Shelby Boost Level with 3.4 Whipple, JDM Cams, Longtubes

[Sielmo]

So just to be clear why was it not compared to the 703/669 pull made back when it had stock cams last March?


Same Dyno 13 months later 727/664.


That seems more accurate.

First video was running a tad lean and timing was backed off in my next dyno that had a revised tune for the ID1000 injectors. The last video another run from my recent cam installation. 727whp was the first run if I recall correctly, 731whp was the last


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[CD07GT500]

First video was running a tad lean and timing was backed off in my next dyno that had a revised tune for the ID1000 injectors. The last video another run from my recent cam installation. 727whp was the first run if I recall correctly, 731whp was the last


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Hmm you said it was on the safe side on the 703 pull. Regardless it seems like timing was added back to it on the cams pull. That is the reason for it not losing hardly any power in the mid range and making more peak tq based off the graph you posted.

 

[Sielmo]

I'm not sure the source of my safe side reference with regards to the 703 pull. All seemed fine but JDM looked at my logs and decided to make the tune more conservative based on fueling which was done with a new tune that was also adjusted for Thor ne injectors. The next dyno done was in December, then in April with the new cams

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[CD07GT500]

I'm not sure the source of my safe side reference with regards to the 703 pull. All seemed fine but JDM looked at my logs and decided to make the tune more conservative based on fueling which was done with a new tune that was also adjusted for Thor ne injectors. The next dyno done was in December, then in April with the new cams

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It came from you and I quote "703WHP with 669TQ. Not bad from a tune that is built on the safe side (91 Octane)."

Just my observation. Not saying they would do that but it is odd for cams that size too not lose power in the mid range and actually make more peak TQ. VMP lost a lot of power/tq below 5000 on their recent cams upgrade with it being the only change.

 

[Sielmo]

Forgot where I posted that but that was my opinion based on what I was told...Specifically, it was stated to me that it was overall safe however, it was a tad lean above 6k, and even though it's not in the normal range most driving is done, it would be best to add bigger injectors. Several months later, I did a dyno with the new injectors and expected similar numbers. That was when I found out that they also tweaked my timing on the conservative side. I don't know what else to say other then the cams perform! Now, with that said, they are not fond of driving around with no load below 1500rpm which unless you're in constant heavy traffic, shouldn't be a concern.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[slowbra1]

I'm curious did you only gain 24 HP or 68 HP ? Then why didn't you exceed 6500 RPM on the dyno pull I would have gone to 69-7 K to see the gains up top. I've been seriously thinking of cams for a long time now.