Help ID this camshaft ?

NVscout said:

These are the supposed specs View attachment 163310

Click to expand...

If that is the correct valve events for that cam, and your going to drive that car on the street, in my opinion, it is the wrong cam for a street / strip car.

The duration is far too long.
And they band-aided it by closing down the LSA to a 114°

For the track, where you might have a converter which flashes just above your peak torque rpm, and your spinning the hell outof the engine for peak hp, then maybe one could use that duration.
***If I have a 285° camshaft, that opens 30° BTDC then I effectively only have 255° of useable lobe area, as we reduce VE% proportionately to that overlap period. Most all of that air and fuel was wasted, as it went out the exhaust pipe.

And if I have a camshaft, with a 246° intake duration, then as many in this industry agree, we simply add as much as 40° of intake duration to that camshaft, and the effective duration, comparatively becomes a 286° duration NA Camshaft. Even if it is only 30° BTDC (just intake lobe), one still ends up with an effective lobe duration of 276° on the intake side.

Anyone attempting to band-aid a poor set of cylinder heads with a camshaft like that, might consider looking into a better set of cylinder heads. . . .

If you have 'crap' heads, then one might consider the 114° LSA.

But even with crap heads, which limit air flow (VE%) you would be moving air into the intake manifold, and pushing it out the exhaust side of the engine during the overlap period, with that much overlap.

Again, your still reducing VE%.

As your best solution, I highly suggest you get a new cam from Matt..

NVscout said:

it’s actually decent on the street , as far as I know they're the stock Lsx heads ? From what I was told the car was built for a max effort 1.9 and ran a [email protected] with the nitrous. I got rid of the nitrous and and contemplating what to do next to gain Some Power . Obviously the heads and cam were the first place I was looking ……

Click to expand...

Yes, heads and cam would be, for most part, at the top of the list in order to generate more HP..

In regards to the camshaft in the engine now:
Nitrous does take a different cam, then does an NA cam.

Generally speaking, a bit more lift, a bit more intake
duration, change of lsa, and a lot more exhaust duration.

Without regard for the nitrous, this is a big cam, and I wanted to point that out for members reading this thread. These engines cylinder heads don't flow well past convergence lift, and therefore limit valve lift. Many attempt to add more duration, believing it will replace the lost valve lift. Yes, but only up to a point!

Let's look at a simple mathematical explanation:

A 500 cid engine produces 3-fwHP, per CID, and shifts at 10,500 rpm.
This engine uses a 285° duration intake lobe.

A 4-Cycle, IC Engine, fires 4-Cylinders, per each rpm.
So we divide the cid by the value of 2.

Let's multiply 285° by 4, which equals 1,140° per each rpm.
Let's now divide that value by 250 cid (50%) of 500 cid.

=> (1140 / 250)= 4.560, or 4.560 degrees of duration, per cid.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Your engine displaces 376 cid.
The camshaft in question, has an intake duration of 246°.

If we multiply that by the value of 4, we have 984° degrees
of duration, per each engine rpm.

If we divide the 376 cid by 2, we get 188 cid.

=> (985° / 188)= 5.239, or 5.239 degrees of duration, per cid.

So if you improve the heads, you can then reduce the duration.
Also, if you improve the heads sufficiently, you can use more valve lift.

Finally, duration and static / geometric compression ratios, generally speaking, are tied together. The more intake lobe duration, the higher the static compression ratio should be. And a rise in compression ratio, also helps to generate a more efficient burn of the mass charge.

The 500 cid engine, uses a static / geometric Cr of 15.2:1.
The GM lsX B-15,does not..

Cheers

Well now, are you ready to answer a lot of questions..

It all begins with, Street, Street / Strip, or Race Only?
Manual, or Automatic Trans?

Then, how much HP are you after?
Real HP & Not Internet HP..

What engine rpm are you going to shift at?
This introduces many variables which need to be sorted, as well as your blower.

CID along with_Bore, Stroke and Compression ratio. . .Please..lol

Cheers

Ohhh boy ……

Well now, are you ready to answer a lot of questions.. absolutely not

It all begins with, Street, Street / Strip, or Race Only?
Manual, or Automatic Trans? Street strip but have a high tolerance for shit drivability 😁. A6 with stage 4 CDT kit as well as their converter 6L80 PRO SERIES triple disk 265MM 3A 2800ish stall

Then, how much HP are you after?
Real HP & Not Internet HP..
More than I have now without spending the big money on blower/ more cubes

What engine rpm are you going to shift at? 6800
This introduces many variables which need to be sorted, as well as your blower. Synergy max effort with 2.3/9.5 setup running ignite red or renegade pro E112 …. Depends on what barrel I get cheaper

CID along with_Bore, Stroke and Compression ratio. . .Please..lol -factory config B-15

Thanks!

NVscout said:

Ohhh boy ……

Well now, are you ready to answer a lot of questions.. absolutely not

It all begins with, Street, Street / Strip, or Race Only?
Manual, or Automatic Trans? Street strip but have a high tolerance for shit drivability 😁. A6 with stage 4 CDT kit as well as their converter 6L80 PRO SERIES triple disk 265MM 3A 2800ish stall

Then, how much HP are you after?
Real HP & Not Internet HP..
More than I have now without spending the big money on blower/ more cubes

What engine rpm are you going to shift at? 6800
This introduces many variables which need to be sorted, as well as your blower. Synergy max effort with 2.3/9.5 setup running ignite red or renegade pro E112 …. Depends on what barrel I get cheaper

CID along with_Bore, Stroke and Compression ratio. . .Please..lol -factory config B-15

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Well, we have to have a HP Goal, or we are shooting in the dark..lol

The 6800 rpm is a beginning. as that along with a cylinder
head that flows about what a stock LSA Head flows, will
get you in that 660 HP range, with the proper fuel and mods.

If I were going to run E112, then I certainly would 'bump' the
compression ratio, and would most likely start with a more
moderate pulley setup.

Running a higher static / geometric compression ratio brings
with it higher efficiency, regarding the percentage of the
mass charge that will burn, as well as how fast it burns.

-trapped compression-
We all understand static compression / geometric compression Cr.
Understanding trapped compression is a little more difficult.

If we increase Volumetric Efficiency (VE%) sufficiently we can
increase the Trapped Compression. So sufficient VE% can
then serve, to generate a higher compression ratio, over and
above, what an engines static compression ratio is.

This is because fuel, takes up room within the combustion
chamber, which in turn, decreases the volume of the
chamber, when the piston arrives, at TDC on the
compression stroke.

-a roots blower ain't a turbo-
Pushing in more air with a turbo, means you
can increase the mass entering the cylinder,
by 2 - 3 times, easily. This greatly improves HP,
as a turbo is highly efficient.

So we decrease static / geometric compression,
in favor of increasing the mass flow rate, and we
over fill the cylinder by some given percentage (VE%).

-roots blowers are not efficient-
Pushing in a lot more air, with a higher pulley ratio, using a 'too' small of a roots blower, simply means you are going to have to spin an inefficient blower, which generates much heat as is it pushed to it's limits. This then, is an inefficient means of overfilling the cylinder (VE%).

Move up to a better blower, better cylinder heads,
and an optimized cam, and with that fuel, you could
easily see +850 rwHP .

-a look at VE%-
Some wonder why I continue to use an NHRA Pro Stock 500 NA CID engine as my model.

Here's why. . .

These engines make about 1500 fwHP, shifting at 10,500 rpm
That's 3-fwHP / cid.

Let's calculate how much cfm these engines must inhale, in order to product that much fwHP.

This begins by understanding how many 'Equivalent' engine rpm it requires, to inhale that much air.

=> (1500 * 1.5 * 3456 / 500)= 15,552 rpm.
=> (500 * 15,552 / 3456)= 2,250 cfm.


But they shift at 10,500 rpm. . .
=> (500 * 10500 / 3456)= 1,519 cfm.

And the ratio of VE% is. .
=> (2250 / 1519)= 1.48 VE%

Therefore, the static / geometric compression ratio, will rise
proportionality, and the engine then becomes more efficient.

Static compression ratio in the engine I am familiar with
is 15.2:1. But the 'Trapped Compression is 17.2:1.

Again, this is accomplished with an 'Efficient' NA Engine.

Cheers

typically I run an all out pulley setup with the Ethanol mix fuel , when the vehicle is not being raced I swap pulleys back to a 2.55/9.1 setup on pump gas . I also live at high elevation with DA’s ranging from 4500 to low 6000’s ….

I have not dynoed the car myself but comparing to similar builds it seems like the 720-780 range is not far fetched. That being said if I could pick up around 100 hp for roughly 3k I would absolutely do that.

The thought of upgrading to a 2650 by it self doesn’t seem like much bang for the buck at the vehicles current stage. My same thoughts are similar about tearing down a well running engine to change its configuration.

I guess to more simply ask …. Would you be looking at the m311 boosted heads or just a port and valve job on the lsx heads I already have? I plan on swapping cams and working over or buying new heads to start , hoping to gain enough HP to make the change worth it at this time. at the same time I would like the flexibility down the road for 2650 and displacement without having to change heads again.

As always your input is appreciated

Rubber Duck said:

Well, we have to have a HP Goal, or we are shooting in the dark..lol

The 6800 rpm is a beginning. as that along with a cylinder
head that flows about what a stock LSA Head flows, will
get you in that 660 HP range, with the proper fuel and mods.

If I were going to run E112, then I certainly would 'bump' the
compression ratio, and would most likely start with a more
moderate pulley setup.

Running a higher static / geometric compression ratio brings
with it higher efficiency, regarding the percentage of the
mass charge that will burn, as well as how fast it burns.

-trapped compression-
We all understand static compression / geometric compression Cr.
Understanding trapped compression is a little more difficult.

If we increase Volumetric Efficiency (VE%) sufficiently we can
increase the Trapped Compression. So sufficient VE% can
then serve, to generate a higher compression ratio, over and
above, what an engines static compression ratio is.

This is because fuel, takes up room within the combustion
chamber, which in turn, decreases the volume of the
chamber, when the piston arrives, at TDC on the
compression stroke.

-a roots blower ain't a turbo-
Pushing in more air with a turbo, means you
can increase the mass entering the cylinder,
by 2 - 3 times, easily. This greatly improves HP,
as a turbo is highly efficient.

So we decrease static / geometric compression,
in favor of increasing the mass flow rate, and we
over fill the cylinder by some given percentage (VE%).

-roots blowers are not efficient-
Pushing in a lot more air, with a higher pulley ratio, using a 'too' small of a roots blower, simply means you are going to have to spin an inefficient blower, which generates much heat as is it pushed to it's limits. This then, is an inefficient means of overfilling the cylinder (VE%).

Move up to a better blower, better cylinder heads,
and an optimized cam, and with that fuel, you could
easily see +850 rwHP .

-a look at VE%-
Some wonder why I continue to use an NHRA Pro Stock 500 NA CID engine as my model.

Here's why. . .

These engines make about 1500 fwHP, shifting at 10,500 rpm
That's 3-fwHP / cid.

Let's calculate how much cfm these engines must inhale, in order to product that much fwHP.

This begins by understanding how many 'Equivalent' engine rpm it requires, to inhale that much air.

=> (1500 * 1.5 * 3456 / 500)= 15,552 rpm.
=> (500 * 15,552 / 3456)= 2,250 cfm.


But they shift at 10,500 rpm. . .
=> (500 * 10500 / 3456)= 1,519 cfm.

And the ratio of VE% is. .
=> (2250 / 1519)= 1.48 VE%

Therefore, the static / geometric compression ratio, will rise
proportionality, and the engine then becomes more efficient.

Static compression ratio in the engine I am familiar with
is 15.2:1. But the 'Trapped Compression is 17.2:1.

Again, this is accomplished with an 'Efficient' NA Engine.

Cheers

Click to expand...

that’s ALOT for my little brain to take in , but does that mean that with alcohol based fuels the trapped CR is higher due to the amount of fuel ?

I am in favor of going to an aftermarket head (JMHO)!
Many people with these engines are using the M311 heads, with good luck.

Personally, I like the fact that similar to Mast, they seem to understand that if either engine internal volume / displacement goes up, or if VE% goes up, the runner volume must also increase.

I would certainly consider getting your blower ported. Stock blowers only put out about 1050 cfm. That's good for your mid 600 hp cars. But to move into the mid to upper mid 700 hp range, good heads and a ported blower, along with an oxygenated fuel is the best way to get there(JMHO)!

Regarding alcohol based fuels.

With high grade Meth (wood) your trapped compression ratio / running compression, is essentially unlimited. And normally, no intercooler is required. You come back from a run down the track, open up your hood, and it is not uncommon to see a mist on top of the blower. Touch it, and it is cold.

With Pump E85 (sugar) with gasoline added, we are not so lucky.
They use a crap gasoline, which has an insufficient MON rating.

Since I have messed around with various fuels now for so many years (toluene, and others), I never bothered to buy a high quality race E85 myself. I simply put together my own fuel cocktails, dating back to the time when we had very few racing fuel companies. And many of them back then, did not 'yet' understand what they understand today. Even VP was still searching for the proper formula back then. Many were attempting to simply use MMT, which contaminates the spark plugs. This is why I decided to learn how to do it on my own.

But my cars were not boosted, I always ran Carburetors, and they were only run on Gasoline.

But today with these engines, I believe that an Oxygenated Fuel, which possess a high Evaporation quality, is an absolute must. Any of you 'old timers' out there will remember what evaporation of fuel did when you were pumping the gasoline into your gas tank. .

Remember when we stuck the nozzle of the gas pump into the tank inlet, back when we did not have the sealed nozzles. Remember how the evaporation of the gasoline made your fingers get cold..

On the street today, it would be a combination of E85, and at least two other additives to boost the MON rating of the fuel, as required. On the track, I might choose something a little better. Again, as might be required.

Your goals of a mid to high mid 700 HP Engine, is achievable.

Take a look at @Blades1_99 signature line.
He made (as I recall) about 730 rwHP.

Stock Bottom End. . .
Good Heads, ported blower, cam from @Lt1z, and tuned by Cal, down in Florida.

As I recall, he did that without E85.
But as always, Blades / Raymond will pop in and tell me what I got wrong..

With the fuel you are proposing, I see no reason that if you simply
parallel what Blades did, you should easily make your goal..

Cheers

NVscout said:

That’s interesting .. FED said I was better off going with the lsx heads I have and letting them work em over ..

The blower is a synergy race ported blower , sorry I thought I had already mentioned that above .


as for the fuel , I’ve been running pro E112 for the last year …

Click to expand...

@Rubber Duck got it right. He pointed me to the heads I am using instead of the Brodix heads I was looking at.

My tuning runs at @Hartline was 730 at the wheel. We had it "tuned" but didn't get to do E number because of mechanical failure of a rocker bolt pulling out (since corrected by using longer bolts on all the rockers). We estimate that I should be in the 760 range on E85, however this was also before going to the bigger Nick Williams Boost 103 TB and DDP intake. I sent him files...he adjusted for the bigger TB but no formal numbers.

I should get other there and find out....not that I would share with others. Maybe before Cadillac Attack, but Cal would be too busy.

I haven't done a run on any other shops' dyno because I know that shops will acquire tunes of other tuners by being plugged into that shop's lap top. I paid Cal for his expertise and don't want others stealing his tweaks.