|
I spent a few hours today fondling the valve train on a B20E. I've finally gotten around to getting the head bolted on the ITB race car engine. This provided the opportunity to see if I could learn something about the pros and cons of various methods of setting valve lash on the B20 (as promised in an earlier thread).
The engine used for this exercise is a B20E that has just been freshened for the upcoming racing season. The "D" cam and lifters are used (about 800-1000 race miles) but in very good condition. The head has just had the valves done at a local race shop, including new valve springs.
I used 4 methods to check/adjust valve lash, described below. As you read the descriptions of the methods, please note that in some cases we're talking *valve* number (1 thru 8), and in other cases we're talking *cylinder* number (1 thru 4).
==================
Shop manual method
==================
1 - Roll engine to firing TDC for #1 cylinder and adjust valves 1, 2, 3, 5.
2 - Roll engine to firing TDC for #4 cylinder and adjust valves 4, 6, 7, 8.
==============
Phil S. method
==============
1 - Roll engine (normal rotation) until cylinder #1 exhaust valve just starts to *open*, adjust intake valve on same cylinder. (Repeat for cylinders 3, 4, 2)
2 - Roll engine (normal rotation) until cylinder #1 intake valve just starts to *close*, adjust exhaust valve on same cylinder.
3 - (Repeat for cylinders 3, 4, and 2)
============
Nines method
============
1 - Roll engine until #8 valve is fully open, adjust valve #1.
2 - Roll engine until #7 valve is fully open, adjust valve #2.
3 - Roll engine until #6 valve is fully open, adjust valve #3.
4 - Repeat until all 8 have been adjusted. (The # of the open valve plus the # of the adjusted valve always add up to 9.)
=================
Valve Rock method
=================
1 - Roll engine until intake and exhaust valves on #4 cylinder "rock" (exhaust closing, intake opening), adjust both valves on #1 cylinder. Repeat for all "opposing" cylinders - #2 rocks adjust #3, #4 rocks adjust #1, #3 rocks adjust #2.
Okay... All valves were adjusted to .018", using the "Rule of Nines" method (this was an arbitrary choice, but a lucky one, as you'll see later). An .018/.020 go/no-go feeler guage was used as primary tool, with another conventional set of feeler guages used for occasional confidence checks. After all 8 valves were at a "perfect" .018, the other 3 methods were then employed one at a time, to check (NOT adjust) lash on all valves. (BTW, no "hot vs cold" testing was done at this time; we were on the engine buildup stand at 60 degrees ambient.)
Backing up a minute, I also had a .001" dial indicator in use prior to doing the lash adjustments and checks. The dial indicator was set up on the rocker shaft in two different "mid-span" locations to see if adjacent valve opening/closing had any "bowing" effect on the shaft. None noted, no deflection of the shaft was seen in either location. We also set up in two places on the camshaft, midway between the front and center bearings, then midway between the center and rear bearings. In both cases, we put the indicator tip on the base circle of a cam lobe (valve open), then loaded and unloaded the cam by alternately loosening and tightening the rocker assembly hold down bolts (using a "dispensable" rocker assembly, natch!). Again, no appreciable deflection or bowing of the camshaft was seen on the dial indicator. Phil, this means I did not verify your observation that the cam and/or rocker assembly might be "flexing" when a valve adjacent to the one being adjusted is open. Or if they *are* flexing, it's apparently not enough to really affect the lash adjustment process. But keep reading... your adjustment method WILL be vindicated soon! :)
Back to the lash checks. Hmmm.... Houston, we have a problem. While Phil's method agrees with the "Nines" method perfectly (less than .001" difference on all valves), the "Rock" method and the "Shop Manual" method have anomalies. The Rock method shows one valve significantly out of adjustment (more than .002") and another that is not so good (fat .001", skinny .002" sort of discrepancy). And three valves using the Shop Manual method also have shakey numbers, two of them more than .001" and one nearly .002" out, compared to the Nines baseline. At this point, I started looking at the exact position of the cam lobe in "adjustment position" for each of the 4 methods. Bottom line? The Shop Manual and Rock methods both end up with some of the lifters NOT centered on the base circle portion of the cam lobe during adjustment. In fact, the Rock method has NONE of the lifters centered on the base circle.
So... not finding any other cause, I am concluding that at least in my case (and probably many others) not every cam lobe is ground (or worn) exactly the same with respect to where the base circle starts and ends. The Nines method and Phil's method both put the high point of the cam lobe exactly 180 degrees from the lifter, which of course centers the lifter in the base circle while you're adjusting the valve. The other two methods do not, so are probably more vulnerable to a less-than-perfect grind.
The other part of this story is that these are the same parts (valves, cam, lifters, pushrods and rocker assembly) that have been in the engine for the last several hundred race miles. And I've been using the "Rock" method since I can't remember when, so that's how all the valve lash adjustments were done on this engine. No evidence that it did any harm, but in any case, because I'm somewhat anal about these things, I will be using the Nines method henceforth. (Now that I've done them back to back, I find the Nines method a little easier to live with than Phil's.) But I can recommend either of them. I do NOT recommend the Shop Manual method OR the Rock method, for reasons cited above.
All of this just my opinion, of course. :)
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
Did you check how much base circle runout the lobes have?
|
|
-
|
Directly, no... but I think we can safely say that in at least some cases, the base circles are *not* perfectly round. That's why IMO, you see this .001-.002" discrepancy in lash, one method vs another. In retrospect, this is no big surprise. For instance, using the "Rock" method, both the intake and exhaust lifters are about 60 degrees (of *cam* rotation) from the center of the base circle when you're doing the adjustments. That's a bunch... with a "D" grind cam, at this point you're closer to the start of a ramp than you are to the center of the base circle.
Gary L.
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
I'd say your base circle is a little wobbly too. It's not something that I haven't encountered with cams from my local grinders, do you have an original?
with a "D" grind cam, at this point you're closer to the start of a ramp than you are to the center of the base circle.
I know what you mean, the Volvo profiles are in no hurry to get down to zero lifter rise, the more modern profiles can be a lot shorter while being bigger everywhere else.
|
|
-
|
Yes... this particular cam is a Volvo piece. I'm not sure if it was a replacement camshaft or simply one from an engine with low mileage.
I have one brand new in-the-box aftermarket replacement D cam, I may chuck it up in a block and take some base circle runouts, just for the heck of it.
And while I have your ear... I'm thinking about moving up a class, and one of the things that would be allowed is a change in valve lift from stock to .450" (measured at the valve, zero lash).
Any thoughts on this? I can change camshaft or rockers or both. I cannot do any additional head work beyond what is allowed in my current class, i.e. no porting or polishing allowed, stock valve springs required.
I realize there are probably better cams out there, but for starters, what about the D cam with 1.6 rockers (assuming such pieces exist)? A worthwhile endeavor, or would I never know the difference?
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Charlie
on
Mon Feb 20 13:04 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
What about a "F" cam. Less than .450 lift. Real cheap at about $65. Works fine with D Jetronics, at least on the track. An Isky VV 81 will also work with 'stock' valvsprings.
Charlie
|
|
-
|
I had forgotten that I have an Excel spreadsheet that I shamelessly filled with data copied from a website that shows all the specs for just about every B18/B20 camshaft ever marketed. You're right, the R Sport "F" and the VV81 are definitely candidates. So who sells the F cam for $65?
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Charlie
on
Tue Feb 21 11:54 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
Melling sells F cams. The actual lift and durration seems a bit inconsistant.
I have one in my F/P 142. The D Jetronic seems to deal with it ok with a few extra pounds of fuel pressure. It feels kinda soft much below 4500 rpm and HP is droping by 7000 with a stock E head. It's pretty close to an Isky VV81 and I don't know if there would be a significant diffrence in performance.
Charlie
|
|
-
|
Charlie,
Have you done any other limited prep FP mods to the engine (beyond ITB level) besides the camshaft change? Just curious as to what sort of power increase you think you've gotten as a result.
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Charlie
on
Wed Feb 22 10:37 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
There is really not a lot of modification allowed. Right now it is just the cam and lightened flywheel. Heck, I bet there are plenty of IT cars with more then that! I have a head with duel Isky valvesprings sitting next to the car to install. The cam is mabey 10 HP depending on rpm. I dont trust chassie dynos as absolute mesurements. It is still a fairly flat power curve from 5000-7000 rpm
Charlie
|
|
-
|
"Heck, I bet there are plenty of IT cars with more then that!"
