Vortec Engine Help - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 11:00 AM
Elkyblack's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ATL
Posts: 23
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbolover
a smaller cam would produce better torque and not give up much at all in terms of hp. The cam recommended will sound nicer but dropping about 5-10 degrees will save you gas and gain you performance for the street.
Which cam do you recommend Turbolover? What kinda torque gains are we talking. I love the sound of the cam recommended, I would be willing to sacrifice sound a little if I will notice a significant amount torque and hp gains. I really would prefer the best of both world.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 11:05 AM
V8 Super Beetle's Avatar
VW makes it, Chevy shakes it..
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 33
Posts: 1,245
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkyblack
Which cam do you recommend Turbolover? What kinda torque gains are we talking. I love the sound of the cam recommended, I would be willing to sacrifice sound a little if I will notice a significant amount torque and hp gains. I really would prefer the best of both world.

Choppy idle, strong low and midrange performance. 2,500+ stall. Easier on the wallet too.

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/HRS-180305-08/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 11:16 AM
Elkyblack's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ATL
Posts: 23
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Beetle Do you think this would be a better cam than the cam recommended by Tech? Do you have any sound clips? Just so you guys know I really do appreciate all of this. Im sort of a newb, I mean to actually putting together my own combos. I've had many motor built from bad *** 496's to 355's but It was always me dropping it off to a builder and them doing it. This time Im going to attempt this myself . So any and all advice is greatly appreciated. I have my pad and pen taking notes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 11:39 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 466
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I would avoid that Howards cam. Large duration, low lift... Not really an ideal combo.

If you want a choppy lope have the LSA narrowed up a bit, it will increase midrange torque AND give you a choppier idle.

I think the XE 276 on a 106-108 LSA would be a better match. A 106 would provide a choppier idle but will be harder to tune. A 108 is a good compromise IMO. Have it ground on a 102 ICL.

You'd probably pick up about 20 ftlb in the RPM range you drive in with this cam VS the one recommended by TI.

With a 108 LSA the smaller cam will sound almost identical to the other one recommended, the overlap values are very close.

There are many other cams out there too, this is just a quick example of what I would look for.

Last edited by turbolover; 09-23-2010 at 11:47 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 11:47 AM
Elkyblack's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ATL
Posts: 23
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbolover
I would avoid that howards cam. Large duration, low lift... Not really an ideal combo.

If you want a choppy lope have the LSA narrowed up a bit, it will increase midrange torque AND give you a choppier idle.
This might be a crazy question
If this was your motor and you wanted to get the best performance out of it what cam would you go with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 12:20 PM
V8 Super Beetle's Avatar
VW makes it, Chevy shakes it..
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 33
Posts: 1,245
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Good point. Although, vortecs really don't flow well over .50" lift. So a .480 cam would okay if you wanted good torque and performance. For max performance, around .50" lift would be better.

Published vortec Flow numbers.

0.100 70/49
0.200 139/105
0.300 190/137
0.400 227/151
0.500 239/160
0.600 229/162
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 01:44 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 466
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Super Beetle
Good point. Although, vortecs really don't flow well over .50" lift. So a .480 cam would okay if you wanted good torque and performance. For max performance, around .50" lift would be better.

Published vortec Flow numbers.

0.100 70/49
0.200 139/105
0.300 190/137
0.400 227/151
0.500 239/160
0.600 229/162
That all depends on the valve job...
Those flow numbers can vary by 10% based off of a valve job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 01:56 PM
V8 Super Beetle's Avatar
VW makes it, Chevy shakes it..
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 33
Posts: 1,245
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbolover
That all depends on the valve job...
Those flow numbers can vary by 10% based off of a valve job.
Makes sense. Good call.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 01:56 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,875
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 751
Thanked 975 Times in 823 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbolover
I would avoid that Howards cam. Large duration, low lift... Not really an ideal combo.

If you want a choppy lope have the LSA narrowed up a bit, it will increase midrange torque AND give you a choppier idle.

I think the XE 276 on a 106-108 LSA would be a better match. A 106 would provide a choppier idle but will be harder to tune. A 108 is a good compromise IMO. Have it ground on a 102 ICL.

You'd probably pick up about 20 ftlb in the RPM range you drive in with this cam VS the one recommended by TI.

With a 108 LSA the smaller cam will sound almost identical to the other one recommended, the overlap values are very close.

There are many other cams out there too, this is just a quick example of what I would look for.
The nice thing about the DynoSim is that you can change cam timing around and take a look at the results pretty quickly. The XE276 would be a flat tappet grind. The same grind for this motor (roller cam) would be a XR276HR. If we change the seat to seat intake opening from 32 to 36 and the seat to seat intake closing from 64 to 60, we have an intake centerline of 102 instead of 106 and an LSA of 108 instead of 110.
Now, we have these timing figures....
Seat to seat 36/60/75/27
0.050" tappet lift 10/34/49/1
Intake centerline 102
Exhaust centerline 114
Lobe separation angle 108
Seat to seat duration 276/282
0.050" tappet lift duration 224/230
Valve lift 0.502"/0.510"
As turbolover predicted, low rpm torque increases and high rpm hp decreases with the tighter LSA. The break-over point is 4000 rpm. Power builds quickly at the bottom, then peters out past 4000. This grind would make a better daily driver though, in my opinion, than the cam timing I originally used in the DynoSim if you were using a converter that tightened up low enough in the rpm range to take advantage of the torque at low rpm's.
RPM HP TQ
2000 140 367
2500 177 372
3000 226 396
3500 284 426
4000 335 440
4500 380 443
5000 412 433
5500 426 407
6000 418 366
6500 369 298
Peak volumetric efficiency 95.7% @5000
Peak BMEP 188.0 @4500

Here's the first pull to compare....
RPM HP TQ
2000 133 350
2500 169 356
3000 218 381
3500 278 417
4000 334 439
4500 383 450
5000 417 438
5500 441 421
6000 445 390
6500 417 337
Peak volumetric efficiency 99.0% @5000
Peak BMEP 189.5 @4500

Last edited by techinspector1; 09-23-2010 at 02:12 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 02:10 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 466
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
The nice thing about the DynoSim is that you can change cam timing around and take a look at the results pretty quickly. The XE276 would be a flat tappet grind. The same grind for this motor (roller cam) would be a XR276HR. If we change the seat to seat intake opening from 32 to 36 and the seat to seat intake closing from 64 to 60, we have an intake centerline of 102 instead of 106 and an LSA of 108 instead of 110.
Now, we have these timing figures....
Seat to seat 36/60/75/27
0.050" tappet lift 10/34/49/1
Intake centerline 102
Exhaust centerline 114
Lobe separation angle 108
Seat to seat duration 276/282
0.050" tappet lift duration 224/230
Valve lift 0.502"/0.510"
As turbolover predicted, low rpm torque increases and high rpm hp decreases with the tighter LSA. The break-over point is 4000 rpm. Power builds quickly at the bottom, then peters out past 4000. This grind would make a better daily driver though, in my opinion, than the cam timing I originally used in the DynoSim.
RPM HP TQ
2000 140 367
2500 177 372
3000 226 396
3500 284 426
4000 335 440
4500 380 443
5000 412 433
5500 426 407
6000 418 366
6500 369 298
Peak volumetric efficiency 95.7% @5000
Peak BMEP 188.0 @4500

Here's the first pull to compare....
RPM HP TQ
2000 133 350
2500 169 356
3000 218 381
3500 278 417
4000 334 439
4500 383 450
5000 417 438
5500 441 421
6000 445 390
6500 417 337
Peak volumetric efficiency 99.0% @5000
Peak BMEP 189.5 @4500

I was meaning the XR-HR series- That's a good catch, thanks TI.

I tried to stay with the same cam series you used, really its not a bad cam line at all.

I knew your selection would win up top, but how often does a daily driver go over 4,000 RPM? when I'm on the interstate I like an engine where I just need to put the slightest amount of pressure on the accelerator and I'm at the speed I want, smooth midrange (2000-5000) torque. On the back country roads its a different story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 02:20 PM
Elkyblack's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ATL
Posts: 23
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
The nice thing about the DynoSim is that you can change cam timing around and take a look at the results pretty quickly. The XE276 would be a flat tappet grind. The same grind for this motor (roller cam) would be a XR276HR. If we change the seat to seat intake opening from 32 to 36 and the seat to seat intake closing from 64 to 60, we have an intake centerline of 102 instead of 106 and an LSA of 108 instead of 110.
Now, we have these timing figures....
Seat to seat 36/60/75/27
0.050" tappet lift 10/34/49/1
Intake centerline 102
Exhaust centerline 114
Lobe separation angle 108
Seat to seat duration 276/282
0.050" tappet lift duration 224/230
Valve lift 0.502"/0.510"
As turbolover predicted, low rpm torque increases and high rpm hp decreases with the tighter LSA. The break-over point is 4000 rpm. Power builds quickly at the bottom, then peters out past 4000. This grind would make a better daily driver though, in my opinion, than the cam timing I originally used in the DynoSim if you were using a converter that tightened up low enough in the rpm range to take advantage of the torque at low rpm's.
RPM HP TQ
2000 140 367
2500 177 372
3000 226 396
3500 284 426
4000 335 440
4500 380 443
5000 412 433
5500 426 407
6000 418 366
6500 369 298
Peak volumetric efficiency 95.7% @5000
Peak BMEP 188.0 @4500

Here's the first pull to compare....
RPM HP TQ
2000 133 350
2500 169 356
3000 218 381
3500 278 417
4000 334 439
4500 383 450
5000 417 438
5500 441 421
6000 445 390
6500 417 337
Peak volumetric efficiency 99.0% @5000
Peak BMEP 189.5 @4500
Now were these numbers done with the motor now being a 383 or does that even matter?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2010, 02:36 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 466
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkyblack
Now were these numbers done with the motor now being a 383 or does that even matter?
I presume that is for 350ci, and I think its a hair optimistic.

making it a 383 will make a difference, if you have the crank I would definitely go for it. From a dead stop that thing may end up being a tire burner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-08-2010, 08:53 PM
Elkyblack's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ATL
Posts: 23
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
The nice thing about the DynoSim is that you can change cam timing around and take a look at the results pretty quickly. The XE276 would be a flat tappet grind. The same grind for this motor (roller cam) would be a XR276HR. If we change the seat to seat intake opening from 32 to 36 and the seat to seat intake closing from 64 to 60, we have an intake centerline of 102 instead of 106 and an LSA of 108 instead of 110.
Now, we have these timing figures....
Seat to seat 36/60/75/27
0.050" tappet lift 10/34/49/1
Intake centerline 102
Exhaust centerline 114
Lobe separation angle 108
Seat to seat duration 276/282
0.050" tappet lift duration 224/230
Valve lift 0.502"/0.510"
As turbolover predicted, low rpm torque increases and high rpm hp decreases with the tighter LSA. The break-over point is 4000 rpm. Power builds quickly at the bottom, then peters out past 4000. This grind would make a better daily driver though, in my opinion, than the cam timing I originally used in the DynoSim if you were using a converter that tightened up low enough in the rpm range to take advantage of the torque at low rpm's.
RPM HP TQ
2000 140 367
2500 177 372
3000 226 396
3500 284 426
4000 335 440
4500 380 443
5000 412 433
5500 426 407
6000 418 366
6500 369 298
Peak volumetric efficiency 95.7% @5000
Peak BMEP 188.0 @4500

Here's the first pull to compare....
RPM HP TQ
2000 133 350
2500 169 356
3000 218 381
3500 278 417
4000 334 439
4500 383 450
5000 417 438
5500 441 421
6000 445 390
6500 417 337
Peak volumetric efficiency 99.0% @5000
Peak BMEP 189.5 @4500
Tech, I know this thread is an old one, but I have gotten everything on the list that you mentioned except cam, but was kinda wondering what kind of power could I expect with the roller 283 thumper cam. What are your thoughts on these cams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2010, 07:46 AM
V8 Super Beetle's Avatar
VW makes it, Chevy shakes it..
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 33
Posts: 1,245
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkyblack
Tech, I know this thread is an old one, but I have gotten everything on the list that you mentioned except cam, but was kinda wondering what kind of power could I expect with the roller 283 thumper cam. What are your thoughts on these cams.
Thumpr cams are ground for sound, not so much for performance, although it'll perform decent. The cam specs he has listed will produce a lumpy sound. If you want it even choppier, get it ground on a 106 LSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2010, 07:51 AM
Elkyblack's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ATL
Posts: 23
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Super Beetle
Thumpr cams are ground for sound, not so much for performance, although it'll perform decent. The cam specs he has listed will produce a lumpy sound. If you want it even choppier, get it ground on a 106 LSA.
Are you referring to the xr276hr cam? And how would I get a custom grind?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pinging on 03 Chevy 5.3 Engine in Suburban bry21317 Engine 42 10-02-2011 07:35 PM
SBC 350 superiority rebuttle...was:POWERED BY CHEVY, WRITTEN ON A FORD, (from 'Engine Oldsmolac911 Hotrodders' Lounge 50 01-12-2011 10:00 PM
1968-1969 olds 455 engine is this good and how can i id 1968olds455HO Engine 5 09-02-2009 11:53 AM
Vortec engine upgrade gb709 Engine 0 08-18-2008 09:39 PM
327 question adam15425 Engine 80 10-13-2004 09:22 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.