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.

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).]

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.

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?

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

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

Gene

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

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.

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).]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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).]

Found it online: http://www.fordracingparts....sp?PartKeyField=1329

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., 215^o 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: https://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....

Wonder how close it is?

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?

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).]

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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).]

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).]

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 278^o and 274^o 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 200^o 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.

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,

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.