Engine and Transmission Tech

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.