Engine and Transmission Tech

tips, technology, tools and techniques related to vehicle driveline components

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...23456789101112Next
Current Page: 10 of 12


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6218 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: February 06, 2010 01:34PM

Know anyone with FEA software? The properties are well established so it should be simple to run fatigue analysis. I'd bet that you could control it with adequate wall thickness in the tube.

JB


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: roverman
Date: March 04, 2010 11:27PM

FEA software ? Fatigue analisis and"E" = ? Alum. metal matrix ? Same weight as alum. with superior hot strength. Less thermal growth than steel and better wear than ci. I suspect 7075 T6 should prove adequate with proper "bridging" between lobes and journals. Hell, Vw's have used Alum. push rods forever. roverman.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams/ FEA ,anyone ?
Posted by: roverman
Date: March 11, 2010 07:33PM

Ok, Then how about a, good priced source for "late" Rover, double roller timing sets ? Thanks, roverman.


RobertE
Robert Edgeworth

(77 posts)

Registered:
02/19/2008 08:27AM

Main British Car:


Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: RobertE
Date: March 15, 2010 02:07AM

FEA stands for Finite element analysis. Our engineering school has the program for use. I've messed with it a little bit but not much. First thing would be to create the part in solidworks or similar cad program.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams/analysis ?
Posted by: roverman
Date: March 15, 2010 01:34PM

Thanks Robert. I might have chance with solid works. I haven't yet checked, "other" 90 deg. V8 firing orders, compared to 907 cams. roverman.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Roller Cams are here !
Posted by: roverman
Date: April 27, 2010 04:46PM

All (10), they look good. .397" lobe lift max. Root/min. dia. is .900",(strong), and use retainer plate. Just add HP. roverman



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2010 11:19AM by roverman.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams/mild to wild
Posted by: roverman
Date: April 28, 2010 11:16AM

Paul and clan, I feel next step is for a sbf. "owner" to measure actual lift in thousanths "/deg. , base on subject Ford hyd. roller. We then compare roller diameters and we're a lot closer to final product. In stock master is .290" lobe lift and 208 deg. at .050".Good Luck, roverman.



mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2241 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: mgb260
Date: April 29, 2010 02:26PM

Paul,Art, Very interesting article on Ford cams:[www.mustang50magazine.com]


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2241 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 01, 2010 12:05AM

Also, Crane cams developed the Ford Racing "alphabet " cams. They are equivilant to the old Compucam.(computer design) The "E" is for emissions and works with the stock ECU. The "B" is higher duration and lower lift.(unless you use the 1.7 rockers)The newer Powermax are similar also. The Ford H.O. Paul likes is a good cam with 1.7 rockers(.470 lift then). It would be great if the lift was .470 with 1.5 rockers.(stock Buick/Rover) Unless Roverman has some trick 1.7 shaft rockers he's developing. That is about all I could find in my research.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2010 08:05AM by mgb260.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 01, 2010 12:07PM

Jim and clan, I see a very small market for .675" of valve lift,(1.7/1), rockers. Let's remember, this cam will go to .397" at the lobe. I don't see how even a TA head, available someday, could take full advantage of .675" at the valve. Let's move on. Thanks, roverman.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2241 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 01, 2010 10:42PM

Art, I think you misunderstood me.I was thinking about Paul's idea of copying the Ford H.O. cam. The H.O. cam only has .444 lift with the stock Ford 1.6 rockers so in a Ford it is much better with the 1.7 rockers. (aprox. .470 lift)I agree with you the factory 1.5 ratio is fine. I personally like a dual pattern with about .010 more duration and lift on the exhaust. So if you copy the H.O. specs say .266 advertised duration on intake, change to .276 on exhaust, .470 intake lift (equivilant to the Ford with 1.7) and change to .480 on exhaust,other specs same as H.O.. Now that would be a strong midrange cam and pull to 6000 rpm. Remember same as LS firing order too. Just tossing ideas out there.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2010 11:24PM by mgb260.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 02, 2010 02:33PM

I suppose this whole "romance" of automatically running more exh. lift, and or duration, came about by the "grinders" deciding to "prop-up" an underflowing exhaust. We're seeing, some heads, exhaust side, now flowing 85+% of the intake side. Also, higher compression, static/dynamic, requires "less" flow, because the energy was better expended in the "boom". Since (5) of the cams belong to Paul, he's the guy, to work this out, and he has stated there is an "inflection" above .400 lift in std Rover heads. Paul, will you cam-in please ? Thanks for the input, roverman.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2010 11:37PM by roverman.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams/Comp. Cams lobe profile catalog
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 05, 2010 08:53PM

Paul,Dan and clan. Perhaps a "peep" of CompCams, webbsite for their cam masters is in order."Master Lobe Profile Cat." Getting (2) new masters made at $1,500 ea.(their quote), not viable. Getting what we want ,for a good price...priceless, roverman.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2241 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 05, 2010 09:30PM

You guys ought to call Delta Cams. You just have to figure what specs.


pcmenten
Paul Menten

(242 posts)

Registered:
10/08/2009 10:40AM

Main British Car:


Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: pcmenten
Date: May 05, 2010 09:55PM

Art, I just now saw your request for input.

Dan's ideas about exhaust duration vs. rocker ratio/valve lift was very interesting. But I would lean toward a higher ramp rate, especially on the 'down slope' to limit overlap, to get effective duration; leave the valve hanging open to maximize blow-down and scavenging without compromising either compression nor manifold vacuum. Minimize overlap. Application will include EFI, so I wanted to make sure intake signal stayed strong, and emissions remained minimal.

It's not clear to me what benefit higher lift on the intake would gain on our intake port restricted applications. Even with a Buick 300 head, there's only so much air you can squeeze through that port, and I'm likely to use stock Rover heads anyway (oversize valves). Why fight it, trying to make a high RPM engine out of a torque producer. I'll go along with the idea of a higher ratio rocker on the intake, but only because it gets more 'area under the curve' with a lower ramp rate on the cam. The down-side is having to manage the spring/valve resonances. I'm inclined to use beehive springs with light retainers to avoid resonances and reduce friction and forces on rocker shafts. I wish we could get Titanium valves for the intakes for the same reasons.

So, getting back to the subject, I need to pick up a stock Ford 5.0HO cam, get the ramp rate profiled, and work from that. The Ford head gets choked off like the Buick/Rover head, but Ford roller engines make wonderful torque, so they did something right.

On a related note, the experienced tuners of Ford 5.0 street engines would use the stock cam, but by using bigger valves, porting, higher ratio rockers, headers, and other tuning methods, would get better than 1hp per cubic inch. The stock cam, which seemed mild in a stock engine, would look 'bigger' when the intake and exhaust flowed better.



roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams/valve lift vs. valve dia's
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 06, 2010 11:16AM

Paul, as I understand it, running higher lift than the port/valve supports, gives the valve more "hang time", or should fatten -up the area under the curve,(valve spends more time in the sweet spot). Orfice coefficient of flow for valve/ports, is lift equal to 25% of valve diameter. I suspect most who would spring for a roller set-up, will probably have head work done,(larger valves/bowl work), to better take advantage. CompCams lobe cat. ? roverman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2010 01:41PM by roverman.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2241 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 19, 2010 11:32AM

Paul, The current Hot Rod magazine has a Pontiac V8 article where they use the brace plates over the lifter valley openings. Only necessary with .600 lift and high spring pressure. Pieces of aluminum plate on both sides of valley with bolt and nut clamping together. Maybe strategically locate to bolt down spider for roller lifters?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2010 08:18PM by mgb260.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams/hardwarwe
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 24, 2010 11:08AM

Clan, upon further thought regarding lifter bore/valley strength with roller cams, Rover/sbb. A well designed "rev. kit" is what this conversion needs. Roller lifters are usually heavier than flat tappets.They counter-act forces upon the lifter bores from cam/lifters,and allows smaller/lighter springs on the valves.In theory, 1/2 of spring weight, to be counted as valve train weight. Over 1/3 of valve train weight is on lifter side. Discussion ? roverman.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2010 05:44PM by roverman.


pcmenten
Paul Menten

(242 posts)

Registered:
10/08/2009 10:40AM

Main British Car:


Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: pcmenten
Date: May 24, 2010 05:09PM

Rev kits have some definite advantages, especially in a high performance application. Higher RPMs and more stability at speed. Road racing applications for example. For daily driving, my concern with a rev kit is the added complexity of the additional parts. But to be honest, I don't have first hand experience with rev kits.

I would be inclined to compare the cost of a rev kit to the cost of lowering the mass of the various components in the drivetrain. Beehive springs, small retainers, lightweight rockers, and lightweight pushrods. I would also consider using smaller valves for their lighter weight depending upon the amount of flow/performance lost vs. weight loss. If the additional flow increase is marginal, then I'd start decreasing the head diameter until I hit the sweet spot of flow.

BTW, I've been striking out on finding a cheap 5.0 HO cam to get its profile, but I'll keep looking.


roverman
Art Gertz
Winchester, CA.
(3170 posts)

Registered:
04/24/2009 11:02AM

Main British Car:
74' Jensen Healy, 79 Huff. GT 1, 74 MGB Lotus 907,2L

Re: Serious Cams
Posted by: roverman
Date: May 24, 2010 05:46PM

Paul and clan, Anyone "peep", Comp Cams Lobe profile catalog ? So far, they are'nt aswering emails I sent ,regarding grinding our blanks. Ferrea brand, 2v,4.6 Ford mod V8, stainless valves, are a nice lightweight up-grade for the Rover. They require guides or liners and seats to fit. Regarding cost/complexity of rev. kit, somtimes just a flange is attached to push rod to hold 1 end of spring. Other end of spring usually "nest" in a 1 pc. alum. plate, that will receive 8 springs per bank,(usually) approx. size of inner valve spring, Same plate could also nest 1 rod per dog bone to retain them, bearing down straightly, a good idea. roverman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2010 07:58PM by roverman.
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...23456789101112Next
Current Page: 10 of 12


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.