline
sleeper cam results

I rarely see results using lower duration cams and wanted to share. This is a conservative build with daily driving in mind. This cam has the slightest chop that most people don't notice and is completely smooth with the a/c on. It drives like it's stock but feels much stronger. The cam is the TSP Sleeper 220 .581 114, using the 1218 springs and had to go .025 longer on the pushrods to get the lifter preload correct. The car has 1 3/4" long tubes, catless mids, and magnaflow axle back muflers. After tuning final numbers were 396 391 but passed 5500 rpm the maf didn't go up any higher and the map dropped down to 93kpa, the stock air box and paper filter are next to go and we will see how much more it picks up.
__________________

2006 GTO TR, red, m6

  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-10-2012, 08:54 PM   #2
Vigilante375
Out and about
 
Vigilante375's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: May 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 1,398


Offline
The cam I installed in my GTO was as follows:
Duration @ .050 Intake - 216.6 Exhaust - 231.4
Valve Lift Intake - .635 Exhaust - .594
Lobe Separation Angle - 116.5

Which yielded me a 30/20 rwhp gain with nothing other than a K&N CAI on the car. Not many people put a small cam in these cars or they do but want it to be a secret. It is nice to see other people out there doing it and showing their results. But what were your stock numbers?
__________________

'06 Brazen Goat PB 12.62@111.63 - RIP 02/15/11
'12 Alpine White BMW 135i - stock - 13.5@102.6
'11 Lime Green ZX10r - stock

  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2012, 09:04 PM   #3
glenj3
Registered User
 
glenj3's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lyons, Illinois
Posts: 216


Offline
should have given you the sae results
__________________
corsa sport, pedders comfort gas, lovells radius rod bushings, Speed Inc. tune, kooks lt's
w/ catted mids, svede
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2012, 10:08 PM   #4
Hitman9
Registered User
 
Hitman9's Avatar
 
2005 GTO Owner

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: KY
Posts: 443


Offline
Nice numbers for smaller cam. Not too bad. Proves bigger is not always better, probably makes some good usable torque down low too. Can't wait to see the numbers with a upgraded intake setup.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 12:59 AM   #5
Ehrgeiz X
Leading cause of missing 3rd
 
Ehrgeiz X's Avatar
 
2004 GTO Owner

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 513


Offline
Nice results. Dropping a CAI on her will easily out you over the 400 mark. Go Svede or bust! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzysn...View Post
But the LS9 doesn't have an intake manifold. It uses a roots style superchar... oh, I see what you did

2004 IBM M6 Cavalier SS
Svede. Pacesetter LT's, Spintech R221's. Pedders/Lovells holding up the rear. NT05R's on her feet. Tuned by Chuck Anders
350/360 on a hot day
1 of 478
LSX Reapers' token '04 Goat
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 03:17 AM   #6
seawolf06
Premium Member
 
seawolf06's Avatar
 
2005 GTO Owner

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,808
Premium Member


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenj3...View Post
should have given you the sae results

I agree. It would be helpful to know your before numbers, also.
__________________


The Car: '05 YJ M6
Go Mods: Lingenfelter CAI, Monster 2.5, Kooks LT headers/mids, SLP Predator, Corsa Touring, MGW-P
Suspension Mods: Harrop Diff Cover, Lovells Springs, Koni Sport Adjustables, Pedders strut and front RR bushings
Appearance Mods: Liquidome rear inserts and me behind the wheel
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 06:48 AM   #7
sakeunited
Vice Pres. of P.R. @ G.P.P.
 
sakeunited's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 3,437
Premium Member


Offline
great numbers seawolf, love the torque right up there with the hp
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2004KID...
Sorry about the text at 7am but that was the best price of the day for donkey show tickets

Tuned by G.P.P. Performance
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 07:33 AM   #8
V8EATR
Registered User
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 393


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman9...View Post
Nice numbers for smaller cam. Not too bad. Proves bigger is not always better, probably makes some good usable torque down low too. Can't wait to see the numbers with a upgraded intake setup.

Yea, I agree. It would suck to have another 30hp for the exact same work and $$$. Those would be good bolt on numbers.
__________________
For sale, pm me.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 07:56 AM   #9
Jaime Lannister
Registered User
 
Jaime Lannister's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Casterly Rock
Posts: 8,415


Offline
Should be over 400 SAE once you get rid of the stock airbox. 93 kpa at WOT certainly indicates a large restriction considering you live at sea level.

There is a big misconception with larger cams. Only the REALLY large cams make less power/torque at lower rms. Cams in the high 220/low 230 range will still kill any baby cam everywhere in the curve. It is just a matter if you can deal with the cam chop or not and the possibility of driveability issues down low.
__________________
'99 FRC
No longer wanting to light the car on fire
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 01:37 PM   #10
Rob
Been here for a long time...
 
Rob's Avatar
 
2004 GTO Owner

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Diamondhead, MS
Posts: 4,461


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchicia1...View Post
Cams in the high 220/low 230 range will still kill any baby cam everywhere in the curve. It is just a matter if you can deal with the cam chop or not and the possibility of driveability issues down low.

That is simply not true. I went from a Comp 228/232 to a EdC 220/224 and the baby cam has it all over the Comp until 5500 where the it started pulling better. But not buy much.
__________________
Rob
04 GTO
05 GMC
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 04:11 PM   #11
666GOAT
Registered User
 
666GOAT's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 85


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilante375...View Post
The cam I installed in my GTO was as follows:
Duration @ .050 Intake - 216.6 Exhaust - 231.4
Valve Lift Intake - .635 Exhaust - .594
Lobe Separation Angle - 116.5

Which yielded me a 30/20 rwhp gain with nothing other than a K&N CAI on the car. Not many people put a small cam in these cars or they do but want it to be a secret. It is nice to see other people out there doing it and showing their results. But what were your stock numbers?

I did not get a baseline, but on that same dyno a customer of mines bone stock 06 put 331 down, and a friend of mines 05 made 364 with catted long tubes and a cai on the same dyno as well. All 3 cars are manual trans and cf was std.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman9...View Post
Nice numbers for smaller cam. Not too bad. Proves bigger is not always better, probably makes some good usable torque down low too. Can't wait to see the numbers with a upgraded intake setup.

Thanks, Ill post updates after the intake issue is fixed and again after heads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ehrgeiz X...View Post
Nice results. Dropping a CAI on her will easily out you over the 400 mark. Go Svede or bust! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

It should with the restriction it has, I might be doing something a little Hardcore though.

Last edited by 666GOAT; 12-11-2012 at 07:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 04:39 PM   #12
666GOAT
Registered User
 
666GOAT's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 85


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8EATR...View Post
Yea, I agree. It would suck to have another 30hp for the exact same work and $$$. Those would be good bolt on numbers.

Yup, and It also sucks rolling in bumper to bumper traffic with a car that doesn't have much manners under 2000rpm with a manual trans just because you gota sound cool and have another 500 rpm and 30hp up top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchicia1...View Post
Should be over 400 SAE once you get rid of the stock airbox. 93 kpa at WOT certainly indicates a large restriction considering you live at sea level.

There is a big misconception with larger cams. Only the REALLY large cams make less power/torque at lower rms. Cams in the high 220/low 230 range will still kill any baby cam everywhere in the curve. It is just a matter if you can deal with the cam chop or not and the possibility of driveability issues down low.

Thats why I chose what I did. I wanted nothing to do with any kind of drivability problems and wanted to keep a smooth idle. I'm not dealing with that on a daily driven car again.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 05:49 PM   #13
V8EATR
Registered User
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 393


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob...View Post
That is simply not true. I went from a Comp 228/232 to a EdC 220/224 and the baby cam has it all over the Comp until 5500 where the it started pulling better. But not buy much.

Dyno graphs?
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 06:32 PM   #14
Rob
Been here for a long time...
 
Rob's Avatar
 
2004 GTO Owner

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Diamondhead, MS
Posts: 4,461


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8EATR...View Post
Dyno graphs?

Have to find them but I did post them a long time ago.

Found it
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthr...286&highlight=
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 06:34 PM   #15
Jaime Lannister
Registered User
 
Jaime Lannister's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Casterly Rock
Posts: 8,415


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob...View Post
That is simply not true. I went from a Comp 228/232 to a EdC 220/224 and the baby cam has it all over the Comp until 5500 where the it started pulling better. But not buy much.

There is a lot more to a camshaft design than duration, lift, and LSA dude.

Edit, your EdC cam probably had much better lobe selection is what I am getting at. Plus I am sure he cam doctors his cams, who knows if that 228/232 was really a 228/232 unless you degreed it in. Different dyno or same? Different day? Both SAE? Etc.

Last edited by Jaime Lannister; 12-11-2012 at 06:38 PM.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 06:38 PM   #16
Rob
Been here for a long time...
 
Rob's Avatar
 
2004 GTO Owner

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Diamondhead, MS
Posts: 4,461


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchicia1...View Post
There is a lot more to a camshaft design than duration, lift, and LSA dude.

No kidding. Just saying a blanket statement like yours wasn't true.

The Comp was very close to advertised numbers. Ed's numbers were right were they were supposed to be. I had the Comp on both a dynojet and mustang, Ed's cam was on the same mustang.

Last edited by Rob; 12-11-2012 at 06:41 PM.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 06:43 PM   #17
KCGOAT
R.I.P PMD
 
2005 GTO Owner

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Land of Oz
Posts: 1,270


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob...View Post
That is simply not true. I went from a Comp 228/232 to a EdC 220/224 and the baby cam has it all over the Comp until 5500 where the it started pulling better. But not buy much.

I have to agree with Rob on the above point. I went with Ed's "baby cam" (SS-TQ) in my '05 and still made nearly 420 RWHP to go with a tab over 400 RWTQ. This was before I added the SVEDE and new clutch, so probably a bit above these figures now. Also, while it does run out of steam by 6,000rpm now, it pulls so much better down low - so worth the trade off to me as I never go the track. I'm sure if I had upgraded heads and a FAST 102, a bigger cam would be nice, but it's surprising how responsive the LS1/LS2 is to a smaller setup. Just my experience
__________________
2005 Torrid Red M6 ~ Widened OEM 18's

417 RWHP / 401 RWTQ ~ tuning by Keith McCord

]
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 07:40 PM   #18
dlively11
Registered User
 
dlively11's Avatar
 
2005 GTO Owner

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SLV
Posts: 1,804


Offline
This an A4 or M6 ?
__________________
Very newest ride . 2005 E55 AMG / 550 whp 600 tq bolts ons only =)

Newest ride; Porsche Cayenne Turbo

New ride; 06 PBM 35K miles Maggie 112 / 2.6 pulley 9 PSI / JBA shorties / X pipe /3 inch exhaust to Magnaflows
BC coilovers / Hotchkis F/R Sway bars / Endlinks / Bushings / built A4 tranny / 2800 stall / 11.8 with 1.8x 60 ft hot lapping.

05 300C Hemi stock 14.3@98 MPH 2.2 60 ft =?(

05 GTO A4 IBM
01 GTP 3.8 turbo
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2012, 08:07 PM   #19
Shift_GRIND
Registered User
 
Shift_GRIND's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,182


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8EATR...View Post
Yea, I agree. It would suck to have another 30hp for the exact same work and $$$. Those would be good bolt on numbers.

OP has a stock airbox, his setup would probably be 415 with an intake, 410 std correction. Too many people here just throw some big moar powa cam in their car and end up with a slower dyno queen. I listened to a guy spew the same story about small cams and why he went with his 232/236 in his GTO.

He also ran 13's at like 106mph. weaksauce.

My 222/226 worked great in my ls2. I wouldn't go any bigger then 224/228ish in a cam only GTO unless it was a auto with a stall.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2012, 11:53 AM   #20
V8EATR
Registered User
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 393


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCGOAT...View Post
I have to agree with Rob on the above point. I went with Ed's "baby cam" (SS-TQ) in my '05 and still made nearly 420 RWHP to go with a tab over 400 RWTQ. This was before I added the SVEDE and new clutch, so probably a bit above these figures now. Also, while it does run out of steam by 6,000rpm now, it pulls so much better down low - so worth the trade off to me as I never go the track. I'm sure if I had upgraded heads and a FAST 102, a bigger cam would be nice, but it's surprising how responsive the LS1/LS2 is to a smaller setup. Just my experience

Your "torque" cam made 24 less whp and 18 less wtq than my "big" cam. My car also made a hair under 400wtq @ 3000 rpms. I think the small cam guys are just leaving power on the table everywhere.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2012, 06:14 PM   #21
KCGOAT
R.I.P PMD
 
2005 GTO Owner

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Land of Oz
Posts: 1,270


Offline
Yes, I knew I wouldn't make as much HP with a smaller cam, but when I did my cam swap the GTO was my daily driver and low speed manners were important (bumper to bumper on the freeway will do that to you )

Back the the OP's original post -make sure you post your update when you get the intake and MAF situation addressed. It looks like you have a nice setup!
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2012, 06:30 PM   #22
PontiacGTO.info
Chunk Chunk Chunk
 
PontiacGTO.info's Avatar
 
2005 GTO Owner

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,735


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ehrgeiz X...View Post
Nice results. Dropping a CAI on her will easily out you over the 400 mark. Go Svede or bust! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

DuSpeed
__________________
2005 Torrid Red Six Speed - Black/Red Interior - 18's

456 RWHP 425 RWTQ
Bought 7/9/08 Sold 4/25/14
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2012, 07:13 PM   #23
Vigilante375
Out and about
 
Vigilante375's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: May 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 1,398


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlively11...View Post
This an A4 or M6 ?

1) Too much power for a A4 to make

2) It's in his sig......M6

I'm just going to assume that stock your car made something close to 340rwhp stock. Nice numbers and a Svede would get you over the 400 mark.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2012, 07:13 PM   #24
666GOAT
Registered User
 
666GOAT's Avatar
 
2006 GTO Owner

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 85


Offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCGOAT...View Post

Back the the OP's original post -make sure you post your update when you get the intake and MAF situation addressed. It looks like you have a nice setup!

Thanks, I will update for sure, hopefully I will have it resolved and back to the dyno before the new year then I can move on to the heads.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the LS1GTO.com Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:08 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2003-2008, LS1GTO.com
Site Banner Design 2005-2007, Cylosoft

LS1GTO.com is not affiliated with General Motors Corp.