I would like to see some true dyno numbers of both Heath cams to see if they are anywhere near his claims
The Towing cam and Performance cam are billed as requiring cam specific tunes so that's got to be factored in or out. Then there's the turbos....
I concure with 635 with the added comments:
Seems you'd almost have to do the runs using the same motor with only the cams as the difference and then test it out of the truck and now its the RWHP vs Flywheel thing. It would be interesting though but, who's going to buy both cams:???:
To run my 6.2 motor and HP cam against 635's 6.2 and HT cam would seem even more suspect. His 4:10s vs my 3:73s, his tires against mine, injectors, turbo's, driver techniques, dyno equipment, locations, altitudes, air temps, extrude honing and don't forget the added HP from the chrome...

. Yeah, most of those things are supposed to be able to be nulled by the dyno programs but even the programs are different...you might as well try to get "true numbers" out of climate scientists.
As for being anywhere near the claims, "This combo delivers maximum power and torque...Details of engine and transmission tune discussed with customer prior to programming." Not much to go agains other than owner testimony which we're getting input on here.
Tanman, the springs are new but not OEM to better to keep up with changed dynamics of the cam andvalve coupled with the RPM increases attainable. Sorry, I don't know the makes or source.
SQUIRREL!
You guys talkin' all about these GTGs makes me want to say you should be doing a cam comparison here in Sandwich as a stopping off interim test... You know for between where ya'll are coming from and ya'll are going to.:hihi:
See Paul, I'm talkin' CAMS here.
:hello:Coming from Texas, Washington and Utah and swinging by Sandwich IL 'as a stopping off interim' to discuss cams while heading to Bonneville is a great idea…no wait!:rolleyes5: