4.9 cam profile- stock vs. Delta
Topic started by: Taijiguy, Date: 05-29-2009 12:34 PM
Original thread: http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Archive-000001/HTML/20130314-2-100898.html


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #1, 05-29-2009 12:34 PM
      I just got off the phone with Ken at Delta asking about their cam for the 4.9. He cited the specs for their cam to be 205/480 for both int and exh. with 112 lobe centers. Yet the specs I've seen for stock show 278 and 274 degrees int/exh. What am I missin' here? Did he give me the wrong specs or are what? Can anyone confirm the specs on the Delta cam or the stock cam?

Thanks.


Isolde MSG #2, 05-29-2009 02:37 PM
      He gave you duration at .050", whereas the other specs are duration at around .004". That Delta cam is very mild.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #3, 05-29-2009 03:38 PM
      Well if the specs are even close, the lift is a lot better than stock, but the duration is a bit confusing.

project34 MSG #4, 05-29-2009 10:21 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
Well if the specs are even close, the lift is a lot better than stock, but the duration is a bit confusing.

The duration figures are a bit confusing to you partly because they involve an apples-to-orange comparison that is not particularly useful.

The 205o duration figure that Delta Cams quoted you was almost certainly measured at the industry-standard 0.050" lift. That standard was widely adapted to better facilitate more meaningful comparisons between different cams, something that "advertised duration" (usually a much larger duration number) doesn't readily permit.

Accordingly, for a meaningful comparison, you might try asking Delta Cams what the "duration at 0.050" lift" is for the stock 4.9L cam. I gather they regrind stock cams, so I'd think they'd certainly know the answer to that question. If you find out, please post those numbers in your thread here. OK?

The stock intake and exhaust duration figures you quoted, 278o and 274o, respectively, are almost certainly those less useful "advertised duration" numbers, because if those actually were durations measured at 0.050" lift, the car would be completely unstreetable with a cam like that, and probably wouldn't even do a good job of accelerating from a stoplight to cross an intersection. That, of course, wouldn't make any sense for an engine that was used to power Cadillacs.

By the way, you stated "the lift is a lot better than stock." Out of curiosity, what is the stock cam's lift?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #5, 05-29-2009 10:44 PM
      I have those numbers at my office- I'll check them on Monday and bump this thread then. I'll call Delta then as well and report what they say.

stickpony MSG #6, 05-31-2009 12:58 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

The duration figures are a bit confusing to you partly because they involve an apples-to-orange comparison that is not particularly useful.

The 205o duration figure that Delta Cams quoted you was almost certainly measured at the industry-standard 0.050" lift. That standard was widely adapted to better facilitate more meaningful comparisons between different cams, something that "advertised duration" (usually a much larger duration number) doesn't readily permit.

Accordingly, for a meaningful comparison, you might try asking Delta Cams what the "duration at 0.050" lift" is for the stock 4.9L cam. I gather they regrind stock cams, so I'd think they'd certainly know the answer to that question. If you find out, please post those numbers in your thread here. OK?

The stock intake and exhaust duration figures you quoted, 278o and 274o, respectively, are almost certainly those less useful "advertised duration" numbers, because if those actually were durations measured at 0.050" lift, the car would be completely unstreetable with a cam like that, and probably wouldn't even do a good job of accelerating from a stoplight to cross an intersection. That, of course, wouldn't make any sense for an engine that was used to power Cadillacs.

By the way, you stated "the lift is a lot better than stock." Out of curiosity, what is the stock cam's lift?


the stock cam is .384 lift.. that delta cam regrind will get you about 20-25HP over stock, but more importantly, the powerband shifts up a bit, so you can generate more power up top. IMO, the best mod you can make is porting and polishing the heads, because the 4.9L heads in stock form are poor breathing heads. if you cam it, P&P the heads too, it makes a big difference.


Isolde MSG #7, 06-01-2009 06:03 PM
      That Delta cam is still gonna be out of breath by 5000 rpm, even with ported heads. Don't polish the intake ports, especially not the short-turns.

Dizzixx (dizzixx@gmail.com) MSG #8, 06-01-2009 09:07 PM
      I really dont know much about port and polish or much about building the internals in general. Could you explain why you would not want to polish the intake?

Isolde MSG #9, 06-02-2009 11:16 AM
      Polishing the intake ports around the sjhort-turn basically turns it into a ski jump, the air hits the far side of the port rather than making the turn. If you skiied down a real ski jump, but the last few feet had sand, you'd drop right down, which is what we want the air to do. You do want the short turn to have a nice radius, but not be polished. The whole point of porting is to get the air into the cylinders, then back out. Dizzixx, if you ever want to pursue this, PM me, I'm in your valley all the time, and I used to do the porting for RPM machine in Sandy, when they had the new SuperFlow 1020 flowbench. RPM is defunct now.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #10, 06-02-2009 12:21 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


the stock cam is .384 lift.. that delta cam regrind will get you about 20-25HP over stock, but more importantly, the powerband shifts up a bit, so you can generate more power up top. IMO, the best mod you can make is porting and polishing the heads, because the 4.9L heads in stock form are poor breathing heads. if you cam it, P&P the heads too, it makes a big difference.


Oh balls. Just when I was starting to think I would just leave it stock for now. I mean, I was going to put an Allante intake on it, and will fabricate headers, but other than that I was just going to leave the innards alone. Dang it. Although, the rockers had already been removed, so I figured I would port the heads anyway. Guess I'll order the cam....

Hear that creaking sound? It's me opening my wallet.....look out for the dust....


project34 MSG #11, 06-02-2009 10:14 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
...I was going to put an Allante intake on it, and will fabricate headers, but other than that I was just going to leave the innards alone. Dang it. Although, the rockers had already been removed, so I figured I would port the heads anyway. Guess I'll order the cam....

That sounds like you might have the makings of an interesting build thread titled, "Mild 4.9L Performance Build."


In the meantime, I hope you don't forget to post the durations at 0.050" lift of both the stock and the Delta 4.9L cams, as well as their lifts:

 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
I have those numbers at my office- I'll check them on Monday and bump this thread then. I'll call Delta then as well and report what they say.




Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #12, 06-03-2009 12:46 PM
      Welp, just took the plunge. I actually ordered a cam that's slightly beefier than the first one we had talked about. This cam has .455" lift at the valve, with 215 deg duration @.050". He said this cam will require reprogramming of the PROM which I expected I would do anyway.

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #13, 06-03-2009 11:30 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:

That Delta cam is still gonna be out of breath by 5000 rpm, even with ported heads. Don't polish the intake ports, especially not the short-turns.


Not out of breath but deffinately short on it. Got this cam myself along with porting (not polished, just opened up). With the 4.9 though I don't expect it to rev. It makes power NOW, not once the rpm's get up there. Just the way I like it.

There is quite a bit of material that can be removed during the porting too.

 
quote
Originally posted by Dizzixx:

I really dont know much about port and polish or much about building the internals in general. Could you explain why you would not want to polish the intake?


Short answer. Smoother airflow and more of it getting into the cylinders.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 06-03-2009).]

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #14, 06-03-2009 11:39 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

Welp, just took the plunge. I actually ordered a cam that's slightly beefier than the first one we had talked about. This cam has .455" lift at the valve, with 215 deg duration @.050". He said this cam will require reprogramming of the PROM which I expected I would do anyway.


A must read for a bigger cam...
http://www.fieroaddiction.com/caddy49h.html

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 06-03-2009).]

Isolde MSG #15, 06-04-2009 12:57 PM
      That 215 cam should really help the mid-range, yet isn't TOO big for unported heads, it will definitely like good porting.

project34 MSG #16, 06-06-2009 03:15 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:
the stock cam is .384 lift.

 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
I just got off the phone with Ken at Delta asking about their cam for the 4.9. He cited the specs for their cam to be 205/480 for both int and exh.

 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
I actually ordered a cam that's slightly beefier than the first one we had talked about. This cam has .455" lift at the valve, with 215 deg duration @.050".

Using the numbers cited in the above quotes, I pieced together the table below for your benefit, Taijiguy:
code:

Stock Cam 1st Delta Cam 2nd Delta Cam
Int/Exh Duration @ 0.050" ??? 205 215
Lift - Int/Exh .384" .480" .455"

That table hopefully will make it easier to see that something doesn't look right with those cam specs.


Here's why:

Typically, a cam for a specific engine which has a longer duration also is a cam with a higher lift. If someone knows the stock 4.9 cam's (presumably lesser) actual duration so that I can complete the above table, that probably would be helpful in illustrating this principle.

However, according to the comments quoted above, the 2nd Delta cam, with its 5% greater duration than the 1st Delta cam (215o at 0.050" instead of 205o), for some reason supposedly has 5% less lift (.455" versus .480"). That just doesn't seem to make any sense.


Consider also the cam advice offered in the link Fieroseverywhere posted in regard to how the magnitrude of a cam's increased valve lift can result in "several other required modifications" with a 4.9L. Given that caveat, it might well behoove you to be certain of the duration and lift specs for the Delta cam you mentioned that you purchased, especially since, with one cam's longer duration but reportedly shorter lift, those Delta cams' specs which you were given just appear to be suspect.


You're better off knowing the correct duration and lift figures, and those don't appear to be it.

Anyway, I hope this helps you out with your 4.9L cam project, Taijiguy.



stickpony MSG #17, 06-06-2009 11:04 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere:


A must read for a bigger cam...
http://www.fieroaddiction.com/caddy49h.html



the only thing that confuses me with Jon Lagler's info on his fiero addiction page about the cam, is the fact tha he states: "The stock valve springs will coil bind at 1.3125", or .4175" cam lift. The spring retainers will also contact the valve seals at about .435" lift",

This makes no sense at all, since Delta sells a camshaft with .480 lift and it will fit the 4.9L with no mods...

can anybody explain to me why this would be? perhaps i just dont understand cam dynamics


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #18, 06-07-2009 12:06 PM
      To be honest, I decided to buy the cam Ken suggested rather impulsively. I told him my intentions, which were to have the heads shaved about .050", as well as have the prom reprogrammed. I also intend to fabricate a set of headers and run the Allante intake. After telling him all that he suggested the second cam would probably be a better choice as it will require the reprogramming, where the the first grind will run with the stock programming. The price was the same so there wasn't really incentive for him to lie to me about it, and Delta seems to have a pretty good reputation, so I pretty much just went with his recommendation. Aside from a custom grind, there isn't a lot of options for this motor. Also, I'm not exactly going "all out", but rather just looking to beef up the specs a bit and squeeze a bit more power from it while keeping it streetable, Given those two things, I didn't see a need to be too picky.

project34 MSG #19, 06-07-2009 12:23 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:
the only thing that confuses me with Jon Lagler's info on his fiero addiction page about the cam, is the fact tha he states: "The stock valve springs will coil bind at 1.3125", or .4175" cam lift. The spring retainers will also contact the valve seals at about .435" lift",

This makes no sense at all, since Delta sells a camshaft with .480 lift and it will fit the 4.9L with no mods...

can anybody explain to me why this would be? perhaps i just dont understand cam dynamics

I don't understand the reason for that apparent discrepancy either, and your question certainly seems a straightforward one to me.

However, if the only source for your information is Delta Cams, that could concern me because of the odd Delta cam specs Taijiguy apparently was quoted by them: As shown in the table I'd created in my previous post, of two 4.9L Delta cams, the one with the longer duration supposedly had the shorter lift. That doesn't make much sense.


I don't see any particular reason why a cam manufacturer theoretically couldn't purposefully design two cams that way, but it would be odd.

The more typical pattern is that in any particular "family" of cams designed by a cam manufacturer for a specific engine, the ratio of a cam's lift to its duration is roughly constant. Said differently, if within a family of cams for a specific engine, when duration is increased by X%, lift typically also is increased by roughly that same X%. Thus, if either Delta Cams (or Taijiguy) inadvertently had transposed the lift specs of the two Delta cams, correcting that error then would yield virtually identical lift-to-duration ratios of 2.22 and 2.23 (versus the current, somewhat questionable lift-to-duration ratios which, if derived from the cam specs quoted in the above table, would be noticeably more disparate, 2.34 and 2.12, respectively).

Between that apparent discrepancy in the Delta cams' specs, and the one you just mentioned, stickpony, this 4.9L cam project seems to be getting more and more confusing, so hopefully we'll get to the bottom of this soon.




Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #20, 06-07-2009 10:11 PM
      As I said before, I'll post the specs as cited on the grind sheet once my cam arrives. I don't put it beyond my ability to screw up and might have either misunderstood him or jotted it down wrong. Frankly, we were both pretty busy at the time, and had already mostly decided I was just going to take his advice on the cam anyway.

Isolde MSG #21, 06-08-2009 12:48 PM
      To answer Project34, while I'm not saying anything you typed is flat wrong, I am saying I've seen the exceptions to the "rules" and have pursued the whys and wherefores. A lobe with 205 duration and .480" lift is obviously more aggressive, with a greater rate-of lift, or intensity, than a lobe with 215 duration and .455" lift, assuming none of those numbers are typo's, either from the OP or Delta. However, more intense lobes are your enemy for high rpm with hydraulic lifters, even though this 4.9 won't be seeing high rpm. And with the elevated compression of milled heads, I too would increase the duration.

project34 MSG #22, 06-08-2009 09:15 PM
      Oh, I agree with that increased duration recommendation.

Also, there are always exceptions, just like there are some cams for turbocharged engines which have more duration on the intake than on the exhaust, unlike the typical cam for a normally aspirated engine. That is why I'm curious to learn the actual specs for Taijiguy's new Delta cam, and hopefully, the duration at 0.050" lift of the stock 4.9L cam as well.

My guess is that whatever the correct duration and lift numbers for Taijiguy's new Delta cam turn out to be, they'll probably represent healthy, welcome increases over the duration and lift of his stock 4.9L cam.


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #23, 06-09-2009 11:10 AM
      Something that I didn't think of...this cam is supposed to be a simple drop-in cam. I believe the intent is to provide better performance without having to do extensive work to the valve train or the heads. Plus, with additional lift you *are* in effect increasing the duration in a way. But what occured to me is that being this is supposed to be a drop-in cam, that by increasing lift and duration, you run the risk of the valves hitting the pistonsI don't know what the clearance is on this motor, but this point was made in this post from another member who built a 4.9 : http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...L/061613-3.html#p102

I don't know this as a fact, but it certainly would explain the discrepancy and why the duration would be shorter on a cam with greater lift. There's a lot of information on these cams in that thread, it's just sort of spread out some. Still waiting on the cam to arrive...will post the specs when it does.


Isolde MSG #24, 06-09-2009 12:22 PM
      Bear in mind that top dead center is not when the valves get closest to the pistons. But those specs are still so mild that clearance shouldn't be an issue with un-shaved heads. The greater likelihood is a possible need to cut down the valve guides to maintain adequate retainer to seal clearance. Stock rocker arms should have long enough slots. I'd choose valvesprings with around 75 pounds on the seat. You just don't need much more.

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #25, 06-09-2009 02:34 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:
I'd choose valvesprings with around 75 pounds on the seat. You just don't need much more.


Unfortunately with the 4.9 "choosing" another set of springs is not an easy task. I have yet to find anything appropriate that will fit without modification to the spring seat. There are choices out there if you can do (or have done) a bit of work on the heads.


Isolde MSG #26, 06-09-2009 04:54 PM
      Wasn't the OP gonna have them milled 0.050"? The shop that does that can do the spring seats.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #27, 06-09-2009 05:02 PM
      I was/am having them shaved. Don't know if the springs will need to be addressed or not. The guy at Delta said the stock springs should be OK. We all know how that goes though...

BillS (wspohn4@aol.com) MSG #28, 06-09-2009 05:30 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

Oh, I agree with that increased duration recommendation.

Also, there are always exceptions, just like there are some cams for turbocharged engines which have more duration on the intake than on the exhaust, unlike the typical cam for a normally aspirated engine.


Many also have greatly reduced overlap - some almost to zero when measured at .050", the point being to avoid just sending the charge right back out the exhaust pipe, which does not much for power and even less for emissions. It is a mistake (often made) when people choose a cam profile for a turbo application based on non-turbo grinds.

Be aware that there is only so much you can do with nothing but a cam change. These engines are almost as stifled by head design as our V6s are, and without serious modification, you aren't going to make 6000 RPM zingers out of them. But then with the torque they produce, you don't really need to. Think of them as a bigger and much torquier Iron Puke except that it won't spread it's guts across the roadway of you ask it to work hard. ;-)



scrabblegod (gene@scrabblegod.com) MSG #29, 06-09-2009 07:54 PM
      My 4.9 has the largest cam he was able to grind.
Advertised duration: 282 intake/282 exhaust
Duration at .050 in. cam lift: 220 intake/220 exhaust
Gross valve lift: .498 in. intake/.498 exhaust
Lobe separation: 110 degrees
Peak horsepower rpm: 5,500
Peak torque rpm: 2,500

I am running heads shaved .050 with some port cleanup and matching, and have never had a problem with piston valve contact. I have run it up to 6200rpm, but there is no need to go that high, as there is no power to be had there.

This is NOT a drop in cam. It required machining of the valve seats and guides. I am using a late model chevy V-8 valve spring and retainers. I am not sure what they are, as I have misplaced my notes, though I am sure my cyl head guy will remember. I am running much more seat and open spring pressure, and I am using the Allante/Export steel rocker bridges to avoid pulling the rocker pivot bolts out of the aluminum. There is no valve float with this setup ( there was some with the stock engine and a higher rev limit). With this cam, you will need some longer pushrods, even with the heads shaved. I also elongated the slots on the rockers to prevent them binding on the pivots at full lift.


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #30, 06-09-2009 09:17 PM
      If that cam is one of their standard grinds, then it's the same one I'm getting. It makes sense that my numbers above would be off, as I think he was giving me lift at 1.5:1 rather than 1.6:1 And yes I've ordered the steel supports just because I don't want to mess with the aluminum ones...I've just seen too much bad news around them.

Elongating the slots on the rockers is really planning ahead.



project34 MSG #31, 06-09-2009 10:55 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
Something that I didn't think of...this cam is supposed to be a simple drop-in cam. I believe the intent is to provide better performance without having to do extensive work to the valve train or the heads. Plus, with additional lift you *are* in effect increasing the duration in a way. But what occured to me is that being this is supposed to be a drop-in cam, that by increasing lift and duration, you run the risk of the valves hitting the pistonsI don't know what the clearance is on this motor, but this point was made in this post from another member who built a 4.9 : http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...L/061613-3.html#p102

I don't know this as a fact, but it certainly would explain the discrepancy and why the duration would be shorter on a cam with greater lift. There's a lot of information on these cams in that thread, it's just sort of spread out some. Still waiting on the cam to arrive...will post the specs when it does.

There is a lot of information on 4.9L cams in that thread whose link you posted. Thanks.

By the way, regarding an issue that scrabblegod briefly mentioned, although I don't know if you saw them in that somewhat lengthy, multi-page thread, there also are a couple of caveats there re pushrod length (of all things):

 
quote
Originally posted by GT:
I actually have more valvetrain noise in my engine than I feel comfortable with. I called Bud, and in his usual laid back manner he gently reminded me that he had asked me last year if I had used longer pushrods. I had told him no several times because Delta insists that my cam is a drop in. Bud laughed at me (in a nice way) and gave me a Competition Cams part number for pushrods that are .060" longer and won't flex (7823-16) and told me to give them a try. So I ordered a set. They're less than $50.00 from Summit.

So then I called Delta and asked if the "drop-in" cam ever needs longer pushrods. Now he says,"yeah on some engines you'll need longer pushrods depending on different factors. Usually about .060" longer." And I asked him if they knew about this. He said they knew it, but that not all 4.9's require longer pushrods.

Sheesh...

....I'll let you guys know what happens when I put in my new pushrods.

 
quote
Originally posted by GT:
Just an update on the pushrods. I installed the new pushrods last Saturday and it definitely made the valvetrain much quieter. I'd recommend them to anyone whose doing the cam swap. Bud said he puts them on all the 4.9's that he modifies the valvetrain on.

I'm sure the 4.9L still is the easiest V8 swap there is, but the cam and pushrod length issues associated with this swap suggest it may not be quite as easy and straightforward a "drop-in" as I'd once thought.

In any event, although I think your ride will be great fun when you're done with it, I wanted to ensure you're quite aware of this "longer pushrods" issue, Taijiguy.


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #32, 06-09-2009 11:04 PM
      Yup, I am.

i have the part number written down with all my other documentation and research..of which there is a LOT!


stickpony MSG #33, 06-10-2009 10:55 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by scrabblegod:

My 4.9 has the largest cam he was able to grind.
Advertised duration: 282 intake/282 exhaust
Duration at .050 in. cam lift: 220 intake/220 exhaust
Gross valve lift: .498 in. intake/.498 exhaust
Lobe separation: 110 degrees
Peak horsepower rpm: 5,500
Peak torque rpm: 2,500

I am running heads shaved .050 with some port cleanup and matching, and have never had a problem with piston valve contact. I have run it up to 6200rpm, but there is no need to go that high, as there is no power to be had there.

This is NOT a drop in cam. It required machining of the valve seats and guides. I am using a late model chevy V-8 valve spring and retainers. I am not sure what they are, as I have misplaced my notes, though I am sure my cyl head guy will remember. I am running much more seat and open spring pressure, and I am using the Allante/Export steel rocker bridges to avoid pulling the rocker pivot bolts out of the aluminum. There is no valve float with this setup ( there was some with the stock engine and a higher rev limit). With this cam, you will need some longer pushrods, even with the heads shaved. I also elongated the slots on the rockers to prevent them binding on the pivots at full lift.



scrabblegod, that looks identical to the E303 mustang cam profile. Is there any significant lope at idle with that cam's duration? which computer are you running with it and did you get it tuned? i assume you are using the stock rockers since you slotted the fulcrum? i have an allante engine that has been sitting in my garage, and i was thinking about doing the same mods to it, but with the addition of larger intake valves and a port and polish. it has somewhat of a unique valvetrain too, even for an allante engine. Bud Aldeman said it was one of a very limited addition valvetrains sold with '91 allante engines. here's pics for everyone to analyze:









[This message has been edited by stickpony (edited 06-10-2009).]

Isolde MSG #34, 06-10-2009 11:07 AM
      The E303 cam does not make peak torque at 2500 rpm in any application, and in a 5.0 with AFR heads, the torque peaks up around 4500 rpm. But the torque is plenty driveable from 1000 rpm up in first gear with a manual trans, and the E303 likes to cruise at 1900+ rpm, which is fine for most Fiero gearing choices. If you try to run the E303 below 1900 rpm in top gear, it tends to give a sensation called "surge" It's not a cam I regret having tried, nor do I have any complaints, but there are better grinds available. For an E303 with 1.6:1 rockers, a 90# spring is adequate for 5500 rpm.

stickpony MSG #35, 06-10-2009 11:26 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:

The E303 cam does not make peak torque at 2500 rpm in any application, and in a 5.0 with AFR heads, the torque peaks up around 4500 rpm. But the torque is plenty driveable from 1000 rpm up in first gear with a manual trans, and the E303 likes to cruise at 1900+ rpm, which is fine for most Fiero gearing choices. If you try to run the E303 below 1900 rpm in top gear, it tends to give a sensation called "surge" It's not a cam I regret having tried, nor do I have any complaints, but there are better grinds available. For an E303 with 1.6:1 rockers, a 90# spring is adequate for 5500 rpm.


strange... that information is also on jon lagler's site.. looks liek he used the same cam.

assuming we can solve the breathing problems of the 4.9L heads, or most of them, with a P&P and larger intake valves, allante intake, etc.., what cam profile would you recommend, Isolde, with a 6000-6200 rpm redline in mind?

[This message has been edited by stickpony (edited 06-10-2009).]

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #36, 06-11-2009 11:29 AM
      I've been doing some research into the possible shorter duration of the cam I ordered (which arrives today so I can verify it's actual specs) but it seems higher lift and shorter duration is a pretty common practice in cams recently. http://www.chevyhiperforman...nstalled_height.html

It would seem that lift is more important than duration, and given this is a roller cam, it can handle some serious ramp, so the shorter duration may not be that big of a deal. I *am* anxious to get this thing so i can finally figure out what I'm getting!


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #37, 06-11-2009 01:42 PM
      Well OF COURSE the cam arrives: no grind sheet. Shoulda known. So I sent an email to Delta asking for the specs..hopefully they'll send me something soon.

Isolde MSG #38, 06-11-2009 01:52 PM
      You're gonna be out of breath by 6000 rpm due to the heads, even if you go full-race on everything. The heads just don't have that much potential. If you want to be pulling that kind of rpm, the 4.9 isn't it. The E303 grind is as big as you would want in a true daily driver. Go ahead and finish it as you are, then drive it. If you then want more, then you can either add boost, or swap to a SBC V*, or a N*, or an LS4. You can be fast without high rpm, and rpm, not HP, is what kills most older engine designs. The 4.9 qualifies. You're well on course to make the most of your 4.9 within what's practical. You're already this far, with parts and research, so keep going.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #39, 06-11-2009 02:04 PM
      I'd still like to know what the chamber volume is. I can't find that data ANYWHERE.

Isolde MSG #40, 06-11-2009 04:33 PM
      I don't have it, but the shop that cuts them .050" should be able to cc them afterward. You should go up at least half a ratio in compression no more than one whole ratio, so if it had 9.0:1, you should end up somewhere between 9.5:1-10.0:1. Getting them cc'd afterwards will help if you want to know your final compression.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #41, 06-11-2009 04:41 PM
      I actually want to know before I have them shaved so I know how much to have them take off to get to 10-10.5:1 rather then just having them take .050" and see where I end up. If I knew the volume I could calculate how much to remove. I could use the Plexiglas plate with colored water/alcohol method to measure it, but that's kind of a pita. Especially if I can find it online someplace....but that isn't looking good so far. I suspect I'm going to end up measuring it.

stickpony MSG #42, 06-11-2009 08:34 PM
      found the stock cam specs, but alas, nothing on the duration @.050 lift...

Camshaft Timing (with ramp @ .004" lift)
Intake opens 21 deg BTDC
Intake closes 257 deg ATDC
Exhaust opens 245 deg BTDC
Exhaust closes 29 deg ATDC
Intake lift (at valve) 9.75mm (.384")
Exhaust lift (at valve) 10.06mm (.396")
Intake duration 278 deg
Exhaust duration 274 deg
Overlap 49 deg

anyways.. is the e303 mustang cam profile the MAX cam grind that can be achieved for a 4.9L camshaft? or can one go higher on the lift with the stock cam?

[This message has been edited by stickpony (edited 06-11-2009).]

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #43, 06-11-2009 09:02 PM
      I believe they're limited by the fact that they regrind the stock cam.

As it turns out, the specs I listed earlier are the ones for this cam

215 @ .050/ 455 valve lift w 1.6:1 111 deg lobe separation int/exh are identical

Not exactly a hardcore cam, but has a lot better lift than stock.


stickpony MSG #44, 06-11-2009 09:41 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

I believe they're limited by the fact that they regrind the stock cam.

As it turns out, the specs I listed earlier are the ones for this cam

215 @ .050/ 455 valve lift w 1.6:1 111 deg lobe separation int/exh are identical

Not exactly a hardcore cam, but has a lot better lift than stock.


does anybody know what the maxgrind is on a stock cam?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #45, 06-11-2009 10:05 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


does anybody know what the maxgrind is on a stock cam?


From previous page:

 
quote
Originally posted by scrabblegod:

My 4.9 has the largest cam he was able to grind.
Advertised duration: 282 intake/282 exhaust
Duration at .050 in. cam lift: 220 intake/220 exhaust
Gross valve lift: .498 in. intake/.498 exhaust
Lobe separation: 110 degrees
Peak horsepower rpm: 5,500
Peak torque rpm: 2,500



scrabblegod (gene@scrabblegod.com) MSG #46, 06-11-2009 11:18 PM
      About .502 is the most you can get. On mine now, the base circles are almost flat with the cam shaft.

Gene


stickpony MSG #47, 06-11-2009 11:57 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by scrabblegod:

About .502 is the most you can get. On mine now, the base circles are almost flat with the cam shaft.

Gene


nice... so why did you stop at .498? just curious


Isolde MSG #48, 06-12-2009 09:58 AM
      No sense in splitting hairs, the E303 grind is close enough, and is easy to copy. To have the same duration but another .006" lift is an entirely new lobe. The E303 grind is well-proven on the Spintron, too. But even if you did a new lobe, it wouldn't gain you anything, as you're at peak lift for only about 4 degrees.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #49, 06-12-2009 10:38 AM
      Anyone have any idea what the flow rate of the Allante throttle body is? I'm estimating about 550-600 cfm...I'm trying to do a Desktop Dyno run on this cam. First time thoruhg it showed some pretty high numbers...seems a bit unrealistic....so I'm trying to fine tune some of the specs.

Edit: These are screen of the Desktop Dyno estimates, The first is with the cam as it is with no degree changes:



This is an optimized run that made changes to cam timing, but left cam lift alone:



I'm pretty surprised by these numbers. Anyone see something i missed or any glaring mistakes in specs???

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 06-12-2009).]

stickpony MSG #50, 06-12-2009 12:46 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

Anyone have any idea what the flow rate of the Allante throttle body is? I'm estimating about 550-600 cfm...I'm trying to do a Desktop Dyno run on this cam. First time thoruhg it showed some pretty high numbers...seems a bit unrealistic....so I'm trying to fine tune some of the specs.

Edit: These are screen of the Desktop Dyno estimates, The first is with the cam as it is with no degree changes:



This is an optimized run that made changes to cam timing, but left cam lift alone:



I'm pretty surprised by these numbers. Anyone see something i missed or any glaring mistakes in specs???



thats a good question. the allante intake setup adds 20 HP to a stock 4.5L PFI, which is just a 4.9L destroked essentially, and yet it has a two-stage throttle body, where the primary port, which is smaller, opens before the secondary port. if i am not mistaken, the throttle bores on the 4.9L are larger on the regualr 4.5L PFI and 4.9L engines both, but somehow the allante gets a much better result.


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #51, 06-12-2009 01:04 PM
      I'll tell ya what, I'm amazed at the difference the cam actually makes. The specs don't LOOK all that impressive, but I modified the cam specs to something closer to stock (not exact as the specs available on the stock cam are at .040....when I did that, the horsepower/torque dropped right down to almost absolute advertised stock ratings. I changed the intake and exhaust system specs along with the compression ratio and it popped the torque up close to its advertised rating. As amazing as it seems, it would appear that barring any completely out-there mistakes, the numbers for the build could be very close. I'm REALLY amazed given the seemingly mild nature of the cam, but it really did make a HUGE difference.

stickpony MSG #52, 06-12-2009 07:57 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

I'll tell ya what, I'm amazed at the difference the cam actually makes. The specs don't LOOK all that impressive, but I modified the cam specs to something closer to stock (not exact as the specs available on the stock cam are at .040....when I did that, the horsepower/torque dropped right down to almost absolute advertised stock ratings. I changed the intake and exhaust system specs along with the compression ratio and it popped the torque up close to its advertised rating. As amazing as it seems, it would appear that barring any completely out-there mistakes, the numbers for the build could be very close. I'm REALLY amazed given the seemingly mild nature of the cam, but it really did make a HUGE difference.


can you post the resultant picture graph using 10.5:1 compression and utilizing the e303 mustang camgrind with .498 lift? actually, if you could post the stock 4.9L cam graph, the .455 lift delta cam graph, the .480 lift delta cam graph, and the e303 .498 lift cam graph. i am eager to see the results of all three given that all other engine variables remain the same.

thanks


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #53, 06-12-2009 08:01 PM
      The problem is I need all the very specific information on the cams. I can't really even do the stock cam accurately as I can only find specs a .040, which throws the valve opening positions WAY off. I can get a rough estimate but that's about all. I would need all the very specific data on the cams you're asking about. Take a look at the runs I posted and you'll see what it asks for. The program can make *some* assumptions, but of course they make the results a bit less reliable.

stickpony MSG #54, 06-12-2009 08:09 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

The problem is I need all the very specific information on the cams. I can't really even do the stock cam accurately as I can only find specs a .040, which throws the valve opening positions WAY off. I can get a rough estimate but that's about all. I would need all the very specific data on the cams you're asking about. Take a look at the runs I posted and you'll see what it asks for. The program can make *some* assumptions, but of course they make the results a bit less reliable.


ok.. i guess we dont really need the stock cam, since we know what performance it makes...

are the advertised specs for the e303 cam enough to plug into yoru program and yield result to compare to the 480 and the 455 cams?

here they are again:

Advertised duration: 282 intake/282 exhaust
Duration at .050 in. cam lift: 220 intake/220 exhaust
Gross valve lift: .498 in. intake/.498 exhaust
Lobe separation: 110 degrees
Peak horsepower rpm: 5,500
Peak torque rpm: 2,500



Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #55, 06-12-2009 08:32 PM
      I need valve opening and closing positions IVO/IVC EVO/EVC lobe centers and overalap would also help.

Also, how do you want the heads configured,(stock, ported) and what kind of flow for the throttle body in CFM, and exhaust type.


stickpony MSG #56, 06-12-2009 08:47 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

I need valve opening and closing positions IVO/IVC EVO/EVC lobe centers and overalap would also help.

Also, how do you want the heads configured,(stock, ported) and what kind of flow for the throttle body in CFM, and exhaust type.


unfortunately i dont have the rest of those cam specs, perhaps scrabblegod can chime in here and give them to us from his build sheet?

just use the same throttle body cfm you used for the other tests. stock exhaust, stock heads.
another interesting anecdote... for those of you turboing a 4.9L, the allante has the same bore piston, but has only 9.0:1 compression. its almost adviseable to start with an allante engine for turbo apps, since it revvs more freely because of the shorter stroke, it has 0.5:1 lower compression, AND, it has a long runner tuned intake. sure it has less displacement, and if that is THAT big of a deal, you can swap in a 4.9L crank.

[This message has been edited by stickpony (edited 06-12-2009).]

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #57, 06-12-2009 08:57 PM
      Found it online: http://www.fordracingparts....sp?PartKeyField=1329

project34 MSG #58, 06-12-2009 09:04 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
I'm pretty surprised by these numbers. Anyone see something i missed or any glaring mistakes in specs???

Your inputs are difficult for me to see on my monitor, but the few basics that I can see (e.g., 215o duration and 0.455" lift) obviously are correct. My guess, based on the advice offered in another thread dealing with Desktop Dyno, is that you could benefit from "real flow data for heads, intake and exhaust" in your inputs. (See "Desktop Dyno or similar software..." which is an archived thread readily accessible via this link: http://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...030531-2-030230.html .)

Barring access to such "real flow data," however, there is a "logic check" to run with Desktop Dyno, one which you appear to have already alluded to.

Perhaps one reason the numbers it's generating for you may seem amazing is that they're well above a stock 4.9L engine's 200HP. More specifically, if I'm correctly reading the charts you've posted, Desktop Dyno appears to be calling for somewhere around 280 to 300HP for your 4.9L with the Delta cam. An interesting "logic check" to try here would be to input instead of your Delta cam's specs, the specs for the stock 4.9L cam, and then compare Desktop Dyno's predicted HP for each cam.

No one else on this thread has posted the stock 4.9L cam's duration at 0.050" lift. Might the folks at Delta Cams know that statistic?

 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:
ok.. i guess we dont really need the stock cam, since we know what performance it makes...

We know only that it's 200HP according to Cadillac. What we don't know is whether it's predicted to be above 200HP on Desktop Dyno, so we do need to know the stock cam's duration at 0.050" lift because that is one of the inputs required by Desktop Dyno, which in turn would enable Taijiguy to make a fair apples-to apples (or Desktop-Dyno-to-Desktop-Dyno) comparison of the Delta cam and the stock one.

 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
The problem is I need all the very specific information on the cams. I can't really even do the stock cam accurately as I can only find specs a .040....




Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #59, 06-12-2009 09:08 PM
     

Wonder how close it is?


stickpony MSG #60, 06-12-2009 09:13 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:



Wonder how close it is?


now what was different in the other two tests to make them test higher? heads and exhaust?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #61, 06-12-2009 09:27 PM
      Actually after I posted that I changed those two factors to match my setup and it made very little difference....it looks like this cam I have is (so far) the hottest that I've run through the simulator:

This one I matched all the variables to the previous runs, but with the E303 cam:

Oh yeah, I enlarged the pics a little too so they're easier to read...

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 06-12-2009).]

stickpony MSG #62, 06-12-2009 09:51 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

Actually after I posted that I changed those two factors to match my setup and it made very little difference....it looks like this cam I have is (so far) the hottest that I've run through the simulator:

This one I matched all the variables to the previous runs, but with the E303 cam:

Oh yeah, I enlarged the pics a little too so they're easier to read...





how come the HP is coming out 40+ lower with a hotter camshaft? you must have missed a variable...it makes no sense


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #63, 06-12-2009 10:04 PM
      Just because a cam has more lift and/or duration doesn't necessarily make it a better cam for a specific application. Lobe centers, overlap, and *when* the valves open are just as, if not more important than the other factors. I think also that this Delta cam has a much faster ramp than the other grinds, which is a pretty big deal in cam engineering. I'm not saying it's impossible that I missed something, but I can't see what it would be offhand. I'm on my little laptop right now which is a PITA to do all this stuff on. I'll create cam files for these various cams and create one basic configuration and just load the various cam files and see what happens. I'll do that at work on Monday at work. But I honestly think this cam from Delta is a lot better than it looks on the surface.

stickpony MSG #64, 06-12-2009 10:09 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

Just because a cam has more lift and/or duration doesn't necessarily make it a better cam for a specific application. Lobe centers, overlap, and *when* the valves open are just as, if not more important than the other factors. I think also that this Delta cam has a much faster ramp than the other grinds, which is a pretty big deal in cam engineering. I'm not saying it's impossible that I missed something, but I can't see what it would be offhand. I'm on my little laptop right now which is a PITA to do all this stuff on. I'll create cam files for these various cams and create one basic configuration and just load the various cam files and see what happens. I'll do that at work on Monday at work. But I honestly think this cam from Delta is a lot better than it looks on the surface.


yeah, but a 40 HP difference ? sorry, something is up..

i noticed that your first runs lacked seat-to-seat secondary stats, but the e303 cam doesnt.. could mean something.. anyways, i look forward to yoru analysis with creating a set perameter for testing all of the cam profiles.. it will REALLy get down to the bottom of things


stickpony MSG #65, 06-13-2009 03:59 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


yeah, but a 40 HP difference ? sorry, something is up..

i noticed that your first runs lacked seat-to-seat secondary stats, but the e303 cam doesnt.. could mean something.. anyways, i look forward to yoru analysis with creating a set perameter for testing all of the cam profiles.. it will REALLy get down to the bottom of things


any progress?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #66, 06-13-2009 07:03 PM
      I'm not going to try to do them this weekend. I'm on my little sub-notebook. It's great for most things, but this is a bit intensive for a 10" screen. I'll do it Monday or Tuedsday at my shop where I can work across two 22" LCDs.

Don't worry, I'll get it worked out. If you want to try and find the grind cards for any cams you want me to enter just PM them to me and I'll add 'em.


stickpony MSG #67, 06-16-2009 05:33 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

I'm not going to try to do them this weekend. I'm on my little sub-notebook. It's great for most things, but this is a bit intensive for a 10" screen. I'll do it Monday or Tuedsday at my shop where I can work across two 22" LCDs.

Don't worry, I'll get it worked out. If you want to try and find the grind cards for any cams you want me to enter just PM them to me and I'll add 'em.


perhaps someone has the grind specs from delta for all three, the .455 lift, the .480 lift, and the .498 lift?


project34 MSG #68, 06-16-2009 06:51 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:
perhaps someone has the grind specs from delta for all three, the .455 lift, the .480 lift, and the .498 lift?

These obviously aren't all the grind specs, but using the key duration and lift numbers cited on the previous page of this thread, I put together the following table:

code:
                                    1st Dur. Level  2nd Dur. Level  3rd Dur. Level
Stock Cam Delta Cam Delta Cam Delta Cam
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Int/Exh Duration @ 0.050" ??? 205 215 220
Int/Exh Lift .384" .480" .455" .498"
Lift/Duration Ratio ??? 2.34 2.12 2.26

The most "mysterious" cam in all of this curiously enough appears to be the stock one,
because we don't know its duration at the industry-standard 0.050" lift.




stickpony MSG #69, 06-16-2009 07:06 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

These obviously aren't all the grind specs, but using the key duration and lift numbers cited on the previous page of this thread, I put together the following table:

code:
                                    1st Dur. Level  2nd Dur. Level  3rd Dur. Level
Stock Cam Delta Cam Delta Cam Delta Cam
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Int/Exh Duration @ 0.050" ??? 205 215 220
Int/Exh Lift .384" .480" .455" .498"
Lift/Duration Ratio ??? 2.34 2.12 2.26

The most "mysterious" cam in all of this curiously enough appears to be the stock one,
because we don't know its duration at the industry-standard 0.050" lift.



Taijiguy says he needs some other specifications to make his programs work properly and accurately.. perhaps he can chime in and tell us what specs we need to get from delta to make the calculations for performance accurates ones


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #70, 06-16-2009 10:29 PM
      I've been really busy the last few days. particularly in trying to deal with some boneheaded concrete guys who don't seem to know how to follow a drawing, or give a damn about what the finished product is going to look like.

Anyway, I'm still planning to do this for at least the cams I have specs for. DD really likes to have the opening and closing specs as well as lift, duration, lobe centers and separation.


Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #71, 06-17-2009 12:02 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

The most "mysterious" cam in all of this curiously enough appears to be the stock one,
because we don't know its duration at the industry-standard 0.050" lift.



Does this page have the info that you are looking for on the stock cam? There are some specs there but I'm not real farmiliar with cams.
http://www.fieroaddiction.com/caddy49b.html

Camshaft Timing (with ramp @ .004" lift)
Intake opens - 21 deg BTDC
Intake closes - 257 deg ATDC
Exhaust opens - 245 deg BTDC
Exhaust closes - 29 deg ATDC
Intake lift (at valve) - 9.75mm (.384")
Exhaust lift (at valve) - 10.06mm (.396")
Intake duration - 278 deg
Exhaust duration - 274 deg
Overlap - 49 deg

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 06-17-2009).]

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #72, 06-17-2009 04:31 PM
      No, those specs are kinda strange- as in, not in the "standard" method of measurement. Typically cam degrees are measured at .050" lift on both intake and exhaust. In other words, they put a dial indicator on the lifter and rotate the cam until the lifter shows .050" lift. then they rotate it further until the lifter again shows .050" on the close side of the lobe. The amount of cam rotation between those two points is the duration. They do that for both intake and exhaust. They also reference at what point in degrees each opens and closes. These are referred to as IVO/IVC or EVO/EVC (intake valave opens/closes or exhaust valve opens/closes)

Anyway, the specs above are measured at .004" inch which makes them seem like they have a LOT more duration than a cam measured at .050, since those specs are measured when the lifter reaches .004" lift rather than .050"

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 06-17-2009).]

project34 MSG #73, 06-17-2009 08:55 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere:
Camshaft Timing (with ramp @ .004" lift)

Intake duration - 278 deg
Exhaust duration - 274 deg

 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
...the specs above are measured at .004" inch which makes them seem like they have a LOT more duration than a cam measured at .050, since those specs are measured when the lifter reaches .004" lift rather than .050"

Said differently, if the stock 4.9L cam had intake and exhaust durations of 278o and 274o at the industry-standard 0.050" lift, it would be unstreetable, and even if one somehow could get it to idle, it would accelerate from a standing start slower than a slug. Although some don't realize it, there is such a thing as "too much cam," which in turn can result in a slower-running car, rather than a quicker-running one.

I don't know the duration specs at 0.050" lift for a stock 4.9L cam either, but I'll bet they're much, much closer to 200o than the aforementioned 270+o. Nonetheless, thanks, Fieroseverywhere, for your efforts in at least trying to locate the industry-standard duration numbers for a stock 4.9L cam, especially given that it's proving to be far more difficult than I originally would have anticipated.


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #74, 06-17-2009 09:47 PM
      I was going to actually MEASURE the specs for the cam, but I already had the crank out of the motor before we started this discussion. I might throw together some kind of a bench jig that will let me at least get sort of close to the specs at .050".

Having said that, it would really just be in order to satisfy our curiosity, since as has been mentioned previously, we actually already know what the engine output is with the stock cam, so running a Desktop Dyno on it would really be just a measure of how accurate *it* is,


project34 MSG #75, 06-18-2009 05:00 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
I was going to actually MEASURE the specs for the cam, but I already had the crank out of the motor before we started this discussion. I might throw together some kind of a bench jig that will let me at least get sort of close to the specs at .050".

Having said that, it would really just be in order to satisfy our curiosity, since as has been mentioned previously, we actually already know what the engine output is with the stock cam, so running a Desktop Dyno on it would really be just a measure of how accurate *it* is,

I think this goes beyond mere curiosity, and here's why.

We know what the stock cam's output is 200HP --- according to Cadillac.

However, we don't know what the stock cam's output is using the same measurement stick as that you're using for the aftermarket Delta cams, namely, Desktop Dyno.

Suppose Desktop Dyno says the stock cam puts out 200HP or close to 200HP. That would greatly help bolster our confidence in what Desktop Dyno says about the output of an aftermarket Delta cam, would it not?

Suppose, hoiwever, that Desktop Dyno says the stock cam's output is 250HP, rather than 200HP. Suddenly, a Desktop Dyno prediction for an aftermarket Delta cam output of 280HP, for example, would look much less amazing an improvement over the stock cam if Desktop Dyno says the stocker's output is 250HP rather than 200HP, would it not?


Isolde MSG #76, 06-18-2009 11:25 AM
      Desktop dyno can be useful in seeing what cams do to the shape of your power curve, But getting a HP number from it is optimistic at best. Lets consider the guys who are putting down 190-197 rwhp with fully-done 4.9s. I know some of you claim the Fiero transaxles don't eat as much power as a rwd manual trans and axle, but the best rwd setups eat at least 12%. So, 197 divided by 0.8800 = 224 crank HP. And if the fiero transaxles eat less, then these guys are making less than that. Realistically, there is no way to predict HP without flowbench results for the heads, which I have yet to see. If you have a link, please post it. Taji, you have a cam, install it, get the car running and tuned, then put the car on a chassis dyno. There's the only HP number that matters. Yes, it's better to also have engine dyno results, then when you run it on the chassis dyno it can help spot any possible issues. But now that you have the cam in hand, it's a bit late to be thinking about Desktop dyno. All 4 graphs above showed 255-260 hp, and that is optimistic with poor heads. And having a hp number is only useful in seeing if your mph at the end of the dragstrip is about where it should be. Top speed? not in a Fiero in the U.S.A. Bragging rights? What does that gain you? The numbers are tools, not goals. The goal is a car you enjoy. Drive it, decide if you enjoy it. If not, then it'll be time to get some numbers.

stickpony MSG #77, 06-18-2009 09:37 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:

Desktop dyno can be useful in seeing what cams do to the shape of your power curve, But getting a HP number from it is optimistic at best. Lets consider the guys who are putting down 190-197 rwhp with fully-done 4.9s. I know some of you claim the Fiero transaxles don't eat as much power as a rwd manual trans and axle, but the best rwd setups eat at least 12%. So, 197 divided by 0.8800 = 224 crank HP. And if the fiero transaxles eat less, then these guys are making less than that. Realistically, there is no way to predict HP without flowbench results for the heads, which I have yet to see. If you have a link, please post it. Taji, you have a cam, install it, get the car running and tuned, then put the car on a chassis dyno. There's the only HP number that matters. Yes, it's better to also have engine dyno results, then when you run it on the chassis dyno it can help spot any possible issues. But now that you have the cam in hand, it's a bit late to be thinking about Desktop dyno. All 4 graphs above showed 255-260 hp, and that is optimistic with poor heads. And having a hp number is only useful in seeing if your mph at the end of the dragstrip is about where it should be. Top speed? not in a Fiero in the U.S.A. Bragging rights? What does that gain you? The numbers are tools, not goals. The goal is a car you enjoy. Drive it, decide if you enjoy it. If not, then it'll be time to get some numbers.


i emailed delta asking for the specs a few days ago, they havent gotten back to me yet



Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #78, 06-18-2009 10:50 PM
      Hah! I emailed the today...no response as well yet. I really tried to make the numbers work today, thought I could sort of 'guestimate" what the .050" numbers might be, but every little bit of variation makes a big difference in the end result.

Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #79, 06-19-2009 12:27 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

I've been doing some research into the possible shorter duration of the cam I ordered (which arrives today so I can verify it's actual specs) but it seems higher lift and shorter duration is a pretty common practice in cams recently. http://www.chevyhiperforman...nstalled_height.html


That only works on modern engines like LS1's that have extremely good head flow at very high lift. If the 4.9's port flow peaks at .450 lift, then lifting higher than .450 just stresses the vavletrain unecessarily. LS1's can show flow increases up to .600 and beyond with good port work. You're better off camming the 4.9 like an old '60's small block because of its head flow. Don't follow the LS1 cam example.


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #80, 06-19-2009 08:18 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


That only works on modern engines like LS1's that have extremely good head flow at very high lift. If the 4.9's port flow peaks at .450 lift, then lifting higher than .450 just stresses the vavletrain unecessarily. LS1's can show flow increases up to .600 and beyond with good port work. You're better off camming the 4.9 like an old '60's small block because of its head flow. Don't follow the LS1 cam example.


Actually it's about spring technology. Rather than having a cam that has longer duration with less ramp, they grind shorter duration with a steeper ramp, so the valve actually spends more time open and less time openING. Old spring technologies didn't allow for that without going to super-heavy springs. Newer springs will allow for that without having the float. At least, that's what the claim was in the articles I read. The benefit is you get more power without sacrificing driveability.


stickpony MSG #81, 06-19-2009 10:16 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


That only works on modern engines like LS1's that have extremely good head flow at very high lift. If the 4.9's port flow peaks at .450 lift, then lifting higher than .450 just stresses the vavletrain unecessarily. LS1's can show flow increases up to .600 and beyond with good port work. You're better off camming the 4.9 like an old '60's small block because of its head flow. Don't follow the LS1 cam example.


if you get the valvetrain work that Rick Stewart did to his, i.e P&P, larger intake valves, LS1 springs, .480 cam, that doesnt seem to be the case, judging from his dyno numbers.


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #82, 06-19-2009 11:48 AM
      IVO means "intake valve open"; IVC means "intake valve close". These numbers are where the valves opens and closes... these are NOT the .050 lift points.

What's the rocker ratio of the 4.9? Anybody wondered if the duration at .040 is at the valve or at the lobe?

What the IVO, etc, numbers give you is whether the cam is installed "straight up", in which case the intake lobe center angle ATDC equals the exhaust lobe center angle BTDC; or if the cam is advanced or retarded.

However, everything done with desktop dyno is GIGO without solid head flow numbers... a *curve*, not just peak flow. This information will also be valuable for other reasons. For instance, if the port flow levels off at .400 lift (and it might, considering that stock lift was .380ish), then lifting over .400 just costs you more money in terms of machine work to the heads, valve springs and other valvetrain mods.

While lift and duration go hand in hand with normal cams, when regrinding a cam, the new lobe must fit entirely within the confines of the existing lobe, which means that lift and duration trade in different and sometimes strange ways.


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #83, 06-19-2009 11:49 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


if you get the valvetrain work that Rick Stewart did to his, i.e P&P, larger intake valves, LS1 springs, .480 cam, that doesnt seem to be the case, judging from his dyno numbers.


Not that it won't "work"... it just won't give the results that the same mod would give on a high flow engine like an LS1.


stickpony MSG #84, 06-19-2009 12:07 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:

IVO means "intake valve open"; IVC means "intake valve close". These numbers are where the valves opens and closes... these are NOT the .050 lift points.

What's the rocker ratio of the 4.9? Anybody wondered if the duration at .040 is at the valve or at the lobe?

What the IVO, etc, numbers give you is whether the cam is installed "straight up", in which case the intake lobe center angle ATDC equals the exhaust lobe center angle BTDC; or if the cam is advanced or retarded.

However, everything done with desktop dyno is GIGO without solid head flow numbers... a *curve*, not just peak flow. This information will also be valuable for other reasons. For instance, if the port flow levels off at .400 lift (and it might, considering that stock lift was .380ish), then lifting over .400 just costs you more money in terms of machine work to the heads, valve springs and other valvetrain mods.

While lift and duration go hand in hand with normal cams, when regrinding a cam, the new lobe must fit entirely within the confines of the existing lobe, which means that lift and duration trade in different and sometimes strange ways.


so basically what you are saying is that because the new lobe has to fit inside the old lobe on reground cams, it is almost pointless to get the cam reground for TRUE additonal lift without longer pushrods, lowered spring seats, new valve guides, etc? i guess that would make sense since the end of the lobe, where the valve will have maximum lift, doesnt change... so perhaps all these cam regrinds are pointless without the extra pushrod length, because the valve isnt opening any greater distance without it?

now my next question: assuming you do a thorough P&P job on the 4.9L heads, and you have the larger 1.94 intake valves that rick stewart used, can the ideal lift/duration be calculated so that everyone knows the maximum cam grind needed to open the valves enough to take advantage of those valvetrain mods?? rick just guessed by using the .480 /205 duration cam from delta, but that might not yield maximum results?


Isolde MSG #85, 06-19-2009 12:07 PM
      Unless your heads actually flow less at say .500" than they do at some lesser lift point, the extra lift is fine. If your heads flow equal at both .400" and .500", then running a .500" lift cam will give better results than a .400" lift cam, asuming both have the same duration at .006", .050" and .200", Because the valve is spending more time flowing as much as it can. And it's doing so just as the intake charge is up to full velocity, as the piston is in the middle to bottom portion of it's downward travel. Lift has little effect on driveability, but really affects cylinder filling, so run all you can.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #86, 06-19-2009 12:51 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:

IVO means "intake valve open"; IVC means "intake valve close". These numbers are where the valves opens and closes... these are NOT the .050 lift points.

What's the rocker ratio of the 4.9? Anybody wondered if the duration at .040 is at the valve or at the lobe?

<snip>


The rockers are 1.6:1

I think I have to argue about those measurements not being made at .050" If the advertised duration of a cam is measured at .050", then those numbers are going to also be @.050" If you take those numbers and do the math you'll find that the result exactly matches the advertised duration.

Take my Delta cam:

IVO: -3.5 BTDC (which is actually 3.5 ATDC)
IVC: 38.9 ABDC (which is actually 218.9) (180=BDC+38.9 degrees=218.9)

So the easy math with these numbers is 218.9-3.5=215.4

215.4 is the advertised duration of this cam at .050.


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #87, 06-19-2009 02:28 PM
      To the rest of the hot rodding world, IVO means "intake valve open". If Delta wants IVO to mean "Intake valve's been open for 30+ degrees", that's their ballgame.

 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:

Unless your heads actually flow less at say .500" than they do at some lesser lift point, the extra lift is fine. If your heads flow equal at both .400" and .500", then running a .500" lift cam will give better results than a .400" lift cam, asuming both have the same duration at .006", .050" and .200", Because the valve is spending more time flowing as much as it can. And it's doing so just as the intake charge is up to full velocity, as the piston is in the middle to bottom portion of it's downward travel. Lift has little effect on driveability, but really affects cylinder filling, so run all you can.


Yes, from the standpoint of duration at a given flow point, the higher lift helps, BUT the extra lift DOES hurt the wallet. For heads that irreparably stall at low lift, the ideal lobe would be one that ramps rapidly up, holds at .400 forever and then ramps rapidly down. A cam MFG might be able to grind you a custom one like that, but that would probably negate the cost savings of not doing the valvetrain mods to support the higher lift.


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #88, 06-19-2009 04:02 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:

To the rest of the hot rodding world, IVO means "intake valve open". If Delta wants IVO to mean "Intake valve's been open for 30+ degrees", that's their ballgame.


<snip>


And what do you think the duration represents? Wouldn't happen to be from the point where the VALVE OPENS to the point where the VALVE CLOSES would it? Exactly what do you think is the point at which the valve is considered "open"? That very question is the reason "the rest of the hot rodding world" uses .050" as the standard reference. And Delta doesn't "pick" .050" as their valve open reference, they have it listed at a number of different positions, starting with .003" up to .250" and they have the associated durations listed alongside.




I assume that we're both interested in the facts here, not assumptions or perceptions. If you have some evidence that I'm mistaken then please show me. I'm not infallible, and frankly, I've learned more in the last 3 days or so since this thread started than I ever knew about cams before. So if I'm wrong, don't just tell me, show me how and explain it to me.



Isolde MSG #89, 06-19-2009 04:44 PM
      This delta cam was ground with a very old grinder. And while it specs as having a 110 degree lobe separation, from studying the numbers, the actual result here is just over 111 degrees. Now, some companies who offer their own cams actually have COMP or some such do the grinding for them, but that's obviously not the case here. Far too much imprecision. This is more typical of cams ground pre '85. As for holding the valve at .400", this is easy if you have non-roller lifters, they're called "lift rule" cams, very common in the world of entry level circle track racing, and very cheap for the SBC. But for any grinder to create such a low lift "lift rule" hydraulic roller would be more $, except for one thing. Stock Eliminator rules being what they are, it's easy to find cams for the 5.0L Mustang that give 0.444" lift at the valve with 1.6:1 rockers, same as stock 5.0 cams, but have more duration. How much more, that's very secret. But if you want to pursue it, call Comp and ask to speak with Billy Godbold. You would have to send them a virgin 4.9 cam.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #90, 06-19-2009 04:58 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:

This delta cam was ground with a very old grinder. And while it specs as having a 110 degree lobe separation, from studying the numbers, the actual result here is just over 111 degrees. <snip>


I think you're looking at the intake centerline. It says to the far right that lobe separation is 111.4


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #91, 06-19-2009 06:27 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

And what do you think the duration represents? Wouldn't happen to be from the point where the VALVE OPENS to the point where the VALVE CLOSES would it? Exactly what do you think is the point at which the valve is considered "open"? That very question is the reason "the rest of the hot rodding world" uses .050" as the standard reference. And Delta doesn't "pick" .050" as their valve open reference, they have it listed at a number of different positions, starting with .003" up to .250" and they have the associated durations listed alongside.

http://img.photobucket.com/...aijiguy/Untitled.jpg


The numbers are in the "open" and "close" columns because that's the most convenient place to put them. How can a valve open 6 or 7 times in a row without closing?

IVO is when air starts to get into the cylinder and happens when the valve comes off its seat. IVC is when the cylinder stops exchanging air with the manifold and happens when the valve is back on the seat. The duration between these two is the *seat* (aka "advertised") duration (typically this is at .005 lift). When the valve is at .050 lift, it did not just open... it's been open for 30+ degrees. IVO, etc, are never marked from anything but seat duration.

What are you using for head flow numbers in your DD sim?

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 06-19-2009).]

Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #92, 06-19-2009 07:38 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:
As for holding the valve at .400", this is easy if you have non-roller lifters, they're called "lift rule" cams, very common in the world of entry level circle track racing, and very cheap for the SBC. But for any grinder to create such a low lift "lift rule" hydraulic roller would be more $, except for one thing. Stock Eliminator rules being what they are, it's easy to find cams for the 5.0L Mustang that give 0.444" lift at the valve with 1.6:1 rockers, same as stock 5.0 cams, but have more duration. How much more, that's very secret. But if you want to pursue it, call Comp and ask to speak with Billy Godbold. You would have to send them a virgin 4.9 cam.


Sounds like an interesting possibility is someone wanted to order a batch and then resell them as drop-ins. I'm not convinced that Delta's is a drop-in, from what's posted on Jon Lagler's site (Fiero Addiction).


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #93, 06-19-2009 08:21 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


The numbers are in the "open" and "close" columns because that's the most convenient place to put them. How can a valve open 6 or 7 times in a row without closing?

IVO is when air starts to get into the cylinder and happens when the valve comes off its seat. IVC is when the cylinder stops exchanging air with the manifold and happens when the valve is back on the seat. The duration between these two is the *seat* (aka "advertised") duration (typically this is at .005 lift). When the valve is at .050 lift, it did not just open... it's been open for 30+ degrees. IVO, etc, are never marked from anything but seat duration.

What are you using for head flow numbers in your DD sim?



I'm using default settings that come with the program, they have various choices- single plane stock low flow manifold up to IR and more.

I'm still not clear on what the actual reference for what "open" is. I know there's seat-to-seat measurements, but that's not the same as the *VO/*VC measurements we're discussing. If I understand your explanation, that it would be as soon as the valve starts to flow air, would that be at .001, or .0001", or.....? Don't you have to have some specific reference point at which the valve is considered open? Or is it just left to individual interpretation?


stickpony MSG #94, 06-19-2009 10:56 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


Sounds like an interesting possibility is someone wanted to order a batch and then resell them as drop-ins. I'm not convinced that Delta's is a drop-in, from what's posted on Jon Lagler's site (Fiero Addiction).


John has already been proven wrong though, many people have bought the .480 lift cam from delta cams, and it works with no valvetrain mods, save longer pushrods on certain engines


project34 MSG #95, 06-20-2009 11:33 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:

...many people have bought the .480 lift cam from delta cams, and it works with no valvetrain mods, save longer pushrods on certain engines

Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but because that cam is a regrind, wouldn't one need longer pushrods to realize an actual improvement in maximum lift with that cam on all (as opposed to just "certain") 4.9L engines?

I suppose that cam would physically "work" without longer pushrods, but then its maximum lift would be no different than a stocker's, wouldn't it?




stickpony MSG #96, 06-20-2009 07:21 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


Not that it won't "work"... it just won't give the results that the same mod would give on a high flow engine like an LS1.


doesnt an LS1 already come with a bigger cam stock? and doesnt it have 0.8L more displacement? and doesnt it have higher compression, DIS, better manifolds, etc...??

theres more than just the heads that limit the 4.9L.


stickpony MSG #97, 06-20-2009 07:23 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but because that cam is a regrind, wouldn't one need longer pushrods to realize an actual improvement in maximum lift with that cam on all (as opposed to just "certain") 4.9L engines?

I suppose that cam would physically "work" without longer pushrods, but then its maximum lift would be no different than a stocker's, wouldn't it?



one would think... some people say they have rocker arm noise, and others say there is none...


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #98, 06-21-2009 12:28 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

I suppose that cam would physically "work" without longer pushrods, but then its maximum lift would be no different than a stocker's, wouldn't it?


The distance the lifter moves from base circle to nose of the lobe is lift. It doesn't matter whether the base circle is 1.500" or 60" in diameter. The longer pushrods are necessary to get the rocker/valve combo back into the proper point in the rocker's travel.

 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:
doesnt an LS1 already come with a bigger cam stock? and doesnt it have 0.8L more displacement? and doesnt it have higher compression, DIS, better manifolds, etc...??

theres more than just the heads that limit the 4.9L.


Nah, it's pretty much just the heads. If there were significant power to be had in the engine, the aftermarket would have picked up on that and most of the necessary parts would be available by now.

I was talking about built LS1's, in which most head porters go for every last CFM they can get at a billion inches of valve lift.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 06-21-2009).]

stickpony MSG #99, 06-21-2009 01:06 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


Nah, it's pretty much just the heads. If there were significant power to be had in the engine, the aftermarket would have picked up on that and most of the necessary parts would be available by now.

I was talking about built LS1's, in which most head porters go for every last CFM they can get at a billion inches of valve lift.



so would it be safe to say that the way to calculate the extra pushrod length would be to take the difference in lift of the stock cam vs the performance cam installed, and then divide it by 1.6, sine the 4.9L has 1.6 ratio rockers arms, and that number will be the extra length you need out of a replacement pushrod?


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #100, 06-21-2009 07:25 AM
      Not quite.
To get valvetraing geometry excruciatingly correct, the rocker tip needs to cover ground equally on both sides of the centerline of the valve. If it starts in the stock location, but has more lift than stock, then it will move further across the top of the valve at peak lift than it used to. This means that the closed position has to be "backed up" a little bit to compensate. That assumes, of course, that the valvetrain was excruciatingly correct stock.


project34 MSG #101, 06-21-2009 09:00 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:
The distance the lifter moves from base circle to nose of the lobe is lift. It doesn't matter whether the base circle is 1.500" or 60" in diameter.

I find this an interesting thread, and I thought yours to be a colorful example, perhaps because it purposefully was so exaggerated ("...doesn't matter whether the base circle is 1.500" or 60" in diameter").

But then it hit me that if the diameter of the cam's base circle doesn't matter, and the cam's regrinder presumably isn't adding material to the cam's nose to make it --- and the cam's resultant maximum lift --- any higher, then where is the increased maximum lift of the reground cam coming from?


fieroguru MSG #102, 06-21-2009 09:47 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

But then it hit me that if the diameter of the cam's base circle doesn't matter, and the cam's regrinder presumably isn't adding material to the cam's nose to make it --- and the cam's resultant maximum lift --- any higher, then where is the increased maximum lift of the reground cam coming from?


If the peak stays the same and the base circle is made smaller, then the delta between the base circle and the peak will be increased, which is an increase in overall lift. Typically, they remove material from the base circle to increase lift and recontour the peak to change duration.

Depending on how much is removed on an application with fixed rocker pivot height (like the 4.9), the hydraulic lifters can self adjust to accomodate some reduction in base circle, but they can only do so much. Past a point, longer pushrods will be required.


project34 MSG #103, 06-21-2009 11:49 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by fieroguru:
If the peak stays the same and the base circle is made smaller, then the delta between the base circle and the peak will be increased, which is an increase in overall lift. Typically, they remove material from the base circle to increase lift and recontour the peak to change duration.

Ahah! So if I understand you correctly, you're saying base circle diameter does matter, and that a cam reground to a smaller base circle can generate greater maximum lift (not just a greater rate of lift), even if the height of the cam's nose is unchanged. That would help a great deal to explain how the Delta Cams regrinder for these 4.9L cams can increase their maximum lift without adding material to the cam's nose.


stickpony MSG #104, 06-21-2009 12:39 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by fieroguru:


If the peak stays the same and the base circle is made smaller, then the delta between the base circle and the peak will be increased, which is an increase in overall lift. Typically, they remove material from the base circle to increase lift and recontour the peak to change duration.

Depending on how much is removed on an application with fixed rocker pivot height (like the 4.9), the hydraulic lifters can self adjust to accomodate some reduction in base circle, but they can only do so much. Past a point, longer pushrods will be required.


so thats why a standard length pushrod can be used on some 4.9L engines with the "drop-in" delta cam, because the hydraulic lifters are compensating for the difference?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #105, 06-21-2009 02:13 PM
      There's also the aspect of essentially moving the rockers closer to the cam by shaving the heads. I'll be taking .050" off the face of my heads, which effectively reduces the distance between the cam and the rockers by that same amount. It seems that those who need longer rods need them longer by about .060". That's probably not a coincidence and likely indicates who needs longer rods and who doesn't.

Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #106, 06-22-2009 08:56 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

I find this an interesting thread, and I thought yours to be a colorful example, perhaps because it purposefully was so exaggerated ("...doesn't matter whether the base circle is 1.500" or 60" in diameter").

But then it hit me that if the diameter of the cam's base circle doesn't matter, and the cam's regrinder presumably isn't adding material to the cam's nose to make it --- and the cam's resultant maximum lift --- any higher, then where is the increased maximum lift of the reground cam coming from?


Lift is always the difference between the base circle and the lobe, as noted above.

Old radial aricraft engines can have 60" base circles (and maybe even larger). I've seen a cutaway of a Pratt & Whitney 36 cylinder radial (4 banks of 9) in which each bank's "cam" was a ring around the crankshaft, driven by a thin, large diameter planetary gearset (the ID of the cam ring was the ring gear in this gearset). Those rings were probably pushing 60" in diameter, yet valve lift was probably about 1".


stickpony MSG #107, 06-24-2009 11:19 PM
      OT-----

just saw Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, and christ almighty, it dogged the 1st movie....

Go see it people. do it now.


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #108, 06-25-2009 08:37 AM
      Do we actually get full-body shots of Transformers for more than three frames at a time?

I hate Michael Bay's editing in the first movie. Has he overcome that problem?


stickpony MSG #109, 06-26-2009 11:45 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:

Do we actually get full-body shots of Transformers for more than three frames at a time?

I hate Michael Bay's editing in the first movie. Has he overcome that problem?


Yes, there's more robot sequences in this movie than i know what to do with


ChadTanner (chadtnner@aol.com) MSG #110, 07-09-2009 11:35 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:




I did'nt think delta would sell someone's cam profile,It's kinda wrong!There Is not a problem here,because I try to help anyone that has interest in this engine.The flow research did'nt cost me much,as it was done for me,at a tech school, as a favor to me.

I hate to think,What if, I was part of a competative race team with thousands of dollars invested in flow research.makes me think differently about Delta.




Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #111, 07-10-2009 12:36 AM
      I don't quite get your post..who's cam profile is it? It's not theirs?

As a side note, I ordered 1.73 SBF roller rockers today. So the valve lift will be a bit greater than advertised. I'll have the shop doing my heads machine the steel rocker mounts to accept the pedestals.


ChadTanner (chadtnner@aol.com) MSG #112, 07-10-2009 01:02 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

I don't quite get your post..who's cam profile is it? It's not theirs?

As a side note, I ordered 1.73 SBF roller rockers today. So the valve lift will be a bit greater than advertised. I'll have the shop doing my heads machine the steel rocker mounts to accept the pedestals.


I guess It's theirs to sell now,still kinda wrong though.

I'm also confussed about what they have done,if that is the "cam card" that came with your cam.they must have "jacked up" That is the report for my cam, they tested on 02-04-08.How can it be what they sold you? do they not test the actual cam they ship to the customer?



project34 MSG #113, 07-10-2009 06:03 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by ChadTanner:
I did'nt think delta would sell someone's cam profile,It's kinda wrong!

 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
I don't quite get your post..who's cam profile is it? It's not theirs?

I didn't understand your point either. The cam each of you have is just a standard regrind of Delta's, is it not? Why would Taijiguy or you have the "rights" to its design? Taijiguy isn't claiming he designed this cam. Are you claiming you designed this cam?

 
quote
Originally posted by ChadTanner:
I guess It's theirs to sell now,still kinda wrong though.

I'm also confussed about what they have done,if that is the "cam card" that came with your cam.they must have "jacked up" That is the report for my cam, they tested on 02-04-08.How can it be what they sold you? do they not test the actual cam they ship to the customer?

I don't understand why you apparently feel Delta did something wrong. You and Taijiguy were each provided a "cam card" containing the specs for a cam that is just a standard regrind of Delta's. Not surprisingly, the cam spec numbers on the cam card accompanying each standard regrind are the same. However, you apparently feel they should be different.

Why?




Isolde MSG #114, 07-10-2009 11:39 AM
      I wouldn't be surprised if Delta doesn't have a cam grinding machine of their own, either, but so what? You have a more agressive cam than what GM installed, and you're not getting sued for using it. That's all that really matters.

ChadTanner (chadtnner@aol.com) MSG #115, 07-10-2009 12:19 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

I don't understand why you apparently feel Delta did something wrong. You and Taijiguy were each provided a "cam card" containing the specs for a cam that is just a standard regrind of Delta's. Not surprisingly, the cam spec numbers on the cam card accompanying each standard regrind are the same. However, you apparently feel they should be different.

Why?




I "Chad Tanner" had flow research done on the 4.9 heads and intake.the cam card I posted,Is the cam(designed by a third party) delta grinded and tested for me on 02-04-08. The specs were given to delta by me.

I realize I don't own anything,I give away any information,I have about this engine,because I hope to help Anyone interested in the caddy engines,It's a hobby.

I think delta did something wrong,because If I were I a competitive racer and had spent thousands on R&D (which I did not) I would be very mad if they sold my cam profile to another race team.Thats why I now think differently about Delta.

When Delta or anyone else regrinds a used cam,no two cams are the same,due to differences in the cores, some cores may have 50'000 miles,some may have 200,000 miles.I have seen great variances in the same profile,especially in the middle of the ramp.Thats why I think they should test each cam they grind (I thought they did) and not just send a copy of the report from the first cam they grind with that profile.

Thanks....
Chad

[This message has been edited by ChadTanner (edited 07-10-2009).]

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #116, 07-10-2009 12:44 PM
      Hmmm...that's interesting. i don't know about the legalities, but I guess I'll say "thanks" for your efforts. I wonder how it'll run with the 1.7 rockers.

As for the sheet I posted, I think that's intended more as a grind card rather than a test per se. I asked for a grind card and that's what they sent. And yes, they do have their own equipment, they grind their cams on site as far as I know.


ChadTanner (chadtnner@aol.com) MSG #117, 07-10-2009 01:16 PM
      what they done was legal,It just says something about a companies character.If I wanted to be a competive race team,I don't need to spend anything on R&D,just find a winning team,then ask Delta to grind me a cam like theirs and while were on the phone,ask "what else do you about their engine".(lol)


I did do some research on 1.7 ford rockers for this engine with that cam.I'll dig up some stuff that might be a help to you.

Thanks.....
Chad


project34 MSG #118, 07-10-2009 02:19 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by ChadTanner:
I did do some research on 1.7 ford rockers for this engine with that cam.I'll dig up some stuff that might be a help to you.

Wow, you really are into these 4.9L engines if you've data on them with 1.7 Ford rockers!

In contrast, my question theoretically should be comparatively easy.

Might you know the duration at 0.050" lift of the stock 4.9L cam? Early on in the first page of this thread, stickpony posted its lift at 0.384" with 1.6 rockers, but no one apparently knows the stock 4.9L cam's duration at 0.050" lift.


ChadTanner (chadtnner@aol.com) MSG #119, 07-10-2009 02:43 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:



Might you know the duration at 0.050" lift of the stock 4.9L cam?



Not exactly,as in,new from the factory with no wear(never seen one of those).

However a stock 4.9 camshaft with 100'000 miles give or take 20'000.

First understand that at that miliage,there is hardly any difference in the intake and exhaust,not enough to worry about two measurements to call it a duel patteren,but a short answer would be about 298 degrees @ .050 ramp.

Thanks...
Chad



project34 MSG #120, 07-10-2009 04:06 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:
Might you know the duration at 0.050" lift of the stock 4.9L cam?

 
quote
Originally posted by ChadTanner:
Not exactly,as in,new from the factory with no wear(never seen one of those).

...but a short answer would be about 298 degrees @ .050 ramp.

I was hoping you might have had an answer to this mystery by having seen somewhere a published figure for a then-new, stock 4.9L cam.

The 298o at 0.050" lift that you'd guessed at seems very high, so much so that I'd think it would render a Caddy engine unstreetable, which probably wouldn't be a good plan to appeal to a Caddy sedan's typical customers.


Maybe that 298o refers to the stock 4.9L cam's advertised duration, rather than to its duration at 0.050" lift?

Even Taijiguy's reground, aftermarket cam has only 215o degrees duration at 0.50" lift. My guess is that a new 4.9L cam at 0.050" lift would have been more in the neighborhood of 200o or somewhat less --- not at 298o.


Isolde MSG #121, 07-10-2009 04:06 PM
      When you work with COMP CAMS on a custom cam for your project, it stays confidential. But if you're just doing something like an XE274 intake lobe with an XE256 exhaust lobe, they can add that to their catalog if they want, because they don't tell anyone the name of the first person to order that combo. In a way, it stays confidential. If it goes into the catalog, the listing doesn't specify the heads or whatever of the first person to order it, it just gets a generic description describing the idle quality and such.

ChadTanner (chadtnner@aol.com) MSG #122, 07-10-2009 04:30 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

I was hoping you might have had an answer to this mystery by having seen somewhere a published figure for a then-new, stock 4.9L cam.

The 298o at 0.050" lift that you'd guessed at seems very high, so much so that I'd think it would render a Caddy engine unstreetable, which probably wouldn't be a good plan to appeal to a Caddy sedan's typical customers.


Maybe that 298o refers to the stock 4.9L cam's advertised duration, rather than to its duration at 0.050" lift?

Even Taijiguy's reground, aftermarket cam has only 215o degrees duration at 0.50" lift. My guess is that a new 4.9L cam at 0.050" lift would have been more in the neighborhood of 200o or somewhat less --- not at 298o.


Typo guys.. Sorry ... 198 degrees

Please take time to read this post I made on may 11

http://www.924board.org/vie...php?t=25060&start=75

[This message has been edited by ChadTanner (edited 07-10-2009).]

stickpony MSG #123, 07-12-2009 10:27 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by ChadTanner:

what they done was legal,It just says something about a companies character.If I wanted to be a competive race team,I don't need to spend anything on R&D,just find a winning team,then ask Delta to grind me a cam like theirs and while were on the phone,ask "what else do you about their engine".(lol)


I did do some research on 1.7 ford rockers for this engine with that cam.I'll dig up some stuff that might be a help to you.

Thanks.....
Chad


hell, if someone had the .498 e303 mustang profile in their 4.9L like john lagler used, along with those 1.73 ratio rockers, they would get .534 total lift... that would be a pretty bad-ass 4.9L



Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #124, 07-13-2009 03:26 PM
      My guess is the lift would way exceed the breathing capabilities of the motor. Thanks for the clarification Chad. Do you have the motor in your Porsche running yet? I'd like to hear that sucker sing so Have some sense of what Mine will sound like. What kind of exhaust manifolds and mufflers are on the Caddilac in those clips?

stickpony MSG #125, 07-13-2009 10:11 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

My guess is the lift would way exceed the breathing capabilities of the motor. Thanks for the clarification Chad. Do you have the motor in your Porsche running yet? I'd like to hear that sucker sing so Have some sense of what Mine will sound like. What kind of exhaust manifolds and mufflers are on the Caddilac in those clips?


what if the heads had larger intake valves and P&P'd?

[This message has been edited by stickpony (edited 07-13-2009).]

project34 MSG #126, 07-13-2009 10:43 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:
hell, if someone had the .498 e303 mustang profile in their 4.9L like john lagler used, along with those 1.73 ratio rockers, they would get .534 total lift... that would be a pretty bad-ass 4.9L

 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:
what if the heads had larger intake valves and P&P'd?

The .534" lift you mentioned is a whopping 39% higher than the stocker's .384" lift which you cited on the first page of this thread.

Assuming that much of an increase in lift didn't result in any valve-to-piston clearance issues that first would need to be addressed, whom would one recommend for the cylinder head work on a 4.9L to make that much lift a useful proposition with that engine?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #127, 07-14-2009 07:48 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


what if the heads had larger intake valves and P&P'd?



From what I've read the design of the ports just won't allow for decent flow. There reaches a point where you're just exceeding the capabilities of the heads to flow through the port regardless of how big the valves or how far they open. Personally, I was originally doing this as a budget build, and somewhere along the way I let myself be drawn in to thinking that I could make this motor into something it isn't. I'm trying to get back to my original plans. I'll just be happy when it finally runs! Regardless I know it'll be a big improvement over the 2.8.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 07-14-2009).]

Isolde MSG #128, 07-14-2009 10:39 AM
      With good porting, production heads can find 5-25% more flow, depending on the basic design, but will still reach a lift at which they just won't flow any more air. This is called stalling. If the flow stays the same at even higher lifts, then it's okay to run more lift. The extra lift can still be beneficial, indirectly. But if the flow is actually less at even higher lifts, then you shouldn't be lifting past peak flow. Now, to tell you a fact, not to brag, I'm a natural at porting, on par with Joe Mondello and Tony Mamo. This is proven by the SuperFlow 1020 flowbench. And if you want good porting, I'll do it for $5 per port, because I give good prices to my fellow enthusiasts. But you pay shipping, and you do the polishing afterwards. The catch is, I currently can't include flowbench results for your particular heads.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #129, 07-14-2009 10:52 AM
      I'd probably take you up on that, but shipping would be a killer.


project34 MSG #130, 07-14-2009 03:37 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
From what I've read the design of the ports just won't allow for decent flow. There reaches a point where you're just exceeding the capabilities of the heads to flow through the port regardless of how big the valves or how far they open. Personally, I was originally doing this as a budget build, and somewhere along the way I let myself be drawn in to thinking that I could make this motor into something it isn't. I'm trying to get back to my original plans. I'll just be happy when it finally runs! Regardless I know it'll be a big improvement over the 2.8.

That was well said, Taijiguy.


stickpony MSG #131, 07-15-2009 04:20 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by project34:

That was well said, Taijiguy.


it is well documented that one can add sbc 1.94" intake valves to the 4.9L heads in place of the 1.77" stock intake valve size. Rick Stewart did it in his "4.9 performance" thread. he only used the delta mild drop-in cam with .480 lift, but he had the valvetrain modded to accept higher, i believe up to .06 higher, however, i dont know if any higher lift would be usable?? again, assuming the intake valve increase to 1.94" from 1.77" and a nice thorough P&P job, is total lift above .50" usable or just a waste of money?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #132, 07-15-2009 09:51 PM
      If that's the thread I'm thinking of, I think the consensus was that it was an expensive build for the end result. I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger valves we largely a waste, as unless you have the room to un-shroud them, there isn't a lot of benefit. And as has been said before, there is a limit to how much the radius of the intake port will flow, plain and simple.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still doing as much as I can to the motor, but I'm keeping it real.

My 1.7 rockers showed up today. I just need to get someone to machine the rocker mounts to accept the pedestals. Apparently the machine shop is having trouble finding the right size freeze plug for the cam run. Once they get that and the machine work is done, II can start my build....

About time....


Isolde MSG #133, 07-16-2009 01:51 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


it is well documented that one can add sbc 1.94" intake valves to the 4.9L heads in place of the 1.77" stock intake valve size. Rick Stewart did it in his "4.9 performance" thread. he only used the delta mild drop-in cam with .480 lift, but he had the valvetrain modded to accept higher, i believe up to .06 higher, however, i dont know if any higher lift would be usable?? again, assuming the intake valve increase to 1.94" from 1.77" and a nice thorough P&P job, is total lift above .50" usable or just a waste of money?


You can't know that without flow bench results. Cutting the heads for larger valves used to be the 3-angle valve job plus some porting, but these days we have the greatest invention since Adam and Eve: The "bowl-hog" the best ones can cut at 75 degrees. This takes care of about 90% of the porting that used to be required, and does so far better and faster, with far less iron dust into your lungs. And if you're going to do this, also spend the $40 for a good set of new 1-piece, undercut, swirl-polished, stainless valves, then have your machine shop put a small 30 degree back cut on each of them.


stickpony MSG #134, 07-16-2009 09:58 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

If that's the thread I'm thinking of, I think the consensus was that it was an expensive build for the end result. I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger valves we largely a waste, as unless you have the room to un-shroud them, there isn't a lot of benefit. And as has been said before, there is a limit to how much the radius of the intake port will flow, plain and simple.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still doing as much as I can to the motor, but I'm keeping it real.

My 1.7 rockers showed up today. I just need to get someone to machine the rocker mounts to accept the pedestals. Apparently the machine shop is having trouble finding the right size freeze plug for the cam run. Once they get that and the machine work is done, II can start my build....

About time....


after all his work, rick ended up with 285 hp and 380 ft lbs at the crank, and that was before he changed out the stock pushrods for the corrected longer pushrods, AND that was with an untuned PCM. with the proper tuning, i would think an additonal 20 HP could be added to that, getting close to 300HP.. yes, the HP doesnt really justify the means, BUT the TQ sure's hell does

anyways, also take into account that it is the lightest V8 one can put in the fiero, power to weight ratio is always a consideration.

honestly, an LS4 is probbaly a better bang for the buck because of its ability to be upgraded, BUT, how much power do you REALLY need on the street?


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #135, 07-16-2009 10:53 PM
      Well, I don't have the kind of coin it would take to do all the stuff he did anyway. So I'll just do the best I can with what I have and be happy with what ever it ends up being.

On a different note, someone on here was offering machine shop services. Anyone remember who that was? I'm wondering what they wouldl charge to machine my rocker supports for the new rocker pedestals.


Isolde MSG #136, 07-17-2009 11:06 AM
      Any competent machine shop can do that, there should be one in your area. Or in the nearest big city.

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #137, 07-17-2009 11:36 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Isolde:

Any competent machine shop can do that, there should be one in your area. Or in the nearest big city.


I know. The place that has my block could do it. I was just wanting to see if it might be cheaper, and I could throw some business to a PFFer.


project34 MSG #138, 07-19-2009 08:06 PM
      Using the key duration and lift numbers cited on the previous page of this thread, and the duration for the stock cam helpfully cited by ChadTanner on the present page, I updated the following table:

code:
                                    1st Dur. Level  2nd Dur. Level  3rd Dur. Level
Stock Cam Delta Cam Delta Cam Delta Cam
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Int/Exh Duration @ 0.050" 198 205 215 220
Int/Exh Lift .384" .480" .455" .498"
Lift/Duration Ratio 1.94 2.34 2.12 2.26

The most "unusual" cam in all of this appears to be the stock one, with easily the most conservative lift-to-duration ratio of the four cams we've covered. However, that is a cam originally designed for a Caddy, so I'd think its relatively conservative specs shouldn't be all that surprising.

The cam you purchased for your 4.9L swap, Taijiguy, referred to in the above table as the "2nd Dur. Level Delta Cam," has the second most conservative lift-to-duration ratio of the four cams we've discussed. However, I'd have to agree that as you'd mentioned on the first page of this thread, "...if the specs are even close, the lift is a lot better than stock."

That does seem a healthy increase --- .455" lift versus the stock .384" lift --- doesn't it?

I think yours will prove to be an interesting swap, one that is very streetable and in line with your objectives for your Fiero.


Please keep us posted on it.


R.O.C. 1 (rebelgsp@verizon.net) MSG #139, 08-17-2009 11:03 AM
      Well??? Thanks for the read guys. Very interesting and informative. Any news how these cams are working for you????

Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #140, 12-17-2009 06:12 PM
      Just a bump to keep this thread out of the archives. Haven't got my motor together yet, anyone else?

stickpony MSG #141, 10-24-2010 11:58 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

Just a bump to keep this thread out of the archives. Haven't got my motor together yet, anyone else?


bump


Captain Midnight (captainmidnight98036@yahoo.com) MSG #142, 10-25-2010 03:25 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:

On a different note, someone on here was offering machine shop services. Anyone remember who that was? I'm wondering what they wouldl charge to machine my rocker supports for the new rocker pedestals.


I do that work.


MaxCubes (max@kewlgeeks.com) MSG #143, 08-29-2011 02:23 PM
      Does Delta have a turbo cam grind for the 4.9 ?.... ( little to no overlap )


Taijiguy (pcfixer@gmail.com) MSG #144, 08-29-2011 05:28 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by MaxCubes:

Does Delta have a turbo cam grind for the 4.9 ?.... ( little to no overlap )


They'll custom grind your cam any way you want. You need to give them your old cam anyway for a core, or you can just send it to them and they'll grind it however you want.