Agreed... I've been hanging around the Improved Touring website some lately, and it has become painfully obvious there are a lot of people that don't read the ITCS very closely, if at all. There are probably just as many that read it and understand it, then install illegal parts anyway.
I'm thinking about going to the limited prep F prod configuration and move up to a better-subscribed COMMA class. The class I've been running does not offer much in the way of competition... from a quanity *or* a quality standpoint. I actually only had 2 races in 7 outings last year, both against the same car... a NASA Texas IT7 type Mazda that comes up to play at Hallett on occasion.
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
You can source the Melling "F" cam through Autozone online.
|
|
-
|
Thanks... I took a quick peek at Autozone's online catalog. It appears that although it is listed (along with a lot of other Melling cams for the B20), it is not currently available.
Gary L.
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Charlie
on
Wed Feb 22 10:42 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
Autopartsgiant.com
|
|
-
|
stock valve springs required
Stock springs forces you to pick a road cam rather than a race cam, so I'd lean towards the Isky VV81 or the Volvo F grind too. I don't think that roller rockers would be any help to you at all because they'd make the spring's work even harder + you would have less choice of cam profiles. If it's at all possible, you should try & get something different for the exhaust lobe, it really needs to be bigger than the intake lobe, but it could have less lift. I think the F grind does have a longer duration exhaust, but I've never had one, so I can't be sure.
|
|
-
|
I've gone back and re-read the rules, looks like I can use any metal valve spring after all. No roller rockers though... that one is clearly a "no-no".
Advertised duration (at .020" lift) on the F cam is apparently 291 intake and 300 exhaust, compared to the D cam at 280 for both I & E. The F also is shown with .020" more lift than the D.
In any case, thanks for the advice.
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
That's good, it opens up more possibilities for harsher cams. I've been using 1.25" Dual Springs for SBC for eons, originally Isky 'Grey & Whites' & more recently a Comp Cams equivalent. These days I think the hot setup is the barrel wound variable singles from Comp Cams, LS1 springs I think?
If you are going do stick to D-Jet, I would use that F cam if you get one cheaply. If aftermarket injection is allowed, ie, Megasquirt, I'd use a mediocre(gentle) long duration exhaust & I'd try one of Comp Cams Lift rule cams, which are very harsh. Exhaust lobes have a harder time because they open against spring seat pressure + an additional 90+ lbs of residual cylinder pressure.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Charlie
on
Wed Feb 22 10:46 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
Do you have a part number for those springs and do they fit Isky/IPD retainers? I have a set of Isky springs, as recomeneded in thier catalog, mounted on a head about to go into my car but recently heard of breakage problems with them.
Charlie
|
|
-
|
Which springs, the duals or the beehive? I meant beehive when I said barrel.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Charlie
on
Fri Feb 24 03:29 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
Those Comp cam lift rule lobes look interesting. Have they made one for you and can they get B20 blanks? The cores are getting hard to find.
Charlie
|
|
-
|
“Those Comp cam lift rule lobes look interesting. Have they made one for you and can they get B20 blanks? The cores are getting hard to find.”
I have never dealt with any American cam company directly. I don’t know about blank billet availability, CWC are the primary manufacturer that make blank cams, but you’d have to get a cam grinder company to ask CWC what the go is. Maybe they only churn out a batch once a year.
Being as my info is a decade old I now believe that Comp Cams' beehive springs are probably the state of the art & the way to go. Link to Comp Cams master profile catalog. Notice that the max lift MA cams require extra oiling & that the lift limited MA lobes are going to be fairly harsh too because both groups are designed to get the absolute maximum open & closing rates that they only stand a chance surviving on the inlets. For the exhaust I would find a more gentle lobe which doesn’t need to have .300” lobe lift & can be much more gentle(assuming that you are using a near stock B20E head with only springs & valve seat work). An alternate cam company that I would also seek advice from is Elgin. They are better known as cam suppliers for non V8’s.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Charlie
on
Fri Feb 24 03:25 CST 2006 [ RELATED]
|
I am using the Isky 625/626 spring and matiching retainers. What is you experiance with them and do you know of something better. A friend of mine recently broke one of these springs so I am concerned about failure more than super high RPM.
Charlie
|
|
-
-
|
Those do look good. How do you achieve the 1.800 installed hight? Do you use longer valves, special retainers? or deepen the spring pocket by .200?
What retainers do you use. they look like they would fit the stock ones.
Charlie
|
|
-
|
I don't know, I haven't tried them yet. Send an email to Ian, his email is iadr AT hotmail.com
|
|
-
|
“I am using the Isky 625/626 spring and matching retainers. What is you experience with them and do you know of something better. A friend of mine recently broke one of these springs so I am concerned about failure more than super high RPM.”
I’ve never used the recommend 625/626, IMHO they are only good for road cars, ie, a D grind or .300” lobe lift max gentle road cams that aren’t red lined very often.
The Isky’s I use are P.N. 4205 (Grey & Whites) which are intended for SBC. I set them up with no shims & DIY retainers which give 105-110 lb seat pressure for mild cams or shim them up to the recommended 130+ lb seat pressure for race cams. They have 320 lb/inch rates. My info is 10+ years old now & at the time Isky got sold & their quality dropped so I switched springs. Ended up using springs from the local VW Type1 crowd, a set of duals with similar seat pressure & lift rates that have slightly stiffer outers & slight weaker inners, I was assured that they where Comp Cams or Crane, but am not 100% sure, but they are good. I consider Comp Cams & Crane Cams to be the best in the business. Here is a link to some of Isky’s spring specs, it’s a PDF.
|
|
-
|
The roller rockers I have are in a 1.6:1 rocker ratio, as compared to the stock 1.4 - 1.45 (depending on how far the adjuster is out). So it would restrict your cam choice somewhat anyhow.
I have a VV-81 in my PV's motor, I'm happy with it. The power is mostly above the 3300 rpm mark, when you can hear the Webers start to swallow up that reversion sound. But really, below 3300 rpm is a couple of seconds in first gear from a stop, from then on it's easy enough to keep it in the power band. Mine pulls nice and crisply all the way up to 7000 rpm, although typically I'll use 6500 rpm as a redline.
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.
|
|
-
|
Not just opinion -- that's some nice analytical testing. I did the same thing the same way years ago, except that I didn't have a dial indicator to check potential flex.
Of course I agree that the green book method is quick and dirty, and I observe the same discrepency of up to .002". I never tried the "rock" method. Obviously, neither one puts you on the center of the base circle.
The "nines" method does put you on the dead center of the base circle. The method I use doesn't necessarily, although it will be pretty close. I don't think it matters as long as you're entirely clear of any ramps.
In my tests, however, I found that the "nines" method does NOT produce identical results to the one I use (which came from an old book on engine blueprinting -- can't remember the author now, but it's certainly not something I developed myself. I learned it from David Hueppchen at OJ Rallye). I still found a .001" difference on the #1 and #8 valves, which you did not observe. I have no logical explanation for that other than flex somewhere in the valve train, which I did not attempt to measure. You found no difference and also no flex. If you don't have one, you won't have the other...
Why our results are not the same, I don't know. I'm sure you tested it accurately. I've checked it on C, D, VV61, VV71, VPD SP, VPD SC, and Unitek Phase 4 cams, using stock and aftermarket lifters and pushrods, and the variance is always there to some extent.
I use the "nines" method to set up new motors, or if I have to set valves cold for some reason, because it's quick and easy and plenty good enough for a baseline. However, I can always hear that the valves are not all the same. They do sound the same using the other method, so that's why I concluded it's better than the "nines" and not just different.
Now someone will tell us that lash does not affect impact force with the stock cams, and that there is therefore no difference in sound if you go tighter or looser. That is not what I observe at all. We'll also hear that the lash does not change from cold to hot, whereas I find that it tightens up as much as .002". We'll also hear that these are tractor motors, and that it makes no difference in performance (why be anal, eh?) ;-)
I'm very curious what you'd find if you checked the "nines" versus "my" method warm. Care to pursue that, once you get the engine running again?
