emagdnim Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 Ill have a Roller 304. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 Ill have a Roller 304. yeah, maybe me too, Tim has a cam similar to a roller 292 Screamin’Banshee: INT: 292° Seat-To-Seat .454 Lift EXH: 280° Seat-To-Seat .454 Lift Lobe Center Separation 111.5° Intake lobe is degreed to 107° Power Range 2800 - 6500 +RPM and he also offers a 304 but only mechanical. What's the deal with big duration and roller cams? Do you get to a point where it's mechanically impossible to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 duration on a roller and duration on a slip cam are not aples to aples,, theres a huge diff in how the lobe actualy works,, while the slip rocker cam may start at the same spec's the amount of total lift durring the complete open cycle is vastly diff , the roller lifts the valve to full open much faster and holds it there longer befor quickly closeing the valve , also keep in mind the rocker ratio is diff 5:1 compair'd to 6:1, so you could get the same out come while useing a smaller cam if useing rollers compair'd to useing a slip rocker set up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emagdnim Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Everything about what you just said makes me happy inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Post #99 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 6,366 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Beaufort, SC Member No.: 3,372 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 ................................................................................ ............................... hard to get a real idea with out haveing the total duration @.001 lift on both cams but from that it is a lot smaller then the 292 thats for sure part of the problem with big cams is our over the head cam and clearance to the casting at one time i mix'd up some cams and install'd Tims 292 on a roller rocker set up,,the engine actualy start'd but the idle vacuum was low , and i realize'd the mix up and swap' the roller cam in befor i ran the engine much to see what would realy happen but let me tell you it sure sound;d like it had a huge cam in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky Phil Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Man, the duration on that monsta banshee is quite lame for our so called poorly flowing heads????? Every spec on that 292 just stomps on the Monsta. Id put it back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Man, the duration on that monsta banshee is quite lame for our so called poorly flowing heads????? Every spec on that 292 just stomps on the Monsta. Id put it back in. yeah honestly if I knew more about it when I was picking a cam from Tim I would probably have ordered this cam Screamin’Banshee: INT: 292° Seat-To-Seat .454 Lift EXH: 280° Seat-To-Seat .454 Lift Lobe Center Separation 111.5° Intake lobe is degreed to 107° Power Range 2800 - 6500 +RPM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky Phil Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 (edited) yeah honestly if I knew more about it when I was picking a cam from Tim I would probably have ordered this cam Screamin’Banshee: INT: 292° Seat-To-Seat .454 Lift EXH: 280° Seat-To-Seat .454 Lift Lobe Center Separation 111.5° Intake lobe is degreed to 107° Power Range 2800 - 6500 +RPM Yeah, thats the one Ive got in my white car. I cant wait to try it. But yeah, I just dont like the hole ex being open less than intake. I beleive if the motor is a bottle neck it should be matched or more duration on the exhaust side. I really want to see a cam with more exhaust duration. What negative could come of that?? Have you looked at Pagemo's dynograph?? I asked him his specs and he says he cant recall due to him ordering it so long ago. He needs to find out. That graph is just NASTY! phil Edited March 28, 2008 by phinko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emagdnim Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Yeah, thats the one Ive got in my white car. I cant wait to try it. But yeah, I just dont like the hole ex being open less than intake. I beleive if the motor is a bottle neck it should be matched or more duration on the exhaust side. I really want to see a cam with more exhaust duration. What negative could come of that?? Have you looked at Pagemo's dynograph?? I asked him his specs and he says he cant recall due to him ordering it so long ago. He needs to find out. That graph is just NASTY! phil I always though that was dumb as well... so ill be running both intake and exhaust with the same numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 all is not lost Chip let me know what you'l need out of that small roller i'l buy it from you when you do upgrade , i have no need of a huge cam but love the rollers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 looking back at your chart i'd say the roller you use'd would be compairable to the oem cam sept it uses roller rockers slight more lift , i'd say it shows a good compairson between it and the oem cam ,,the 292 is way out of it's league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 looking back at your chart i'd say the roller you use'd would be compairable to the oem cam sept it uses roller rockers slight more lift , i'd say it shows a good compairson between it and the oem cam ,,the 292 is way out of it's league yeah I'm definitely staying with "A" roller of some kind, I'd love to try more of tim's cams. Having had so much luck with the schneiders in the past though we'll have to see. Called them again today and they said they could take it all the way to a 298 intake 298 exhaust in a roller configuration. What rocks now is that I'm swapped over to roller rockers with new lifters and new roller cams are a 30 minute bolt on with no break in so I can experiment all I want. Sam to get to a 304 I suspect you'll have to stay with mechanical rockers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laodicea Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 I wouldn't think it would make much difference if you had them adjusted at the lifter height. Weird. Hmm..lemme explain better. What I mean is I think that if you just drilled through the rocker and tapped it for the elephant feet they would not be able to screw in far enough to give minimum lash....i.e. the valve would be open when the cam towers are tightened down. You would have to cut the rocker arm down enough so it would have room between the bottom of the rocker and the top of the valve stem.... thus compromising the strength (that is if trying to use and modify the 3.0 roller rockers) I am not talking about someone making them specifically. Don't get me wrong...I'd still try it and see how they held up....may be easier with 1:5 instead if 1:6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_C. Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Theoretically, more exhaust duration would be great. However, it is hard to do that, and not blow boost out the exhaust. It drastically reduces spool time. It also weakens the combustion with more unburnt fuel going out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emagdnim Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Don't get me wrong...I'd still try it and see how they held up....may be easier with 1:5 instead if 1:6. Thanks for that information, I would think getting the rollers cryro treated would help with the weak issue and getting them nitrided as well. Would defiantly be worth it.... Couldn't hurt to try to set-up a junk head/rollers to see how everything works out... would make another option for us in the head department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Theoretically, more exhaust duration would be great. However, it is hard to do that, and not blow boost out the exhaust. It drastically reduces spool time. It also weakens the combustion with more unburnt fuel going out. Glad to have you in this thread Tim. I looked through the old emails between you and I and I think I do have the rock the banshee. It took me so long to install it that I forgot what it was called and what grind I had. Rock the Banshee: INT Duration: 218 degrees @.050, seat-to-seat 284 degrees EXH Duration: 207 degrees @.050, seat-to-seat 265 degrees INT CAM Lift .312; .499 w/1.6 ratio; .468 w/1.5 ratio EXH CAM Lift .300; .480 w/1.6 ratio; .450 w/1.5 ratio Lobe Separation: 113.5° Intake Centerline 109.5° BTDC Power Range: 2500-7000RPM I'll have to edit the other post too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 you need to be 100% sure on what cam you do have , huge diff in the two ,,and more importantly a huge diff in the way they should perform,, if you do in fact have the larger cam the dyno sheet shows some real problem some where , but if it's the smaller cam your about right with maybe a little tuneing need'd i'd be interst'd in hearing why the reason for the wide diff in duration between intake and exh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 you need to be 100% sure on what cam you do have , huge diff in the two ,,and more importantly a huge diff in the way they should perform,, if you do in fact have the larger cam the dyno sheet shows some real problem some where , but if it's the smaller cam your about right with maybe a little tuneing need'd i'd be interst'd in hearing why the reason for the wide diff in duration between intake and exh All I can find is an email where I told tim "I think the race roller will be the one for me" I don't have anything else but tim remembers me getting the race roller so I guess that's what it is. When I eventually swap it out for another one I'll measure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinx Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Have you looked at Pagemo's dynograph?? I asked him his specs and he says he cant recall due to him ordering it so long ago. He needs to find out. That graph is just NASTY! If you told schnider what you were after, I'd think they could set ya up with the same cam as Pagemo. Yeah, the torque curve doesn't take the traditional G54 nosedive at all. Looks more like a dohc motor dyno. Interesting. Notice it lacks the normal ~4k tq swell tho..... which is what a bullseye T04B should give you on even a stock G54. Dunno if the "custom" schnieder cam design tradesoff the lower tq for higher peak hp. Question is, would you accept that compromise ? Once you're making solid tq, no need to rev. Our quckest street starquest on SQC doesn't. I wouldn't want to turn a G54 into a 'revver' at that cost. Gotta consider significantly accelerated engine wear n tear too. From way back in the day, 'turbo' profiles had more intake than exhaust duration. Sport compacts 4cyl were running 10s on drawthru turbo/carb setups - prog no fuel inj, intercooling, etc... Folks today are mesmerized by a higher peak hp more than anything... could that would be the reasoning for higher duration exh. ? Notice alot more of this 'pepsi generation' more absorbed with pk hp numbers and trap speed... than tq & a quick ET - lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted March 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 If you told schnider what you were after, I'd think they could set ya up with the same cam as Pagemo. Yeah, the torque curve doesn't take the traditional G54 nosedive at all. Looks more like a dohc motor dyno. Interesting. Notice it lacks the normal ~4k tq swell tho..... which is what a bullseye T04B should give you on even a stock G54. Dunno if the "custom" schnieder cam design tradesoff the lower tq for higher peak hp. Question is, would you accept that compromise ? Once you're making solid tq, no need to rev. Our quckest street starquest on SQC doesn't. I wouldn't want to turn a G54 into a 'revver' at that cost. Gotta consider significantly accelerated engine wear n tear too. From way back in the day, 'turbo' profiles had more intake than exhaust duration. Sport compacts 4cyl were running 10s on drawthru turbo/carb setups - prog no fuel inj, intercooling, etc... Folks today are mesmerized by a higher peak hp more than anything... could that would be the reasoning for higher