Camshafts, idle quality, driveability and LSA-REAL WORLD EXP and OPINION

roccodart440 said
The test wasn't to prove anything. The 104 did kick ***. So did the other 2. All for different desires and purposes. The thing that I didn't like is a number I love to look at. Average HP and Average tq.

Yes and no. Yes in the way that typically less LSA will outperform more as far as gross HP and torque. NO in the way that the idle and low speed suffered.

Just an FYI, you do realize there are some dumb cement heads out there that try to do exactly that.

Edit: make sure you click "expand"

How did you see that average power was down with the 104 LSA? I didn't see that. From 3500 on up on the test they posted the 104 was much better than both.

When you are talking low speed, what does that mean? Are you talking lowest possible RPM or the lowest RPM the engine will see under load? They are two entirely different things and the former is a rediculous expectation.

The text says that Chase Knight says that the narrower LSA would affect torque from 500-1200 RPM. Was he guessing or did they do testing to show it?

The other thing is what I have already posted. There is no way any even reasonable ninth grader would ever use those heads with a 104 LSA. Just like the same normal ninth grader would NEVER consider a 114 LSA as even remotely acceptable.

That engine should have had a 107-108 LSA with a 105-106 ICL. Then you could run 242-245* duration in a single pattern cam and you would gain the vacuum back, clean up the idle a bit and make more power yet.

I realize some people want a Honda idle and 500 HP. It's impossible. There is a difference in an engine that idles at 900 RPM and will run power brakes and still makes 500 HP and one that idles at 1500 and makes 210.