Stock cam vs schneider 292 vs "Rock the Banshee"

[chiplee]

oh and here's a couple vids if anyone's interested

 

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/ch...nt=DSCN1534.flv

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/th_DSCN1535.jpg

 

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/ch...nt=DSCN1535.flv

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/th_DSCN1534.jpg

[chiplee]

The question that I have is where do these runs fall in the potential range for each cam? I would have to say that I would be dissappointed to have put all the extra work/expense into the roller setup, to be outdone by the 292. Any thoughts?

 

yeah certainly, I spoke to that a bit earlier. there's more benefit, for me, to the roller than just how it pulls. The engine just feels healthier, smoother, and all that. I think the roller needs phased for 6500 RPM where it'll shine. I'm not yanking it just yet. I plan to get the degree wheel out and go to work here asap and I think that a trip back to the dyno with that cam is worth it. The roller setup wasn't that hard with the '83 valves but it was expensive since I got all new lifters and rockers, but that's my fault.

 

I think there may be some value to seeing how each cam performs with the gear untouched between swaps, but there would probably be more value to seeing each phased where it's meant to be. You can see on tim's cam that my tuning causes it to fall off the initial climb as there is a definite corresponding spike in a/f ratio with a drop in torque. his cam didn't seem to like to be lean as much as the 292. That might have something to do with overlap which is significantly more in the 292. I really don't know though. as far as how they feel, I was sure the roller felt faster. The car sat for a long while though and I limped the car around when the roller first went in so it could be me. It could also be the shape of the torque curve fooling me. The stocker felt way flatter than the graph would indicate. It felt like it was running out of schlitz around 4400 and it was peaking there with a broad flat curve. Maybe I just can't feel what a car's doing, lol.

Edited March 26, 2008 by chiplee

[Shelby]

my advice would be ,forget the other cams and now tune the fuel for this cam like it wants ,deff some tuneing problems ,i'd try fuel befor changeing timeing on the cam

the a/f line is a bit hard to read don't apear to get real rich at all but maybe thats cause i can't read it very well

[chiplee]

my advice would be ,forget the other cams and now tune the fuel for this cam like it wants ,deff some tuneing problems ,i'd try fuel befor changeing timeing on the cam

the a/f line is a bit hard to read don't apear to get real rich at all but maybe thats cause i can't read it very well

 

 

did you blow it up to full size by clicking the black bar old man? It's not great I know but it never touches 11:1 or 13:1. It's only slightly rougher than the other two were and the graph you're looking at is before some tuning went in to make the a/f look like this, slightly better

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/roller22psitrimmed.jpg

[Hoosierquest]

Nice work, Now I am curious what that roller will do with tuning, that will be interesting. By the way that thing sounds sooo good. :ylsuper:

[jinx]

Cam grinding seems like an art to me. FEW can ever get 'em right imo.

LOTS of 'dismal result after cam change' comments pop up on this site.

 

Perfect contrast; look at what Tomei, Toda and HKS cam do for imports.

Install 'em "straight up" and away you go - definite and measurable gains supported consistently by lower ETs and very entusiastic testimonials... "like night & day".... "huge difference".. etc.

You rarely see this with "off-brands".

 

Hell, look how many grinders tried and years the DSM community waited before they came up with $440 FP cams.... on level with $690 HKS benchmarks!

It wasn't 'plug n' play' for a huge market driven community like them, so I'd guess its 'plug n' pray' at best for us

 

As competent as one percieved Crower to be, I can point you to dramas with many different make motors. Obviously shows a lack of R & D.

 

*DM crew seem to have some interesting cam developments going on with their strong G54 runners

 

Eipquest settled on stock cam after extensive testing. Made 400 ft-lbs tq

He had access to dyno, lots of dragstrip seat time & obviously know what he was doing.

 

My only experience with a 2 valve perf cam? - Crower suk'd. Iskenderian cam *totally transformed* a 3TC motor that stuggled to past 6000rpm. Being pushed in the seat from 3750 to 8000+ was a new rush (no other changes).

I would luv to see such a 'magical' G54 cam.

For now, I'd 'play it safe' and stick with the identical cam run in proven hi-output G54s - 88white for example.

 

On a side note; I can recall comments on SQC of 7500/8000+ rpm G54 claims. It'd be nice to see a dyno of how/when their tq curve dives

 

Most of all... props to chiplee for the effort

[chiplee]

Cam grinding seems like an art to me. FEW can ever get 'em right imo.

LOTS of 'dismal result after cam change' comments pop up on this site.

 

Perfect contrast; look at what Tomei, Toda and HKS cam do for imports.

Install 'em "straight up" and away you go - definite and measurable gains supported consistently by lower ETs and very entusiastic testimonials... "like night & day".... "huge difference".. etc.

You rarely see this with "off-brands".

 

Hell, look how many grinders tried and years the DSM community waited before they came up with $440 FP cams.... on level with $690 HKS benchmarks!

It wasn't 'plug n' play' for a huge market driven community like them, so I'd guess its 'plug n' pray' at best for us

 

As competent as one percieved Crower to be, I can point you to dramas with many different make motors. Obviously shows a lack of R & D.

 

*DM crew seem to have some interesting cam developments going on with their strong G54 runners

 

Eipquest settled on stock cam after extensive testing. Made 400 ft-lbs tq

He had access to dyno, lots of dragstrip seat time & obviously know what he was doing.

 

My only experience with a 2 valve perf cam? - Crower suk'd. Iskenderian cam *totally transformed* a 3TC motor that stuggled to past 6000rpm. Being pushed in the seat from 3750 to 8000+ was a new rush (no other changes).

I would luv to see such a 'magical' G54 cam.

For now, I'd 'play it safe' and stick with the identical cam run in proven hi-output G54s - 88white for example.

 

On a side note; I can recall comments on SQC of 7500/8000+ rpm G54 claims. It'd be nice to see a dyno of how/when their tq curve dives

 

Most of all... props to chiplee for the effort

 

well, I can't follow other communities closely enough to know all that so thanks for sharing. Even with all the generalizations I got alot out of your post. I just really hate it when so much R&D goes into picking a cam, like what EIP surely did, and then it's all a secret since they're a performance shop and they don't want to "hurt business".

 

I just wanted some data points to start from and I wish I could have dialed each cam in perfectly but yeah, I already have a profession, and tuning ain't it unfortunately.

 

I'm not really building an all out pure performance car though. I wanted to maximize both performance and reliability and in my experience, slip type rockers have been anything but reliable. I've had one break in half while driving and I've had several mushroomed valve stems or lifters. The requirement to get in there and make lash adjustments was never really all that fun either. The roller just makes for a very nice setup overall. The engine is quiet and smooth and again, I was quickly able to go from a first pull of 256hp I think to a best of 291hp and 337tq, and there is obvious room for improvement on the tuning for that roller.

[emagdnim]

I want rollers with elephant feet... and glass like rocker shafts.

[chiplee]

I want rollers with elephant feet... and glass like rocker shafts.

 

 

you lost me, but here another vid of the live tuning screen and digital dash from the hawk during a run

 

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/th_DSCN1536.jpg

[Shelby]

no honestly i did not click on the pic,,but it apears most of your power run you were 13:1 or higher,, you still do not have a run showing 12:1-12.5:1 while in the power rpm range , i'd do that befor doing any thing else

by the way whats you max timieing @ 5000 rpms under 20 lbs boost , with the spraying you should be able to up the timeing a good bit,, timeing alone is good for a bunch of hp,,trouble is it's imposible to know befor hand what the limit is

[chiplee]

no honestly i did not click on the pic,,but it apears most of your power run you were 13:1 or higher,, you still do not have a run showing 12:1-12.5:1 while in the power rpm range , i'd do that befor doing any thing else

by the way whats you max timieing @ 5000 rpms under 20 lbs boost , with the spraying you should be able to up the timeing a good bit,, timeing alone is good for a bunch of hp,,trouble is it's imposible to know befor hand what the limit is

 

 

it never got above 13:1

 

here's the run data copied and pasted from that run with a/f ratio down the right side. I really didn't think the tuning was bad enough to call the cam's performance purely tuning. I'm starting to think though that where this cam performs, happens to be in the RPM range that my map is most poorly tuned. I've always gotten away with pretty much ignoring the upper RPMs and keeping them pig rich to be safe because 2.6 cams perform between 3k and 5k. This cam is different, and until we see what a good afr does up to redline we won't know for sure.

 

 

But still, I managed to keep it at approximately 12.5:1 right through the torque peak. From 3800 to 4700 rpm the a/f is twelve point something and torque is trailing off on its own, without any significant swing up or down in air fuel. Now there are improvements that could be made obviously. Up high the cam would clearly have continued to make more torque for a longer time if the a/f hadn't dipped so rich but it would almost certainly not have climbed back up. This would have resulted in a higher HP peak as RPM became a multiplier. This cam's HP peak is at 4500 RPM on this run and could obviously have been higher with some tuning. For instance I think it's reasonable to assume that at 12.5:1 at 5252rpm, this cam might still have been making 300ft/lbs of tq, which would have been 300whp. It's interesting to note that WHP is above 200 from 3700rpm to the end of the run at 5800rpm where it's still 233 at it's at 10.1 out there so again, clearly some improvements could be made.

 

edit, here's a better way to look at it

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/dataprint.jpg

Edited March 27, 2008 by chiplee

[Funky Phil]

Too bad nobody is willing to donate one of the magical HKS cams...... Thats what I believe Yokomosquest and Artinist were running these. Edited March 27, 2008 by phinko

[chiplee]

Shelby this run might give you a slightly better look at the cam

 

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc82/chipleeiii/run12.jpg

[emagdnim]

These swivel feet...

 

http://www.b2600turbo.com/images/IM000604.JPG

 

Machined into the roller rockers...

 

http://2.6liter.com//files/53/P1010106.JPG

 

 

 

Pic curtsey of indianas website and Brians GB.

[Funky Phil]

All this research got me thinking that this would also be useful info in the dyno forum so I added the cam specs that I have for the cars posted in the club. Just thought Id let yall see for reference purpose.

[chiplee]

All this research got me thinking that this would also be useful info in the dyno forum so I added the cam specs that I have for the cars posted in the club. Just thought Id let yall see for reference purpose.

 

 

yeah sweet. good call

[Laodicea]

These swivel feet...

 

http://www.b2600turbo.com/images/IM000604.JPG

 

Machined into the roller rockers...

 

http://2.6liter.com//files/53/P1010106.JPG

 

 

 

Pic curtsey of indianas website and Brians GB.

 

I see what you mean...that would be great ..however the clearance between the roller rocker and the top of the valve is not enough IMO...I have set up my rollers with the Banshee II cam twice and I had to end up grinding the tops of the exhaust valves down and add shims to the intakes...these were the SS regular lengths not 83 length valves.

 

Chip...before i got my banshee cam I used whatever cam was in my car with the rollers for about a year with no problem. I always thought it was a stock cam but never knew for sure since no info on the car I bought. The difference was like i said ubove I had to grind down the exhaust vavles to install it. When the banshee cam in I had to use shims on the intake and the exhaust were fine...so the lift was higher with the other mystery cam...hence the banshee is a stock reground...so metal is coming off. IMO I feel less power with the banshee and I cannot rev past 6k at all...but we already talked about my restriction with the stock exhaust turbo housing..most likely the culprit.

[chiplee]

if it comes to it, I don't see why schneider couldn't be given some info, like the rocker ratio I plan to use, and then produce a roller cam with 292 specs. The 292 has been a solid high HP performer over the years and schneider has always been great to deal with.

 

If I tried to install the 292 back in there with the roller rockers I'd expect big problems, not that you were suggesting that, just saying.

