[TCSGTO]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

What should be mentioned with Harold and this quote, is his lobe designs. They were nothing like the other cam manufactures, and his 110 LSA's that you commonly see now in the voodoo lineup don't really act like tight LSA cams, and they carry the power out pretty far compared to other 110 LSA cams.
It's been mentioned here quite a bit in the past.

I'm sure there are other examples but the only direct comparison of the between a Lunati and another similar cam was when Jim Hand put the popular 231/239/110 hft cam in his wagon and made several trips to the track with it. IIRC it ran quicker to 60' and had identical ET's as the RAIV/Rhoades with less MPH while having a rougher idle. He tried advancing and retarding it and performance fell off from having the intake at 106.

What was always interesting was how little actual track performance changed with all of the wildly different grinds he tried back in the day. I think he even tried a custom on a tight LSA and ET's were still close to the RAIV/Rhoads. His testing was very detailed and as unbiased as it got. To me those real world tests proved that on a real street car there are just too many variables and compromises to say a particular cam is going to be superior in every way, unless you're selling one of them which he wasn't. Like PaulK said there are alot of different ways to do things. I'm sure these tests are still on the net somewhere and are as valid now as they were then.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

What should be mentioned with Harold and this quote, is his lobe designs. They were nothing like the other cam manufactures

I don't yet have any lobe scans of Harold's designs to verify, soon I hope.

Mike Jones says many of his designs are very different as well, Jones says you cannot use the .050 down from max lift method to degree his. Max lift is way off "center" in some cases.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by TCSGTO

What was always interesting was how little actual track performance changed with all of the wildly different grinds he tried

Agree, that was interesting.

[TCSGTO]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

I don't yet have any lobe scans of Harold's designs to verify, soon I hope.

Mike Jones says many of his designs are very different as well, Jones says you cannot use the .050 down from max lift method to degree his. Max lift is way off "center" in some cases.

Every Hr cam I've degreed had to be done with opening and closing events. Lobe centerlines were never "in the middle".

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Half a decade? So what did they do before 5yrs ago?

Lol!!!

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by TCSGTO

I'm sure there are other examples but the only direct comparison of the between a Lunati and another similar cam was when Jim Hand put the popular 231/239/110 hft cam in his wagon and made several trips to the track with it. IIRC it ran quicker to 60' and had identical ET's as the RAIV/Rhoades with less MPH while having a rougher idle. He tried advancing and retarding it and performance fell off from having the intake at 106.

What was always interesting was how little actual track performance changed with all of the wildly different grinds he tried back in the day. I think he even tried a custom on a tight LSA and ET's were still close to the RAIV/Rhoads. His testing was very detailed and as unbiased as it got. To me those real world tests proved that on a real street car there are just too many variables and compromises to say a particular cam is going to be superior in every way, unless you're selling one of them which he wasn't. Like PaulK said there are alot of different ways to do things. I'm sure these tests are still on the net somewhere and are as valid now as they were then.

Lot to learn from Jim Hand's tests. His car later benefited from more duration and a tighter LSA. Reading between the lines his 231/239 110 test cam would work great for a guy running a 3:23 gear instead of the 3:55 JH used. He stated the larger cam made considerably more power at higher RPM's but he wasn't able to utilize it with his existing converter and shift points.

[Region Warrior]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

Can you provide engine details?

To me "improve" means higher average power through the RPM range where the engine spends time. Will be achieved by using best I/E duration and centerline balances for the combination.
In the same manner more duration does not ALWAYS make more peak HP and certainly not more average HP.

Don't want to hack this thread but yes "improve average power range".

Back in 80's.
Was just a guess on cr...
455 with #12 heads. Mild port work with both a matching 68 intake and Torker 1 with spacer. 78 g-jet carb.
sft 256/263-110 lsa 4* advanced. 1.52 stock rkrs.
TH350 with stall cnvtr range 2800? or 3200?
3.73's with 295/50-15's
Ran Low 11's

Why a wider lsa?
Mostly street driven plus have 150 to 250 shot of n2o.
Local track has/had a 10.0 class like to compete in.

Current combo
461 w/87cc e-heads(no mods yet...)
sft 236/248-110 lsa. 1.65 rkrs.
RPM intake/850 holley dialed in. Couple 1" spacers to try and same 78 q-jet needs more mods.
TH400 with 3500 stall cnvtr(have a 4200).
3.42's with 11.50-15lt tires. Have 3.73 and 4.11(put'n this winter).
Next set of slicks will have less tread width. To much for power output.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

2.2 and 1.7 valves?
I/E numbers at .500, .600, .700 ?

I thought I already had this up. Correct on the valves.

[Steve C.]

Sticky material......

"Lot to learn from Jim Hand's tests. His car later benefited from more duration and a tighter LSA. Reading between the lines his 231/239 110 test cam would work great for a guy running a 3:23 gear instead of the 3:55 JH used. He stated the larger cam made considerably more power at higher RPM's but he wasn't able to utilize it with his existing converter and shift points."

Emphasis on his existing converter and shift points !




.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Its not as big as I thought. .441 lobe and a .460 lobe. 274-280 108
That gets me .759 on one side with my 1.65 rockers.
But, is it too much for a stock block. Would a good set of 1.5 rockers help.
It is a custom pump gas cam, new.

Personally not crazy about that one either but imo its better than the other two

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by TCSGTO

I'm sure there are other examples but the only direct comparison of the between a Lunati and another similar cam was when Jim Hand put the popular 231/239/110 hft cam in his wagon and made several trips to the track with it. IIRC it ran quicker to 60' and had identical ET's as the RAIV/Rhoades with less MPH while having a rougher idle. He tried advancing and retarding it and performance fell off from having the intake at 106.