duration exh. ? Notice alot more of this 'pepsi generation' more absorbed with pk hp numbers and trap speed... than tq & a quick ET - lol granted, but generally speaking, isn't it better to make more HP than TQ so you can take advantage of gearing. Within reason, if the changes you're making are making the same engine make more HP then you are increasing its ability to do work, plain and simple. The more work it can do, the faster it can propel the car down the track. I've always thought the loss in tq must be made up for with appropriate gearing, but you are clearly correct that if you never intend to change anything about the power train then for a street car, torque is king. The cars with the same hp and tq are probably the most fun to drive though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky Phil Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 I totally agree with you shelby! My point was that pagemo had something crazy and insanly different to get that kind of power curve. And for me I beleive in a broad powerband not a peaky Supra one. Its just that 4k rpm of powerband is going to be better than 3k. Trust me, I love torque. phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 i beleave you ment to say Chip i agree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pagemo Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 I totally agree with you shelby! My point was that pagemo had something crazy and insanly different to get that kind of power curve. And for me I beleive in a broad powerband not a peaky Supra one. Its just that 4k rpm of powerband is going to be better than 3k. Trust me, I love torque. phil Well I managed to go back to Schneider and got the specs used for my cam, but I ordered 2 cams at the time and they sent me the specs for the 292-80F cam 292 intake duration/ @ .050 lift 244 degrees duration 280 exhaust duration/ @.050 lift 232 degrees duration .448 in lift .462 ex lift 111.5 lobe separation but the cam in my car is still a mystery to me as it is marked as a 292-84F I am not sure what we came up with at the time but Jerry from Schneider and I spoke several times and we came up with a combination of two cams as I recall. I don't know why but I thought we had reversed the profiles to get 284 degree intake and 292 degrees exhaust duration, I think LSA was around 112.5 and gross lift was in the .465 range. I will call Monday and get him to send the specs on this cam. With that said there are several other possible reasons for the lower trq and longer power curve on my dyno. one is that the bullseye T4 turbo was surging pretty bad at low rpm so I surge ported the compressor housing. I immediately noticed the response was less low end but increased top end. the other thing is that I distinctly remember that when I degreed the cam it needed to be set -3 degrees to match the cam card set up for the intake. I think I set it for 107.5 on the intake lobe? If this was retarded more than necessary that would shift the power curve higher in the RPM range. and lastly the head was lifting on these dyno runs so I am not sure how bad and how much trq could have been lost? but when I tore the engine apart all 4 cylinders had shown signs of leaking on both sides of the cylinders I was running the SCE titan gasket and it may have been holding for part of the runs then leaking at higher RPM keeping g the #'s low? With any luck the car will be back on the road with pretty much the exact set up and tune in the next few months and we can see then what it does. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 HP wins races, torque is fun to drive. You have to sacrifice one for the others most times when you start moving your power band with cam swaps. For a street car, peak torque matters more than anything, on a race car, who cares about low end torque, the entire trip down teh track is at redline. As long as you can spool it up at launch, the rest of the power curve is irrelivant on a track car. Cam builder know this, so if you say you want a race cam, expect to have a lag monster, that makes lots of HP. Look as the S-2000, almost no torque, but lots of HP and proper gearing, it's fun to drive, but has to be keps above 6500 RPM It's 135 ft/lb can beat a 275 ft/lb quest in the quarter because of the higher HP and gearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_C. Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Here is some of my design strategy: I wanted to be able to use off the shelf valves with a roller cam. The Schneider roller cams have a drastically reduced base circle. They work very well, but need an engine built around them, i.e. notched pistons, custom longer valves, raised valve cover, etc... In order to use off the shelf valves on a roller cam, I couldn't go really big on the duration. I could still make a roller grind that didn't need as long of a custom valve as the Schneider, but if you need a custom valve, you might as well go crazy with the cam. the Rock the Banshee cam is as big as we could go without needing a custom valve in order to preload the hydraulic lifters. If we had a mechanical roller rocker set-up, we could get really aggressive and make the ultimate cam for this engine. No one has come up with them yet, so I will try this summer if I can ever get to it. I've been overly swamped with my real job for the last 4 years or so, and haven't been able to do much in the way of car projects. Right now, Chip is right. My Screamin'Banshee mechanical slip rocker cam has the best all around performance on most set-ups. I do have the Rock cam on one engine, and I love it over any of my other cams. However, the set-up is such that really works well with that cam. You almost have to list all mods in order to figure out what part of the build matches or doesn't match to the cam. All machine mods, and parts, etc... have to match each other with the same overall goal in mind, for the cam choice to work or not it seems. I might not be back on for a week, so I'll check back then. Not sure if my next destination hotel has internet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts