Another cam selection thread
09-03-2012, 10:42 AM
#22
Before I started working at Tick we didn't have any cams to call our own. We either specified the Polluter (the original) or an off the shelf comp grind. There wasn't any variety or camshafts to choose from aside from custom stuff Jonathan did for engine builds we do in-house.
I was hired to fill that void. I guarantee you will see plenty of dyno and track results coming from a lot of my cams soon. While it isn't rocket science, it does take knowledge that is nearly impossible to learn all on-line over night or even in months or years of time. There are endless variations of combinations even if they share many similarities every end user wants something different to a certain degree. Knowing what to do in each one of those situations is where it gets tough and then being able to think outside the box from time to time and deviate from the "norm". There sooner or later has to be a formal movement away from "one size fits all" camshafts even though that seems to of become accepted. While small degree swings of 1-3* here and there don't make much difference in peak numbers, there are always ways to draw more power each and every time out of each combination.
I'm just here to lend that hand and help the members here make a good decision on quite possibly one of the most important pieces of their engine.
Sounds good Martin!! I definitely would like to see more results from you guys at Tick.
09-03-2012, 01:05 PM
#23
I like constructive criticism and take it well(I used to not take it so well) but I realize now everyone will have their own opinion and own way of doing things and I can respect that.
I like that ninja edit!
09-04-2012, 08:37 PM
#26
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sounds like a good deal. However I couldn't guarantee that I would have it installed and tuned in a reasonable time frame so I probably would not be a candidate.
09-05-2012, 10:52 AM
#27
Just a random thought, but I don't think I have seen a graph where a aftermarket cam actually made a statistically significant lower amount of low end torque directly compared to a stock cam. I am not saying they are not out there, but they do not seem to be prevalent. I really think people are more concerned with idle characteristics, and low rpm behavior than the actual torque value. By the time you get the clutch out and the car moving, you should have enough rpm that the aftermarket cam is more volumetrically effecient than the stock cam anyway (short of crazy big cams). My small Hotcam made 300 ft/lbs at the tire by 2000rpm which if you back it out is inline with where the stock cam peaked at something like 4000rpm. So I can not see anywhere were I had decreased torque. Idle quiality was decreased, and low rpm driveability is not qute as docile, but torque loss, I think not.
09-05-2012, 12:50 PM
#28
Just a random thought, but I don't think I have seen a graph where a aftermarket cam actually made a statistically significant lower amount of low end torque directly compared to a stock cam. I am not saying they are not out there, but they do not seem to be prevalent. I really think people are more concerned with idle characteristics, and low rpm behavior than the actual torque value. By the time you get the clutch out and the car moving, you should have enough rpm that the aftermarket cam is more volumetrically effecient than the stock cam anyway (short of crazy big cams). My small Hotcam made 300 ft/lbs at the tire by 2000rpm which if you back it out is inline with where the stock cam peaked at something like 4000rpm. So I can not see anywhere were I had decreased torque. Idle quiality was decreased, and low rpm driveability is not qute as docile, but torque loss, I think not.
Really the only way to create more low end torque is with a power adder or increasing the amount of compression per degree of crank rotation or increasing cylinder volume per degree of crank rotation(more cubic inches).
Power adder and adding cubic inches will add the most obviously and also to note different power adders will add more or less to the low speed numbers than others.
09-05-2012, 01:02 PM
#29
Just a random thought, but I don't think I have seen a graph where a aftermarket cam actually made a statistically significant lower amount of low end torque directly compared to a stock cam. I am not saying they are not out there, but they do not seem to be prevalent. I really think people are more concerned with idle characteristics, and low rpm behavior than the actual torque value. By the time you get the clutch out and the car moving, you should have enough rpm that the aftermarket cam is more volumetrically effecient than the stock cam anyway (short of crazy big cams). My small Hotcam made 300 ft/lbs at the tire by 2000rpm which if you back it out is inline with where the stock cam peaked at something like 4000rpm. So I can not see anywhere were I had decreased torque. Idle quiality was decreased, and low rpm driveability is not qute as docile, but torque loss, I think not.
Very good observation.
Really the only way to create more low end torque is with a power adder or increasing the amount of compression per degree of crank rotation or increasing cylinder volume per degree of crank rotation(more cubic inches).
Power adder and adding cubic inches will add the most obviously and also to note different power adders will add more or less to the low speed numbers than others.
Really the only way to create more low end torque is with a power adder or increasing the amount of compression per degree of crank rotation or increasing cylinder volume per degree of crank rotation(more cubic inches).
Power adder and adding cubic inches will add the most obviously and also to note different power adders will add more or less to the low speed numbers than others.
I don't think they grasp the idea of "operating range" or "powerband", which every cam has.
People will take a look at a dyno graph where a cam lost 20 pounds of torque below 3000rpm but made significantly more average power after that with a 15 horsepower peak increase and bitch about the torque lost. When in reality the car in WOT conditions would never drop below 3000 rpm after each shift or even come anywhere close to that rpm range for that matter.
09-05-2012, 02:19 PM
#31
One thing I really think is over played on here when people are criticizing dyno graphs is that they are looking at it in a really linear way.
I don't think they grasp the idea of "operating range" or "powerband", which every cam has.
People will take a look at a dyno graph where a cam lost 20 pounds of torque below 3000rpm but made significantly more average power after that with a 15 horsepower peak increase and bitch about the torque lost. When in reality the car in WOT conditions would never drop below 3000 rpm after each shift or even come anywhere close to that rpm range for that matter.
I don't think they grasp the idea of "operating range" or "powerband", which every cam has.
People will take a look at a dyno graph where a cam lost 20 pounds of torque below 3000rpm but made significantly more average power after that with a 15 horsepower peak increase and bitch about the torque lost. When in reality the car in WOT conditions would never drop below 3000 rpm after each shift or even come anywhere close to that rpm range for that matter.
Shoot even with a 6 speed with 3.08 gears it ain't dropping below 5300-5400 if you shift at 6900-7000, and an automatic with a 3600+ stall converter is only going to drop 1000-1200rpm on the shift at the most.
09-06-2012, 01:58 PM
#34
No doubt. Just what I had available to post. There were not nearly the choices for LS series stuff in 2003 that we have today. Heck, I remember when Hooker/Jet-Hot started producing headers for these cars. Finally had a decent priced alternative ($600 ish), compared to the $1000-1300 range before.
09-06-2012, 02:12 PM
#35
IMO, the lower 112lsa on the GM Hot-Cam is part of the reason for it's popularity it's had over the years IMO, if it was on a 114-116 lsa it wouldn't make near the trq below 3500rpm that makes it a good DD cam. Myself I don't need or want to go above 3500rpm (most of the time) to get where I need to go in my DD(227/231 ,111lsa, +2). The one exception I would make with using a wide/er LSA is if you're wanting a stealth cam because it'll be a compromise to try and get most of what you want. Now if you car isn't a DD and spends a majority of its time at the drag strip, and/or has higher compression ratio, then a wider lsa could be of more benefit to you to move the power band up and/or reduce DC.
I do agree that not everyone wants/needs a narrow lsa, or single pattern or narrow split cam for their particular build; but some do.
BTW Martin I do appreciate your input.
I do agree that not everyone wants/needs a narrow lsa, or single pattern or narrow split cam for their particular build; but some do.
BTW Martin I do appreciate your input.
09-06-2012, 02:44 PM
#36
IMO, the lower 112lsa on the GM Hot-Cam is part of the reason for it's popularity it's had over the years IMO, if it was on a 114-116 lsa it wouldn't make near the trq below 3500rpm that makes it a good DD cam. Myself I don't need or want to go above 3500rpm (most of the time) to get where I need to go in my DD(227/231 ,111lsa, +2). The one exception I would make with using a wide/er LSA is if you're wanting a stealth cam because it'll be a compromise to try and get most of what you want. Now if you car isn't a DD and spends a majority of its time at the drag strip, and/or has higher compression ratio, then a wider lsa could be of more benefit to you to move the power band up and/or reduce DC.
I do agree that not everyone wants/needs a narrow lsa, or single pattern or narrow split cam for their particular build; but some do.
BTW Martin I do appreciate your input.
I do agree that not everyone wants/needs a narrow lsa, or single pattern or narrow split cam for their particular build; but some do.
BTW Martin I do appreciate your input.
Couple things though you can have a cam that chops with a 114+lsa. Overlap will dictate most of the sound of the cam. Would it be a bigger cam though, yes it would.
I think you would be surprised at the low-rpm torque a wider lsa can accomplish. IVO and IVC plays more of a part in low speed torque than LSA does as LSA effects EVO and EVC, not IVO or IVC. Since LSA doesn't affect IVO or IVC if the ICL is kept the same it does not affect DCR only ICL and intake duration affect DCR as far as cam timing is concerned.
Lastly a wider LSA doesn't necessarily move the RPM band up and a narrower LSA doesn't move it down. LSA only changes the shape of the curve(like when I say an earlier EVO will hang the torque curve out further a wider lsa will make the torque curve flatter effectively hanging it out further). Again IVO and IVC will dictate where peak power is made not LSA. A wider lsa will give the curve a flatter look making more average power, a narrower lsa will give the curve a peakier look making more peak power.
There are so many variables to all of this though that it cannot be contained or explained in just one post.
Happy to share as always guys.
