Who'd a thought, another Cam thread! - 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> Hotrodding Basics
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2013, 08:55 PM
Sixshooter45's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lubbock, TX
Age: 28
Posts: 118
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 34
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Who'd a thought, another Cam thread!

Well I filled out a cam recommendation form on Howards Cams website and this is the Hyd Roller cam they recommended for my street application. I thought I would run it by the experts here in a new thread and see what y'all think of their pick. Duration numbers seemed pretty high to me, but I'm real green on all this stuff too.


http://m.summitracing.com/parts/hrs-110265-10


-Car will be roughly around 3200-3300 lbs when finished, and 99% of the time a pure street toy. Might go to the strip on rare occasion just for grins. Plan on running premium pump gas. 91 octane is as good as it gets here, although I am at about 3200' elevation.

-Engine is 388 stroker, AFR 195 heads, Forged flat tops, Performer RPM intake, Holley 750 dp. Compression by my calculations will be 10.6:1 or slightly higher.

- TH400 w/ 3000 stall. 3.73 gears with 275/60/15's (28")


As always, I appreciate the help!

Caleb

    Advertisement

Last edited by Sixshooter45; 06-01-2013 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Wrong link
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2013, 09:40 PM
vinniekq2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BC,Canada
Age: 56
Posts: 8,663
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 365
Thanked 862 Times in 824 Posts
would like to see 240 duration for a 383 with 195 AFRs. I dont think limiting your engine to 5500 RPM requires you to use good heads that are easily good for another 1000 RPM and a lot more HP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2013, 10:19 PM
Sixshooter45's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lubbock, TX
Age: 28
Posts: 118
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 34
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinniekq2 View Post
would like to see 240 duration for a 383 with 195 AFRs. I dont think limiting your engine to 5500 RPM requires you to use good heads that are easily good for another 1000 RPM and a lot more HP
That's a good point, it does sign off a little sooner than the others we have looked at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2013, 11:14 PM
vinniekq2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BC,Canada
Age: 56
Posts: 8,663
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 365
Thanked 862 Times in 824 Posts
if you use that 240 cam and solid lifters Im sure that 500 hp would be an average over an RPM range
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 12:14 AM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,321
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 839
Thanked 1,153 Times in 952 Posts
The cam that Howards recommended is no slouch, makes real pretty numbers.....When I can make at least 400 ft/lbs of torque @2000 rpm's on a street motor, I'm happy.
Installed 4 degrees retarded on these numbers....
Intake centerline angle 106
Exhaust centerline angle 114
Lobe separation angle 110
Intake opens (6.5) BTDC
Intake closes (46.5) ABDC
Exhaust opens (50.5) BBDC
Exhaust closes (10.5) ATDC

RPM....HP....TQ
2000...155...407
2500...203...426
3000...260...455
3500...324...487
4000...391...513
4500...453...529
5000...509...535
5500...540...516
6000...550...482
6500...547...542

When volumetric efficiency exceeds 100% and BMEP pressure exceeds 200, we're talking SERIOUS motor. A guy might want to begin paying attention to de-burring spark plug ground straps and indexing the plugs and just paying attention to the stuff that doesn't matter much at lower efficiencies. You don't want any sharp edges in the chamber anywhere that could cause pre-ignition.

Peak volumetric efficiency 101.6% @5000
Peak BMEP 210.5 lbs @5000

Not really much reason to use more cam. The very heavy juice roller lifters will begin lofting off the lobes at somewhere around 6200.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to techinspector1 For This Useful Post:
Sixshooter45 (06-02-2013)
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 07:36 AM
vinniekq2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BC,Canada
Age: 56
Posts: 8,663
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 365
Thanked 862 Times in 824 Posts
5500...540...516
6000...550...482
6500...547...542


seems to have a small error here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 01:35 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,321
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 839
Thanked 1,153 Times in 952 Posts
Thanks for catching that Vinnie.....

RPM....HP....TQ
2000...155...407
2500...203...426
3000...260...455
3500...324...487
4000...391...513
4500...453...529
5000...509...535
5500...540...516
6000...550...482
6500...547...442
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 02:20 PM
Sixshooter45's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lubbock, TX
Age: 28
Posts: 118
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 34
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Man that looks really good. Thank you Tech for running a Sim for me, I really do appreciate it.

Now, lets say I end up picking this cam. Would it be of any benefit for me to run a 1.6 rocker as opposed to a 1.5? I will be using a good quality full roller either way.

Caleb
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 03:20 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,321
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 839
Thanked 1,153 Times in 952 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixshooter45 View Post
Man that looks really good. Thank you Tech for running a Sim for me, I really do appreciate it.

Now, lets say I end up picking this cam. Would it be of any benefit for me to run a 1.6 rocker as opposed to a 1.5? I will be using a good quality full roller either way.

Caleb
According to my experience and in talking with others, I'm convinced that exchanging full roller rockers for sliding ball trunnion rockers will free-up a minimum of 20 horsepower just from the reduced friction. Engine oil temps will be lower also. A move from 1.5 to 1.6 will add only about 10-12 horsepower, so it's up to you whether or not the hydraulic intensity of the camshaft will be comfortable with the additional velocity and range afforded the valve.

In my opinion, I would use increased ratio rockers on a flat tappet cam, only if the cam featured a fairly low hydraulic intensity (56 or higher). (Subtract 0.050" tappet lift duration from advertised duration to find hydraulic intensity). I feel that using a fast rocker with a short cam ramp that's already at the edge is just asking for trouble, particularly on a street motor where you don't need to set a new National Record.

This is just my opinion. Feel free to use 1.6 with any hydraulic intensity that you see fit to use, particularly with a roller cam where the lifter can't cup up and destroy the lobe.

You are at an elevation of about 3200 ft. Power is affected to the tune of about a 3% reduction for each 1000 ft. Whatever power you end up with, like the 550 showing on the last Sim, multiply it times 0.904 to get a closer idea of the actual power the motor is producing at your elevation. (550 x .904 = 497). If you decide to take a run down to the beach, take along some fatter jets with you. The software of the DynoSim also rates the output at 60 degrees F., so expect variances in the power of the motor depending on air temperature also. Hotter air is less dense, less oxygen.

Last edited by techinspector1; 06-02-2013 at 03:37 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to techinspector1 For This Useful Post:
Sixshooter45 (06-02-2013)
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 03:50 PM
Sixshooter45's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lubbock, TX
Age: 28
Posts: 118
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 34
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1 View Post
According to my experience and in talking with others, I'm convinced that exchanging full roller rockers for sliding ball trunnion rockers will free-up a minimum of 20 horsepower just from the reduced friction. Engine oil temps will be lower also. A move from 1.5 to 1.6 will add only about 10-12 horsepower, so it's up to you whether or not the hydraulic intensity of the camshaft will be comfortable with the additional velocity and range afforded the valve.

In my opinion, I would use increased ratio rockers on a flat tappet cam, only if the cam featured a fairly low hydraulic intensity (56 or higher). (Subtract 0.050" tappet lift duration from advertised duration to find hydraulic intensity). I feel that using a fast rocker with a short cam ramp that's already at the edge is just asking for trouble, particularly on a street motor where you don't need to set a new National Record.

This is just my opinion. Feel free to use 1.6 with any hydraulic intensity that you see fit to use, particularly with a roller cam where the lifter can't cup up and destroy the lobe.

You are at an elevation of about 3200 ft. Power is affected to the tune of about a 3% reduction for each 1000 ft. Whatever power you end up with, like the 550 showing on the last Sim, multiply it times 0.904 to get a closer idea of the actual power the motor is producing at your elevation. (550 x .904 = 497). If you decide to take a run down to the beach, take along some fatter jets with you. The software of the DynoSim also rates the output at 60 degrees F., so expect variances in the power of the motor depending on air temperature also. Hotter air is less dense, less oxygen.



That all makes sense to me. And as for the dynosim numbers, I am just looking for a good baseline number, so a few HP one way or the other is not going to matter much to me. I am more concerned with the real world performance and driveability than I am telling somebody what the numbers are (which most people seem to highly inflate anyways!). However, the dynosims have been extremely helpful in this pick, and I thank you for taking the time to do them for me. I am really liking the numbers of the cam above. I figure if they recommend it, and the experts here sign off on it I probably can't go wrong!

As for the rockers, I have read the 1.6's can kill some low end torque, which I do not want to do. But if they have additional advantages as a whole over the 1.5's I would definitely run them. I guess what I'm getting at is "felt" power means more to me than what this engine would show if it was on a dyno. Although I have no idea if just a rocker change would even be noticeable to the SOTP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 03:59 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,321
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 839
Thanked 1,153 Times in 952 Posts
I don't think the SOTP dyno would ever pick up 12 hp, when dealing with a 500 hp motor.
Running full roller 1.5 rockers is a no-brainer, running 1.6 is a maybe.

