Strange cam specs
The timing events are clearly depicted on the paper here.
The open/close points for both lobes are occurring in the correct part of the cycle.
However, the installed position and lsa seem to differ a bit between the .050 open/close points vs the “centerline” method.
Based on the .050 intake events of 5 and 46, the c/l works out to 110.5.
The exhaust .050 numbers of 10 and 43, the c/l works out to 106.5.
Which would put the lsa at 108.5(217/2).
If the time is spent revisiting these measurements, I’d add a couple of lift points to the test.
Open/close @.100 lift
And what I like to do for the C/L method is check at .050/.040/.030 before/after peak lift, and average the 3 results.
With modern asymmetrical lobe designs, it’s fairly typical to see the C/L point shift 1-2*, based on which method is used and what you’re checking it at.
The timing events are clearly depicted on the paper here.
The open/close points for both lobes are occurring in the correct part of the cycle.
However, the installed position and lsa seem to differ a bit between the .050 open/close points vs the “centerline” method.
Based on the .050 intake events of 5 and 46, the c/l works out to 110.5.
The exhaust .050 numbers of 10 and 43, the c/l works out to 106.5.
Which would put the lsa at 108.5(217/2).
If the time is spent revisiting these measurements, I’d add a couple of lift points to the test.
Open/close @.100 lift
And what I like to do for the C/L method is check at .050/.040/.030 before/after peak lift, and average the 3 results.
With modern asymmetrical lobe designs, it’s fairly typical to see the C/L point shift 1-2*, based on which method is used and what you’re checking it at.