--Phil S.
|
|
-
|
Phil,
No problem... I'll do "hot" comparison of the two methods after the engine is installed. Also, bear in mind that I said "...less than .001 difference" when I talked about "Nines" vs "Phil". I meant that literally, in that there may have been some difference, but I was confident it was less than a full thousandth of an inch. Could have been .006", for instance. But my hands, using my .001" increment feeler guages, were not going to make that call. And BTW, I once did aircraft jet engine parts dimensional inspection for a living, so I know when I'm wandering into subjective measurement territory. :)
I'll also do a careful "Hot vs Cold" using my new-found knowledge, and see if I duplicate your experience. Previously, I have not, but I didn't get that picky about it, and I was also using (Rock method) a process that I now know had some variability built-in. When you say it "tightens up", I assume you talking hotter-tighter, not colder-tighter?
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
Yeah, I understand the subjective thing. Once upon a time I was a mechanical inspector working not on jet engines, but turbine APUs and such... I swear I can hear the difference in the two methods, though.
And yes, hotter = reduced lash.
|
|
-
|
I have been thinking that the longitudinal movement of the camshaft in the block, caused by the helical gear, in the event the engine is rotated in the opposite direction to normal rotation, and the camshaft bearing clearances, could add to the discrepancies found.
And of course there is always the small dent on the end of the rocker arm, unless that is dressed out prior to the adjustment.
And overjoyed to hear the use of the term "subjective" in the discussion....
|
|
-
|
I was pretty careful to keep the engine turning the same (normal) direction throughout the process. Cam bearings were new, and the cam bearing journals measured well within shop manual specs, so I wouldn't think we had any movement there, especially since I put a dial indicator on the cam in a couple of places looking for any such movement.
But now about the rocker arm problem... you've lost me. Care to enlighten?
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
If you look at the underside of the rocker arm where it contacts the tip of the valve stem, you will notice that in many cases the surface of the pad has a round or slightly oval depression in it. The feeler gauge will bridge this depression, but the tip will not, making the effective lash somewhat larger than that set.
This is why I can't get too excited about lash variation below a certain "threshold" level, like .002 inch. There is more variation in the valve train than that for many reasons.
Many older valve grinding machines has jigs for reprofiling the rocker arms. It can also be done by hand, which in many cases is what I do.
|
|
-
|
I've personally never witnessed the oval'd wear you speak of, but it's probably a precursor to what I *have* observed on one rocker assembly in my spares pile. In this case, every rocker tip is clearly worn the width of the valve stem, to the point of having fingernail-catching ridges on at least one side of each worn area. Apparently many many miles, or improper oiling, or both.
But the assembly used in my "experiment" above has had a fairly recent rework of all the rocker tips... they are literally like new.
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
Most interesting! I had pretty much done them in a random order and continued
until they all had the right clearance or none at all, which resulted in doing
some valves several times. This was probably as good but much more time
consuming. I suppose that some valves might be pretty nearly fully open at
the same time (one intake and another exhaust) so maybe a little time could be
picked up that way.
Does anyone race B30s?
--
George Downs Bartlesville, Heart of the USA!
|
|
-
|
I don't know of any B30's that have been raced in the US, at least not in the road racing organizations with which I'm familiar. I do know the 164 has never been classified as an SCCA Improved Touring car. That's not to say it couldn't be done. But to my knowledge, no one has shown any serious interest in racing the car, or it would be listed in the IT competition specifications.
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
-
|
Thanks for doing the due dilligence.
And KLR, even if it were flexing at 6500 rpm, if it isn't in a static setting then there would be no way to account for it through adjustments. And flex at high rpms is likely harmonic and chaotic, specific to certain rpm bands.
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.
|
|
-
|
Thanks for doing that man! Will you be dynoing the car before the race season starts? I'm just curious to see what your car's putting out to a couple of other ITB 140s that I've heard of/know of so far... And what're the last numbers you have for your car on the dyno? What's different between now and then?
And, a few comments... Might there be some flex when the camshaft's spinning 6500rpm? Ok, one comment. Other than that, I'll be doing it the nines method as well, because it is definitely easy to remember... :) Thanks again Gary!
|
|
-
|
Other than that, I'll be doing it the nines method as well, because it is definitely easy to remember.
