Jump to content



Stock cam vs schneider 292 vs "Rock the Banshee"


  • Please log in to reply
191 replies to this topic

#21 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 16 September 2007 - 09:22 AM

I think I see why it feels like I get such a shot in the pants from this thing too.  Look how fast it goes from 200ft/lbs at the wheels to 350+  

it's about a 600rpm span between 2900rpm and 3500rpm the torque jumps 150ft/lbs as the turbo is reaching full boost.  I want to go look at some other graphs to compare.  Drilling around town in 2nd or 3rd at 3000 rpm the turbo is on tap for immediate power
Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq





#22 Chad

Chad

    noob

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincoln City Oregon
  • Interests:Starquest Fanatic
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 16 September 2007 - 10:23 AM

QUOTE (chiplee)
Drilling around town in 2nd or 3rd at 3000 rpm the turbo is on tap for immediate power


That's what I tell people that are afraid or larger turbos when they are used to 12A spool times.  You just adjust your driving habits.  

The added RPM to spool is worth it for the added kick,and if you're lugging arround at 2000, there's alwasy a down-shift :wink: .

#23 Chad

Chad

    noob

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincoln City Oregon
  • Interests:Starquest Fanatic
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 16 September 2007 - 10:25 AM

WELCOME chiplee TO CLUB 300 ! :!:

#24 quikconq

quikconq

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:north eastern †indiana
  • Model:Other

Posted 16 September 2007 - 09:35 PM

very nice,,,,congrats
and thenx for great effort

cant wait for your next update for the roller


laters
FEEDBACK PAGE,,,,please leave some feed
http://www.starquest...pic=121065&st=0

Posted ImagePosted Image

#25 pagemo

pagemo

    Established Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hernando Beach Fl
  • Interests:all things automotive!
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 16 September 2007 - 10:13 PM

That is not as much as I expected but still shows how much a cam can do for you! I will note that My schnieder 292 was off 2 to 3 deg and I had to use an adjustable cam gear to set up correctly, I don't think you will net another 20hp but I would be suprised with a few adjustments if you couldn't find another 10 anyway...

QUOTE
I can't tune like you guys so I don't spin it to 7500 man. It's just not that important to me. not worth the risk. This car is a f'ing blast around town at 20psi and I'd really like it to stay together for a while this time.

I know what you mean longevity means alot! my car is in pieces from the last full power run laugh.gif  so keep it together!
Posted Image
89 Conquest,undergoing a complete rebuild, new suspension,color change and Gullwing doors!
89 Yellow conquest MPI 365WHP@20psi, everything new or rebuilt    SOLD!!
2006 Silver Magnum SRT 8

#26 Blind_Drifter

Blind_Drifter

    oompie?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida>All
  • Interests:Long walks on the beach, candle lit dinners on roof tops, drag racing, drifting, road racing, skateboarding, working on cars and getting denied by chicks is my new hobbie.
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 16 September 2007 - 10:40 PM

Why did you only rev to like 4800 but with the stock cam you almost revved to 6?

#27 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 16 September 2007 - 10:54 PM

QUOTE (pagemo)
That is not as much as I expected but still shows how much a cam can do for you! I will note that My schnieder 292 was off 2 to 3 deg and I had to use an adjustable cam gear to set up correctly, I don't think you will net another 20hp but I would be suprised with a few adjustments if you couldn't find another 10 anyway...

QUOTE
I can't tune like you guys so I don't spin it to 7500 man. It's just not that important to me. not worth the risk. This car is a f'ing blast around town at 20psi and I'd really like it to stay together for a while this time.

I know what you mean longevity means alot! my car is in pieces from the last full power run laugh.gif  so keep it together!


yeah, I looked at your graph pretty thoroughly and what gets me is that you did it at 28psi.  Mine was at 20.  I have a degree wheel and dial indicator but I really just don't feel like pulling the radiator to degree a cam with the engine in the car.  Maybe when I put my Griffin radiator in I'll do it.  

this is the first time I've been to the dyno where the tech insisted on driving the car but it worked out well.  I noticed during one of the runs that the throttle wasn't opening the whole way.  flooring it was yielding about 80% throttle, which I confirmed on the digital dash of the hawk.  I think I'll leave it as is for the roller cam to minimize variables but after that, I'm going to fix my throttle linkage and see how it acts.  actually I'll probably do it in the same visit to the dyno, once I get a good pull on the roller cam since this local shop has a two hour minimum.   I'm also really looking forward to tuning in the snow performance boost cooler.  I think I'll have time to do that in the next trip to the dyno as well, after the cam comparison pass is made that is.  

If I don't make 350+
Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq

#28 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 16 September 2007 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE (Blind_Drifter)
Why did you only rev to like 4800 but with the stock cam you almost revved to 6?


it was getting lean on that run.  the rest of the runs I told the tech to get out of it at 5500 figuring his delayed reaction would make it actually be off throttle no later than 6
Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq

#29 Brown

Brown

    Established Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • Location:Crest, CA

Posted 17 September 2007 - 02:24 AM

Congrats Chip!  Awesome run!
Thanks,

John

1989 DODGE CONQUEST TSI
88 STARION ESI-R
86 STARION LE - GIVEN AWAY!!!
85.5 QUEST - GIVEN AWAY!!!

#30 JustPaus_88TSi

JustPaus_88TSi

    This is my forest, and I am not afraid.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,960 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gilbert, Arizona
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 03:43 AM

QUOTE (chiplee)
QUOTE (Blind_Drifter)
Why did you only rev to like 4800 but with the stock cam you almost revved to 6?


it was getting lean on that run.  the rest of the runs I told the tech to get out of it at 5500 figuring his delayed reaction would make it actually be off throttle no later than 6



It's a bit nerve racking watching someone else flog your car, right?


Congrats on the car brother.. I wonder what you could do if you could put all the time you wanted in it.. biggrin.gif
Posted Image
88TSi-S16G~19x8.5's/19x10.5's~Anti-M-Power~S&M~FIP TBpro2R~E46 projector HID's/Fogs
2001 IS300-GTE swap~T04E 60-1 Garrett hifi~18" Volk CE28N~Tein Comfort Sport coilovers~TurboEast~PFS~Apex-I~Greddy~Blitz
2005 LS430-Staggered 20" Maya/Trafficstar DTS'~14k/12k Extreme Drop BC Coilovers~KYOEI-USA Representin...Bippu Status.

#31 pagemo

pagemo

    Established Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hernando Beach Fl
  • Interests:all things automotive!
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 07:34 AM

QUOTE
yeah, I looked at your graph pretty thoroughly and what gets me is that you did it at 28psi. Mine was at 20.

I actually only ran mine to 18psi on that pull I wouldn't run over 21 or so with out race gas or meth inj I was running 8.4:1 and even 18 Psi lifted my head but that was my fault so :cry:
definately get that throttle plate open who knows what that is costing?
Anyway great pull and keep us posted on the roller cam and the snow system!
Posted Image
89 Conquest,undergoing a complete rebuild, new suspension,color change and Gullwing doors!
89 Yellow conquest MPI 365WHP@20psi, everything new or rebuilt    SOLD!!
2006 Silver Magnum SRT 8

#32 heefner

heefner

    Established Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD ¬†USA
  • Interests:Back off!
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 10:53 AM

Some of that power increase can be due to running 13.5 AFR.  Thats a little lean to be running at 15+ psi.

I'm really confused with your results.  They contradict everything about that cam.  
1- Schneider claims that cam is for high rpm (as in 6000 to 9000 ) race only.
   I can't see how you only lost 1 ft lb of torque unless the loss was masked by the lean condition.  
2- bigger cam means more air means more fuel yet you said you pulled fuel out.  :?

Thanks for taking the time to get results, especially since you will be swapping it out to replace with something else down the road.
Oh and welcome to the club.  I'm happy your car is a blast to drive.  Its the perfect time of the year for turbo cars!

86' quest

#33 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 02:24 PM

QUOTE (heefner)
Some of that power increase can be due to running 13.5 AFR.  Thats a little lean to be running at 15+ psi.

