Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 127
From: Los Angeles
Car: 1989 IROC Convertible
Engine: 350 TPI L98
Transmission: WC T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
https://www.jegs.com/i/Comp-Cams/249/08-501-8/10002/-1?CAWELAID=1710826936&CAGPSPN=pla&CAAGID=64910942544&CATCI=pla-489859622286&CATARGETID=230006180040661061&cadevice=c&gclid=Cj0KCQjwrszdBRDWARIsAEEYhrcPDNseDEx8VSd5jW-Io85QLj2utBgza27zZSQ8JzrXoUQq35vuUqkaAtQqEALw_wcB
This one was recommended in a previous thread as a good boost to a stock LB9 automatic (peanut cam).
So I just got the engine working great thanks to a lot of tuning effort from Scott Hansen. Everything is fresh and stock except for the Bosch D3 injectors. It runs like a new car now and is an absolute pleasure to drive.
If I just wanted to do one thing to give it a little more pep, the cam seems like a good choice.
I did the springs and seals last year and used these Edelbrock springs:
https://www.jegs.com/i/Edelbrock/350/5802/10002/-1
However, in reading many threads, some feel that the low end torque from the peanut cam combined with the automatic is already really fun (which it is). Add to that the TPI induction limitations and I'm beginning to think that the substantially bigger cam might cost me more low end torque than in additional upper power I can gain. I also should add I have 3:42's in the back and they add a lot of torque as well.
Just looking for some thoughts.
I'm not looking to do headers but MAYBE...MAYBE a higher flowing intake. The TPI induction and the cam seem to be the first two corks in getting some noticeable extra mid and top end power from the TPI LB9s. I know the exhaust manifolds are tight as well, but putting shorties on would be too big a job for this stock, higher-mileage engine. To me, cam and intake are easier, bolt on jobs with no long term maintenance impacts.
I want to make sure that I retain the stock driveability and feel of the original powertrain while adding a nice "optimization".
This one was recommended in a previous thread as a good boost to a stock LB9 automatic (peanut cam).
So I just got the engine working great thanks to a lot of tuning effort from Scott Hansen. Everything is fresh and stock except for the Bosch D3 injectors. It runs like a new car now and is an absolute pleasure to drive.
If I just wanted to do one thing to give it a little more pep, the cam seems like a good choice.
I did the springs and seals last year and used these Edelbrock springs:
https://www.jegs.com/i/Edelbrock/350/5802/10002/-1
However, in reading many threads, some feel that the low end torque from the peanut cam combined with the automatic is already really fun (which it is). Add to that the TPI induction limitations and I'm beginning to think that the substantially bigger cam might cost me more low end torque than in additional upper power I can gain. I also should add I have 3:42's in the back and they add a lot of torque as well.
Just looking for some thoughts.
I'm not looking to do headers but MAYBE...MAYBE a higher flowing intake. The TPI induction and the cam seem to be the first two corks in getting some noticeable extra mid and top end power from the TPI LB9s. I know the exhaust manifolds are tight as well, but putting shorties on would be too big a job for this stock, higher-mileage engine. To me, cam and intake are easier, bolt on jobs with no long term maintenance impacts.
I want to make sure that I retain the stock driveability and feel of the original powertrain while adding a nice "optimization".
Last edited by Tootie Pang; Jan 28, 2019 at 11:29 AM.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 25,895
Likes: 429
From: Pittsburgh PA
Car: 89 Iroc-z
Engine: 555 BBC Turbo
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: MWC 9” 3.00
Re: Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
I have not, only run bigger cam in a stock L98 and didnt seem to be huge gains on that setup
but there is a big difference in ratings for the L98 cammed 305 tpi cars vs the peanut cammed stuff. I cant see a slightly bigger cam hurting anything in your case
but there is a big difference in ratings for the L98 cammed 305 tpi cars vs the peanut cammed stuff. I cant see a slightly bigger cam hurting anything in your case
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,426
Likes: 497
From: Hurst, Texas
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Re: Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
GM 94666492
Same cam as a Crane 2032 with a much cheaper price tag.
270/276 @ 0.004
214/220 @ .050
.452/.465" LIFT
112 LSA, 108 ICL
Same cam as a Crane 2032 with a much cheaper price tag.
270/276 @ 0.004
214/220 @ .050
.452/.465" LIFT
112 LSA, 108 ICL
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 127
From: Los Angeles
Car: 1989 IROC Convertible
Engine: 350 TPI L98
Transmission: WC T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
That is a lot less. $119.
Holy cow, $94.
Third edit. $87. Holy cow. I can't pass that up.
Holy cow, $94.
Third edit. $87. Holy cow. I can't pass that up.
Last edited by Tootie Pang; Jan 28, 2019 at 04:37 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 517
Likes: 4
From: Perth Western Australia
Car: 1987 Z28 Camaro
Engine: 305 LG4 4bbl
Transmission: TH700R4
Re: Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
I'm currently running a 218/218 @ .050 and it is a fair bit of cam for the little 305, in saying that I absolutely love it and the difference is night and day. That sized cam is about as large as you can go with the stock converter. Stick a 2000-2200 converter in there and it should wake up even more.
Not 100% sure how much your computer will enjoy the cam though.
Not 100% sure how much your computer will enjoy the cam though.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,426
Likes: 497
From: Hurst, Texas
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Re: Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
I'm currently running a 218/218 @ .050 and it is a fair bit of cam for the little 305, in saying that I absolutely love it and the difference is night and day. That sized cam is about as large as you can go with the stock converter. Stick a 2000-2200 converter in there and it should wake up even more.
Not 100% sure how much your computer will enjoy the cam though.
Not 100% sure how much your computer will enjoy the cam though.
MAF TPI should run pretty good with that cam.
Last edited by Fast355; Jan 28, 2019 at 06:19 PM.
Supreme Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 6
From: Pasadena, TX
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 5.0
Transmission: 700r4
Re: Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
Before I smoked the 4L60E in my 99 Tahoe and swapped in an 8.1/4L80E, I had a Vortec 305 with a 218/218 @ .050 cam and 1.6 roller rockers in it. Used the 4.3 S10 converter that stalled about 2,500 rpm behind the cammed 305. Ran strong for a heavy Tahoe.
MAF TPI should run pretty good with that cam.
MAF TPI should run pretty good with that cam.
Trending Topics
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,426
Likes: 497
From: Hurst, Texas
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 621
Likes: 149
From: Chicago
Car: 85-6 TA 85 IROC 82-86 MSE 83 Pace
Engine: Slow ones
Transmission: Noisy ones
Axle/Gears: Weak ones
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,553
Likes: 806
From: South Ms
Car: 89 Firebird
Engine: 355 TBI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 10 Bolt.Posi-3.73s
Re: Anyone used a Comp Cams XR264HR in a stock TPI LB9 auto (peanut cam)?
Friend of mine is running a 268 cam in an 87 T/A 5.0 TPI. Way more power and I'm sure tuning would help it even more as he is running stock injectors, chip, everything. Thing has always run real close with 350 cars
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,553
Likes: 806
From: South Ms
Car: 89 Firebird
Engine: 355 TBI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 10 Bolt.Posi-3.73s
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Stell1579
Tech / General Engine
2
Nov 19, 2000 09:42 PM










