Eric's cam challenge

-
PRH said:
One of the downsides of doing a lot of testing are those, “well……..that didn’t work” moments.

Those are real learning moments.
When something you were pretty sure was going to be great……..wasn’t.
Click to expand...
Any day you learn something is a good day.
 
And the smart guys listen and learn. They dont brag about there years of experience trying to placate there ego on YouTube
 
:popcorn:I'm just here for the comments! :popcorn: Worth it for the entertainment value alone! :rofl: The only thing I would have liked to see done differently with the competition would be for it to have been been done on a solid roller platform, but I can also understand why that probably woudn't be feasible for that many tests as well.
 
There’s a video on the NK Performance Facebook page where the winner discusses some thoughts on coming up with the winning cam.
 
273 said:
Everyone generally says get a custom cam, but now all a sudden it's guessing and a pointless test,
Click to expand...
If you cant tune it then its a pointless test. Different cams create different intake and exhaust events that take place. Any change will change the residual gas species left in the cylinder requiring a different tune to account for the increase or decrease in CO left in the chamber. If you under or over scavenge the chamber it needs a different tune.

Different engine combinations create different vacuum profiles that need to be tuned for. There are way more variables that a list of mechanical parts. Its how those parts affect the chemistry of the burn that needs to be addressed.

Does it need more fuel or less fuel does it need more timing or less timing to place the PPP at the correct and most advantageous crank angle. If one camshaft creates a leaner intake fill then the timing needs to be altered to get the burn started at the right time.
 
Hysteric said:
If you cant tune it then its a pointless test. Different cams create different intake and exhaust events that take place. Any change will change the residual gas species left in the cylinder requiring a different tune to account for the increase or decrease in CO left in the chamber. If you under or over scavenge the chamber it needs a different tune.

Different engine combinations create different vacuum profiles that need to be tuned for. There are way more variables that a list of mechanical parts. Its how those parts affect the chemistry of the burn that needs to be addressed.

Does it need more fuel or less fuel does it need more timing or less timing to place the PPP at the correct and most advantageous crank angle. If one camshaft creates a leaner intake fill then the timing needs to be altered to get the burn started at the right time.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah...
 
ch1ll said:
DV also said his lobe profile was street car designed lobe, other competitors could be super aggressive and not live long on the street, straining your valve train.
Click to expand...
Apparently the guy that won used streetable lobe profile also.
 
Over on Speed Talk there was some discussion about whether familiarity with the platform was an advantage or not, with people arguing on either side of that.
Myself, I think having done testing on a given platform is an advantage over just looking at the engine specs.
 
PRH said:
Over on Speed Talk there was some discussion about whether familiarity with the platform was an advantage or not, with people arguing on either side of that.
Myself, I think having done testing on a given platform is an advantage over just looking at the engine specs.
Click to expand...
Wasn't everyone free to do testing beforehand?
 
RustyRatRod said:
Wasn't everyone free to do testing beforehand?
Click to expand...
They could if they wanted too.

I don't think the winner did testing just for this competition, he just has in the past dyno a bunch of cam plus he works at cam motion so he has at lot to draw from.
 
Of course, as long as the entry cam got there by the deadline date.

My take on what the winner was saying about the 18 cams he tested…….that had nothing specifically to do with this contest.
A large part of their business is LS stuff, and that testing was part of their product R&D.
But, as he said…….as a result of that testing, he got to see the trends…..of that platform.
Which he obviously tapped into in coming up with his entry.
 
PRH said:
Over on Speed Talk there was some discussion about whether familiarity with the platform was an advantage or not, with people arguing on either side of that.
Myself, I think having done testing on a given platform is an advantage over just looking at the engine specs.
Click to expand...
I say Definitely, if your mainly an LS builder especially around that power level your gonna have an advantage over someone that doesn't.
 
273 said:
They could if they wanted too.

I don't think the winner did testing just for this competition, he just has in the past dyno a bunch of cam plus he works at cam motion so he has at lot to draw from.
Click to expand...
But DV is the godly guru. He should have been on the top of the heap. He let a kid beat his ***.
 
You can see it in the results when he said he went large on exhaust for hp and mild on intake for torque, cause most didn't go with that wide of a split like he did 238/259 108.5 and the ones that didn't but did well seem to make it up with wider LSA and or ICL.
 
273 said:
You can see it in the results when he said he went large on exhaust for hp and mild on intake for torque, cause most didn't go with that wide of a split like he did 238/259 108.5 and the ones that didn't but did well seem to make it up with wider LSA and or ICL.
Click to expand...


I forgot what numbers I came up with. I didn’t have that much exhaust duration. I think I came up with 17 degrees of split.
 
Brent Lykins, who also entered but is a Ford guy, has a post contest video with some thoughts on his cam selection, and some assumptions he’d made.
He made some comparisons to some of the combos he works on, and thinking about what he said…….I felt like a lot of stuff I’ve tested seems like the inverse of those builds.
 
273 said:
You can see it in the results when he said he went large on exhaust for hp and mild on intake for torque, cause most didn't go with that wide of a split like he did 238/259 108.5 and the ones that didn't but did well seem to make it up with wider LSA and or ICL.
Click to expand...
And you know what those numbers remind me of? The Whiplash/Thumpr and one of Crower's early lines....I forget what they called it. Comp also had their DEH grinds that were similar. But all four of those examples have WIDE duration splits and narrow LSA. That's why those cams can actually work well if everything matches up.
 
Last edited:
273 said:
I say Definitely, if your mainly an LS builder especially around that power level your gonna have an advantage over someone that doesn't.
Click to expand...
and here's the part where that house of cards all falls down. DV tested over 19,000 cams he should have an innate advantage on that alone. he's done dyno testing, he knew the parameters, he writes the theory; advantage, advantage, advantage.

yet here we are.

it's like the janitor comes in and solves the unsolvable equation on the chalkboard that the PhD professor put up there.
 
junkyardhero said:
and here's the part where that house of cards all falls down. DV tested over 19,000 cams he should have an innate advantage on that alone. he's done dyno testing, he knew the parameters, he writes the theory; advantage, advantage, advantage.

yet here we are.

it's like the janitor comes in and solves the unsolvable equation on the chalkboard that the PhD professor put up there.
Click to expand...
The 25 year old janitor at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top