phils C5 vette

So I didnt drive my car for about two weeks, and it "gets" slow when parked.

I have a 228R cam on a 114 in the car. I have a Torquer II on a 112 with 7.25 rods, and a gasket kit in the garage on the shelf to install.

Im wonder what is best for the car. I really like the way the car is running now, and Im trying to determine what's best for the car.

Install the TV2 = how much more RWHP= little higher power band. (OR sell it )

or

Install a ported FAST 90/90=how much RWHP= about the same power band.

I guess the question is looking at my sig, Will I get more from the FAST 90/90 or the TV2 cam.
A little brain smoker for Sunday morning

vetterlatethannever

phils C5 vette

Gray Ghost GS

Phil, I recommend going with a bigger cam before installing a FAST 90/90 combo because the LS6 intake manifold is more than sufficient to support the 232/234 .595"/.598" 112 cam, which will really wake up your C5. Also a good time to install dual valve springs, e.g, PRC at TSP.

The stock length 7.400" pushrods may be the correct length for your valvetrain - recommend having the tuner check for proper length before going with the shorter 7.250". A FAST 90/90 combo on a stock cubed engine with a relatively small 228 cam may actually produce lower numbers.

WKMCD

Just drive down hill more. It will feel faster.

phils C5 vette

My bad on the push rods. I have 7.425 ready if I switch cams......................again. I currently have 7.40 in there now.

I only want to switch either the cam or from LS6 to the FAST 90/90.

phils C5 vette

I do both ways

WKMCD

Yeah, I've heard you swing both ways.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that".

WKMCD

You need to consider 2 things. A larger cam will net you a bigger increase than the 90/90 setup but may have more downside than the 90/90. The 90/90 may not even help that much with the 228/AFR setup.

My $.02

phils C5 vette

I though just personalilties on this forum would say do the 90/90 on here and the personalities on the other forum would say get the largest cam you can fit and stuff it in there.

But this forum is say cam, and LS1Tech is say 90/90.

Patricks dyno is interesting

0Tony Mamo @ AFR

I'm posting a copy of my response from Tech for the benefit of others reading this and considering the same thing. I know Phil already saw my response. What I failed to mention in the other thread is that it is more likely Phil would fall short of 20 RWHP (with the cam swap) because it usually takes a 10 degree bump at .050 to see twenty plus increase in RWHP. Another reason to give the intake swap the nod....

Here is what I posted earlier today
------------------------------------------------------------------

The ported intake will show you similar (and more than likely greater) gains in the higher RPM range than the larger cam in question would provide, but it wont come at the expense of a slightly softer bottom end (cams are always a trade off....more peak power means less low end grunt). Obviously you will take a small hit in fuel economy as well with the additional overlap from the larger stick. Drivability and tip-in will also suffer. Some of the negatives of the cam swap could be cured by higher static compression but that would require cylinder head removal and refacing, obviously not a consideration here.

Besides the additional lope at idle (whether that floats your boat or not or weighs in on the decsion), the cam swap offers the most compromises for similar (or worse) peak power gains. There is something to be said about a car with great driving manners that lays down a number and its very possible to make BIG power with smaller cams....the trick is in hitting all the smaller details (which add up) to make it happen. The end result being a very powerful car thats a pleasure to drive every day. If making big power in a stealthy package is one of your goals, the ported 90/90 induction is paramount because it represents one of the largest gains you can purshase without negatively impacting low speed engine response, drivability, and power. The only thing usually hurt is the wallet but those tend to always heal up over time...LOL

Also, I failed to mention how the SOTP and throttle response increase from the 90/90 set-up make it the clear winner (IMHO) as it will add to you driving experience every day where the larger cammed stock intake will actually detract from it.

Good luck Phil....let us know what you decide

Tony

pdd000

any reasoning? i run the afr 205's and a 228 cam with the fast 90 and put down over 450rwhp through 4:10's with only 15ibs of air in the dr's. id like to go back with 30ibs of air in the tires and see if made a difference or not

WKMCD

I may have bought in to the FAST only works well with more radical builds ie; larger cams. It looks like Tony M shoots that theory down..

Nice work Tony.

Gray Ghost GS

I'm looking forward to the before and after dyno numbers - horsepower and torque across the power band if you go with the FAST 90/90 - to see what happens to your low end torque and low to mid range horsepower with the 228R cam. I see your heads are already decked from 66cc to 62.5 cc. Is your FAST stock or already ported? Can't wait to see your results. The T2 looks like an easy cam for most reputable shops to tune very well for daily driveability.

phils C5 vette

Tony's thread spells it out pretty good for me

0Tony Mamo @ AFR

That actually is an old wives tale....but a very prevalent one on this board and others.

My ported 90/90 package was a key contributor to my former bonestock 346 short with a 224 cam producing 475-480 RWHP on a regular basis depending on what time of day and who's dyno we might have been testing on.

The FAST 90 is a good piece.....and a ported FAST 90 is even better. It works in practically every application it's applied (mild to wild). Your cylinder head flows more air "net" to the cylinder (with some of the intake restriction removed) and you make more power.

To understand its value a little better its essentially like bolting on a cylinder head with an intake port that flows some 15-20 CFM better....thats the typical increase in net intake port flow when tested thru a ported FAST runner (versus an LS6). A stock out of the box FAST will increase net flow around 7-9 CFM which isnt bad either. Dont forget that these gains are over an LS6 intake which is 6 CFM stronger than an LS1 or LS2 intake.

For example...

Take say an AFR 205 head that achieves peak flow at .600 lift with a radius plate in front of the intake port (some shops use clay). This is the way most published flow figures are achieved. Lets call it 300 CFM @ .600 when tested on a 3.900 bore size which most LS1/LS6 engines are built on.

Now remove radius plate and actually flow the same port thru an LS1 intake manifold. At the same lift point we are now flowing (gulp) 254 CFM! How's that for a wake up call....

Swap to an LS6....Things are looking a little better at 260 CFM but we are still down 40 CFM.

Swap to a FAST (unported)....looking better yet at 268 CFM

Now bolt on a ported FAST and we are getting alot closer to our theoretical best (mathcing a radius plate) at 278 CFM. While that may still sound like its aways from 300, losing only 22 CFM thru the intake is quite good. A standard 23' SBC would need a properly ported race style single plane intake to match that type of loss.

If you were to add a well designed sheet metal or IR style intake you may reduce the restriction another 10-12 CFM but its shorter runners will only benefit the end user at very high RPM's and its no longer in the realm of this discussion.

Note that power output will go up accordingly with every move to a better (less restrictive) intake....usually worth 1-1.5 HP per CFM....you guys can do the math.

Hope this helps and gives you guys something to think about

Cheers,
Tony

Gray Ghost GS

Thanks Tony. I guess I also bought into the FAST only works well with more radical builds theory ie; larger cam and displacement. I'm looking forward to getting my FAST 90/90 installed on my 383 stroker with decked AFR heads next week. Your threads are always an education.

vettenuts

Which heads are you going with, the 205's?

WKMCD

I'm not sure what it contributed on my 346 but that made 460 with a 230-236 112 H/C build.

phils C5 vette

Thanks Tony,

For the original question of what would be better for me, a slighter larger cam, or a ported 90/90, it seems that the ported 90/90 would be the choice.

Damn, now I have to sell my TV2 cam packet and get on the market for a 90/90. Those winter mode