TU and F4 Camshaft Follow-on Discussion

[Shadow]

Actually, I swapped them out for 3.5" when no one was looking!



























































Kidding, they Are 3".

Now I Think that's enough about the Charger lol after all, this thread is about Cams, so let's see if we can get it back on track!

[glhs875]

When my Rattlesnake was around I tried different cams and they all had ups an downs; the parameters where one was great the other lacked and the other way around.
I wanted something unique so I kept the one that performed the best with what I had and fine tuned it even further to my specific combination. After many sleepless nights of talking to myself and several trips to the road course to test where in the rpm range the cam had to improve, finally got my numbers and sent them to the grinder. After it was done and installed with the right springs, oh my! And the only thing I fine tuned was the ramp rates on the profile.
Since this was one of a kind please don't ask because I will take that info to the grave, no cam grinder will benefit from my findings. That cam is the only DNA piece that I keep in my house from Rattlesnake.

Reinaldo Moloon

Without giving up your specifics, did you increase or decrease the lift rates, or both when both intake and exhaust profiles are considered. I have an idea I plan on trying with the valve train and I am curious!!!

[chilort]

For any of you that are new, go read what Frank said early in this thread. This thread has a real tinge of the bad ole' days. And you can still read between the lines and see plenty of not-yet-recovered butt hurt (don't really have to read between the lines that much).

There is a boat load of bad information out there (On the internet? Who knew!!??) that many still hold up as gospel. While you might not like the way the message is delivered, and it rubs me backward from time to time (I've taken voluntary vacations from the boards for long periods and know people with Turbo Mopars who avoid the boards and the well known vendors like the plague), things have come along way. There used to be threats of physical violence over differences in opinion. While not totally gone, most of the people who were known for that, including some "vendors" have, thankfully, moved on.

A different Rob (ForceFedMopar) and I have been putting my Daytona together with a number of the more modern ideas that have come from this forum. Including using the F4 cam. With a factory Garrett turbo no less. What works depends on the purpose of the build too. I'm putting together a car to run on road courses. That requires different thinking than something running straight lines for short periods of time with long breaks in between. And not just run on road courses, but drive to the track, run the course, and then drive back home.

It is going to be awhile yet, but the sanctioning body (NASA) I've thought about while building the car runs classes based on modifications (points added for modifications) or power to weight ratios. Because of all the changes I've made compared to stock I'd be running with open ----pit cars [really? you can't type c o c k p i t ??] on points (ummm, no). So I'm going to have to run the car on a chassis dyno at different boost levels so that I can present that to the sanctioning body to justify the class I run in. In short, for those that want data, I think we'll have quite a bit of data in the not too distant future at least for one car. I won't be running the S5 though anytime soon.

[turbovanman²]

Cool beans.

With my build, going to dyno/try the stock cam first, then add the S60, and then who knows.

[Shadow]

Cool beans.

With my build, going to dyno/try the stock cam first, then add the S60, and then who knows.

You should post up Duration @ .050, lift, LSA and even StS duration if you can get them. Could Be Great advertising for your S60 cam now that all of this is Going to come out.

Mark my words, it may have to have a title change and be cleaned up a bit, but this is going to be the Greatest Cam thread Every on this site!

Something I'm going to throw in right now, and this should be common knowledge by now, but it isn't. When you change a cam, and the cam you are changing to is Supposed to move the powerband UP in the RPM range and Make More Power you Will need to Add Fuel! (you may even have to take some away in other areas like below 4000rpm)

The one way I Always Knew that Every change we made to the Charger was making More Power (without dyno or track testing) was that I Always had to Add More Fuel to keep the AFR's in line!

In the past, pretty well Every cam thread I read, no fuel was needed and there was even 1 where the OP said it Felt Better, but when I asked if it was lean and he had to add fuel, he said he actually had to Take Away fuel because of how Rich it was on the new cam.

This is why it is often difficult for me to post on an open forum, I believe I told him that "If he went rich" then either the cam is installed Wrong, or it's Crap!

Most Don't realise what Experience can bring to the table and want to believe that the impossible is possible

So installing and testing a cam is pretty straight forward, even Before any final results. WHAT changed when you swapped cams?

1. Did it go lean anywhere? (I added 5psi fuel pressure when I installed the F4 to be safe and it Still need More fuel up top)

2. Does the turbo now spool Late? (This was the Biggest shock with the F4! I was expecting to lose 3-500rpm spool time with the holset and the difference was 100rpm or Less!)
3. This one is for the Dyno; What is the Peak HP up to now? (the F4 moved my Peak HP from 5900rpm on the stock turbo roller to 6600rpm and it May be even higher)

So there are some very simple tell tale signs, and I have looked for them in other cam threads and mostly got Nothing Hopefully we've Matured enough as a Community that we can change that now!

[turbovanman²]

Agreed, if you lean out, its flowing more air, if its richer then its the wrong cam or its installed incorrectly.

Its the same as the slider, .499 lift and 260 duration, install at 110 deg.

[GLHNSLHT2]

Let me just add this;
3. This one is for the Dyno; What is the Peak HP up to now? (the F4 moved my Peak HP from 5900rpm on the stock turbo roller to 6600rpm and it May be even higher)

Oh come on Rob, now we know you're full of it. Everyone knows that the 2.2 can't peak above 5500rpms no matter what you did it Gary D says so

[chilort]

Oh come on Rob, now we know you're full of it. Everyone knows that the 2.2 can't peak above 5500rpms no matter what you did it Gary D says so

From the gospel.

[turbovanman²]

Wow, you guys are pretty harsh on a guy that ran 10's when you were in diapers and put a ton of info on the web before people knew what the web was. Have a bit of respect.

[chilort]

Wow, you guys are pretty harsh on a guy that ran 10's when you were in diapers and put a ton of info on the web before people knew what the web was. Have a bit of respect.

Simon, you do know you are one that helped to break the Gospel. Don't you? I know people who made arguments IRL at the risk of physical violence while you were on the opposite side of the continent (if you were on the main land yet. Sorry, don't know your life story). They execute blasphemers in Pakistan. I would say more but I'm afraid some built in device will erase the code in my LM if I say more.

I continue to stand by this (and I do believe, Lincoln being much older, that he was one the internet well before most of our parents were alive):

http://cheezburger.com/4777806080

[Shadow]

Agreed, if you lean out, its flowing more air, if its richer then its the wrong cam or its installed incorrectly.

Its the same as the slider, .499 lift and 260 duration, install at 110 deg.

Simon, when you change a cam profile from a slider to a roller, things will most likely have to change along with it. IF the S60 profile in "slider" config was tame enough, Maybe it could be transferred straight over to "roller" config with No change, but I'm kind of doubting that.

You would need to get the actual specs I was asking about From your cam grinder.........

From the gospel.

Couple things;

1. Even without looking back, I believe you will find that Gary was talking about the 2.5 at that time. (at least that's what I remember)

2. No matter How Invested someone is in what they Believe at any given time, I Don't believe (specially when they are "leading the pack") it is grounds for belittlement when someone else proves things differently.

Gary did what he did at a Very Early stage of what is now a community with many members who have made strides to Go Further.

Try and see it this way; Nothing is Gospel! Not even what I'm doing now, or Reeves, Or even Warren! What they Really are is a Consistent Pattern, leading to a Common end. IF you only have 1 or 2 people Really pushing the edge, it will take longer to absolutely prove things out and gain that Momentum that comes with Consistency.

As that # doubles and triples, it become More Clear what Really Works and what was yesterdays news.

Remember what Isaac Newton said "I stand on the shoulders of Giants", and I feel that is appropriate here as well. Guys like Gary, Gus and Stephan were Early pioneers and they Paved the Early way to where things are now.

I Don't believe in looking back on their shortcomings, I only believe in crediting them for their ingenuity and successes!

Besides, It is Our own shortcomings and Lack of vision that has lead to the "stagnation" that has handcuffed this community for So Long.

Hopefully we are at a crossroads where "open minds" can now prevail............

[turbovanman²]

Simon, you do know you are one that helped to break the Gospel. Don't you? I know people who made arguments IRL at the risk of physical violence while you were on the opposite side of the continent (if you were on the main land yet. Sorry, don't know your life story). They execute blasphemers in Pakistan. I would say more but I'm afraid some built in device will erase the code in my LM if I say more.

I continue to stand by this (and I do believe, Lincoln being much older, that he was one the internet well before most of our parents were alive):

http://cheezburger.com/4777806080

LOL. I did? Honestly, news to me, I didn't know I was, just here to help and push the limits and have fun, like everyone else.

Simon, when you change a cam profile from a slider to a roller, things will most likely have to change along with it. IF the S60 profile in "slider" config was tame enough, Maybe it could be transferred straight over to "roller" config with No change, but I'm kind of doubting that.

You would need to get the actual specs I was asking about From your cam grinder.........

Quote Originally Posted by chilort View Post
From the gospel.
Couple things;

1. Even without looking back, I believe you will find that Gary was talking about the 2.5 at that time. (at least that's what I remember)

2. No matter How Invested someone is in what they Believe at any given time, I Don't believe (specially when they are "leading the pack") it is grounds for belittlement when someone else proves things differently.

Gary did what he did at a Very Early stage of what is now a community with many members who have made strides to Go Further.

Try and see it this way; Nothing is Gospel! Not even what I'm doing now, or Reeves, Or even Warren! What they Really are is a Consistent Pattern, leading to a Common end. IF you only have 1 or 2 people Really pushing the edge, it will take longer to absolutely prove things out and gain that Momentum that comes with Consistency.

As that # doubles and triples, it become More Clear what Really Works and what was yesterdays news.

Remember what Isaac Newton said "I stand on the shoulders of Giants", and I feel that is appropriate here as well. Guys like Gary, Gus and Stephan were Early pioneers and they Paved the Early way to where things are now.

I Don't believe in looking back on their shortcomings, I only believe in crediting them for their ingenuity and successes!

Besides, It is Our own shortcomings and Lack of vision that has lead to the "stagnation" that has handcuffed this community for So Long.

Hopefully we are at a crossroads where "open minds" can now prevail............

Yeah, I'll get them, he's on holidays right now but he did say that the duration changed slightly but lift was identical, but as we all know, it will open the valve faster and hold it open a bit longer due to design.

Thank you for agreeing with me about Gary. It really gets to me when people put him down.

[bakes]

just want to add Boostgeek cam card here
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...32/camcard.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

just want to add Boostgeek cam card here
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo144/n503032/camcard.jpg

[4 l-bodies]

just want to add Boostgeek cam card here
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...32/camcard.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

just want to add Boostgeek cam card here
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...32/camcard.jpg

Need to blow the dust off that "state of the art" cam profile. First clue is it is a LRE camshaft. A LREwhat? Hehe. No disrespect at all to Bakes but Boostgeeks cam card? It is clearly a pic of the exact same cam card photo from Steve Calder back when he was running a 8V in his CSX. Dare to compare! Steve's CSX has been Lotus 16V powered for how long now? Perhaps bought used cam from Steve at some point, or was Bill Lambros just color Xeroxing/recycling cam cards? Steve had this camshaft in his vehicle 10-15 years ago or whenever the Taft S1, S2 and S3 was being dyno tested aeons ago. I guess, like fashion, what's old, is now new again! That cam profile is old as dirt. Not saying it doesn't work, in fact it probably works very good on a heavily modified NA or turbo engine. Notice the overlap @ .050?

Continue to wait on anyone to post that they actually degreed their F4 cam in. I suspect it is because they didn't actually do it, but rather just wants us to believe they did because it sounds more... professional? My guess maybe dialed in using dyno, dragstrip, wideband, or datalog. In other words no clue as to when valve events are actually occuring. Just care about the results! That works, but the problem with that is one needs to know where they are currently, if they want to know the direction they want to go in the future. Such as like say for example, designing a better camshaft? Just hearing lots of mumble, jumble, babble, doubletalk when it comes to specs. Put up or shut up!

This thread is going nowhere fast for me at least, until actual specs (and not Cam Dr. specs) are layed out on table. Post up those LSA's, opening and closing points, at .020 and .050 and at what installed centerline. Until then, I reckon I'm gonna put my 3/4 race cam in, and time her by ear... before someone says it, I hear that put her in straight up jargon once more and I'm gonna... Might as well be telling me your aligning the cam with Jupiter and Mars, afterall, isn't that straight up? Or was it the 2nd or 3rd rib on the turbo valve cover? Okay, now I feel the need to hurl chunks or slap someone... I kid, I kid.
Peace out.
Todd

[Shadow]

Continue to wait on anyone to post that they actually degreed their F4 cam in. I suspect it is because they didn't actually do it, but rather just wants us to believe they did because it sounds more... professional? My guess maybe dialed in using dyno, dragstrip, wideband, or datalog. In other words no clue as to when valve events are actually occuring. Just care about the results! That works, but the problem with that is one needs to know where they are currently, if they want to know the direction they want to go in the future. Such as like say for example, designing a better camshaft? Just hearing lots of mumble, jumble, babble, doubletalk when it comes to specs. Put up or shut up!

This thread is going nowhere fast for me at least, until actual specs (and not Cam Dr. specs) are layed out on table. Post up those LSA's, opening and closing points, at .020 and .050 and at what installed centerline. Until then, I reckon I'm gonna put my 3/4 race cam in, and time her by ear... before someone says it, I hear that put her in straight up jargon once more and I'm gonna... Might as well be telling me your aligning the cam with Jupiter and Mars, afterall, isn't that straight up? Or was it the 2nd or 3rd rib on the turbo valve cover? Okay, now I feel the need to hurl chunks or slap someone... I kid, I kid.
Peace out.
Todd

Todd, not sure where this is coming from, but according to your comments, it Appears you are directling this (even if only partially) at me?

First off, I Always Degree the cam when installing on a motor ment for "big power" Or IF the customer is willing to have it done.

Having said that, I have Only degreed them for Correct centerline instal so far. So I have Never checked valve opening/ closing events ect and I don't know what it is I said that may have lead you to believe that?

Maybe you just Assumed when I said "degree in the cam" it meant the same as what you've done?

As I have already posted up many times. I started off degreeing in the centerline install what, 10 or so years ago? (maybe even 11-12?) This was all on the stock cams and I found that 115 (or as close to 1deg +/-) Must be the sweet spot because we continued to make More power than any other comparative builds I could find, and the cars Always had a Killer top end charge to boot!

When it came to the F4 I immediately noticed the recommended centerline instal and by this time, was quite familiar with centerline installs of several other cams, including the Taft S3 which was 115. I also knew that my cam at that time (88 turbo roller) WAS degreed in @ 115 centerline instal. The F4 was a regrind, Not a "New" ground cam, so I surmised (because I couldn't find out Factually) that If it was ground using a stock cam, the centerline Should remain very close. (this could have been true or false) Add to that, the motor was already IN the Charger. (seemed like a PITA to try and degree a cam while motor is in car vs engine stand) So I "dropped" in the F4 and left everything alone on the basis of what it would do to the spool time. (would it lose spool time with it where it was?) IF it spooled the turbo Late, I was going to advance it and see what happened. Turns out it was right on the Money and I haven't Touched it since! (although I Did confirm centerline instal when the motor came out right before SDAC 21)

Regardless, it still Surprises me that you would imply that I Didn't do something that I Clearly said I Did do? (thought we knew each other Way better than that )

So I'm Sorry if you were mislead by something I said because that was Never my intent.

Now, we Do have a customers car in the shop right now that Is going to run the F4 and I Was looking forward to doing a Full degree on it, and was talking about that the other day. (hence the Week or so before a I have any results) Maybe that was confusing?

I also said I would confirm LSA and Duration, but haven't had the time to go through everything I have to find it yet. (also why I said Next week or so)

So I hope this clears things up as I'm still at a Loss as to why you posted the way you did?

