ta02zx10r

iTrader: (19)

Hey everyone,
I was just wondering if anyone had a dyno on a vhp cam? Preferrably their "Beast" cam. I like the idea of their rocker theory along with their lobe profile. Their cams have a bunch of low end torque! Very streetable profiles from what I see. thanks Chris

ta02zx10r

iTrader: (19)

nobody knows about these guys??

GrannySShifting

iTrader: (10)

I dont think they are doing anything different than anyone else honsetly Id like to see a manual trans dyno of a 224/224 cam vs somethign equivalent in size and see where it makes more lowend

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

there are plenty that know about them. just not many that use the cam you are asking about. joe vinci has that cam in his 98 z28 with the 409 stroker motor. just give them a call. (407)478-8388

Squintz Palladoris

iTrader: (1)

I may have numbers for ya within the next few weeks with that camshaft and the 1.89 rockers in a H/C 346.

It sounds nice and is Very driveable on the street. the car it is in is running on a mail order tune right now.

Vinci High Performance is a great place to do bussiness with.

Brad

jrp

iTrader: (16)

what i've been saying all along.

GrannySShifting

iTrader: (10)

That or track performace.

I had a cam ground, stock heads, 6 speed car full interior, 290lb driver, maybe 120 lbs removed form the car max. 11.50s at 119 mph so far. 226 duration cam. Anything topping that mild cam?

jrp

iTrader: (16)

whats do the curves look like?

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

then why don't you? why wait? find out for yourself. be a leader, not a follower.

GrannySShifting

iTrader: (10)

Because I cant justify buying a cam that will 99% be slower just to see, unfortunately. Plus I dont think that guy is going to let me pull out the cam that is working pimp in his car.

JRP, you talking dyno curves? It doesnt look like much, that much I can tell ya

394 rhp 380 lb ft of torque, thru 12 bolt/4.30s

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

well i thought you were talking about using your own car. man VHP and Crane must've wronged you somehow to make a crack like that at them.

the 591 cam is a 224/224 they make
http://vincihighperformance.com/CAMS...%20LS1%202.htm

but i would think using the 055 vs one of the 224/224 out there would be better. doing more or same with less duration.

BADSZ28

iTrader: (39)

This sounds like an idea I was playing with.
I wanted to design a cam with low lift and higher duration with very steep ramps for fast excel time. Then throw in a higher ratio rocker arm to gain the lift. This way you can have faster valve events without steep lifter angles. So Take a 242 dur. cam, bring the lift down to .540 or so, increase the ramp angles, and now you can have closer separation with less overlap. Also you don't need as much duration at .050. not to mention better street ability and idle. This is sort of the idea. Of course I have never designed a cam and don't know the limitations of the valve train, but the basic idea is to put more speed and excel into the rockers and away from the lifters.
Does this make sense to anyone?

GrannySShifting

iTrader: (10)

It makes sense, but from what ive seen high ratio rockers put more load on the valvetrain, deflecting etc and seem to cause float earlier

Id like to see test of two cam/vavletrains with identical closing ramp speeds measured at the valve - for float rrpm

Sport Side

iTrader: (6)

Cam motion is also using longer duration @ advertised (on some grinds), as opposed to Comp's X-E grinds. So it's not only Vinci doing this.
Many of the Vinci grinds have a few degrees advanced, like many of the other shops around here use to set their camshafts ICL at.
Also, many of the Vinci grinds have a traditional split. Again, just like many others.

I'm not ridiculing anybody, but personally, I think he would fit under the category of a follower going with a Vinci grind and not a leader.

What about the Crane/Vinci camshafts, make them different compared to the others?

One last thing. I saw in a post that Joe wasn't a fan of the 224/224. Why is Vinci have it listed on the cam page now? Sales technique?

BADSZ28

iTrader: (39)

How does a higher ratio rocker put more load on the valve (especially a roller)? It should be the same as if you went with a higher lift cam. I could see the rocker being under more stress due to the higher ratio, but big blocks run 1.8+ all the time with similar dimensions on the rocker itself without fail. LS1s and small blocks are more limited to space under the covers than the rockers durability tollerances. Then you have the shaft mounts. Don't tell me these will have deflect or improper load displacement.

Thoughts?

ta02zx10r

iTrader: (19)

Hey guys I appreciate all the feedback. I have tried to do some extensive searching on this forum and I couldn't ever come up with anything on these cams. I was wondering if anyone that has a vhp cam or the rockers could step in and give their opinions. From what I understand about their rockers they seem to be more advanced than others. To bad they aren't available in a shaft mounted system. I like the idea of using the geometry of the rocker arm/pushrod assembly to gain duration at low lifts. They said that the improvement made by these rocker arms is equivalent to a camshaft with 6-8 more degrees of duration. I've also heard that some people are running these rocker arms on some decently agressive cam profiles with no problems. Some of the dyno figures they have display big torque numbers down low (410ftlbs+ @ 1800rpm) I know that these cams are really small by todays standards but I think that with that much torque down low street driving would be a blast. Drag racing would be a different story though without some DR's and a 12-bolt. Keep the info coming and thanks. Chris

Mabe VHP can chime in and show some dyno sheets and shed some light on the discussion.

Vertigo

iTrader: (1)

I've been asking the same ?'s for about 2months now with VHP? From the looks of it not many people have made the dive. Unfortuniltly my knowledge of cams is very limited but this concept of tourqe out the *** makes me excited
As of now im torn between pussin out and getting a TR224/224 112 or waiting till i see some more info on this ASP kicker 2 cam... Good luck!

Squintz Palladoris

iTrader: (1)

Wish I had some Dyno numbers for the car posted about earlier. I will try to n convince him to goto the dyno soon.

I am running the 1.79 rockers on my G5X3/Patriot LS6 combo right now. They went in the same time as everything else so I have no comparison to go by. Sorry

Brad

GrannySShifting

iTrader: (10)

410 ft lbs is lie, or at least a fudge of the numbers. Caused by the flashing of the torque converter. Thats what a torque converter does, it multiplies torque. Ive made over 500 ft lbs of torque in 346 inch stock bottom end cars. Not true numbers.

GrannySShifting

iTrader: (10)

First consider that high lift doesnt necessarily mean fast lobe acceleration. You know that higher rocker ratios increase valve acceleration off the seat, gettign more and more aggressive as the lobe rises.

Now consider two combos, that produce the exact same movement VALVE movent with differnt cam profiles/rocker ratios. Could the higher rocker ratio setup put more weight over the valvestem=float sooner? I know weight (or observed load by the valvetrain) over the valvestem makes a difference, and that weight over the lifter does not.