Team Chevelle banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

cstraub

· Vendor
Joined
·
10,648 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
. . .not good on an engine that is going to see street use.

This came up yesterday so I thought I would elaborate a little. Couple of things first?

Can adding duration to a camshaft make up for limited lift? Answer is yes.

Will it affect my HP? Peak power no, Power band yes.

Will its street manners be affected? Yes

For years stockers have been limited by lift rules. So duration was added to lobes. Please Harold confirm this but I have been told that in the early '70's when the Buicks were running John Reed and Harold Brookshire came out with the "launcher". Buicks were handicapped by very low lift numbers so a RECTANGLE lobe was designed by Harold and John to "launch" the lifter. Duration on this beast was incredible and they didn't last long but man could you turn those GS's to the moon because they made power up stairs.

You can add duration to make up for limiting lift factors in your combo. You still should be able to reach your peak power numbers, BUT your power band is going to be narrowed considerable. If the optimum cam was going to make a powerband that was within 10% of peak on either side of the curve for a range of 2000 rpm, then the cam with more duration and less lift may make 10% of peak power for only 1200 rpm. Now you have a narrower window of power to operate in. Which means gear selection in both rear and trany are critical.

Also when you narrow up the powerband you increase the work the engine has to do to accellerate. Think of it this way, a nice flat power band that is 2000 rpm wide and and around 6% of peak at either end is like you walking on land with a 1% incline and a 75# pack. It's work but not that bad. A narrow power band that is within 10% of peak that is 1200 rpm wide is like walking up a 10% incline with the same 75# pack. You can do it but your going to be slower because it takes more energy to climb.

Now do the latter but without the pack. Hey it is a little quicker but maybe not as quick as the flatter powerband. This is where cam companies say with a lighter car you can run a "bigger" cam because during accelleration the engine is not having to move as much mass.

In some forms of racing where the engine operates in a narrow powerband (Pro Stock) you want to cam for a narrow band because the engine isn't going to operate out of it. In a street strip application like most here are doing you want a nice fat powerband so that the engine can has a good average power over a broad rpm band.

I hope my simple ways of explaining this helps.
 
Power band is always the way I look at an engine combo.
Most street/strip motors will go down the track in the 4500-6500 rpm band, and thats where you need to make you power at. If you have a tight converter or not much gears 355s, then you need to make a bit more midrange. If you have a 8" 5000+ stall and 411+ then you can narrow the powerband window to say 5000-6500, or say 5300-7000, and pick parts (cam too) that will make the most tq and HP in that power bad. Now point in woring about how much tq it makes at 3000rpm when you have a 4000+stall, just look at the rpm band that in will operate at while going down the 1/4 and make power there, also look at launch rpm, if you want it to 60ft well you may want more mid range (with tight gear and stall)

Chris thanks for answering my PM.
 
Save
Interesting about "the Launcher" square lobe cam. In the late 70's my engine machinist got me one from I believe it was General Kinetics cams. I put it in my Chevy 427-390 hp NHRA Stocker engine and it wouldn't go over approx 4000 rpm. I took it out without even trying it at the track. Maybe the Chevy lift spec (.461/.480) was too high for it to work with stock spec valve springs.
 
Yeah Chris, definitely good info there! Its obviously proven itself to be pretty reliable info as well when you look at a lot of the trends in engine building and fast street cars.

I would actually like to hear a bit more about these launcher series of cams. I have no intention of ever trying one or anything like that, but would like to hear bout it more if anybody has experience.

Reason being, I have heard/read before a very similar explanation as to what you gave about these launchers. At first glance, it just sounds ludacris when you think about the physics of everything. And then recently I overhear a guy reccomending one of these types of cams to another guy. I dont know what the application was for or anything like that though. But either way.....as I was saying before, it just sounds to me like this is rather primitave and absurd. It may have had its place, but does it really hold any water anymore? But maybe it does...?

Id have to imagine that whatever power you gain from the additional "lift"(more like thrust...), that power would have to be negated by the amount of power youd lose through the lack of control and punishment of the valvetrain. But yeah, anybody with experience please chime in on these cause Id just like to hear about it a bit if thats all right. Thanks guys.
 
Back in the day, you could get "cheater" cams from all the manufacturers. Cams were rated at factory durations which as we know were often 300+ degrees. Lift was stock, but it was not unlikely to have a BBC "stock" cam that came in at 250-260* @ .050 on what was supposed to be the 214/218 .461/.480 lobes, yet it would still be within the stock advertised duration. Needless to say, today's cam profiles spank these by a large margin.
 
Back in the day, you could get "cheater" cams from all the manufacturers. Cams were rated at factory durations which as we know were often 300+ degrees. Lift was stock, but it was not unlikely to have a BBC "stock" cam that came in at 250-260* @ .050 on what was supposed to be the 214/218 .461/.480 lobes, yet it would still be within the stock advertised duration. Needless to say, today's cam profiles spank these by a large margin.
Yes most of the "blueprint" cams I had and measured back then were in the 240's at .050.
 
Is it possible to have too much lift (aside from PV issues, bind, etc)?
 
Save
Discussion starter · #11 ·
To paraphrase a Warren Johnson quote in the Dragster from several years ago: "To hell with duration, just give me lift and lots of it"...

I don't think it is a question of having to much lift, it's not having excess lift. There is no point using a cam with lift that is way beyond what is needed to fill the cylinder to make power. All your doing is wearing out parts unneccesarily. The key is get optimum lift and duration to allow the valve to fill the cylinder with air and fuel to make power in the desired rpm range.
 
Reason I asked is that I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to run 1.8 rockers to get an extra .030 of lift on my .6/.6 cam w/my GMPP heads.
 
Save
Save
Reason I asked is that I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to run 1.8 rockers to get an extra .030 of lift on my .6/.6 cam w/my GMPP heads.
=
Short answer, yes.
This is assuming the valve train stays stable.

I have yet to see any performance BB head that didn't want more than .600 lift
You would almost always like the lift to at least where the port stops flowing, usually a little more.

But as Chris sort of stated, opening the valve to .900 in a head that dies at .750 is probably not the best plan.
In fact it will not only be much harder on parts it will most likely lose power.
 
Discussion starter · #16 ·
Reason I asked is that I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to run 1.8 rockers to get an extra .030 of lift on my .6/.6 cam w/my GMPP heads.
In your case a 1.8 on the intake would help yes.

There is just so much BS floating out there about this passion of power we all have I can just take so much. I make my living on this stuff and my goal each and everyday is to solve problems that my customers have not create problems. To many times people are out for the quick sale and don't solve the performance enthusist problem. I look at it as I want you as a customer now and I want you as a customer 10 years from now.

...okay off my soap box....

With the cylinder head advances that are now available to the masses in racing today, the camshafts you should be looking at are short duration and moderate lift. Todays ports don't need big fat lobes to hold that valve open for a decade of time to fill the cylinder. With port velocities today, you want to open that intake valve quick, keep it open a short DURATION, and then shut it and put the spark to it.

On the exhuast pretty much the same thing but depending on the I/E flow ratio the split in duration will vary and this split 99% of the time is not consistant through seat, .050", .0100" and .200" tappet heights. Also we don't need as much lift on the exhaust, I know, WTF is he saying, well I'm just not saying it I proved it on the dyno and the track. The Exhaust Opening is critical to evac the gas at the right pressure point to help the engine more easily accellerate. Then the DURATION we keep the valve open allowing the exhaust gases out is 2nd most critical. Lift is but hey as soon as we crack that valve the exhaust gas pressure is going to that low pressure side on the other side of the valve. Kinda like when you pop that top on your favorite beverage. . . .is it all the way open before the majority of the gas escapes? I have found that the rule of thumb on exhaust valve lift is if the duration is correct then the exhaust lift is around 5% to 7% less then the intake lift.

Hope the above helps 69.
 
Sure does Chris thanks...jump over to my "1.8 rocker thread" and join the party! You did enough for me over here already. You too Mike!
 
Save
Discussion starter · #19 ·
Chris,

Did I bring this up?? I think I asked Harold about this earlier??

I forget...

Anyway, good stuff, please keep it coming..

pdq67
Pdq67,
It came up during a PM I got from a board member whose valvetrain is limiting him on cam lift options. I explained it to him and figured WTH I will post a thread about it.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.