Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

And I'm still waiting to be proven wrong, cause every time someone fits longer duration cams the bottom end power drops, which is tested very easily by doing a before and after compression test

so until the dynamic compression then increases again at their higher rpm efficiency level they will always be left behind in the bottom end

  • Like 1
22 minutes ago, r32-25t said:

And I'm still waiting to be proven wrong, cause every time someone fits longer duration cams the bottom end power drops, which is tested very easily by doing a before and after compression test

so until the dynamic compression then increases again at their higher rpm efficiency level they will always be left behind in the bottom end

I think that is the point I've always made - I don't recall anyone ever saying longer duration cams pick up torque at the bottom, be interesting to see if you have any reference or if you are just winning a debate against a made up side :)      If you can make the compromise (read: less VE) in a part of the rev range you aren't using then you just use the part where your VE (or "dynamic compression" as you're saying) starts building beyond what the smaller cams can provide, then you are always winning.   You wouldn't use 288s and a Promod94 Precision for a GTR used for hill climbs, you wouldn't use 256s and a pair of -9s for Pro-class in WTAC and you wouldn't use VCam and an EFR9174 for Pro-GTR drag racing.   

I'm not saying bigger cams don't have their place, if want a 1000hp at the wheels then obviously you're going to use a fairly decent sized cam but then again at those levels response isn't at the forefront of your priorities. 

What im saying is so many people are fitting bigger cams in the pursuit of better down low power and improved response, perfect expample is If you have an engine that has cams that still make power at 8500 and turbos that roll over at 7000 how is bigger cams going to be a benefit?

My findings come from many cars I have worked on from 6L na v8, 2.0 4cly turbos and down to 1.3L 4cly na engines. Even rotarys with their port timing will do exactly the same thing 

5 minutes ago, r32-25t said:

I'm not saying bigger cams don't have their place, if want a 1000hp at the wheels then obviously you're going to use a fairly decent sized cam but then again at those levels response isn't at the forefront of your priorities. 

What im saying is so many people are fitting bigger cams in the pursuit of better down low power and improved response, perfect expample is If you have an engine that has cams that still make power at 8500 and turbos that roll over at 7000 how is bigger cams going to be a benefit?

My findings come from many cars I have worked on from 6L na v8, 2.0 4cly turbos and down to 1.3L 4cly na engines. Even rotarys with their port timing will do exactly the same thing 

Exactly.  Sounds a bit like you're arguing with yourself and declaring yourself the winner :D  The setup needs to match the other parts, most would agree.    I'm not aware of anyone fitting larger cams for low down power, though improved response within the target rev range... perhaps.  

  • Like 1
2 minutes ago, ActionDan said:

Take it back to the cam thread. 

I'll post in there next week when my setup is 4000rpm laggier for the extra 10 peak kW;)


OOPS!  Good call ActionDan, sorry Piggy.  If anything we should be talking about your low emissions cams and big laggy lightswitch turbo! ;)

Yes, that'd be appreciated in the correct forum :D

 

Couldn't fit the emission friendly cam in this time round. It's all in its box in the garage. Tackle that later on.

Lightswitch, laggy, snappy, unresponsive, slow to react to throttle input single is a goer but ?.

  • Like 4
4 hours ago, Piggaz said:

260 poncam strikes again ?.

What sort of grind did you decide on with Kelford? Lift at 50 thou (or 1 mm) and lift? Can understand if you don't want to release that info though ?.

Considered pulling the head off to relieve it and run more lift with a not so long duration? 

The Kelford split cams (182S) I had in were 10.8mm lift so the head had to be releaved already.

New ones are as follows "We’ve just run some numbers and we can take our L182-A 260° spec and turn it into a 260° advertised (measured at 0.1mm valve lift with lash set), 226° @ 1mm valve lift and would be .406” cam lift, coming out at 10.00mm valve lift on the intake and 9.95mm valve lift on the exhaust after lash. At the base circle we’d need to cut them to, to try and ease the re-shimming process, you’ll be right on our safety limits of velocity and getting close to our nose radius limit, it’d be an aggressive wee monster and something I think would be a much better fit for your setup given your historic results."

There was an option to also drop to a 262 advertised with a 222 at 1mm and drop valve lift to 9.7mm but decided against it as they recommended the other grind

Edited by SimonR32
  • Like 1
11 minutes ago, SimonR32 said:

It's ready to go, just needs a tune... Tuner has been on holidays for a few weeks so waiting until he gets back and into it

Race you! I dropped my modified Cam off yesterday. 

8 minutes ago, Sub Boy32 said:

Are we there yet....are we there yet....are we there yet?!?!?

Haven't heard anything. Not gonna be a pest and ask 4 times a day where they're upto. 

 

IMG_2559.PNG

  • Like 1
On 2017-5-3 at 6:34 AM, Piggaz said:

Haven't heard anything. Not gonna be a pest and ask 4 times a day where they're upto. 

 

IMG_2559.PNG

That's how a particular workshop tunes actually  (not the one your car is at).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...