New best times on XE 224/230 cam :)
10-05-2003, 02:06 AM
#1
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Jupiter (NPB), Fl
Posts: 3,852
New best times on XE 224/230 cam :)
Finally got some numbers I'm proud of...
Best ET: 1.801 60' 12.650 @ 108.40 MPH Click for Vid
Best MPH: 1.904 60' 12.727 @ 108.78 MPH
Conditions were temps in the mid/high 70's and around 74% humidity.
Mods: SLP CAI, Hooker catback, Hooker LT's, custom 3" Ypipe, Vigi 2800 stall, XE 224/230 112LSA, 1.6 CC RR's.. times are on Nitto's.
I've cut 1.7's at a better track, so I know I can get more out of this combo. I'll be ordering some 3.73's soon to get some more oomph out the hole.
Here's another vid same night, against a random Ttype
http://www.zmydust.com/videos/twelve66.wmv
For those curious, my best ET & MPH before installing the cam in 'perfect' conditions was 12.9 @ 104... so that's an almost 5mph gain so far with conditions that can still improve
Best ET: 1.801 60' 12.650 @ 108.40 MPH Click for Vid
Best MPH: 1.904 60' 12.727 @ 108.78 MPH
Conditions were temps in the mid/high 70's and around 74% humidity.
Mods: SLP CAI, Hooker catback, Hooker LT's, custom 3" Ypipe, Vigi 2800 stall, XE 224/230 112LSA, 1.6 CC RR's.. times are on Nitto's.
I've cut 1.7's at a better track, so I know I can get more out of this combo. I'll be ordering some 3.73's soon to get some more oomph out the hole.
Here's another vid same night, against a random Ttype
http://www.zmydust.com/videos/twelve66.wmv
For those curious, my best ET & MPH before installing the cam in 'perfect' conditions was 12.9 @ 104... so that's an almost 5mph gain so far with conditions that can still improve
Last edited by Javier97Z28; 10-05-2003 at 02:10 AM.
). I'm hoping I get some times like that.
10-05-2003, 10:48 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Washington, PA
Posts: 503
Not bad for totally stock heads. I just did forged 355/ported heads by lloyd E/224/230 and FLP longtubes(upgrade from my MAC mid)...however, I broke a few parts in the process and am now waiting on brackets, valve coveres, etc. Im hoping for low12s NA around 113-114 or so and low 11s with spray and no traction. Since I dont have slicks yet, the no traction shouldnt be a problem.
10-05-2003, 02:39 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 670
I would expect more out of that car. My car with an old 220/230, with 1 and 5/8 shorties and the stock converter and essentially stock heads (just gasket matched intake) runs 112 through the quarter, and that's at elevation higher than you're at...
-Chris
-Chris
10-05-2003, 10:27 PM
#9
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Jupiter (NPB), Fl
Posts: 3,852
Originally posted by Chrisbequick
I would expect more out of that car. My car with an old 220/230, with 1 and 5/8 shorties and the stock converter and essentially stock heads (just gasket matched intake) runs 112 through the quarter, and that's at elevation higher than you're at...
-Chris
I would expect more out of that car. My car with an old 220/230, with 1 and 5/8 shorties and the stock converter and essentially stock heads (just gasket matched intake) runs 112 through the quarter, and that's at elevation higher than you're at...
-Chris
I've cut 1.7's at a better track, so I know I can get more out of this combo. I'll be ordering some 3.73's soon to get some more oomph out the hole.
From someone with a weather station at the track:
The corrected altitude was 1347 above sea level taking the barometric pressure, temp, Humidity, and dew points along the the water grains in the air.
10-05-2003, 11:00 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 670
Originally posted by Javier97Z28
Guess you missed this part:
Granted, yes, less elevation, but I have no idea what kind of conditions you run in and if you were running in an A4 or an M6... if it was an M6, yes, you would have out MPH'd me..
From someone with a weather station at the track:
The corrected altitude was 1347 above sea level taking the barometric pressure, temp, Humidity, and dew points along the the water grains in the air.
Guess you missed this part:
Granted, yes, less elevation, but I have no idea what kind of conditions you run in and if you were running in an A4 or an M6... if it was an M6, yes, you would have out MPH'd me..
From someone with a weather station at the track:
The corrected altitude was 1347 above sea level taking the barometric pressure, temp, Humidity, and dew points along the the water grains in the air.
As far as conditions, I dunno. I haevn't been to the track in a year, so I don't remember what the conditions were the last time I ran. She always ran pretty consistant 111-112s though at two different tracks.
I'm not trying to dog your efforts. I'm just curious why some guys with smaller cams have been getting better times than some of the big cam guys lately.
-Chris
10-05-2003, 11:02 PM
#12
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Jupiter (NPB), Fl
Posts: 3,852
Originally posted by 96LT1TX
I dont see why everyone expects more?? I have 3700 altitude here and run a 97.66 mph w/out the cam... I am getting about the same mods and would be happy as hell w/ a 106 mph after the swap...
I dont see why everyone expects more?? I have 3700 altitude here and run a 97.66 mph w/out the cam... I am getting about the same mods and would be happy as hell w/ a 106 mph after the swap...
The guy above that said he had almost stock heads, but this is from his site, unless he changed something and ran quicker:
Home ported heads; gasket matched and smoothed intake runners, stock sized Manley Race-flo valves, smoothed exhaust ports, 3 angle valve job, ARP head bolts, screw-in studs
*edit* now I read your post above, maybe that's a different car you have now?
Anyways.. you have to remember a torque converter will rob MPH on the big end, so you can't compare a stock converter car to a converter'd car when looking at MPH IMO. I wouldn't even call mine that much bigger of a cam.. 220/230 to 224/230 is not much of a jump..
Conditions are everything if you ask me.. so I dunno..
Last edited by Javier97Z28; 10-05-2003 at 11:05 PM.
10-05-2003, 11:49 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 670
Originally posted by Javier97Z28
you gotta watch what people call near stock heads and compare to one's setup...
The guy above that said he had almost stock heads, but this is from his site, unless he changed something and ran quicker:
Not quite stock if you ask me.. I would expect to be running more than 112 if I touched the heads.
*edit* now I read your post above, maybe that's a different car you have now?
Anyways.. you have to remember a torque converter will rob MPH on the big end, so you can't compare a stock converter car to a converter'd car when looking at MPH IMO. I wouldn't even call mine that much bigger of a cam.. 220/230 to 224/230 is not much of a jump..
Conditions are everything if you ask me.. so I dunno..
you gotta watch what people call near stock heads and compare to one's setup...
The guy above that said he had almost stock heads, but this is from his site, unless he changed something and ran quicker:
Not quite stock if you ask me.. I would expect to be running more than 112 if I touched the heads.
*edit* now I read your post above, maybe that's a different car you have now?
Anyways.. you have to remember a torque converter will rob MPH on the big end, so you can't compare a stock converter car to a converter'd car when looking at MPH IMO. I wouldn't even call mine that much bigger of a cam.. 220/230 to 224/230 is not much of a jump..
Conditions are everything if you ask me.. so I dunno..
Once again, I'm curious why smaller cam guys seem to be having comparitively good luck lately. Nobody has even made an effort at trying to answer a legitimate question. Instead of trying to find ways to discredit the guy asking the tough questions why not contribute something?
-Chris