Confusing desktop dyno numbers.
I was playing around with the valve lift on desktop dyno with my engine, seeing what the difference between 1.5 and 1.6 rockers would be.
My cam is 236 in 242 ex/ .520 in .540 ex/ 110LSA with the 1.5 rockers. Changing the exhaust rockers to 1.6 (increasing the valve lift to .576) I gain 6 hp at peak rpm, but when I change the intake rockers to the 1.6 (increasing valve lift to .555) the peak hp goes down 2 hp. What's the verdict? Am I maxing out the potential of my AFR 195 heads? Or should I not trust the software? |
Quote:
I don't the answer. :huh: Out of curiosity, how accurate is your desktop to real number? I'm curious to know where it'd put me at. |
Quote:
And the peak rpm points are not accurate. Probably because it doesn't take into account the weight of the reciprocating assembly and valve float. So I just go by what the numbers are where I know my engine actually peaks out, at around 6K. And it's much more accurate that way. I can send it to you if you want... |
Wow, if I go with the 1.65 instead of the 1.6, my valve lift will go from .520/ .540 to .576/ .594. :thumbs_up:
|
Make sure your springs are rated for the new valve lift.
|
Quote:
|
The springs are ok for up to .6 lift. How much fuel economy do you think you'll gain with that cam?
|
Quote:
With less than 10 degree change in duration it is not going to give much better milage. Over the years I found cams with an effect duration of 214* to give the best gas milage to power. This is in a 350 Chevy. Compression is the other milage added. The higher the better. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Also, a friend ran my engine combo for the Chevelle and it was way off and yes he did use the correct flow rates for my Edelbrock Performer RPM heads. Desktop Dyno 2000 showed 737hp@7000 & 650tq@5000. I've run my car on a chassis dyno and it made 461rwhp and 462rwtq. Given a 20% loss that's around 550hp. If you want to run it and see what yours comes up with, here's the info for my engine: Standard bore Chevy 454 12.25:1 compression Heads: Edelbrock Performer RPMs 60559 Flow Intake/Exhaust .100 76/70 .200 146/132 .300 210/156 .400 255/181 .500 294/207 .600 314/228 Comp Cams Solid Roller 11-692-8 .622 lift I/E 246 at .050 I/E 110 Lobe Center 106 Intake Center Specs at .050 IO: 17 EO: 57 IC: 49 EC: 9 Victor Jr Intake Holley 850 built by The Carb Shop (flows 950 cfm) Hooker Competition Headers 3" exhaust with Flowmasters |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes, you are going to pick up some low end torque with the cam change. Also, going to 114 LSA is going to up vacumm and smooth out the idle some. Gas milage--maybe a little better. I'm running Dual Quads and the 30 30 cam with 254 effective duration on 114 LSA , this being a solid lifer cam, it is more efficent.:drive: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Actually it makes a difference. Because of the design of the lobe on a Hydraulic lifter cam -you lose a little of your duration. It has to have a 'set' designed into the lobe to lock the lifter from bleeding down. Solid lifters don't have that "set" in the lobe so the lobe can be more agressive.:thumbs_up: We are talking flat tappet cams here. Rollers are a differnet story. Yea, I know I'm stuck in old Tech. |
Quote:
In the case of Roller Cams, there is almost no difference in lobe design. There is a difference in lobe design between the two lifter types with a flat tapped cam.:): |
Quote:
For example, we found a solid lifter cam would make more power than a hydraulic cam with 10 degrees more duration. All other points being equal. |
Three guys, all making stupid amounts of power out of carbed V8s... talking about fuel economy. :sm_up_there:
|
Quote:
Yea, it is pretty funny.:smack: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Cool, couldn't you just slide the balancer on a bit and align it to 0 degrees to find TDC?
I fixed an issue this weekend too. Got rid of the rough acceleration problem that I was sure was a timing issue. Turned out to be a carb issue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.