PerformanceTrucks.net Forums

PerformanceTrucks.net Forums (https://www.performancetrucks.net/forums/)
-   INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS (https://www.performancetrucks.net/forums/internal-engine-modifications-158/)
-   -   TSP's "Sleeper" cam.... (https://www.performancetrucks.net/forums/internal-engine-modifications-158/tsps-sleeper-cam-357139/)

Tractionless 01-19-2006 08:00 PM

TSP's "Sleeper" cam....
 
I started a thread LINK looking for a TR220 with more lift, but don't know if its possible to grind. Then this cam came to my attention...LINK


TSP's "Sleeper" cam 220º/220º .581 .581 Here's what it says on TSP's site concerning this cam:

"This camshaft features Comp Cams XER lobes! The XER lobes have been proven to make big horsepower & torque thanks to their aggressive ramp rates & healthy lift.

1200-6200 RPM Power Band; This is an excellent performance camshaft with a smooth idle! Custom tuning for automatic cars required

This camshaft typically gains approximately 30-35rwhp!"




How would it act on a full bolton 5.3 with a 3400 PI stall. Do you guys think this cam would work with stock heads or do they need to be upgraded?

btw, my truck is not a daily driver. :)

Tractionless 01-19-2006 08:03 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Some info about the cam's lobes...

Also, which lsa would work best: 112 / 114 / 116? I would like to shift no higher than 6700 rpms. :)

Thanks in advance. :usa:

Rhino79 01-19-2006 10:42 PM

The 112 would have a choppier idle and probably a bit more midrange than the others. The 114 and 116 would idle smoother. I think that this cam would work well in your application, with no additional head work. I would get the 112 LSA because I like choppier idles, it would probably be a little stronger in the midrange than the others too, but the 114 would probably offer a smoother, less peaky power band. I would choose between those two and either should work just fine. Should really wake it up!

Tractionless 01-20-2006 12:29 PM


Originally Posted by Rhino79
The 112 would have a choppier idle and probably a bit more midrange than the others. The 114 and 116 would idle smoother. I think that this cam would work well in your application, with no additional head work. I would get the 112 LSA because I like choppier idles, it would probably be a little stronger in the midrange than the others too, but the 114 would probably offer a smoother, less peaky power band. I would choose between those two and either should work just fine. Should really wake it up!


I was also thinking 112 since most guys who have the TR220 have had great success with a 112lsa. Since the duration and the lsa is the same, this cam would probably have a similar power curve as the TR220. I don't mind the cam being choppy, I use my truck for fun. :devil: I wonder how much difference the extra .030 of lift would make.

white1 01-20-2006 01:01 PM

I think that would be a great combo. if you want more lift, you could get one custom ground. FYI if Im not mistaken, comp grinds the cams for Thunder, and Cam motion grinds the ones for FMS. Ive heard better things about FMS cams, but I know a lot of people have had great sucess with TR cams too. Mine is a custom grind from Cam motion.

white1 01-20-2006 01:03 PM

Oh yea. Your heads will be OK, but you will make better gains with after market P&P heads, and Id get the 112lsa cam. In a magazine test the 112 made better power than the 114, and our trucks are too heavy for the 116 IMO.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands