Generation III Internal Engine 1997-2006 LS1 | LS6
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Feedback on Patrick G's Torquer cam.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-27-2006, 09:00 PM
  #81  
On The Tree
 
Street Lethal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Old Bridge "Raceway Park" N.J.
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Gearhead1
...isn't the HP calculated from the torque reading?
Absolutely. You gotta have torque to make calculated horsepower at a certain rpm. Increasing torque, regardless of the RPM, increases horsepower. Horsepower is nothing more than a calculated power value for Torque at a given rpm.
Old 06-27-2006, 09:36 PM
  #82  
TECH Apprentice
 
Gearhead1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Street Lethal
Absolutely. You gotta have torque to make calculated horsepower at a certain rpm. Increasing torque, regardless of the RPM, increases horsepower. Horsepower is nothing more than a calculated power value for Torque at a given rpm.
So if the lead going to the tach wire gets a false signal, couldn't that account for the skewed HP and TQ readings?? (like in the graph) Bad signal= bad reading. Correct??
Old 06-27-2006, 09:44 PM
  #83  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (33)
 
JonCR96Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Asheboro, NC
Posts: 3,008
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 10 Posts

Default

I beleive this is what happens with a bad tach connection. If you'll look at my graph you'll notice a few spots where there is no info at all.

edit: nevermind, you can't really see the graph that well
Attached Thumbnails Feedback on Patrick G's Torquer cam.-ctsvdyno.jpg  
Old 06-28-2006, 12:34 AM
  #84  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
 
cantdrv65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Post

Originally Posted by Gearhead1
Yes, but isn't the HP calculated from the torque reading?? I'm not arguing, just trying to understand.
No, not on a dynojet. Torque is actually back calculated from the HP reading.... My understanding is you can totally disconnect the tach wire and still get an accurate HP number. It measures horsepower directly by the acceleration of a known mass (the drum).

Hijack off. Thanks Pat, I now believe I do not have valvetrain problems as well.
Old 06-28-2006, 06:42 AM
  #85  
Launching!
 
WS6RED2002TA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hinesville, GA
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by JonCR96Z
I beleive this is what happens with a bad tach connection. If you'll look at my graph you'll notice a few spots where there is no info at all.

edit: nevermind, you can't really see the graph that well
It was kinda hard to see, but you can see some of the blank spots.
Old 06-28-2006, 07:39 AM
  #86  
TECH Fanatic
 
SideStep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
You guys crack me up when you say "this cam will blow away this cam"


but, but, but...mine is bigger than yours!!! 'ies
Old 06-28-2006, 08:08 AM
  #87  
TECH Addict
 
300bhp/ton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Posts: 2,650
Received 13 Likes on 8 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by cantdrv65
No, not on a dynojet. Torque is actually back calculated from the HP reading.... My understanding is you can totally disconnect the tach wire and still get an accurate HP number. It measures horsepower directly by the acceleration of a known mass (the drum).

Hijack off. Thanks Pat, I now believe I do not have valvetrain problems as well.
Yeah buy HP is an expression of torque at speed (rpm) that's the whole point of it.

HP= torque x rpm / 5252

An inertia dyno like a Dyno Jet is just using a static weight to load the engine.

It is for this very fact that some cars produce little torque but high bhp.

Example:

300lb ft @ 3000rpm would be 171bhp

200lb ft @ 6000rpm would be 229bhp

Less torque but more power.

Think of HP as an expression of torque. And the 'B' stands for Brake. Because for automotive use we use Brake devices to derive torque, whether they are static brakes like an inertia dyno or variable brakes such as a load bearing dyno.
Old 06-28-2006, 09:53 AM
  #88  
LS1Tech Premium Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
 
Jason 98 TA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas!
Posts: 4,229
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Patrick G

If you want a cam that would beat the MS4, just go about 4 degrees smaller in duration, then narrow the LSA around 2 degrees, then make sure your overlap is centered over TDC or even biased somewhat to the intake side. This cam will make more area under the curve and better topend because of superior valve events, higher DCR and better positioning of overlap.
Actually that is incorrect. We tried a camshaft that was exactly 4 degrees smaller on both sides & on a 110+1. That camshaft did make 2 or 3 ft lb down low, but it gives it up on top end power by a solid 5-7hp & lb ft.

We've done engine dyno testing back to back on tons of different combinations including torquer 3 on a 110, ms4s on a 111, ms3s on a 113, 235/238 camshaft on a 110.

We offer MS4 camshafts on a 110, but for p/v issues it's only available to customers with cut pistons.

Keep in mind guys there's a difference between reading posts & using calculators & actually putting something on a engine dyno. Some of these camshaft theories are just like the guys thinking the small runner heads or the better flowing head will always make more power. That's not always the case, extensive testing is needed to determine what's best.

It's easy to be a bench theory dyno racer, it's something completely different to actually put up & dyno compare camshafts on a engine dyno.

Moving the lobe seperations around 1 degree or taking 2 degrees of duration out of a camshaft doesn't equate to tons of power in either direction.

What camshaft is best for one car might not be the camshaft that's best for the next car.

Torquer 3 camshaft 231/234 110+1 camshaft did make more low end power than the MS4, but with a healthy gear car & some healthy stall I think the MS4 will out run it at the drag strip.

I'm putting together my heads cam car right now & I'll test out the MS4, Torquer 3 & the 235/238 camshaft in the same car. Of course we won't be able to see sameday results with this method, but it will still be very interesting to see the results!
__________________
Jason
Co-Owner, Texas Speed & Performance, Ltd.
2005 Twin Turbo C6
404cid Stroker, 67mm Twins
994rwhp/902lb ft @ 22 psi (mustang dyno) www.Texas-Speed.com

Last edited by Jason 98 TA; 06-28-2006 at 10:03 AM.
Old 06-28-2006, 10:51 AM
  #89  
LS1 Tech Administrator
iTrader: (14)
 
Patrick G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Victoria, TX
Posts: 8,244
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Jason 98 TA
Actually that is incorrect. We tried a camshaft that was exactly 4 degrees smaller on both sides & on a 110+1. That camshaft did make 2 or 3 ft lb down low, but it gives it up on top end power by a solid 5-7hp & lb ft.
That wouldn't be hard to believe if you chopped 4 degrees on both intake and exhaust. That cam would have its overlap biased slightly toward the exhaust side of TDC and would run out of breath faster than the cam I recommended:

235/240 .646/.609 109LSA +1 (LSK/XE-R)

Jason, you should try this cam. It should match the MS4 upstairs while having a torque advantage in the mid-range. The key is higher DCR and better placement of overlap (intake-biased). Try it, you might like it!
__________________

2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
Old 06-28-2006, 12:52 PM
  #90  
TECH Senior Member
 
PREDATOR-Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 14,620
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 16 Posts

Default

Texas Giant on 109+1, Oh la la, that should be fun to tune.
That would be nice to watch, a dyno shootout (same motor, swap cam+tune and dyno)
Old 06-28-2006, 12:55 PM
  #91  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (11)
 
ThirdGenLS1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

at least TSP is actuly going out and testing, and trying to put out the best product that they can make. I'll comend you for that, cause it seems like you guys are really trying to make a product that the customer wants.

Justin
Old 06-28-2006, 01:21 PM
  #92  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
 
cantdrv65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Post

Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
An inertia dyno like a Dyno Jet is just using a static weight to load the engine.
Yep thats exactly what I said. It also measures the rpm of the drum, hence no tach wire needed. Comprende?
Old 06-28-2006, 01:55 PM
  #93  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (23)
 
brad8266's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 8,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ThirdGenLS1
at least TSP is actuly going out and testing, and trying to put out the best product that they can make. I'll comend you for that, cause it seems like you guys are really trying to make a product that the customer wants.

Justin
Old 06-28-2006, 02:23 PM
  #94  
Banned
iTrader: (23)
 
JZ'sTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ft. Myers Fl
Posts: 3,126
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Many vendor's do this. TR, Cartek, MTI, TSP, Futural, LG, all have cams that they have tested the hell out of.
Also the tach dosen't need to be hooked up on a dynojet. It wont give a TQ reading but will still give a HP reading.
We have one out back and have had to do this a few times when we couldn't get a good signal no matter what.
Old 06-28-2006, 02:30 PM
  #95  
Banned
iTrader: (23)
 
JZ'sTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ft. Myers Fl
Posts: 3,126
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Patrick G

235/240 .646/.609 109LSA +1 (LSK/XE-R)


Holy **** I have this exact cam siting here for a customer.
Were doing it in a cam only Z06. (2003)
I will have to post the numbers once its done which wont be for a month or so however.
I think the cam is acturally a 110+1LSA, but close enough.
Old 06-28-2006, 03:28 PM
  #96  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
 
Steel Chicken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cantdrv65
Yep thats exactly what I said. It also measures the rpm of the drum, hence no tach wire needed. Comprende?
but you can't calculate engine rpms unless you know the precise rear ratio, and even then, it wont take into account clutch slipping or torque converter weirdness.
Old 06-28-2006, 03:45 PM
  #97  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (3)
 
TroubledWine3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
Yeah buy HP is an expression of torque at speed (rpm) that's the whole point of it.

HP= torque x rpm / 5252

Think of HP as an expression of torque. And the 'B' stands for Brake. Because for automotive use we use Brake devices to derive torque, whether they are static brakes like an inertia dyno or variable brakes such as a load bearing dyno.
You seem like a pretty smart dude so I think you are smart enough to realize that torque is also an expression of horsepower. You can calculate torque from horsepower the same way you can calculate horsepower from torque. A dynojet calculates horsepower and back-calculates torque.

hp = (tq x rpm) / 5252
tq = (hp x 5252) / rpm
rpm = (hp x 5252) / tq
Old 06-28-2006, 03:57 PM
  #98  
On The Tree
 
Street Lethal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Old Bridge "Raceway Park" N.J.
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TroubledWine3
...torque is also an expression of horsepower.
I disagree. Torque is the actual mechanical measurement of twisting force used to calculate how much horsepower an engine is making. No formulae involved, except in figuring how hard the engine is twisting against some medium, be it water, air or friction brake. HP is a calculated value, torque, however, is real....
Old 06-28-2006, 04:30 PM
  #99  
LS1 Tech Administrator
iTrader: (14)
 
Patrick G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Victoria, TX
Posts: 8,244
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ThirdGenLS1
at least TSP is actuly going out and testing, and trying to put out the best product that they can make. I'll comend you for that, cause it seems like you guys are really trying to make a product that the customer wants.

Justin
That's a good point. Many companies do the same thing including Thunder Racing.

It would boggle your mind how many cam swaps I've done over the years. I always dynoed every new combination and always tested it at the strip as well. I've been cam swapping since early '99 on these motors. I lost count after 20 of my own personal cam swaps (and that's not counting the dozens of swaps I've done with friends cars).

What I've found is that cam-only LS1s tend to like LSAs in the 109-110 range. Just look at the T-Rex and how well it does. Think about it...it's not the duration alone that makes it so killer...it's the LSA (109-110). If duration alone was king, the wide LSA HPE S cam would hold all the cam-only titles.

As you increase static compression, you can ease off LSA a tad. That's why heads/cam motors with 11-11.5:1 SCR seem to like 110-111LSA best. As you increase displacement, the valve area per displacement begins to diminish, making the motor more sensitve to overlap. More is better in this case. Again, 109-111LSA tends to work best with 402-450 CID LS1s.

Just look at the gains TSP has made in the past months. They've taken their wide LSA cams and narrowed them and the results have been very positve. Coincidence? No, it's just that with further testing, they too have been finding out what works and what doesn't. So before you poo-poo my theories, just remember, they're not taken from a spreadsheet or program, but from track experience over the past 7 years messing only with LS1s.
__________________

2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2018 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 Pat G tuned.
LS1,LS2,LS3,LS7,LT1 Custom Camshaft Specialist For custom camshaft help press here.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
Old 06-28-2006, 06:02 PM
  #100  
TECH Addict
 
300bhp/ton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Posts: 2,650
Received 13 Likes on 8 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by TroubledWine3
You seem like a pretty smart dude
Cheers, but I don't think so. I just try my best and atempt to correct mistakes.

Originally Posted by TroubledWine3
so I think you are smart enough to realize that torque is also an expression of horsepower. You can calculate torque from horsepower the same way you can calculate horsepower from torque. A dynojet calculates horsepower and back-calculates torque.

hp = (tq x rpm) / 5252
tq = (hp x 5252) / rpm
rpm = (hp x 5252) / tq
This I wouldn't disagree with, but surely that is just mathamatics. Any formular or expression can be revered so that the other can be derived.

a * 1.23 = b

or

b / 1.23 = a

However Horse Power does have a foundry as dictated by James Watt for his steam engines.

Definition of horsepower for engines is the one originally proposed by James Watt in 1782. Under this system, one horsepower is defined as:

1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf·min−1 = exactly 0.74569987158227022 kW


So although maths allows us the derive one from the other it doesn't mean that they are both expressions of the other.

The term "horsepower" was invented by James Watt to help market his improved steam engine. He had previously agreed to take royalties of one third of the savings in coal from the older Newcomen steam engines[5]. This royalty scheme did not work with customers who did not have existing steam engines but used horses instead. Watt determined that a horse could turn a mill wheel 144 times in an hour (or 2.4 times a minute). The wheel was 12 feet in radius, thus in a minute the horse travelled 2.4 × 2π × 12 feet. Watt judged that the horse could pull with a force of 180 pounds (just assuming that the measurements of mass were equivalent to measurements of force in pounds-force, which were not well-defined units at the time). So:


This was rounded to an even 33,000 ft·lbf/min[6].

Others recount that Watt determined that a pony could lift an average 220 pounds 100 feet (30 m) per minute over a four-hour working shift. Watt then judged a horse was 50% more powerful than a pony and thus arrived at the 33,000 ft·lbf/min figure[7].

Engineering in History recounts that John Smeaton initially estimated that a horse could produce 22,916 foot-pounds per minute. John Desaguliers increased that to 27,500 foot-pounds per minute. "Watt found by experiment in 1782 that a 'brewery horse' was able to produce 32,400 foot-pounds per minute". James Watt and Matthew Boulton standardized that figure at 33,000 the next year[8].

Put into perspective, a healthy human can sustain about 0.1 horsepower, and trained athletes can manage up to about 0.3 horsepower for a period of several hours. Most observers familiar with horses and their capabilities estimate that Watt was either a bit optimistic or intended to underpromise and overdeliver; few horses can maintain that effort for long. Regardless, comparison to a horse proved to be an enduring marketing tool.

Last edited by 300bhp/ton; 06-28-2006 at 06:15 PM.


Quick Reply: Feedback on Patrick G's Torquer cam.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM.