Gary, I want to take this time to apologize for our real world testing not agreeing with your theories .
And I think the rest of our group that tests and dynos engines together would agree with me.
We are Sorry Gary.
Randy
Moderator: Team
Gary, I want to take this time to apologize for our real world testing not agreeing with your theories .
My theory's are drawn from test results just like yours.
Can you post a link, I must have missed them?GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:31 amMy theory's are drawn from test results just like yours.
I'm sure you have far better data you could post than I do, I am not going to try to duplicate everything I have put forth over the past year just because you choose not to be part of the thread.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:12 pmCan you post a link, I must have missed them?
I had a 357 saved in Cam Master with a 2.08 valve and for the heck of it I changed it to a 2.02 and reduced flow accordingly between .100 to .250 only and it added 2 degrees on seat, reduced LSA by 1.3 and increased overlap from 55 to 60... For what it's worth.MadBill wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:03 amInteresting Rick! Disregarding the lower predicted power, how were the similarly-optimized cam specs affected?Rick360 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:34 pmI did some Dynomation 5 simulations testing some steep seat flow curves and ran the cam iterator to find what it wants but the sim always showed less power with the steep seat flow curve, no matter the cam events. Makes me doubt the accuracy of the info.MadBill wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:55 pm If the cam was correct for the 45° seat, it would seem logical that a couple of degrees more for both IVO and IVC could be required with a 50° one (and thus no change in ICL or LSA) to compensate for the reduced low lift flow.
This would be a good investigation for someone with a recent version of Dynomation or a similar/higher level simulation software program. m ke I believe is one Speedtalker with same..
Rick
PS: How did your steep seat flow input data compare to the 45° values? If it exhibited the commonly-reported reduced low lift flow, less power would be the opposite of the conclusions noted in the "too fast over SSR" thread...
OkGARY C wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:28 pmI'm sure you have far better data you could post than I do, I am not going to try to duplicate everything I have put forth over the past year just because you choose not to be part of the thread.
How would the smaller valve data apply to a change in valve seat angles?GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:28 pmI had a 357 saved in Cam Master with a 2.08 valve and for the heck of it I changed it to a 2.02 and reduced flow accordingly between .100 to .250 only and it added 2 degrees on seat, reduced LSA by 1.3 and increased overlap from 55 to 60... For what it's worth.MadBill wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:03 amInteresting Rick! Disregarding the lower predicted power, how were the similarly-optimized cam specs affected?Rick360 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:34 pm
I did some Dynomation 5 simulations testing some steep seat flow curves and ran the cam iterator to find what it wants but the sim always showed less power with the steep seat flow curve, no matter the cam events. Makes me doubt the accuracy of the info.
Rick
PS: How did your steep seat flow input data compare to the 45° values? If it exhibited the commonly-reported reduced low lift flow, less power would be the opposite of the conclusions noted in the "too fast over SSR" thread...
Probably the revers swirl polish.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:20 amHow would the smaller valve data apply to a change in valve seat angles?GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:28 pmI had a 357 saved in Cam Master with a 2.08 valve and for the heck of it I changed it to a 2.02 and reduced flow accordingly between .100 to .250 only and it added 2 degrees on seat, reduced LSA by 1.3 and increased overlap from 55 to 60... For what it's worth.MadBill wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:03 am
Interesting Rick! Disregarding the lower predicted power, how were the similarly-optimized cam specs affected?
PS: How did your steep seat flow input data compare to the 45° values? If it exhibited the commonly-reported reduced low lift flow, less power would be the opposite of the conclusions noted in the "too fast over SSR" thread...
So, you have nothing huh?!?GARY C wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:16 pmProbably the revers swirl polish.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:20 amHow would the smaller valve data apply to a change in valve seat angles?GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:28 pm
I had a 357 saved in Cam Master with a 2.08 valve and for the heck of it I changed it to a 2.02 and reduced flow accordingly between .100 to .250 only and it added 2 degrees on seat, reduced LSA by 1.3 and increased overlap from 55 to 60... For what it's worth.
So that means you have less than nothing? Feel free to post up some info... I will be waiting.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:49 pmSo, you have nothing huh?!?GARY C wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:16 pmProbably the revers swirl polish.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:20 am
How would the smaller valve data apply to a change in valve seat angles?
At least your consistent!
It was a serious question. You've been stating that a change in valve seat angle would require a change in lobe separation angle (which has never showed in our testing) and gave simulation data from a change in valve size. How would that data apply when they are vastly different scenarios?GARY C wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:51 pmSo that means you have less than nothing? Feel free to post up some info... I will be waiting.
So in this case difference in time area do not come into play?Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:21 am If we were to look at this using Blair's time area. The great the seat angle the less time area we would see in these areas (looking at intake only).
Intake BTDC (IVO to TDC)
Intake Ramming (BDC to IVC)
Intake Overlap (IVO to EVC)
Stan