340 dyno chart thoughts

-
frosty_the_punk said:
omg for heaven's sake!

Look at this website and scroll down to the part where it says
"Cam timing @ 0.050 tappet lift"
Hughes Engines

Now go to this website and look at where it says "Valve Timing @ 0.006 Lift"
20-224-4 - Xtreme Energy™ Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshafts

Do you realise that duration @ 0.006 is ALWAYS going to be a higher duration figure than the same camshaft measured @ 0.050". You DO know that they're different right? why are you trying to compare two cams but using different methods to measure them? Seems pretty silly right?

Congratulations, you're measuring a big cam with a big ruler (duration @ 0.050") and coming up with a numerical measurement for the result.

Then you're comparing it to a much smaller cam, but instead of using the same ruler, you're making the ruler smaller as well (Duration @ 0.006") and then getting the same/similar numerical measurement as a result.

Seriously, If you MUST compare this solid cam to this hydraulic cam, Use the same type of measurement for both. go to a cam calculator website and type in the comp cam's 0.050" specs for 230/236 duration, along with the 110 lobe separation and the 4 degrees of advance. See if you still think that the IVC is 63 ABDC.

Even still, the lash will make the solid cam have less duration @ the valve than it has at the lobe due to lash. So like i keep saying the entire comparison is pointless.

Newsflash, you will NEVER see a solid cam advertised as seat duration. or @ 0.006". The closest thing you are going to get is probably going to be duration @ 0.020" lobe lift. Makes it pretty freaking hard to compare a hydraulic to a solid doesn't it?

And yes, earlier I did state "ATDC" for the IVC when I should have written ABDC. You knew that's what we were both talking about since there is no such thing as an IVC ATDC. Sincere apoligies there.

This was fun, No hard feelings. Let's do it again some time.
Click to expand...

Ugh. I really had hoped you would have read my posts. Do you remember when I said I was comparing them using the same measurement? That I calculated the hughes cam at .006 lift? Wasn't that your whole problem with how I was measuring it? Now you're saying your problem is that I'm measuring them differently (I'm not)? So which is it? I was taking them both at .006 (as close to seat as possible) is wrong? Or that measuring them differently is wrong? I am measuring them the same, at the seat. Why? Because that's the measurement you use for calculating DCR. Another important component in building an engine. So yes. I'm using the same type of measurement for both. And yes the XE274H has an intake closing of 63 at .006. Which once again, I use because it's as close to seat as possible. And yes, I mentioned the valve lash. Which you must have missed as well. And once again, in this instance, I don't care about advertised duration. You need to stop beating that horse. Look at the actual events. Like I do. The comparison is not pointless. You should be able to compare any cam with any other cam. It might be hard if you use advertised duration, which you seem to be stuck on. But I can calculate actual (not advertised) events based on the cam card. Just because you can't figure out a cam's seat duration (and other events), doesn't mean others can't. Solid, hydraulic, roller, flat tappet. I mean, if you can't compare different cams, how can you tell someone the gains they will see in a switch?

But. I guess since you are saying I should measure them the same (which I did from the start) that means you're admitting I'm right?

Finally!

This is honestly my last hijack of this thread. I apologize everyone. Frosty I would love to do it again sometime. It is my goal to educate every last person I can about engines and how they work, including you.
 
What information are you using to calculate Valve seat duration when only a 0.050" lobe spec is given with a 0.010"/0.012" lash on the other side of the rocker arm?

I'm all ears.
 
frosty_the_punk said:
What information are you using to calculate Valve seat duration when only a 0.050" lobe spec is given with a 0.010"/0.012" lash on the other side of the rocker arm?

I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Oh cmon frosty. Can't give up all my engine builder secrets now can I?

There honestly is a formula to figure it out. Here lets do an example:
Cam Spec Card :: Lunati Power

Tell me the IVC at .050 and .006.
 
For the lunati cam? There is no 0.006" @ the lobe. only a 0.020" @ the lobe.

Your original argument was that ramp rates are faster now, allowing more advertised duration @ 0.050" compared to a seat duration. correct?

But then you start talking about comparing solid cams to hydraulics, a situation where the solid's advertised duration is @ 0.020" which is closer to 0.050". While the hydraulic's advertised duration is @ 0.006"

Of course the numbers will SEEM like the ramp is faster. It's how they are being measured.

You COULD compare the advertised duration on both and be in the ballpark, but then you'd have to measure the hydraulic cam @ 0.050" and the solid @ 0.064" to make it more apples to apples. Then suddenly the ramps are about the same again. But nobody lists that 0.064" spec do they?
 
to be honest, The solid cams probably have fractionally faster lobes than the comp xtreme energy grind. But the way you're going about determining their specs by comparing apples to oranges is a nightmare.
 
frosty_the_punk said:
For the lunati cam? There is no 0.006" @ the lobe. only a 0.020" @ the lobe.

Your original argument was that ramp rates are faster now, allowing more advertised duration @ 0.050" compared to a seat duration. correct?

But then you start talking about comparing solid cams to hydraulics, a situation where the solid's advertised duration is @ 0.020" which is closer to 0.050". While the hydraulic's advertised duration is @ 0.006"

Of course the numbers will SEEM like the ramp is faster. It's how they are being measured.

You COULD compare the advertised duration on both and be in the ballpark, but then you'd have to measure the hydraulic cam @ 0.050" and the solid @ 0.064" to make it more apples to apples. Then suddenly the ramps are about the same again. But nobody lists that 0.064" spec do they?
Click to expand...

If you didn't wanna do the homework, or couldn't do it. You can just say so. Was going to try and teach yah something neat. But I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks. It's 65.5 BTW. And you REALLY need to stop getting hung up on the .050 measurement. There's so much more to a cam than that.

frosty_the_punk said:
to be honest, The solid cams probably have fractionally faster lobes than the comp xtreme energy grind. But the way you're going about determining their specs by comparing apples to oranges is a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Seems like you just wanna get back into the same argument and not learn anything. So I'll leave it as a mystery to you.
 
Lustle said:
If you didn't wanna do the homework, or couldn't do it. You can just say so. Was going to try and teach yah something neat. But I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks. It's 65.5 BTW. And you REALLY need to stop getting hung up on the .050 measurement. There's so much more to a cam than that.



Seems like you just wanna get back into the same argument and not learn anything. So I'll leave it as a mystery to you.
Click to expand...

65.5 is the IVC @ 0.020. You asked for 0.006"

Seems pretty obvious that your issue is you think they're interchangeable when they're not.
 
are you really saying lunati spec their solid cams @ 0.006" lobe lift instead of 0.020"?

eyeroll.jpg
 
Face it fella, you're all over the place. First you're comparing a mild comp hydraulic flat tappet cam to a hughes solid flat tappet. Then when you don't have the advertised duration specs, So you try to borrow them from the other lunati cam which is a solid ROLLER cam with similar 0.050" specs.

Two thumbs up for your efforts. Every circus needs a clown.
 
QUOTE="frosty_the_punk, post: 1971503537, member: 14103"]are you really saying lunati spec their solid cams @ 0.006" lobe lift instead of 0.020"?

View attachment 1715001757[/QUOTE]
Hmmm what's this in the Lunati cam catalogue?

upload_2016-12-27_10-7-11.png


Funny that.


frosty_the_punk said:
Face it fella, you're all over the place. First you're comparing a mild comp hydraulic flat tappet cam to a hughes solid flat tappet. Then when you don't have the advertised duration specs, So you try to borrow them from the other lunati cam which is a solid ROLLER cam with similar 0.050" specs.

Two thumbs up for your efforts. Every circus needs a clown.
Click to expand...

All over the place? Says the guy who says I'm wrong in how I measure it, then I'm right. Who tells me the IVC on a comp cams is 45, when the website lists it as 63 (I trust comp over you). Who says a bigger cam with more duration has higher compression than a smaller cam with less duration. Who basically just repeats back what I said and tries to sound smart about it (you don't). Shall I go on? Oh P.S I have the hughes advertised duration, I figured them out. You can't?

I was really honestly going to try and teach you how to find IVC on any cam using @.050 duration. I honestly did want to help you. Like I said. I like to help people understand engines and how they work. You obviously "know" enough to not need any help at all.

I honestly wish you good luck. You're, gunna need it.
 
I think that's enough cam talk on here. I Never thought my initial question would cause such a debate kind of lost touch with my questions
 
fez440 said:
I think that's enough cam talk on here. I Never thought my initial question would cause such a debate kind of lost touch with my questions
Click to expand...

I do honestly apologize fez. It wasn't my intention. And I did let it get out of hand myself. I did try to stop several posts ago but have a hard time giving up a debate. My only intention is to help people with learning about engines and I hope you did learn at least something here.

You'll have to let us know when you get that engine in a car and how well it does!
 
Lustle,

If you feel like doing it, you may as well post how to figure IVC from .050 timing because it's actually worth knowing.

IVC is the single most important function of cam timing. If more people could do the math, there'd be less people confused.

Post it up if you don't mind.
 
You must be joking! You were the one who essentially copied what i wrote about the purpose of advertised duration straight back to me. Shall i find the post for you?

You gave duration specs @ .050" so i gave you the correct ivc @ .050"

If you mix and match between .006 and .050 when talking about cam specs and valve events how would anyone know what's what?

The only reason you think i said blah blah bigger cam higher comp when about comparing those specs is because i was talking in 0.050" valve events because YOU were talking in .050" duration specs first. YOU made that error comparing 0.006 to .050", not me. THEN you start to compare with YOUR .020" valve event specs on a solid roller. But you THINK they're the same as the flat tappet hydraulic cam's .006" specs. Hilarious! Pull your head out and get some consistency.
 
Lustle said:
I do honestly apologize fez. It wasn't my intention. And I did let it get out of hand myself. I did try to stop several posts ago but have a hard time giving up a debate. My only intention is to help people with learning about engines and I hope you did learn at least something here.

You'll have to let us know when you get that engine in a car and how well it does!
Click to expand...
Yes I will
 
Yeah, we did get out of hand i guess. Measure and compare your cam and valve events however you like, next time i'll put my attention where its more helpful. I like a lot of the things you say on here lustle. We just don't agree this time and thats ok :)
 
i made a mistake it was actually a 1407 carb (750) on the engine during dyno. if anything i hope this thread helps people out in the future. i find it hard to find people that share their dynoed combos
 
fez440 said:
i find it hard to find people that share their dynoed combos
Click to expand...

That's because it become a fish in the barrel ripe for questioning and comments of rudeness and banter in the not so tasty manor. Tons of "You should have...." comments liter the thread, ridicule the engine owner as stupid by mostly those that never have or seldomly have there engine dyno'd.

Honest comments and actual helpful statements from engine builder and dyno operators that could actually help are rare. Internet hero's (Read assholes) chirp away about what's wrong with it and "You should have used this part instead of that **** part...." & "Why the hell would you use that part..." type comments ruin it for everyone.

Not one likes being told there hard work, pride and joy engine (1st or 50th engine they have built.) choice of parts (intake , carb, etc...) is a dumb or stupid choice &/or "How they F'ed up."

No one wants to open up to ridicule.
 
I've said a million times on more than one forum that 95% of the people don't even post anything because they don't want to get into arguments with a bunch of Dick weeds. I feel kind of Vindicated the have at least the balls to post pictures and say what I feel and say what I've done. There's a lot out here that talk big massive games and yet not have one stitch of evidence or backing to prove it and be the first to say your hard work is junk
rumblefish360 said:
That's because it become a fish in the barrel ripe for questioning and comments of rudeness and banter in the not so tasty manor. Tons of "You should have...." comments liter the thread, ridicule the engine owner as stupid by mostly those that never have or seldomly have there engine dyno'd.

Honest comments and actual helpful statements from engine builder and dyno operators that could actually help are rare. Internet hero's (Read assholes) chirp away about what's wrong with it and "You should have used this part instead of that **** part...." & "Why the hell would you use that part..." type comments ruin it for everyone.

Not one likes being told there hard work, pride and joy engine (1st or 50th engine they have built.) choice of parts (intake , carb, etc...) is a dumb or stupid choice &/or "How they F'ed up."

No one wants to open up to ridicule.
Click to expand...
 
yellow rose said:
Lustle,

If you feel like doing it, you may as well post how to figure IVC from .050 timing because it's actually worth knowing.

IVC is the single most important function of cam timing. If more people could do the math, there'd be less people confused.

Post it up if you don't mind.
Click to expand...
X2, I'm a turkey... baste me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top