This is my 10,000th post on Hotrodders.com.

Last edited by techinspector1; 06-02-2013 at 04:05 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2013, 04:08 PM
Sixshooter45's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lubbock, TX
Age: 28
Posts: 118
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 34
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1 View Post
I don't think the SOTP dyno would ever pick up 12 hp, when dealing with a 500 hp motor.
Running full roller 1.5 rockers is a no-brainer, running 1.6 is a maybe.

This is my 10,000th post on Hotrodders.com.
Good point there. And congratulations on the 10k, and thanks for reaching the milestone in my thread! lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:04 AM
Sixshooter45's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lubbock, TX
Age: 28
Posts: 118
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 34
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
On another note I'm starting to look into exhaust for this car as the engine should be installed in a few weeks. It looks like block huggers are what everyone is having to use on these cars with a V8 (1953 Chevy). Although I'm thinking I could possibly make a set of tri-five fenderwell headers work with some inner fender hacking or removal, I'm just worried I would run into issues as my car sits a little lower than stock because of the Mustang II suspension. As for the block huggers, how much power would I be sacrificing if I have to end up running these? I've been looking at the Sandersons if I went this route, although not sure on collector size of 1 3/4 or 1 7/8?

I would prefer to run the fenderwells and plumb them up to a full exhaust if possible, I'm just not sure if they will be easily doable or not, so that's why I'm curious on how much of a compromise I would be making by using huggers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2013, 03:17 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 13,321
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 839
Thanked 1,153 Times in 952 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixshooter45 View Post
On another note I'm starting to look into exhaust for this car as the engine should be installed in a few weeks. It looks like block huggers are what everyone is having to use on these cars with a V8 (1953 Chevy). Although I'm thinking I could possibly make a set of tri-five fenderwell headers work with some inner fender hacking or removal, I'm just worried I would run into issues as my car sits a little lower than stock because of the Mustang II suspension. As for the block huggers, how much power would I be sacrificing if I have to end up running these? I've been looking at the Sandersons if I went this route, although not sure on collector size of 1 3/4 or 1 7/8?

I would prefer to run the fenderwells and plumb them up to a full exhaust if possible, I'm just not sure if they will be easily doable or not, so that's why I'm curious on how much of a compromise I would be making by using huggers.
I would expect block huggers or other shorties to kill off ~50 hp. If you're gonna use shorties, then in my opinion, you'd be as well off to build a warmed-over 350 and be done with it.

I'm not building cars any more. Retired and tired. But when I was, there was nothing that I would allow to get in the way of making power. That's why God created the Sawzall and the cutting torch (gas axe).

Full-length, tuned fenderwell headers with either an "X" or "H" pipe before the mufflers would be my choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to techinspector1 For This Useful Post:
Sixshooter45 (06-03-2013)
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:11 PM
Sixshooter45's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lubbock, TX
Age: 28
Posts: 118
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 34
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1 View Post
I would expect block huggers or other shorties to kill off ~50 hp. If you're gonna use shorties, then in my opinion, you'd be as well off to build a warmed-over 350 and be done with it.

I'm not building cars any more. Retired and tired. But when I was, there was nothing that I would allow to get in the way of making power. That's why God created the Sawzall and the cutting torch (gas axe).

Full-length, tuned fenderwell headers with either an "X" or "H" pipe before the mufflers would be my choice.
I completely agree, it really makes no sense to build a stout high HP motor and then choke it down with crappy headers. From some research I have done some folks are running these on 49-54 chevy's like mine with no issues at all...


Small Block Chevy 1935-48 Fat Fenderwell Headers, Plain - Speedway Motors, America's Oldest Speed Shop


Only thing is, they have 1 5/8 primaries and oval ports, I'm just wondering if these would be kosher with the square port AFR heads or not? I was worried the primaries may be a little small and cover some of the exhaust port but I have no idea. Any ideas?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Hotrodding Basics 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:
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
another "help me choose a cam" thread - a saga itstorque Engine 31 10-12-2011 12:23 PM
Thought I had seen everything, but... Irelands child Off-Topic 14 04-15-2011 06:36 AM
Thought someone would like this. Jsup Off-Topic 2 03-12-2010 08:11 AM
Anoter cam selection thread! Bull_81073 Engine 1 03-14-2008 12:07 AM
Thought you might like to see this Ripped Body - Exterior 2 02-15-2008 08:25 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 AM.


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.