Unbelievable Reason BTR Truck Norris & Texas Speed CHOPacabra Cams FAIL to Reach 400 RWHP!
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2023
- Dispelling the rumors that these camshafts are guaranteed to make 400+ RWHP in a 6 Liter LQ4 engine.
We go over the facts, my personal results, and even theorize what further mods could potentially push the power levels to.
Since everyone likes to quote Richard Holdener: • JUNKYARD LS ACCESSORY ... A great test on the power loss/gains on an engine dyno from adding an accessory drive, etc.
And... engine dyno vs. chassis dyno numbers, also from Richard Holdener as well: • ENGINE vs CHASSIS DYNO - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Just wanted to clear the air - I'm not in any way shape or form mad at any of the companies who make these camshafts or the people who do dyno tests and post them.
I am merely putting the results that I personally yielded out there. In an attempt to stop the spread of misinformation.
I did not install the cam and cylinder heads that I did chasing 400 RWHP. I did it chasing good drivability and lots of torque. I only got one of the two, it does not make very good torque IMO. Is it better than a stock cam? Probably, but I have never run this combination with a stock camshaft.
I will continue to test and swap parts until I find the ideal combination for me.
Agreed, in a 4.8 truck we made 298/267 to the wheels with a truck Norris cam. We changed the cam to a tick performance street heat stage 1 cam and retuned on the same dyno and it made 310/310 to the wheels.
The truck Norris definitely lacks torque
@@454Chuy People do it for the sound. I've found over the years people care about how it sounds more than anything else until it's a dud and doesn't perform.
@@454Chuy what RPO code of the engine in what supporting mods do you have for it? What vehicle/Length?
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 yeah for me I don't even care about the sound I was just looking for an increase without adding any supers or turbos. By the way thanks for the recommendation.
Oh for 6.0+ 231° is a clue
@@shadowopsairman1583 LR4, milled 862 heads .045 thou, ported tbss mani, ls3 90mm tb, speed engineering 1 3/4 Y pipe 3” single exhaust, 4400rpm 245mm circle D stall, 4.56 gears with true trac. With the tick 227/231 cam it’s been a best of 8.6 in the 1/8th. Not many 4 door 4.8 trucks are in the 8s in the 1/8th. Truck is full weight 4 door full trim
LS2 pulled from a 2007 Corvette. 1 7/8 in headers, 236 238 600 600 on 112 LSA. Stock 243 heads, vengeance racing ported fast 102 intake with a 102 throttle body. 3,400 stall converter 4. 56 gears. 60 lb injectors running on e85.... I put down 426 horsepower on a fairly aggressive tune
22 degrees more intake duration and 16 degrees more exhaust duration than what I have. Plus more compression and better cylinder heads, makes sense to me.
Thank you for a real world review. When your not the salesman needing to make a living it's alot easier to be honest about what your really going to get from a product instead of hopes and dreams.
Finally, someone is being honest lol. I have a chassis dyno, and with stock Cat port heads you are not making 400WHP unless you've got over .620 lift. Even then need a set of 706 heads or .010 milled heads just to bump compression into the 11s. 280-300WHP is more like it with these chop cams which to be fair is still over 400 crank.
Yeah the Chopabra and Truck Norris Lift values are 550/552 off the top of my head. I figured as much that A larger lift value along with longer duration to allow more charge into the cylinders would help. Still have to compensate for powertrain and accessory loss. Ofc a Dedicated Racer has no AC and uses electric fans and electric water pump but street probably use AC (just turn it off) with the stock water pump with electric fans.
I have the same setup with a 5.3. On stock 245/75/16s I made 331whp on 87.
Just wanted to share my video. With all accessories eliminated on a 5.3 you're looking at the 400 range at the crank. People seem to think its wheel but it's not . Good work thanks for sharing
Fresh 0821's, 1-7/8 TSP long tubes no cats, OTR intake in a G8. 415 at the wheels.
I agree. Without making about 30-40 more crank hp I dont see a cam with these specs making 400whp. You would need more compression and even then you just wont be able to move the torque peak to the right of the curve, which would move your hp as well to an rpm that might be able to create the required hp.
I personally checked on the cam spec of the Texas speed chopacobra cam and they claim 67 HP at the crank. Not wheel hp dyno sheet shows 414hp with the tbss intake. 414 flywheel horse power divided by 1.25 is 331.2 by my calculation for a th-400 or 4l-80. Considering you got close with 336 I'd say that's it mate. And no way it's going to make 400rwhp with that cam combo. A custom grind cam and and engine building experience and you should be able to get it though.
You are exactly right this is not a drag race cam....I built the same setup except a lq9 that has factory floating wrist pins and flat top pistons which will free up an add more horse power there will be no difference in 706 or 862s they are the same head I built my motor for a fun street engine off idle to 6000.seems to me you should have alot better 60 foot especially for a cam that makes its power off idle I think your 60 foot should be 2-3tenths better especially for your setup. So how much hp deference do you think between the lq4 dished piston pressed fit and the lq9 floating flat top piston I think my combination atleast 375hp to the wheels with basically the same setup you have
I don't see 375rwhp from that set up. Flat top pistons and floating wrist pins aren't worth almost 40 rwhp. Despite me having an LQ4 with dished pistons, the 862s are 61cc, so my compression is around 10.3 - 10.4, an LQ9 with 317s is 10:1 compression. I think 360rwhp with this cam and supporting mods is going to be asking for a lot, nevermind more. It would take head porting - or rec port heads, electric water pump, etc to even get within striking distance of 400rwhp with this sized cam.
I agree, my 60 foot times are garbage. I need to get HP Tuners and data log to see what is going on. Right now I am going through the motions: checking fuel pressure under a load, compression test, anything else suspect.
In the meantime, I'll be testing and seeing how much - if anything I can get out of this combination before I change anything major.
I remember the first time I had my 2000 Z28 out after big changes. It ran 11.48 @ 121 MPH. I kept adjusting and working with what I had. I eventually whittled that down to a 10.77 @ 125. I need to do the same thing with this truck before I throw more parts at it.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781did you cc your heads when they were off? Flow Inc is noticing a lot of these 706/862 castings coming in at 65 cc's
You are right about the things you said need to be changed to help. 02 fbody, t56 5.7 ported 241's ls2 intake, full exhaust, put down 402/400 with TN cam
@@b19jrm yup, less parasitic drivetrain will do that. Guys with trucks that don't have ported heads, an automatic, etc - they're nowhere near those numbers. (Which was the main point of this)
My 2001 SS M6 car with TFS 215s, 234/242 cam, headers, exhaust, stock intake and TB did 473/436. My 2000 Z28 A4 did 480/443 on the same dyno... but I assure you was much quicker. Almost 10 more MPH of trap speed and over 1 second quicker ETs.
Check out Richard Holdener. He runs all kinds of combos on dyno. If I remember correctly he ran Truck Norris cam on a LY6 and got something like 501 Hp and 492 ft lbs on basically stock at the crank. But I would think that would get close to 400RWHP.
I talked to him on his live feed, even he didn't think the very combo you mention will do it. He said, "it might be close, but not quite enough camshaft to get there."
I would be interested in looking at your tune. there are variables that pull timing from your high octane table. And can make it feel like a turd just from seeing 100 degree iats. I usually zero out all of these add/subtract tables, then use the high octane table to command my ignition timing. after tuning ill go back in and start pulling timing above 113 degrees. Which sitting at a red light you can easily see 120degrees iats. I would assume your using a e38 ecu, so there are also torque limit tables for spark, fueling, throttle, trans input max, rear axle max, trans tq management can also pull alot from the engine torque. the power enrichment curve can make a difference in power as well. all adding up to potential gains. the cathedral port heads are good for low end but lose up top, where u would see the most peak hp. my L96 with 823 heads and truck norris continues to make power all the way to 6500 rpm. Little power here, little more there, in the end all those small gains add up. also, ive tuned my vve before, thought it was pretty good, then decided to start from scratch and do it all over and found a few spots that were pretty rich. ive also street tuned a truck that was dyno tuned previously and it was supppper rich, and had very conservative timing, could feel a decent difference afterwards. it pays to be able to tune yourself and not rely on someone elses tune. the test richard does arent on stock ecu tunes, he usually uses a holley efi system that is very strait forward, what you command for afr and timing is what will actually be. stock ecus are stipulation based, and can make a engine feel completely different on a moment to moment basis. but you can eliminate alot of the power robbers if you are thorough with your tune.
I'd be more than happy to email the tune file a recent data log from the track. I'm on a 411 PCM, my truck is a 2001 DBC.
Thanks for your video, I have been told my set up should be making more power. I have an lq4 with ported and polished 243 heads by advanced induction, a comp cams .600 lift 226 duration intake 232 exhaust, ported and polished tbss intake with 90mm throttle body and I made 362 on one dyno with 15x8 wheels 275/60 tires and 350 on another with 20x 10 tires 275/40. My 1/4 mile was 13.3 at 102.9mph, and my most recent 1/8 mile time was an 8.9 at 83.5mph not a good time for me I have been slightly quicker than 8.8 and my 60ft shows it. This engine is in a 72 GMC c10, I have been told truck drive trains are heavier duty and take up more power than a car, I have a beefed up drive shaft, a built 4l60e and a ford 9in with 31 spline 4.11 gears. What I have seen in the real world tells me it is doing pretty good. Everyone always tells me there same exact combo makes more power and is faster but I haven’t seen it.
What torque converter are you running? What does the truck weigh? I'm sure it's lighter than mine.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 I’m running a 2600 stall circle d with lock up, weight is 3960lbs. It is a street truck so I didn’t want to go too radical with the cam or converter. It definitely has enough converter, not enough traction with street tires and I’m not sure if I’m going to spend the money for drag radials.
@@carguy3028 If you are happy with the truck and not planning to do a lot of racing... most likely not worth it to buy them. I have a set to keep my testing consistent. A lack of traction isn't a variable, it dead hooks every time.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 for comparison I have a 2014 mustang gt with a roush phase 1 supercharger on it. It dynoed 499 at the wheels and ran a best of 8.0 at 90mph with slicks and launching at 4000 rpms. I could have pushed it harder but didn’t want to break it. Based on that the truck doesn’t do too bad considering it’s 300lbs heavier, I weighed it at 3660, has 150 more hp at the tire. It is a manual so there is less drive train loss, the advertised power was 575hp flywheel so 499 wheel is not too bad. Both vehicles have air conditioning and were driven to the track and back home a 120 mile round trip.
@@carguy3028 Are you at sea level? Or a high elevation track? That matters too. My home track is only 53' above sea level.
I just got done dynoing my truck and I was disappointed and confused on number I have a 5.3l on my first tune I had ported heads ,tbss intake ,42 injectors, stage 3 btr cam , 2500 fti stall , ported throttle body , Efans and I made 388rwhp on stock gears I added 4.10 gears, e85 ported my tbss manifold got a lighter driveshaft and made 360 rwhp I was like how you mention you had 4.10 gears I think that’s the reasoning
4.10s eat up a little power vs 3.42s, but not a ton. If I had 3.42s, a 4L60E, and stock wheels and tires it would dyno higher numbers. But would also run slower.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 yea at the end of the day let’s not chase dyno numbers Just hit it on the track and compare like that
Ouch gonna hurt the flywheel hp racers lmao..
As you touched on, small cam, small valve, small runner head, you will not see a huge peak horsepower number.
You pretty much have to decide if you want something for the track, or something fun on the street. There's a fine line.
Personally I would pull those 862s off, narrow down the valve guide, blend the bowl, 90% throat, widen the mouth, narrow down the pushrod bulge and put that thing in the 12s.
I always like to port match my intakes to my heads.
I've never paid attention to a dyno number, it's just a tuning tool. Good luck, I am catching up on all of your videos, this has been fun.
Thank you for the kind words.
I am building an LQ9 for this truck with a set of 862s massaged by PRC (Texas Speed) I have a copy of a Crane cam that I had in one of my old cars. It made peak TQ at a similar RPM to this small cam. I expect it to work well.
It doesn’t need cylinder head porting, even the oem 243/799 heads will support 500+ crankshaft HP.
500 x .80= 400 wheel HP through a modern automatic unlocked
862/706 are the same heads, they can support 460+ crankshaft HP. Holdener claims he’s made 500hp crankshaft with them.
I believe Richard mentioned 500+hp on the Truck Norris with a 6.0L on Rec port heads as possible, I know i've seen him run the SS2 and get 514HP but he explicitly mentions that they won't make 500 hundo on the cathedrals without some work
Which track do you run at, OSW?
Yes, that is my local track.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 Our track closed so we've been up there a few times to run our 3 trucks. Will come back up after summer when it cools off.
@@swathdiver489 Moroso? Damn shame it closed. Was hoping it would get overturned and stay open.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 Yep and so were we. Atlantic Farms is supposed to open a new track in the area but nothing so far.
@@swathdiver489 pretty soon we're all going to have to do some sort of crowd funding to buy up land around these tracks, then fight to get it permanently rezoned commercial use only to prevent homes from being built by the tracks.
