L99 TVS 1900 + Cam Dyno #'s ARE IN

[pharmd]

Ok, with the stock pulley on we made 6psi of boost, with the new cam vs the MAST VVT cam. We decided to go with a different cam, as the size of the MAST cam was dropping boost to around 5psi, as well as idleing at a much higher kpa. My wife had commented about the MAST cam saying it probably was not a "wife approved" cam....so we changed...Gotta keep mama happy.

**ALL runs performed on Stock CAI**

New #'s and Graph post #22

The numbers...with stoc
k pulley (3.3")
MAST cam/TVS 1900 (5psi) L92 cam/TVS 1900 (6psi)
465rwhp 476rwhp
444rwtq 454rwtq

So we swapped on a smaler pulley (3.0")
L92 cam/TVS 1900
493rwhp
480rwtq
This made 8psi on the low end, but as the engine started to breath boost peaked at 7.5psi.

To get an idea of how much the intake system is we **removed stock CAI**
and ran it in SD tune...again 7.5psi
518rwhp
487rwtq

I'm ordering a 2.9" pulley tomorrow and we will retune. My tuner feels confident with what he has seen from this car and from other LS3 derived motors that it should be fine at that boost level...It probably will make around 8.5psi with the 2.9" pulley. With a good CAI, and 8.5psi, we should be around 530rwhp+/-...

Also, note that the L92 cam (224/230 114) did NOT make any additional power over the MAST VVT cam, it did however allow for a lower idle rpm and lower idle MAP kpa (from high 70's down to low 50's).

So far we have gained roughly 200rwhp since we started...BTW this is a Dynojet, but it is well known to be a lower reading dyno (compared to other local dynojets) so keep that in mind.

[Codefive]

WOW! good info ...
Glad to see such an improvement in HP over stock. Makes the improvements (and money spent) seem worthy

As for the cam differences: keep in mind that "boost" is only a measurement of restriction. Camshaft will change that number easily. As for the difference in idle, well ... that speaks for itself

Good stuff ... keep us updated.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by Codefive

WOW! good info ...
Glad to see such an improvement in HP over stock. Makes the improvements (and money spent) seem worthy

As for the cam differences: keep in mind that "boost" is only a measurement of restriction. Camshaft will change that number easily. As for the difference in idle, well ... that speaks for itself

Good stuff ... keep us updated.

The first cam, the MAST 224/238 cam acted much bigger than the Stage I cam...I didn't calculate the overlap, but it appears to be substantially more than the other cam, hence the loss of 1psi over the other cam. We figured that with headers and cam boost would be down, so we are downsizing the pulley to compensate. Phil (my tuner) feels like the 2.9" will get us where we want to be powerwise, without compromising the stock shortblock.

[Codefive]

Just curious ... why did you choose the 1900 over the 2300?

Personally I like to start with the bigger blower and a larger pulley so I can step up more easily later on. When I sell a Pro-Charger, I always try to put the customer into a D1 vs the P1 because I know what an adictive habbit this HP stuff is and its easier to turn a D1 up later on and meet the ever growing expectations.

LSA is such an important factor in camshaft selection. While an N/A cam will work for an SC application, the SC will work so much more efficiently when used with the correct cam

I know Mast is not new to this arena, and they have made many proven combinations. Was the cam you used intended for a boosted application or N/A? I have no affiliation with them, just curious.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by Codefive

Just curious ... why did you choose the 1900 over the 2300?

Personally I like to start with the bigger blower and a larger pulley so I can step up more easily later on. When I sell a Pro-Charger, I always try to put the customer into a D1 vs the P1 because I know what an adictive habbit this HP stuff is and its easier to turn a D1 up later on and meet the ever growing expectations.

LSA is such an important factor in camshaft selection. While an N/A cam will work for an SC application, the SC will work so much more efficiently when used with the correct cam

I know Mast is not new to this arena, and they have made many proven combinations. Was the cam you used intended for a boosted application or N/A? I have no affiliation with them, just curious.

I got a good deal with MTI on the 1900...its not the standard kit, it has several upgrades. I don't plan to try to make this into some max power appliation so the 1900 should be fine.

I bought the MAST cam before I thought I was gonna do the blower, it is a perfect cam for the L99 staying N/A.

This setup needed to be a wife friendly, street friendly setup that could be daily driven, get decent mpg, and produce power in a manner to make a fun street car/occational track car. We are real close to that now.

[Crowley]

Nice results ! .. When you say you removed the stock CAI .. what did you replace it with when you did that dyno?

thanks,
Crowley

[freemaSSon]

GREAT WORK BRAD!



With the cam swap. Did you guys remove the cam phaser and DoD stuff or is this cam a PHASER FRIENDLY option?

My BRIDE is on the fence for a new TBSS or an Auto Gen 5. The TVS seems the absolute best route for these cars. HANDS DOWN!

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by Crowley

Nice results ! .. When you say you removed the stock CAI .. what did you replace it with when you did that dyno?

thanks,
Crowley

Nothing...we were running it in Speed Density...with a very good CAI, we shouldn't see much of a drop in performance.

Originally Posted by freemaSSon

GREAT WORK BRAD!



With the cam swap. Did you guys remove the cam phaser and DoD stuff or is this cam a PHASER FRIENDLY option?

My BRIDE is on the fence for a new TBSS or an Auto Gen 5. The TVS seems the absolute best route for these cars. HANDS DOWN!

Pat, the first cam was a VVT cam (DOD stuff we ditched from the get-go),
this cam did do away with the cam phaser etc...we felt like we needed to remove all the variables that were unknown/problematic...The first cam (we felt) "could" have been causing low power issues, after trouble shooting by using this 2nd cam, it really wasn't, although, it wasn't as "wife friendly" as the Livernois cam. The MAST cam was nice, sounded killer, and would perform very well on an NA stalled auto.

I think the phaser and stuff is OK, maybe we are just a little behind on the technology...I know New Era is working hard on lining it out, and if anyone can nail it down it will be them. If someone figures it out we may return to a VVT cam later, but until them, I had to get the car back on the road, so we went with this.

[PatrickfromMD]

Originally Posted by pharmd

Nothing...we were running it in Speed Density...with a very good CAI, we shouldn't see much of a drop in performance.



Pat, the first cam was a VVT cam (DOD stuff we ditched from the get-go),
this cam did do away with the cam phaser etc...we felt like we needed to remove all the variables that were unknown/problematic...The first cam (we felt) "could" have been causing low power issues, after trouble shooting by using this 2nd cam, it really wasn't, although, it wasn't as "wife friendly" as the Livernois cam. The MAST cam was nice, sounded killer, and would perform very well on an NA stalled auto.

I think the phaser and stuff is OK, maybe we are just a little behind on the technology...I know New Era is working hard on lining it out, and if anyone can nail it down it will be them. If someone figures it out we may return to a VVT cam later, but until them, I had to get the car back on the road, so we went with this.

Brad,

Boy you have been through a lot! Can you post a dyno chart, curious about how the low end torque is.
So I have this question, …if you could have done twin turbos (not rear mounted) for the same money, would you have preferred that over the supercharger?
Anything else you might have done differently?

[Andro]

Noice numbers

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by PatrickfromMD

Brad,

Boy you have been through a lot! Can you post a dyno chart, curious about how the low end torque is.
So I have this question, …if you could have done twin turbos (not rear mounted) for the same money, would you have preferred that over the supercharger?
Anything else you might have done differently?

I would not have...if I was going for all-out power then yes, if I was building a top end roll racing freak, yes, and I know people that sell TT kits will say they can take the "peakiness" out of the TT setup, but they really can't entirely. I wanted linear power, with lots of low end. I will not be drag racing this car...possibly a road course now and them, but drag strip will only be just for kicks. My wife needed to be happy and safe in it also. I could just see her out driving it on a rainy road, her accelerating to pass, or merge with traffic and when the turbo's kicked in her getting out of sorts with the car...even if she leaves stabilitrac and stuff on, it would still scare her...Because the power delivery isn't linear (as linear) as a roots type blower. Also the turbo style if cranked up "argueably" (sp?) isn't as suited to a road course as a PD blower (that's a debatable topic with some I'm sure).

My setup suits me, each person will have to design and execute their setup to be their expected use and performance goals...if we can reach 530+rwhp with the auto and have a pump gas safe, streetable combo, I think we will have achieved our goals...I will take it to the drag strip soon just to satisfy my curiosity and to provide the info to the board.

[1sickta]

Are there any other A6 PD blowers on this board? I would like to see something to "compare" this to. I know that might be a tad on the hard side as not alot of guys are doing a cam and blower. Would be great if it was a TVS 1900.

[GTAHVIT]

[PatrickfromMD]

yea, I worry about the same things as well. Perhaps turbos are not the way to go, I promised my wife the car on her days off (and somedays when I'm in the dof house)

So, did Mast think their Cam would have worked better in this application? Did they take it back?
Has the wife lit those tires up yet? (and smiled)

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by PatrickfromMD

yea, I worry about the same things as well. Perhaps turbos are not the way to go, I promised my wife the car on her days off (and somedays when I'm in the dof house)

So, did Mast think their Cam would have worked better in this application? Did they take it back?
Has the wife lit those tires up yet? (and smiled)

You just have to determine how much power do you want to make, how do you want that power delivered (linear or non-linear production).

No, MAST at first said if I was going to run a blower I should run the stage 1 cam, not the stage 2 cam. At this point though, I never expected to run a blower, I was just gonna do cam only. Later when I decided to add the blower I called back, and didn't get to talk with Horace, the guy on the phone said, sure it will be fine for a blower. I should have talked to Horace. I will be selling it on the board here to an L99 car that just wants a cam (not doing blower). I haven't got the car back yet, so she hasn't, but I really don't see her lighting anything up. She is a pansy!

[IneedAZ]

Would like to know why you chose the TVS 1900 instead of the 2300?

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by IneedAZ

Would like to know why you chose the TVS 1900 instead of the 2300?

This is why...
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...&highlight=MTI

Plus I was their first mail out kit so they worked with me on pricing.

[pharmd]

OK, FINAL #'s...547rwhp/504rwtq pump gas, safe tune, through CAI and stock mufflers.

I am finally able to say, I am satisfied! This is right in the neighborhood of where we wanted to be when we started out. Phil said he could have leaned on it a little more and it would have made more, but we had pre-determined to keep this a safe tune, since I planned on driving the car. It is super drivable, and now very WIFE FRIENDLY.

Who says an L99 can't make power?!?

I'll get a jpg of the dyno sheet today when I pick up the car.

[1sickta]

Wish I could be there when you pick it up. don't forget my stuff in all the excitement lol.

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by pharmd

OK, FINAL #'s...547rwhp/504rwtq pump gas, safe tune, through CAI and stock mufflers.

I am finally able to say, I am satisfied! This is right in the neighborhood of where we wanted to be when we started out. Phil said he could have leaned on it a little more and it would have made more, but we had pre-determined to keep this a safe tune, since I planned on driving the car. It is super drivable, and now very WIFE FRIENDLY.

Who says an L99 can't make power?!?

I'll get a jpg of the dyno sheet today when I pick up the car.

Very nice !!!

Crowley

[Jchaluja]

Very nice set up....I understand about the WIFE friendly, my car has similar output with the turbos and it sounds mild and drives like a sedan, so the WIFE is happy!

Good work!

[pharmd]

Here is the graph...

[1sickta]

Your going to need a set of tires in a bad way lol. over 450 rwtq off idle. Sweet

[Mod4SS]

Originally Posted by pharmd

...FINAL #'s...547rwhp/504rwtq pump gas, safe tune, through CAI and stock mufflers...

This is exactly the type of RWHP that I would like to achieve with my L99. What was the total investment $ ?

[dmack2k7]

nice gains