[Shelby]

compair'd to a slip rocker cam the roller is almost instant opening and closeing of the valves , i'm sure this has a huge part to play in tuneing the cam , i can't be 100% sure but i think the cam timeing would be more critical with a roller then a slip rocker cam

you gave the duration for the other cams but what is it on the roller ?

 

i'm with your thinking the roller is the best of both worlds but we need to find the right combination of duration and lift and sweet spot for timeing it , also it fills a need for some thing inbetween the 292 and the stock cams for those not looking for an all out drag car but one with no noise and less adjusting of the valve lash but a good jump in performance over the oem cam

 

the roller cam works and is good for extra free power so to speak thats why you see almost all engine makers going to them

[PDX87Starion]

also it fills a need for some thing inbetween the 292 and the stock cams for those not looking for an all out drag car but one with no noise and less adjusting of the valve lash but a good jump in performance over the oem cam

 

the roller cam works and is good for extra free power so to speak thats why you see almost all engine makers going to them

 

If its possible to get a cam ground for rollers at "stock" specs (except maybe a little more lift) I would be down for that.

I like the torque the stock cam put down and if I wanted to get some more revs I would retard it a deg. or two.

 

On a side note, I heard that the chrysler 2.2 liter turbo guys swap out their "turbo" cam for a N/A cam and get a net gain from it. Crazy.

 

I suppose the only "perfect" set up would be variable valve timing. :thumbsup:

[Shelby]

swaping turbo cams for na cams works on the older saabs also,,we did it to a few of them and saw deff gains 20-25 hp gain

[chiplee]

compair'd to a slip rocker cam the roller is almost instant opening and closeing of the valves , i'm sure this has a huge part to play in tuneing the cam , i can't be 100% sure but i think the cam timeing would be more critical with a roller then a slip rocker cam

you gave the duration for the other cams but what is it on the roller ?

 

i'm with your thinking the roller is the best of both worlds but we need to find the right combination of duration and lift and sweet spot for timeing it , also it fills a need for some thing inbetween the 292 and the stock cams for those not looking for an all out drag car but one with no noise and less adjusting of the valve lash but a good jump in performance over the oem cam

 

the roller cam works and is good for extra free power so to speak thats why you see almost all engine makers going to them

 

 

I don't remember getting a cam card with it Shelby. I imagine there's one around here somewhere. Otherwise I'll have to dig through old emails to find the specs

[emagdnim]

I see what you mean...that would be great ..however the clearance between the roller rocker and the top of the valve is not enough IMO...I have set up my rollers with the Banshee II cam twice and I had to end up grinding the tops of the exhaust valves down and add shims to the intakes...these were the SS regular lengths not 83 length valves.

 

I wouldn't think it would make much difference if you had them adjusted at the lifter height.

 

Weird.

[chiplee]

well, actually that didn't take long.

 

Stock cam specs to compare to:

INT & EXH Duration 264° Seat-To-Seat (Advertised)

INT & EXH Lift .406â€-.413†(depends on what year, and what book you read)

Lobe Center Separation 109°

Intake lobe is degreed to 107

 

Schneider 292-f

INT & EXH Duration 292

Lobe Center Seperation 114

Intake lobe degreed to 112

Intake & Exh lift: .462 with 1.4 ratio rocker

Duration @ .050 240

 

The Monsta’Banshee II:

INT Duration @.050: .207° Seat-To-Seat: 265°

EXH Durati0n @.050: .196° Seat-To-Seat: 262°

INT Lift: .459 w/1.6 ratio rocker

EXH Lift: .459 w/1.6 ratio rocker

Lobe Center Separation: 111.5°

Intake Centerline 107° BTDC

Power Range: 2500-6500RPM

[chiplee]

Just called schneider and it's $120 for them to grind a roller cam to 292 specs. You still send them a blank/stock cam and they need to know what ratio rockers you'll use but that's it. $120 and you have a roller 292. I'm going to have to see how that works out eventually, lol.