Another cam test and some adjustable gears

[David Buschur]

In your signature it says you have an EVO8 and if that's the case we have a cam for that already.

[Monochrome]

In your signature it says you have an EVO8 and if that's the case we have a cam for that already.

LOL

That car is long gone. Check out the blue txt.

[antilag_200]

dave, with your cams, do you have cam cards ?.. (Not for me or public information), but more along the lines, of keeping the centerline values the same in relation to the rest of the rotating assembly. ( I am sure you already know that, I am just thinking out loud so bare with me)

From my own independent "dialing in cams". I used the centerline method, with a dial indicator strapped at the retainer of the valve.

With a well know cam manufacturer, I was seeing 7 degree descripencies at the crank, from what their cam card told me. Either way, I am unfamiliar with how much you deck your blocks, or shave your cylinder heads . If they are untouched besides a clean up, then disregard every thing I just said.

[David Buschur]

Yes, I have cam cards. If you didn't use a solid lifter assembly in the head with the dial indicator you wasted your time dialing the cams in with a dial indicator. The blocks and heads are always decked but by a few thousanths of an inch, just to clean them off.

I'd say after this testing we can be certain that atleast the cams we have had ground are optimal at 0-0.

[antilag_200]

I used solid lifters inorder to remove any lash. In my situation the head and block were decked/shaved for clean up as well. So I figured that I would not have that much discrepancy from what the cam card indicated. I was sadly mistaken. Only two things come to my mind,

1) my method of using the centerline of lobe( I understand that ramp rates on either side of the lobe can be different) is wrong
2) the cam manufacturer product check is sub par ( dave u know what cams are in my car)

Good to know that your cams came in at 0, 0

just for reference here is a set up of how I did the solid lifters and dial indicator.



sorry to clutter your thread.

[David Buschur]

You are not cluttering my thread. Why is the probe from the dial indicator on the cam, and not really on the lobe even? It should be at the top of the valve. Good that you used a solid lifter in there

I do not remember what cams are in your car?

[antilag_200]

yeah that picture doesn't indicate where the dial indicator tip was supposed to be. it merelywas there to show how I attached the stand set up to the head. Basically I had the tip of the indicator on the top of the hat of the valve, in the same geometric plane, that the valve was in ( to the best of my ability).

cams in my car are those kelfords

I made a separate post on degreeing camshafts though . Hopefully we can get some good discussions in there .

[DerekEVO]

i had a set of comp 272's with a 2.3 and hta86. small cams for that setup i know. at 0-0 the car had NO topend power at all. when i changed the overlap ie. +2 -2 it did spool a little faster but no real gains up top and no real change in a/f. so i retarded the cam together ie -2 -2 and this time i could feel the power gain up top and the a/f went lean past 6000rpm but at the same time it did not go rich before 6k. so the way i see it i was picking up power past 6k without losses in airflow below 6k. so again i retarded the cams. this time -4 -4 same outcome. didnt go rich below 6k but went lean above 6k and again i could feel the topend power gain. so again i retarded them to -6 -6. again, same outcome. no change in a/f below
6k but going lean past 6k. after -4 -4 i was not adding as much fuel going to -6 -6 as i was going to -4 -4. what i am saying is from 0 0 to -6 -6 i saw a HUGE gain in topend power with little to no loss in lowend power. david, maybe you should try retading both cams and see how it does.

[David Buschur]

derek, your seat of the pants test and observations I won't dismiss, I'd prefer of course to see some dyno testing but the main thing is, IF you found that changing both cams by -6 was the best thing to do, I say the cams were ground incorrectly to begin with. No cam grinder in their right mind is going to leave a ton of power on the table with their grind, had the dowels simply been located in the correct spot then the cams would have been optimal straight up. Such is the case with our cams, install them straight up.

[DerekEVO]

there was no point in me taking it to the dyno since i knew the cams sucked anyway. i had them in hand and thats why i put them in the motor.
i was more or less pointing out an observation. no back to back dyno comparison by any means. i figured since you were the dyno man you might give it a shot. im not worried about it now that i have your BF272's going in, straight up! IF i can ever find time to put the motor back in that is..........

[Rogue]

yeah that picture doesn't indicate where the dial indicator tip was supposed to be. it merelywas there to show how I attached the stand set up to the head. Basically I had the tip of the indicator on the top of the hat of the valve, in the same geometric plane, that the valve was in ( to the best of my ability).

cams in my car are those kelfords

I made a separate post on degreeing camshafts though . Hopefully we can get some good discussions in there .

How off were your kelfords from their stock specs?

[antilag_200]

Rogue, on the intake side , it was off my 1 degree at the crank, on the exhaust side it was off by 7 degrees at the crank..

but remember this is not a one setting fits all type of thing, it all has to do with how much your block and head were decked. In my case, I don't know the exact values, of how much the head was shaved, and how much the block was decked. These could have been contributing factors to the cams not coming into check with what the cam card said it would be.

I DON'T work for kelford or have any affliation with them, hell for all I know, I could have degreed the cams incorrectly , so use the information that I provided at your own discretion. I hope that helps.

[Fourdoordsm]

there was no point in me taking it to the dyno since i knew the cams sucked anyway. i had them in hand and thats why i put them in the motor.
i was more or less pointing out an observation. no back to back dyno comparison by any means. i figured since you were the dyno man you might give it a shot. im not worried about it now that i have your BF272's going in, straight up! IF i can ever find time to put the motor back in that is..........

I know that the effects of having a 2.3 engine with the stock EVO cam gears has been discussed before, if not here on that other forum we all love to hate... it throws off cam timing by (if I remember correctly) half a tooth using the stock EVO cam gears rather than the cam gears from a 2.4 liter engine. That explains your problems with the cams when installed "strait up". It wasn't a problem with the cam dowel pins, it is a problem with using cam gears designed for a 2.0 liter.

Keith

[David Buschur]

fourdoordsm, he was running a 2.3, not a 2.4. 2 liter block with a 2.4 liter crank. In that case I do not think the stock cam gears are off. If however you use a 2.4 block with a 2.0 crank, making it a 2.1, the gears are off a 1/2 tooth each.

[Fourdoordsm]

fourdoordsm, he was running a 2.3, not a 2.4. 2 liter block with a 2.4 liter crank. In that case I do not think the stock cam gears are off. If however you use a 2.4 block with a 2.0 crank, making it a 2.1, the gears are off a 1/2 tooth each.

Damn, you are right! I remember reading about it long ago, just forgot it was associated with the 2.4 block, not associated with the 2.4 crank shaft.

Thanks,

Keith