Peace

rob

[acannell]

question...

would it not be beneficial if an engine tuner could pop a cover off the valve cover, and using a few set screws and wrenches, adjust the cam lobes?

if a special cam was made bare shaft spots where the lobes go, and a set of two piece lobes of varying durations/lift, and also the ability to rotate those lobes arbitrarily around the camshaft, wouldnt that make tuning and experimenting with the cam alot faster and easier?

this would not be for leaving in the engine, but for testing. so the lifetime issues of having two piece cams and set screw mounting would just need to be enough to handle a few dozen passes..not 10000+ miles

once you find the combination that works the best you can cam doctor it and then copy it for real in a proper camshaft

add an adjustable cam gear and you can basically change every aspect of the cam

has anyone ever heard of something like this?

[glhs875]

question...

would it not be beneficial if an engine tuner could pop a cover off the valve cover, and using a few set screws and wrenches, adjust the cam lobes?

if a special cam was made bare shaft spots where the lobes go, and a set of two piece lobes of varying durations/lift, and also the ability to rotate those lobes arbitrarily around the camshaft, wouldnt that make tuning and experimenting with the cam alot faster and easier?

this would not be for leaving in the engine, but for testing. so the lifetime issues of having two piece cams and set screw mounting would just need to be enough to handle a few dozen passes..not 10000+ miles

once you find the combination that works the best you can cam doctor it and then copy it for real in a proper camshaft

add an adjustable cam gear and you can basically change every aspect of the cam

has anyone ever heard of something like this?

I like and have thought of an idea like this myself!!

[moparzrule]

Not sure anything like that would hold up well, but secondly it would be nearly impossible to get all the lobes in the same spots for testing. And lastly, if anything like that was made, it would be like a zillion dollars lol.

[acannell]

Not sure anything like that would hold up well, but secondly it would be nearly impossible to get all the lobes in the same spots for testing. And lastly, if anything like that was made, it would be like a zillion dollars lol.

I dont think it would be that expensive to make ..relatively speaking. Using a quality manual lathe you could make the cam out of a scrap cam, using a follower rest and/or steady rest(s) on the existing cam journals. This is right up the alley of lathe work, especially since you already have precision bearing surfaces at the ends and in the middle so aligning the cam and supporting it for tight tolerances would be pretty easy.

The lobes could be made by taking a rectangle of steel, cutting it in half, surface grinding the surfaces that will mate, bolting those two pieces together and then drilling and tapping for the actual piece to piece bolts and set screws(s). Then bolting together using only its actual joining bolts and milling the lobe shape out of that. You could mill and bore it in one setup so it would be extremely accurate.

For the first try Id try and use the precision surfaces you made with the lathe to align the two halves. Its all freshly machined surfaces so that may work. Its not something that you'd want to put thousands of miles on. It just needs to last a few dozen passes.

It would be nice if you could get away without hardening any of it, to save on the cost of that plus the grinding that would be needed afterward. So youd need to pick out a steel that will give you the lifetime needed without hardening. Im not sure exactly what that would need to be but I think its realistic.

Now as far as synchronization..I think you'd have to have precision control over the rotation of the camshaft. So for every adjustment you'd bolt on an encoder fixture that grabs the cam sprocket and lets you precisely rotate it. Now you can loosen one lobe at a time, lock the lobe from turning, and rotate the camshaft to adjust the lobe.

If you start off with the lobes synchronized, you are in pretty good shape to keep them synchronized. But a fixture could be made that makes it easy to measure each lobes peak relative to a certain fixed spot. By comparing where the peaks occur versus what the rotation of the camshaft is using your encoder, you could synchronize them.

To swap lobes, youd need a spring compressor so that the lobe is free to be removed.

This definitely needs more thought and there could be all kinds of gotchas..just thinking out loud here

[knownenemy]

Understandably, "lots of gotchas", but this is an incredible conversation.
A conversation that baffles me as to why it hasn't occurred before this.
IT HAD TO HAVE, my mind tells me.
There must be some kind of tool that camshaft manufacturers use, similar to what you describe.

Or, if we have the programmers among us,
maybe a program that would allow custom cams to be virtually tested prior to being built.
In this way,
we could throw ideas for cam specs at the program, and see results before the cam even exists.