That's the method I've always used and it's how I set your valves way back when. My tech at Scoville's said he always set his to .016" or even .014" for a bit more power when he was driving the car instead of his wife. I set mine to .016" cold with the Nines method when I built the motor, so I don't have a back to back comparison power-wise, but they haven't started to make any noise since it was built. My B18 was never quiet for long.
|
|
-
|
I get worried when the valves are too quiet. Quiet valves are tight valves, and tight valves (before too long) are burnt valves.
--
I'm JohnMc, and I approved this message.
|
|
-
|
"I get worried when the valves are too quiet. Quiet valves are tight valves, and tight valves (before too long) are burnt valves."
You know, I agree with you, but that noisy B18 burnt an exhaust valve and they were never tight. I'll be checking mine before too long, the head's gotta come off soon anyway, so I'll see how they're doing before it comes back off.
|
|
-
-
|
Because the B20 uses a solid lifter cam, the performance variety has to be noisy. There just isn't any way around this without loosing performance & economy.
|
|
-
|
So, that must explain why mine only dynos at 194 corrected SAE BHP (now improved from that, I believe) and only gets 30 MPG at a sustained 3800 RPM cruise. I guess I don't know how this stuff works ;-)
|
|
-
|
No need to be sarcastic. The fact that you managed to achieve that without blueprinting & with overweight pistons & rods speaks volumes about the quality of Unitek's cylinder head & camshaft. I certainly would love to get my hands on one of those heads but it's too expensive. Did you manage to get rid of the slump in the midrange?
|
|
-
|
Sorry, I couldn't resist making a crack in response to another blanket statement. I hear a lot of those, and I don't know how else to respond except to point at the results I've gotten so far.
On this motor specifically, I've been told by various other builders that the porting is wrong, the valve size and selection are wrong, the bore is wrong, the rods and pistons are wrong (and BTW, they're going to hit the head), the cam selection is wrong and that it's degreed wrong, the lifters and pushrods are wrong, the exhaust and muffler are wrong, the chokes are wrong, the air horns are wrong, that quite a number of things I put a lot of money and effort into don't matter, and (frequently) that my ideas about tuning are wrong. I'm sure there's more I've forgotten.
It is blueprinted. There is nothing magical about the head -- you could easily duplicate it if you saw it. I don't think the exhaust ports would flow bench very well (but when was the last time a flow bench won a race?). Actually, there's nothing magical about any of it.
Yes, I've improved the midrange bog and it revs higher as well. I have not dynoed it again since making those changes, so I can't quantify those yet. I'm not done with it -- it can stand higher CR for sure, the cam should probably retard a few degrees from where it is now, and it still needs more spark. I'm pretty sure there's another 10 HP in there without impacting driveability.
Anyway, I think I'll just keep adjusting valves the way I've learned to do it over 39 years of building and tuning motors. All this stuff I've got wrong seems to be working for me.
|
|
-
|
Sorry, I couldn't resist making a crack in response to another blanket statement.
There isn't anyway you can get around the laws of physics Phil, to make a cam quiet means you have to close the clearence up slower which makes the cam larger for seat to seat duration without actually having the benefit of any extra gas flow. The downside is that you are bleeding off compression.
On this motor specifically, I've been told by various other builders that the porting is wrong, the valve size and selection are wrong, the bore is wrong, the rods and pistons are wrong (and BTW, they're going to hit the head), the cam selection is wrong and that it's degreed wrong, the lifters and pushrods are wrong, the exhaust and muffler are wrong, the chokes are wrong, the air horns are wrong, that quite a number of things I put a lot of money and effort into don't matter, and (frequently) that my ideas about tuning are wrong. I'm sure there's more I've forgotten.
I don't see that there's much wrong with that motor of yours, it reminds me of my first Webered engine I had in the late '80's. The valves & ports must be OK. The rods & pistons could be lighter, the 8-bolt cranks have a habbit of bending because of the weight of the rods & pistons.
What sort of squish do you run?
I don't know what lifters & pushrods you use?
If you made your chokes a little smaller, you would have far less problems jetting. (Think about this one, it makes no sense to have the chokes larger than the smallest part of the head.)
What's up with your exhaust? Just the big step between the secondaries & the collector?
It is blueprinted.
What you told me is that you didn't degree in your cam & you don't know where you put the lobe centres, so essentially, you didn't do much blueprinting.