Stroker crank is the answer you need . Better off than getting radical cammed on the 364" 6.0l . You need the inches !!!
Subscribed. About to go with the chopacabra or the Truck Norris. I'm going for driveability and an upgrade, not trying to make 400rwhp. It doesn't sound like you love the chopacabra. Would you go with truck Norris for my purposes?
They do the same thing, In a 5.3L- I would probably like this cam. In my 6.0L - it's mediocre at best. If you have a 6.0 or 6.2, I would recommend cams like the Sloppy Best cam, The Summit 8720R1, the BTR Hot Rod cam, or something in that range. You'll be much happier.
I will say, my last time at the track - I've pushed this combo father than I thought it would ever go. Next up will be a torque converter change, and we're pretty much done with this combo.
Thanks again for subscribing! I'm almost monetized, which = more mods and projects for the channel.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 I have a strong, stock Denali LQ4 that I'm putting in a clean 03 K1500 Suburban with 4.10s. I initially was thinking a stage 2 cam as I want really good driveability and mileage.. I plan on upgrading to a 4L80e once I find a good one. Wouldn't one of those cams kill it down low and even into mid, even though they are much stronger up top?
@@dylanfinch6186 honestly, I doubt it. The cubic inches kind of absorb the cam. So something "choppy" in a 4.8/5.3 is going to be really tame in a 6.0L
The Chopacabra in my truck for being a "torque cam" peaks late. Peak TQ comes late, 4700 RPM. My personal preference, I'd like a cam with a narrower split. I feel like they work better in a heavy vehicle.
Certain 706 heads are pron to cracking. Look at your casting marks on the 706 heads there is a GM bulletin that explains which casting marks are the ones that crack.
Yeah, I tend to shy away from the 706 castings for that reason. These have been pressure tested, and then given a standard valve job/surface.
Yes they are known as Castech Heads, and i believe affected the early 1s
The 2006 706s are the ones affected.
It might surprise you how much better it would be with bigger headers… if you do decide to swap them out, wait and do it during a dyno session… that would be a great vid… take care… 🔧👍👍
I highly doubt that, on an engine dyno - going from 1.75" to 1.875" was worth less than 10 HP at the flywheel. It was 6-7 average. Hardly worth the effort or expense.
A set of headers on a 850 hp 427 blown LS was only worth 27 hp over stock 5.3 truck ex manifolds !!!
I will probably be close, but my build is not for racing. It's also going to be a 6.1 bottom to top build. from injectors to intake manifold the Yukon is getting all the beans. I do agree with you on your point. still going to run the Chopacabra.
New subscriber
Thank you! I appreciate it.
Trap speed versus weight should tell you your horsepower. Bsaically if this matches the dyno, you are not going to find another 60 HP without more rpm and that is going to take more cam.
It pretty much matches up. 4800lbs of truck and driver, 99.67 MPH was the best MPH. Plus it has the aerodynamics of a barn door.
Bro, on the dyno i put Down 440 Hp Crank tho, 346Hp to the rear wheels.
Those cams are very small. They absolutely do not need a converter. I ran an old 224/224 without a converter. I would go with a summit stage 4 truck cam or a stage 2 ls1 cam.
I ran the Texas Speed CHOPacabra in my truck with the stock converter initially. It worked. The lock up clutch stated failing, so I swapped to a 3000 stall that I had in inventory. It's definitely faster with the 3000 converter.
Kenny from Northern Performance did a back to back track test in his truck. 5.3L with a BTR Truck Norris, stock converter vs. 3500 stall. It was worth .7 of a second. He literally made a few passes, swapped converters in the pits, then ran it again. But was it drivable before? Yes.
I'll be switching to a 224/232 custom grind I have next. +10 on the intake and +10 on the exhaust over what I have now. It needs to be a decent change to produce any results.
Terrible advice, lol! A stock truck will drop ET with a good converter...
@@02autogt I was not giving advice not to use a stall converter I was simply stating how small that camshaft is in a lq4.
"You're on drugs" Lmao, aint that the truth behind the matter. At 30% Powertrain Loss an engine would have to make 572HP at the crank just to have 400HP at the wheels, and with 20% powertrain loss, the engine would have to make 500HP at the crank just to have 400HP at the wheels in an ideal world.
I'd have to dig up the old video where he took a stock 5.3L, dyno'd it. Then added the acc drive, air box, etc. And it slowly took away power, ending up close the the manufacturers claimed 285 HP. IIRC, it was down around 50 from that stuff alone. So a 500HP crankshaft measure combination... then add the acc drive, exhaust to fit the chassis, etc. It won't make 400 RW. But, I'm all for someone proving me wrong. I just do not see it happening.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781i will have to plug these numbers in to see the total power loss in Theory. czcams.com/video/yHHLDDrIce4/video.html
I finally added those links to the description. It lost 40+ on the engine dyno adding accessories and not running at optimum temperature/tune. Then there is the engine dyno vs. chassis dyno video linked as well. Older videos that people should watch, or rewatch as I did recently.
Bigger throttle body u won’t see any gain just lose part throttle controlability on my 420whp setup I test stock truck and ls3 throttle body both on dyno made 0 difference. Since mines electronic I start even limiting the throttle opening in the tune and didn’t start killing power until I limited under 80% open on the stock truck throttle body so still have more room to grow before really having to have. Needless to say even though I have XLink and ls3 throttle body I went back to stock truck just for easy part throttle control
Chris! How have you been brother?
I did the same thing on that rowdy 5.3L truck I put together a little over a year ago. Tuner was having trouble with the idle and tip in. I stuck a stock 03+ throttle body on - fixed 99% of the issues, and drives way nicer. It still made good power too. I have a 92mm TB on my truck, I'm sure it's plenty, overkill if anything. The 07.5-13 trucks only came with an 87mm and it's plenty. Heck, the high performance Gen IV stuff only has a 90mm.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 yea even dynoing with the ls3 throttle body i tested how far back it took limiting opening in tune before killed power I had to limit it all way back to like 60% before started hurting power so basically almost anytime I have give truck half throttle with it was basically running all out. Makes for super touchy throttle and less control.
And for anyone else reading my comment I have a lot bigger cam and ls3 heads and a lot more to make 420 to the tire so yea would be very hard to get over 400 wheel with cam he is speaking of N/A. Not saying it can’t be done cause I’m sure it can if u build everything else to extreme (insane high compression, high end heads, rid of all accessories etc.)
@@FrogsGarage I'm doing a timing refresh on my 2007 Classic with the LR4 4.8 (Not LY2/L20) 862s, in a few months. I got the Chopacabra, 7.4 Chromoly Rods and buying springs soon, just to boost the low end torque only, mild upgrade, everything else stock. I'm not expecting miracles either.
LS3/L91 style heads have a larger combustion chamber/runners than LY6 heads I Presume.
Have you visited Richard Holdener's Chats at night?
The only real difference in those heads - true LS3 heads have the fancy light weight valves. I think the combustion chambers might be 2cc smaller as well.
Cubic inches is your friend.350hp350tq wheel with 212-218 112 Texasspeed 1 7/8 headers in my 99z28
With 1 7/8 headers you lose power. 1 3/4 are the way to go
Oem throttle body and stock injectors, you won't hit 400 at the tires.might as well put the full intake tube on it as well and then make a hit and see. With the other 2 changes.
I have a Trailblazer SS intake, 92mm TB, 8.1L injectors, etc.
I make 420whp on stock truck throttle body and still isn’t limiting me I have dyno tested vs the ls3 throttle body and made 0 difference @richard coleman
@@FrogsGarage I think he's speaking on the Gen III truck intake manifolds, not the Gen IV stuff like we run.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 ive hit 400whp on the stock gen 3 intake manifold and throttlebody as well before i went to gen lV
Just put a BTR stage 2 ls3 cam in it my 6lt makes 437 at wheels with extra safe tune
I don't know the specs off the top of my head, but it's obviously a much better suited cam for a 6.0/6.2L
Understandably everyone talks hp. I’m way more interested in torque. I haul whatever and pull a light equipment trailer with tractor and implements. Nothing heavy by today’s standards, sub 8K. But I still want torque down low under 4k rpm. I thought maybe the truck norris cam was all about truck application?
Previously, I had a lower mile LQ4 with 317 heads in this truck. Unfortunately a lifter failure killed it with only 95k miles. I had an EPS cam in it, 214/220 .598"/.604" lift, 112 LSA. It made 327rwhp and 369 rwtq on 87 octane. Less compression, worse fuel, etc. Same dyno, same tuner - so that rules those variables out. As said, I think these sized cams - truck norris, Chopacabra, lil lope, etc. Are all great for a 4.8L or 5.3L I say no thanks in a 6L or 6.2L application, based on this experience.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 Wow good information! Appreciate it! I too have the LQ4 6.0 (cast iron heads) so trying to research a good combination for a bit better low end grunt.
@@lcee6592 headers are a must, Tri Y design if you can find them. Doug Thorley used to make some for these trucks. Cam, stay away from these gimmick cams with catchy names. And I don't feel like cams with a wide split like the Chopacabra and truck norris are the right choice as well.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 at the end of the day it’s all in the numbers. Names are for marketing, if you can decode the numbers then you’re good.
Best bang for the buck these engines need turbos!!
I agree, sometimes I wonder why I didn't turbo my original 4.8 and hang onto the LQ4 for when I inevitably scattered the 4.8
If the planets align next year, I I'll get to install my fancy stainless turbo log on this truck.
The whole reason for the btr and the chopocobra cams are for the Chop and not needing a stall converter to run them.If anyone thought otherwise they didn't pay attention to why those cams were made.
The cams mentioned are all pretty small and designed for low end torque.
When you said vet bill I was thinking vette bill lol
Stock rec port heads would be the answer here. I think you'd be making over 400 to the ground.
People say that, but I feel like until someone does it... it's just spit-balling. And then honestly what's a 400rwhp dyno graph without track times to back it up? I've dealt with unscrupulous dyno operators in the past that play with load and correction factors to manipulate dyno numbers.
That's why I do both, chassis dyno - then take it to my local track to validate the numbers.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781Check out Richard Holdener.
Lots of variables in this hobby. You're at lq4 bolt on rwhp numbers.
Now to put all of what you're saying about what don't matter.....we made 451whp/423wtq with a 2002 ls6 and just bolt ons. Car went 10.7@130ish on a not as good of a set up as that last dyno. It made 417whp/389wtq on that run. I fooled with that engine and over the years of making different changes i watch it respond by picking up 44whp and 43wtq.
We also did a 2015 1le camaro. It made 470whp/470wtq with just bolt ons.
I'm looking at your set up on a yt vid and it's easy to see 20-30whp you left on the table. And that's if the tune is right. Even more if you put a fast on it.
I mean guys have did 380+ whp with bolt on ls1s which is very very similar to 6.0s. I actually think a 6.0 will make more than a ls1....especially a lq9.
Of course autos will be lower but you're only looking at maybe 20whp~
I feel like something isn't right, but it's obviously nothing major mechanically or it would have come apart by now. I've had two people that I trust look at my tune. One is a racer with a similar truck, neither one could see anything wrong with the tune based on the copy of the tune file I sent them.
Also, if you are the same guy from the LS1 Tech forums - I have followed your posts over the years. I'm willing to listen to any suggestions. I'd love to find another 20-30 in this combination without throwing more parts at it. So, 100% open to constructive criticism.
Right now, I am seriously thinking that I need to look at the basics... compression test, any loose rockers/collapsed lifters, how stable is fuel pressure during a pull in 2nd and 3rd gears, is the exhaust contacting anything under acceleration and causing KR, etc. I feel like all of those are a good place to start. My father's truck has very similar parts - but an XR275 cam and factory 317s. His truck makes 20-25 more RWHP & RWTQ on the same dyno, same person tuned both trucks.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 lol...yea I've been on ls1 tech a long time.
I know everyone wants to go with the big ticket items like headers and cams. But i like to do things based on acceleration not necessarily power.
For example we did what we called acceleration mods to a c6 ls3 car. It went 11.0@126 with limited traction. That car had full stock exhaust on it. No headers, no test! pipes, stock npp mufflers....It hadn't even been on a dyno yet.
But it did have stuff that alot of people overlook, ewp with belt modification, ported tb and intake by me, ram air set up that we made, roller rockers, gear and a light clutch on pump gas. Finding all the tm in gm vehicles is a bitch. It's not just called torque management. It's called axle protection , clutch protection, pe delay and other stuff like that. You'll never see the full potential until you get rid of ALL OF IT.
I like what you're doing on your channel. Sometimes the devil is in the details.
I've been tinkering with my 03 2500hd 4x4 ecsb. It's went 15.2@93 via dragy on 285/70 17s. So no it's not fast and making it fast wasn't my goal. Hell it runs on regular unleaded gas...not even premium.
After that pass i found what was causing a dead spot at about the time the converter coupled on take off. Didn't dragy it again and ended up putting bigger tires on it so it wouldn't be comparable anyway. But it definitely runs better. I think on stock tires one could easily make a lq4 run mid 14s or faster in a 2500hd similar to mine.
@@HioSSilver1999 I really need to buy HPT and figure out how to data log so I can see what is going on.
I too have an 03 2500HD ECSB 4X4. I am hoping to get some miles out of the original engine before changing it. (250k miles on it currently) Right now I'm thinking some 799s on a rebuilt LQ4 with a Summit 8720 cam, and a 78/75 turbo. Not to be fast, more so for a work horse.
So it will make the power you just want it all to come from the cam. And you say this is a 6L I think your engine is hurting.
That's next... compression test, fuel pressure under load, look for anything else that might cause problems.
we have seen the tests richard holdner has done on a dyno stand and both cams will make 500 hp there with ly6 recport intake and heads on a 6.0 u would be even closer if u start out with a lq9 6.0 cause od it being 10.1 with the 317 heads al readdy i know with 706 heads on a lq9 comes out to 11.1 something i hace same chopacobra cam in my lq9 in my truck with 410 gears but im 4 door crew cab so that big gurl is heavy my setup is cold air intake shorty headers and 2.5 true duel exhaust so far so when u get some cash to dyno agin go recport ly6 heads and intake and it should make over 400hp chopacora cam is made to put out more tq than hp vs truck norris also both are good cams for stock convertors mine i tuned myself with hp tuners i dont trust shops to tune my stuff as i have tuned a few guys cars and trucks for them that tunner at shops aint tune shit just took there money and ran with it so that could be a reason for ur lower number there alone
lq9 has flat top pistons LQ4 are dished, LQ9 have 035/317 Heads which have a longer intake and exhaust runner compared to the LQ4 373/873 Heads, The cam for the LQ9 and 2001-2007 LQ4 are exactly the same. The Chopacabra and Truck Norris values are extremely similar specs that it's not worth spending $50 extra on a Truck Norris cam for the same HP and 3 Ft Lbs difference on a L33 5.3L.
I've seen Richard's tests, and been on his live feeds. Even he said it won't. I believe he said with rec ports it might get close, but I still do not think it will. Everyone seems to forget, his tests are on an engine dyno. Run cooler than in a vehicle, more timing than usually can be tolerated in a vehicle, etc. All of that gives slightly inflated numbers vs. the real world.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 and its crank HP numbers without a powertrain on His, You have a Power Train hooked in. I made an addition about what an engine must make at the crank snout to maintain 400HP at the wheels.
The thing a lot of people fail to realize is. Richard is doing his test under lab conditions. Not in an open environment. The results Richard gets are just reference points to help you decide what to do with your setup. They are not set in stone Dyno hp numbers. Because in the real world. Temperature variance and air density plays a big difference. So in Central Florida I would venture to say it's pretty hot and there's a lot of humidity. Some people would say your rear wheel horsepower numbers are low I think they're spot-on
I honestly wouldn't swap the 862 for 706. They're virtually the same head. 862 is a rough casting 706 is a smooth casting. It's not going to make that much of a difference. I have pointed 862 heads on my truck. And I'm about to do stage 3 summit truck cam and nnbs intake
Those cams usually have a lobe separation angle that doesn't make sense and extra exhaust timing to help extend the rpm range past peak hp. I honestly don't understand the appeal.
What do you mean they have a lobe separation angle that doesn't make sense? Tighter lsa's following the 128 rule have proven to give broader torque bands which dyno tests have backed up.
@@THEFERMANATOR If you follow the actual thinking behind Vizard's 128 rule, and account for higher ratio rockers giving more area to the overlap triangle, increased compression ratio vs displacement, higher rod to stroke ratios, increased port energy, velocity, and motion, you would see the ideal lobe separation angle for the heads should be wider. How many people use the .91 correction factor when applying the 128 rule?
If you work long enough with the 128 rule, you will find the constant 128 should be different for some engines. You might use 132 or 134 for cathedral port headed Gen III and IV engines. It will give you a wider lobe separation angle better suited to the heads and make better use of increased volumetric efficiency.
@@v8packard I've asked a few on the 128 rule, and they all say to use 128 for the LS, not 132 like you would for a bbc. Following the 128 rule, the 107.5 lsa is pretty close for many ls combos. The holdener vid with the 3 cams(108, 112, & 120 lsa) has been used to back this up. Using the 128 would have had the ideal lsa at 106.9, if you used 132 it would have been 110.9, and 134 would have been 112.9. in the video the 108 was the clear winner across the entire pull, the 112 was close, but fell off up top, and the 120 was down everywhere.
@@THEFERMANATOR I completely disagree, and have much experience to back it up. Regarding Mr. Holdener testing those different lsa cams, his method had a big error. The cams should have had the same overlap. Instead he tested with the same duration, and the results were quite predictable. It's often a situation where his tests compare all the wrong cams, and the results give you the best of the wrong cams. It's still the wrong cam.
If you want to use 128, be sure to factor in higher rocker ratio, increased rod to stroke ratio, higher compression, and increased port energy, to the final answer just as the originator of the 128 method David Vizard instructs. You will land at a lobe separation angle much wider than you think. Combine that lsa with the proper overlap, as Vizard instructs, and you will have cams that look different from these tests you mention. And run better, too.
If you are running the stock 317 heads, they are killing your hp and torque. Those are only good for a turbo motor because the combustion chambers a huge. Put a set of 243 or 799 head on and feel the power. I'm making 626 hp at the crank and 532 to the rear wheels with a caba and long tube headers a good turn and a few minor changes to my LS3. Rear wheel hp is always 20% less than crank hp on automatics trans and 15% less on standard shift. To get 400 to the rear you will have to be making 480 hp at the crank, and that's a tall order with junk heads. czcams.com/video/QodJ3fBEMZg/video.html
Those percentages used to be the "rule of thumb", but here's an actual test from the chassis dyno to the engine dyno:
czcams.com/video/z2FdtRb94hw/video.htmlsi=XTqGWJGdSPIb-Wl-
That works out to 18%. Richard himself has said that from an engine dyno to installed in the vehicle - expect to lose around 100 HP in a stalled automatic. From about 14 minutes in and thereafter he talks about percentages, drivetrain loss, etc.
People are always racing dyno numbers
Unfortunately
They also race track numbers from different tracks in different conditions and forget how much that can swing things.
I'm pretty close to sea level, so that helps. Obviously this combination would be even slower in a place like Colorado where the Density Altitude can hit 7000+
@@bluecollarhotrods9781yeah, that’s definitely a plus. I’m on the east coast and my car has run almost a second different at different tracks on different days.
@@ronb113 A friend of mine just moved from California to Tennessee. He went from racing at Sacramento to Bristol, it had him thinking his car was hurt initially. Then he started to research the track elevation and figure things out.
czcams.com/video/RYQh0aSljfI/video.html FBO rec port 6.0L - fell about 20 short.
Thats 400hp flywheel not rwhp
Flywheel hp and no accessories
When I made this video, I saw several people on CZcams claiming 400 rwhp with one of these cams and bolt ons, not even ported heads. I had to call BS.
You're not alone, lots of people have been scammed by the company that make this cam.
you stated in your video how your so far off knowing how to chose parts and plan for your dream of 400rwhp
Add a 100 shot....
With all the power adders you mentioned you would have 400hp..
Not to the tires. No way it's gaining 64 or more hp to the tires from what I mentioned... ported heads, FAST LSXRT, electric water pump, etc.
Every little piece properly functioning. The ideal perfect setup you MIGHT see 400 whp. I stopped watching whem you said bigger valves and heads wont do anything, sorry.
I just rewatched - I put this out 10 months ago. I did not say that. I said that it won't do as much as people think. I base that on real world results. Cylinder heads aren't enough of a crutch to prop up a small cam and yield big numbers.
@@bluecollarhotrods9781 if you discredit the little gains, your not seeing the bigger picture. That's why I commented. If you can squeak 480 dyno hp outta a 6.0, with enough determination I think 400 wheel is possible. All I heard was can't do it, I realize you didn't actually say that. If I'm an asshole for thinking that way, so be it.
@@CK-mf6du the whole point of this was all of the videos popping up in my feed at the time of people with a stock LQ4 - tossing in one of these gimmick cams + some bolt ons and claiming 400rwhp. It's BS, that was my main point. As far as is it possible... yet to be seen. I've spent plenty of time on the dyno with many different combinations in the past. But I digress... let people think what they want. I just feel for anyone that believes it's that easy, then is met with disappointment.
And at no point did I say or imply that you are an a-hole. I feel like over the last 10 months I've been VERY civil with everyone.
Richard Holdener is so full of it he'll push anything just to make videos.
400 wheel horsepower is a ton you better know how to drive a regular street and don't pull out into a street like that.