I'm really confused with your results.  They contradict everything about that cam.  
1- Schneider claims that cam is for high rpm (as in 6000 to 9000 ) race only.
   I can't see how you only lost 1 ft lb of torque unless the loss was masked by the lean condition.  
2- bigger cam means more air means more fuel yet you said you pulled fuel out.  :?

Thanks for taking the time to get results, especially since you will be swapping it out to replace with something else down the road.
Oh and welcome to the club.  I'm happy your car is a blast to drive.  Its the perfect time of the year for turbo cars!


bigger cam means valves open longer, means less injector pulse width required to get ample fuel into cylinder.  I was confused on that one too at first but Shelby cleared it up for me.  

As for the lean condition.  I know it's hard to tell from that cell phone pic but it is the leanest run that made the most power.  The way you can tell is that it's also the run where we got off the throttle because it was going lean.  I consider that run the best comparison with the stock cam though because the run with the stock cam went almost 13:1 also.  If we compare to run 7 instead, that a/f ration is closer to 12.5:1 average.  Not sure which one you guys think is a better comparison but I just called the shop again to get them to send me the files like they said they would saturday so when I get them I'll post a good clear picture like the graph for the stocker and you can pick it apart all you want.

oh and heefner, your confusion on the powerband issue could probably be explained a little bit by degreeing, or the lack there of.  I didn't degree the cam.  Really, without knowing up front that all three cams are degreed exactly to spec, these results will always be wishy washy at best.
Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq

#34 Chad

Chad

    noob

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincoln City Oregon
  • Interests:Starquest Fanatic
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 02:37 PM

What Heefner is getting at is lean = more HP.  Lots of racers that don't care about the time or $$$$ of rebuilding will run thier motors lean because it's free HP.  

the guy who has the full body quest that ran 9.5's in the  1/4 told me he ran his at 13.5+ because it made so much mroe power.  It was also trickey to tune though, and it didn't always last.  You can get maybe 10% more power at 13.5:1 vs 11:1, it's just that 11:1 isnt' likelty to detonate.

also, not to start a debate, but how does a longer duration and higher lift correlate to shorter injector DC?  If it's injesting more air, wont' it need more fuel?  If the valve is open more time and open higher, it can't help but to consume more air at a given maniofld pressure.

the time an injector is open direclty relates to the amount of fuel that it flows.  reducing one reduces the other.  unless you increase the baseline fuel pressure, you are just leaning it out.

#35 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 03:14 PM

I understood exactly what he was getting at, and told him that the stock cam 298/380 pull also ran lean so I compared those two pulls to keep the results as "variable free" as possible.  I was working under the assumption that he was attributing the HP gain in the 292 dyno pull to a lean condition more than to the cam itself.  I was pointing out that that might be an inaccurate assumption considering the fact that the stock cam was also rather lean when I made the pass with which we are comparing the 292.
Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq

#36 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 03:16 PM

oh and no, chad and heefner you are both wrong.  bigger cams take less fuel, smaller cams take more fuel, when nothing else changes.

edit:  let me re-phrase that.  either you two are wrong, or shelby is wrong.  I'd really like to know which though.  Chad and Heefner, what you're saying used to seem logical to me too, but this is what shelby has said about it in multiple threads to members who "upgraded" or upsized their cams and couldn't figure out why their cars wouldn't run right.  This particular person he's talking to happened to have installed a 292.  In that thread monty apparently also agreed with the two of you.  I'm inclined to agree with shelby and think the 4 of us just have to live with the fact that he knows more than we do.  

QUOTE (Shelby)
long duration cam's hold the intake open a lot longer,, if your fuel map was tune'd for a stock cam,,your now geting way more fuel then you need , your gona need to remap the entire fuel curve (save your old map incase you ever go back to the stock cam )

Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq

#37 Chad

Chad

    noob

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lincoln City Oregon
  • Interests:Starquest Fanatic
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE (chiplee)
stock cam 298/380 pull also ran lean so I compared those two pulls to keep the results as "variable free" as possible.


I missed that connection.  if they were both similarly lean, then all the gains are in the cam.

On the injector duty cycle thing, it may be some  other cause that nessesitated leaning a map down for a new larger cam.  Emperical data is always better than theory, and I trust that above all.  However, the conclusions drawn from emperical data can be inaccurate.

It may be that because the motor had to work harder to push air though the motor with a stock cam, it needed more fuel to maintain power and propper combustin to acchieve a given task.  With a new cam, the whole combustion dynamic has changed, the motor is now a more efficent pump and it probalby takes less energy to opperate.  If it takes less energy to opperate, it will require less air, and thus less fuel to do a given task.

As you know, it's all about improving efficency with turbo motors.

Perhaps because the motor is more efficent, but because the boost has not changed, there is no need for added fuel, yet the power output has increased.  This is a good example of an efficency change netting new power, not from a manifold  pressure increase or mass air change (upping the boost or using a larger turbo) creating new power.

Simple physics, increasing efficency = more power, with a given work/energy applied.  thus if you increase the efficency, you need less work/energy (fuel) to do the same work (HP output).  

If you increase efficency enough, you can acchieve more power with similar or perhaps still less work/energy.

It's an interesting observation...

#38 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 05:14 PM

I should say that bigger cams take shorter injector pulses to get the right amount of fuel into the combustion chambers, and that overall YES bigger cams make the engine require more fuel.  I'm confusing the matter by saying that bigger cams take "less fuel" than smaller cams.  Clearly they take more fuel, but what I'm getting at is that the injectors don't have to fire as long to get the necessary fuel into the chambers since the intake valves stay open longer.  Don't forget how much fuel is lost on batch fired systems.  Whether what I'm talking about is true of sequentially fired ECU's I don't know, but I'd love to hear someone smart talk about it.  I suspect it would work the same way, shorter pulses for bigger cams.

I follow what you're saying but I really think it boils down to the simple fact that the intake valve is open longer, so the injector doesn't have to spray as long to get the same amount of fuel into the cylinder.  In fact if it does spray as long it will put too much fuel in there, so it needs to spray for a shorter period of time.  There is certainly more air going in also, but not enough to compensate for the extra fuel.  The erroneous assumption, you and I and monty and Heefner were making was that fuel and air intake would increase proportionally if the cam was enlarged.  or maybe it was just that the primary effect of a bigger cam would be increased air flow, and that it would result in no increase in fuel intake, resulting in a need to add fuel.  That simply is not how it works with this engine at least.   I first noticed this when I downgraded from a 292 to a stock cam and had to ADD gobs of fuel to get it to run at all, let alone be safe on boost.
Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq

#39 PDX87Starion

PDX87Starion

    Normal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,896 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, WA.
  • Interests:Cars.. duh
  • Model:Starion

Posted 17 September 2007 - 06:26 PM

Just thinking out loud, but shelby's statement seems more logical (to me) for a N/A engine. With forced induction it seems that if your boosting to 20 psi your never going to get more than 20 psi into the engine no matter how long the valve is open. But it would take less effort to get that air in with a big cam resulting in less back pressure from the tubine. ??
<b>Red 87 Starion---Black 87 Conquest </b>

#40 chiplee

chiplee

    Advanced Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridgecrest, CA
  • Interests:Yes
  • Model:Conquest

Posted 17 September 2007 - 06:29 PM

QUOTE (PDX87Starion)
Just thinking out loud, but shelby's statement seems more logical (to me) for a N/A engine. With forced induction it seems that if your boosting to 20 psi your never going to get more than 20 psi into the engine no matter how long the valve is open. But it would take less effort to get that air in with a big cam resulting in less back pressure from the tubine. ??


I think that inside the combustion chamber there is alot less different about an N/A motor and a forced induction motor than you think.  The physics are the same.  The motor "sees" compression. It doesn't know if it came from super high static compression pistons, or if it came from a blower force air in.  I don't feel like I know enough to talk much more about it though.
Posted Image Posted Image
'88 TSi, 06H-20G, HAWK, Roller cam, Water inj, etc^10 320whp/370wtq




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users