There is nothing magical about the head -- you could easily duplicate it if you saw it. I don't think the exhaust ports would flow bench very well (but when was the last time a flow bench won a race?). Actually, there's nothing magical about any of it.
The cylinder head must be fairly decent else your motor wouldn't do much of anything good.
the cam should probably retard a few degrees from where it is now
Where is it now? It is very worth while trying it in several places. Make 4 degree jumps.
|
|
-
|
There isn't anyway you can get around the laws of physics Phil, to make a cam quiet means you have to close the clearence up slower which makes the cam larger for seat to seat duration without actually having the benefit of any extra gas flow.
I'm not going to argue theory when I have performance and economy results to go by. Some cams like being clicky all around. Some like clicky intakes and quiet exhausts. Some like quiet all around. These are demonstrable facts.
The rods & pistons could be lighter, the 8-bolt cranks have a habbit of bending because of the weight of the rods & pistons.
We disagree on the affect reciprocating weight does or does not have on horsepower. There are a lot of turbo B21s and B23s out there (including some that make outrageous power) that have no problems with the same rods, pistons and crank I'm using.
What sort of squish do you run?
.032" if the gasket crushed to its advertised value. Recently I've seen evidence that this particular gasket may not do that. Solder down the spark plug hole test on mine to see what it really came out as is pending.
I don't know what lifters & pushrods you use?
Volvo lifters. Stock B30 pushrods to correct the geometry for the decked block and shaved head -- they're a little shorter than B20 pushrods.
If you made your chokes a little smaller, you would have far less problems jetting.
Agreed that it would be less picky, but I think I've pretty much beaten it into submission by now. This was my first experience with sidedraft Webers (I now have quite a bit more), but the choke selection was insisted on by someone who has a very great deal of experience with them.
(Think about this one, it makes no sense to have the chokes larger than the smallest part of the head.)
Another blanket statement I'm not willing to accept as fact, sorry.
What's up with your exhaust?
Maybe nothing. John Parker had an idea that it could be tuned differently to cancel the midrange bog, but I now doubt that I'd get much out of it. There are other changes to make first, and the bog is much reduced already. It's not noticeable at all by seat of the pants -- I was surprised to see it on the dyno. I may revisit this later.
What you told me is that you didn't degree in your cam & you don't know where you put the lobe centres, so essentially, you didn't do much blueprinting.
Is that all there is to blueprinting? And -- without any experience with this particular cam and no detailed specs for it -- why wouldn't I put it in without any offset and see what it did just like that? What have I lost by not measuring it at the time?
It is very worth while trying it in several places.
Yes, no argument with that. Torque and power peak RPMs are lower than expected (although the peak power value is what we thought it would be and peak torque actually exceeds expectations), so I think it's too advanced. By how much, only experimentation will tell.
|
|
-
|
I'm not going to argue theory when I have performance and economy results to go by. Some cams like being clicky all around. Some like clicky intakes and quiet exhausts. Some like quiet all around. These are demonstrable facts.
I think you are trying to seperate the cam from the rest of the engine, but it's an intergal part & closely tied to compression. What you are doing when altering the lash away from what it is designed to be is correcting something that is fundamentally not quite right elsewhere. Example: If you find that your engine runs better when you tighten the intake lash, you are more then likely masking a problem elswhere such as too much compression, too much ignition advance or insufficent fuel. What it points to is that you should probably install a cam with more duration or lower the static compression. If tightening the exhaust is helpful, you should increase the duration of the exhaust lobe or possibly lower the compression.
We disagree on the affect reciprocating weight does or does not have on horsepower. There are a lot of turbo B21s and B23s out there (including some that make outrageous power) that have no problems with the same rods, pistons and crank I'm using.
Just because lots of people get away with it doesn’t automatically make it the best. The B21 rods would take higher compressive loads that are a feature of forced induction motors better than the early B20 rods, but it’s not the best for a high reving NA engine where tensile strength is far more important that compressive. Finally, why do you think that the very best engines use Titanium for conrods?
.032" if the gasket crushed to its advertised value.
That should be fine, although you don’t have anything up your sleeve in case you need to skim more from the block later.
