[n20ta2]

Thanks for all the replies, all good information.

[mgarblik]

The OP asked about the Howards hydraulic roller lifters he had and who made them. They are made by Morel for Howards and also supply Bullet/Ulrtradyne with their hydraulic roller lifters. I have had several students use them in their builds. No Pontiac experience. Mopar, SBC, and Ford Cleveland. They all have been just fine in the build and dyno sessions and the SBC has about 5000 miles on it now. I highly recommend pre-oiling and visually confirming oil out of each and every rocker arm. One of the Howards/Morel lifters in the SBC I mentioned, would not oil no matter what we tried. Due to the way the tie bar was attached, it could not be disassembled for inspection. Not the best design from that standpoint. We returned it and they sent a replacement right away, It worked just fine.

[leeklm]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

Sounds pretty vague..
I also wonder what the intake and head flowed bolted together. If they went 310 in tandem it would like the larger cam, peak HP should be north of 6000 RPM.

High ports will want a big stick, much more than the d-ports.

Good point on flow with the high ports. What do they typically flow out of the box? My 310 D ports are making max HP around 6300.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Steve C.]

Flow numbers touted here for the HP heads....

"As cast heads flow around 330 cfm on the intake"

https://www.tinindianperformance.com...cylinder-head/

As I noted they flow upwards to 0.700" lift. And if memory serves me right the intake runner volume is about 277cc's. All this with a larger 2.200" intake valve.


.

[Dragncar]

SD Dave told me my High Ports would want around .750 lift so I bought a cam that would get me there. But driveability is not a concern for me.
A lot of people get as cast HPs in the 315-320cfm on their bench's.
The High Ports are going to want lift no matter what. Shortchanging yourself if you do not got in the high .600s at least. I am sure the cam that Jeff picks out will work well.
If you are going to run a good amount of lift you are better off with E heads.

[n20ta2]

Yeah he mentioned the as cast like around 650-670 range, I honestly can't remember the lift numbers of the cam he suggested but I think he told me somewhere close or above that with the 1.65 rockers so hopefully all good

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by leeklm

My 310 D ports are making max HP around 6300.

Dyno sheet?

[Steve C.]

From post number 7
Jeff Kauffman recommended something around 250 255 duration with lift a little higher at around 600.

It will be interesting to note what he picks.

For conversation, as an example knowing the High Port heads touted "330" cfm number is at 0.700" lift.
Here are to two popular Comp lobes that fit the .050 duration suggested above and the valve lift with a 1.65 ratio:

Lobe #3116
314
252
169
.4000"
0.660' lift

Lobe #3319
306
254
178
.3870"
0.638" lift


pastry_chef can you present a graph curve for these two lobes ?

.

[leeklm]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

Dyno sheet?

Here is an initial engine dyno sheet along with a follow up chasis dyno. The engine dyno operator was a little conservative and did not want to run the engine past 6k. There was virtually no tuning during that session. You can see it is still making power at 6300 on the chasis dyno

Since the chasis dyno, I have added a fully ported intake, taller spacer, and tighter valve lash, less timing, all of which netted positive track results. Based on the results of fine tuning at the track vs no tuning on the engine dyno, I would presume 600hp is realistic, which is also consistent with what Dave at SD expected based on their testing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Here are to two popular Comp lobes that fit the .050 duration suggested above and the valve lift with a 1.65 ratio:

Lobe #3116
314
252
169
.4000"
0.660' lift

Lobe #3319
306
254
178
.3870"
0.638" lift


pastry_chef can you present a graph curve for these two lobes ?

.

Sure Steve, I can later today.

Would you like lobe lift or valve lift with rocker? Are we wanting to see the comparison between those two with the same centerline ?

[Stan Weiss]

Mike,
To me the 3319 looks to be a more aggressive lobe. Are you able to produce velocity and acceleration graph for these lobes?

Thanks,
Stan

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
To me the 3319 looks to be a more aggressive lobe. Are you able to produce velocity and acceleration graph for these lobes?

Thanks,
Stan

Hi Stan,
I have lift to 0.1 mm at every degree, but won't be good for velocity and acceleration.

[Stan Weiss]

Hey Mike,
I can generate a lobe lift file from the listed data points but do not know how much different it is that the true lobe lift file. Can you read in S96 files?

Stan

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Hey Mike,
Can you read in S96 files?

Stan

Yes.
Either Dynomation or Cam Analyzer Plus will. I have both.

[Steve C.]

"To me the 3319 looks to be a more aggressive lobe"

"CAM PROFILE INTENSITY"

https://www.4secondsflat.com/Cam_Design.html

"In practical terms if two cams with similar lobe designs have the same duration at 0.050 lift, maximum torque and horsepower will be almost identical. However, the cam with the quicker opening will have a smoother idle, better off-idle response, superior low speed drivability and a broader power curve."
Harvey Crane

We can bring up the degrees of duration at .200" lift also.
.

[Steve C.]

Also you have to keep in mind it's not as simple as a straight formula. Different lobes (and companies) have different intensity on the opening side vs the closing side.

And to further muddy the water Mike Jones of Jones Cam Designs brings up the subject of it being a marketing tool....

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=455257

.

[Stan Weiss]

If we calculate average inch / degree for both cams from 0.050" lobe lift to 0.200" lobe lift we see the #3319 lobe is about 10% greater.

#3116
► (.200-.050)/(252-169) = 0.001807

#3319
► (.200-.050)/(254-178) = 0.001974

Stan

[Steve C.]

overall area under the valve curve ?


.

[Stan Weiss]

I generated symmetrical lobes. It will be interesting to see what Pastry_Chef posts from the real lobes.

Both lobes have close to the same area. But it is not all in the same places.

Stan

PS Mike please check your email for the S96 files.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

pastry_chef can you present a graph curve for these two lobes ?

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

PS Mike please check your email for the S96 files.

Four image comparisons attached.