2001 NB cams...
joke 
03-12-2010, 02:33 PM
#29
Newb
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 24
Total Cats: 0
There is enough room in the pistons to move the wrist pin up in the piston to do a longer rod motor to get the rod ratio a little better, FM does it on their stroker engines, just need to use stock crank with some longer rods. No reason you can't build a high reving BP.
Though its all a moot point anyway, when its cheaper and easier just to boost it.
Though its all a moot point anyway, when its cheaper and easier just to boost it.
Reply
0
0
03-13-2010, 12:20 PM
#32
There is enough room in the pistons to move the wrist pin up in the piston to do a longer rod motor to get the rod ratio a little better, FM does it on their stroker engines, just need to use stock crank with some longer rods. No reason you can't build a high reving BP.
Though its all a moot point anyway, when its cheaper and easier just to boost it.
Though its all a moot point anyway, when its cheaper and easier just to boost it.
I would love to try some cams. Since I'm using a Hydra, I can get aggressive...but the question is how aggressive can I go on stock valvetrain?
I love the sound of a lopy 4 cylinder...
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 04:38 AM
#33
Forgive my limitless laziness... How much ARE integral's cams? I checked once...
Putting together a VVT head, debating what I want to do. Pretty built bottom end, so I might get some revs out of it. Nothing is more satisfying than a small turbo which can breath and you get all you can out of it without sacrificing spool up - that's one thing "adding boost" doesn't buy you.
BTW - the timing marks on the cam pictured looked funny to me. Shouldn't it be a singlet on one side, doublet on the other? My plan is sort of that - build the motor, drive it, pull the head and upgrade it later. :-) But perhaps now is the time...
Putting together a VVT head, debating what I want to do. Pretty built bottom end, so I might get some revs out of it. Nothing is more satisfying than a small turbo which can breath and you get all you can out of it without sacrificing spool up - that's one thing "adding boost" doesn't buy you.
BTW - the timing marks on the cam pictured looked funny to me. Shouldn't it be a singlet on one side, doublet on the other? My plan is sort of that - build the motor, drive it, pull the head and upgrade it later. :-) But perhaps now is the time...
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 06:16 AM
#34
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
Often aggressive cams will 'slow down spool', but this is more an effect of the head pulling in more air more efficiently than the turbo actually hitting lower CFM at a given point. AKA your boost plot will look slightly lazy compared to stock, but your dyno and butt-dyno will know better. More flow at less pressure.
I remeber how cams suddenly became a normal mod to DSMs around about the time that Evos got prevalent. Before that everyone just 'turned up the boost'.
I remeber how cams suddenly became a normal mod to DSMs around about the time that Evos got prevalent. Before that everyone just 'turned up the boost'.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 07:12 PM
#35
I bow to your superior wisdom - actually, I just like your tagline. :-)
I'm staring at a '99 head and a VVT head, and I've put off finishing the motor for nearly a year over this. Cam for '99 - cheap and proven. Cams for VVT? God only knows. Certainly they will cost most. The only thing working in the VVT's favor: the cams are better than the 99 from the factory.
I'm staring at a '99 head and a VVT head, and I've put off finishing the motor for nearly a year over this. Cam for '99 - cheap and proven. Cams for VVT? God only knows. Certainly they will cost most. The only thing working in the VVT's favor: the cams are better than the 99 from the factory.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 07:46 PM
#36
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
If you have not already, talk to Sav, as he was talking a good bit about getting more power through the use of VVT recently. My knowledge of the specifics of the two heads is basically 0.
If someone comes up with some sort of VVT control module that works with MS and other systems or maybe just a 'band-aid' type product, I suspect it will be pretty popular.
Edit: Glad you like the tag line. I actually did come up with that myself. Usually I just regurgitate ****.
If someone comes up with some sort of VVT control module that works with MS and other systems or maybe just a 'band-aid' type product, I suspect it will be pretty popular.
Edit: Glad you like the tag line. I actually did come up with that myself. Usually I just regurgitate ****.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2010, 09:18 PM
#37
Most of the time when I have a mouth full of ****, I'll spit it out. Ew.
I think that's what this thread is about, a stand alone controller. It would be spiffy if it "spoke" CANbus, the MS could easily provide all that info instead of the computer reading it itself. Then much more of the time could worry about working in the advance/retard domain instead of in absolute valve position. I might have to really think about this, soon, I'm sure I could write a PID routine on the MS-II to do this, no problem. I'll just have to get off my duff, and have something to test with.
My plan is if there's nothing easy and proven by then, I'll run that.
I think that's what this thread is about, a stand alone controller. It would be spiffy if it "spoke" CANbus, the MS could easily provide all that info instead of the computer reading it itself. Then much more of the time could worry about working in the advance/retard domain instead of in absolute valve position. I might have to really think about this, soon, I'm sure I could write a PID routine on the MS-II to do this, no problem. I'll just have to get off my duff, and have something to test with.
My plan is if there's nothing easy and proven by then, I'll run that.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