Volvo lifters. Stock B30 pushrods to correct the geometry for the decked block and shaved head -- they're a little shorter than B20 pushrods.
I have no problem with Volvo lifters although they are rudely expensive compared to running altered Chevy lifters, at about 10x the price. Stock pushrods are not all that great against any sort of decent spring, depending on what springs pressures you are running you could find more horsepower with stiffer pushrods.
Agreed that it would be less picky, but I think I've pretty much beaten it into submission by now. This was my first experience with side draft Webers (I now have quite a bit more), but the choke selection was insisted on by someone who has a very great deal of experience with them.
I know it’s irksome to go to smaller chokes, but 38mm Chokes in a 48mm carburettor still flow a big bunch more air than anything you could get out of 45’s. The other thing with Webers is that the larger choke size reduces output for the entire rev range below what they are best suited to, ie, using 42mm chokes might make more power in your 2200cc from 6000 up, but 38’s would be much better from 2000 to 6000 & essentially quicker overall, although it might lower you top speed. I expect you P1800 would do 135MPH if the gearing was right, but the smaller chokes would make it struggle to get to 130. I would think you’d be looking at low 14seconds at the drag strip, maybe even a high 13.
Is that all there is to blueprinting? And -- without any experience with this particular cam and no detailed specs for it -- why wouldn't I put it in without any offset and see what it did just like that? What have I lost by not measuring it at the time?
Blueprinting is degreeing in the cam, indexing the crank, conrod resizing with C to C length adjustment rather than just resizing the big end, align bore & honing mains, adjusting the deck height from side to side, front to rear & doing same to the head, perfecting flywheel runout, perfecting crank & cam endplay, perfecting the oil pumps endfoat, etc. Now the one the makes the biggest difference is cam timing. It is as important as ignition timing, you don’t set the the timing statically do you? You at least use a timing light? Cam timing is the next most important thing after ignition timing. As for where you should initially set cam timing, the precedent set by 99% of 2 valve motors is 4-5 degrees advanced from straight up, especially on your engine with it’s wide lobe centres, I’d set it to around 106 on the intake +/-1 degree as a good starting point.
(Think about this one, it makes no sense to have the chokes larger than the smallest part of the head.)
Another blanket statement I'm not willing to accept as fact, sorry.
No one has ever managed to produce an intake port that has out flowed the same sized venturi. For the entire time that the venturis are too big it results in poor fuel atomization & weak signals to the auxiliary venturi. It does make one of the rare good blanket statements IMHO.
Yes, no argument with that. Torque and power peak RPM’s are lower than expected (although the peak power value is what we thought it would be and peak torque actually exceeds expectations), so I think it's too advanced. By how much, only experimentation will tell
Peak torque & power RPM’s is largely determined by the size of the ports relative to the size of the cylinder. If you want it higher you would enlarge the ports, increase the rod ratio or reduce the size of the cylinder. Your peaks fit in with what I get & what the Lindquist motor does. Adjust cam timing to maximize torque, same thing for ignition timing.
Maybe nothing. John Parker had an idea that it could be tuned differently to cancel the midrange bog, but I now doubt that I'd get much out of it. There are other changes to make first, and the bog is much reduced already. It's not noticeable at all by seat of the pants -- I was surprised to see it on the dyno. I may revisit this later.
Dumping 2” secondaries into a 3” pipe would make them peaky. Ideally you need a good merge collector down to 2&1/2” which than transitions up to 3” with a megaphone. I think you might be better off overall with a 2&1/2” inch pipe from your headers for the length of the car floor finishing off with a megaphone just before your muffler. Do you have an oxy-acetylene torch?
|
|
-
|
I've thought about spending the money on a dyno pull or two, to confirm what I think I know... that it should be about 120 hp at the wheels. That's about what the guy that originally built the car was getting, and there have been no significant changes. But the truth of the matter... it is what it is. I can't legally do any meaningful development work beyond what has already been done. There may be a few horsepower hiding in there (additional tweaking of ignition timing, fuel pressure, valve lash, etc.) but probably no more than a few. Just about anything I do at this point is going to end up being a darned expensive power increase, on a dollars-per-hp basis.
Gary L
--
1971 142E ITB racer, 1973 1800ES, 2002 S60 T5
|
|
|
|
|