What was always interesting was how little actual track performance changed with all of the wildly different grinds he tried back in the day. I think he even tried a custom on a tight LSA and ET's were still close to the RAIV/Rhoads. His testing was very detailed and as unbiased as it got. To me those real world tests proved that on a real street car there are just too many variables and compromises to say a particular cam is going to be superior in every way, unless you're selling one of them which he wasn't. Like PaulK said there are alot of different ways to do things. I'm sure these tests are still on the net somewhere and are as valid now as they were then.

I didn't mean to imply it was better, just different. The different design allows the tighter LSA to make a broader power band than you would normally see, and his voodoo lobes were some of his latest and better lobe designs. Don't think they were around back when Jim was testing. Paul has commented on this before here in the past as he and his partner Jeff dealt with Harold on a personal level for many years. Paul has also done a lot of dyno testing in this area and posted some of that here as well. Pretty impressive what those lobes do with tighter LSA's.

Now in saying that, the last 2 custom ground cams Paul did for me, both Pontiacs, both Harold lobes, one with a 4-7 swap, but both were done on a 112 LSA for reasons Paul and Jeff know.

[Steve C.]

And back in my post #10 is a comment made by Paul regarding the 110 lobe separation and Harold's cams.



.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Personally not crazy about that one either but imo its better than the other two

What I would like is a cam like Badd TAs son Jake had for awhile. He made in the low 700s on pump gas I think (in a 4" stroke engine wasn't it?). I bet this cam is not too far off from that one. Similar head flow too.
BTW, in general what cam dimensions would you be looking for for this combo ?

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

And back in my post #10 is a comment made by Paul regarding the 110 lobe separation and Harold's cams.



.

Thanks Steve,
I suck at digging around the computer, and I didn't want to bother Paul about it.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

What I would like is a cam like Badd TAs son Jake had for awhile. He made in the low 700s on pump gas I think (in a 4" stroke engine wasn't it?). I bet this cam is not too far off from that one. Similar head flow too.
BTW, in general what cam dimensions would you be looking for for this combo ?

Ya that was a nice cam, you should've bought it.

[Cliff R]

"What was always interesting was how little actual track performance changed with all of the wildly different grinds he tried back in the day"

You will not see huge changes in ET or MPH with cam swaps provided they are all relatively well chosen and similar in seat timing. Jim tried many cams and for the most part was comparing them against the "old" Wolverine 5059 cam. In short summary he went bigger, smaller, tighter LSA and many combinations of both, even at one point (going by memory here) letting both Lunati and Bullet choose a cam based on the 5059 specs that would outrun it. Neither example ran as well as the "old" Wolverine grind.

I remember Bullet sending him one on a tight 108 LSA and aside from hurting idle quality some it ran maybe just a tad quicker on the launch but slower on the run.

What folks fail to realize here, and I've done this many, many times over the years testing parts. Once you nail everything down and "hone" your combination to the brink of extinction, you aren't just going to come along with a single part and run quicker, especially camshafts.

Although at a glance the 5059 cam looks a bit dated it is very well suited to a Pontiac 455 engine build with around 10 to 1 compression with decent head flow (240-260cfm). It has adequate seat timing, overlap, and 112LSA so it takes the big 455 and makes it better at what it already does well, and complimented with decent flowing heads makes excellent upper mid-range and top end power.

If you look for a moment at Dave's Old Faithful cam you will see similarities with the 5059 even though it's a roller cam and not flat tappet. One can take the 5059 cam, for example, add high ratio rocker arms and Rhoads lifters to it and mimic the power of a roller cam with similar seat timing and lobe placement, but at much less cost.

Right on the dyno with back to back testing I proved this to be correct. We were able to mimic the power of a .361" lobed HR cam with Comp's XFI lobes, 284/296, 230/242, 112 LSA with a Crower 60919 cam, Rhoads lifter and 1.73 ratio rocker arms. The roller cam back to back testing only made 3hp/4ft lbs more power than the Crower flat cam and it actually finished at 5400 where the flat cam peaked at 5600rpms.......FWIW......Cliff

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Its not as big as I thought. .441 lobe and a .460 lobe. 274-280 108
That gets me .759 on one side with my 1.65 rockers.
But, is it too much for a stock block. Would a good set of 1.5 rockers help.
It is a custom pump gas cam, new.

Looking a Comp lobes I'd like HXL but they have even more lift.
Using the RX series I get 4314 intake (275) and 4317 exhaust (281) , 110 LSA - intake cent at 107. Assuming 11:1 CR. Too much for the OEM block I'd say.

[tooski]

Originally Posted by TCSGTO

Every Hr cam I've degreed had to be done with opening and closing events. Lobe centerlines were never "in the middle".

So, does that mean that when I degreed my hr at the specified ICL (I used the .050 method)it is degreed in the wrong position.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by tooski

So, does that mean that when I degreed my hr at the specified ICL (I used the .050 method)it is degreed in the wrong position.

That is a common debate.
You followed the advice on page 33 of Jim Hands Book or Comp's video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cNoVRLb73c
Result could possibly be 1 or 2 degrees different.. Mike Jones has cam lobes that will yield 8 degree difference and this is too much!

[JSchmitz]

Originally Posted by TCSGTO

His testing was very detailed and as unbiased as it got.

Except when he tested his heads against AL heads. He made the compression ratio exactly the same. Why wouldn't you bump the compression up? IMHO. Otherwise, lots of good testing.