Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Re: cam lobe separation [Re: 451Mopar] #1476345
08/02/13 04:06 AM
08/02/13 04:06 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,139
Melbourne , Australia
LA360 Offline
master
LA360  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,139
Melbourne , Australia
I would be looking at something with a 110-112 lobe separation angle if it was my engine and I was using Nitrous all the time.


Alan Jones
Re: cam lobe separation [Re: LA360] #1476346
08/02/13 10:59 AM
08/02/13 10:59 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,695
nc
E
emarine01 Offline
master
emarine01  Offline
master
E

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,695
nc
Ian, The way I look @ it is where do you want the power, I run old 59* factory blocks with W5 heads so @ 414 inches we run outa breath over 7k & the block and valve train don't seem real happy higher , WE can pull to 7500 with a small roller 260@ .050 .685 lift 106 0n 106 but the real hard pull is down around 6 to 6800, In the mud the resistance will pull the engine down fast so a higher TQ, shorter power band seems to work better for us, We ran larger rollers with wider spreads 109 , 112, and had problems turing larger more aggressive tires requiring more gear & converter thus reducing wheel speed and having to turn more rpm to compensate, The shift recovery is also faster with the shorter power band. The Nos guys in the mud seem to favor 107-108 advanced 4 with a boatload more exhaust duration @ least 10*+, To have a setup that runs Na and Nos and not favor one side is hard to do, seems ya gotta trade a little somewhere.

Re: cam lobe separation [Re: emarine01] #1476347
08/02/13 11:22 AM
08/02/13 11:22 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,044
Victoria, Australia
Ian Offline OP
super stock
Ian  Offline OP
super stock

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,044
Victoria, Australia
thanks guys ,there is a lot of good facts and engine combos vs real changes with lobe separation , I think I will be running a lot more aspirated next year so 108 it will be ,thanks


1.37 60 ft [email]6.0@113[/email] [email]9.57@141[/email] 408 glide 3550lbs
new video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xvq3ZObywQE
Re: cam lobe separation [Re: Ian] #1476348
08/02/13 12:31 PM
08/02/13 12:31 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,485
SoCal
Brian Hafliger Offline
master
Brian Hafliger  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,485
SoCal
Quote:

thanks guys ,there is a lot of good facts and engine combos vs real changes with lobe separation , I think I will be running a lot more aspirated next year so 108 it will be ,thanks




It only takes one time on NOS to hurt the engine....the engine doesn't care how many times a year you run NOS...if it's not built for the x amount of times you squeeze it will let you know it's not happy


Brian Hafliger
Re: cam lobe separation [Re: Brian Hafliger] #1476349
08/02/13 01:08 PM
08/02/13 01:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,044
Victoria, Australia
Ian Offline OP
super stock
Ian  Offline OP
super stock

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,044
Victoria, Australia
thanks brian ,I know a little about nos only been running it for 25 years


1.37 60 ft [email]6.0@113[/email] [email]9.57@141[/email] 408 glide 3550lbs
new video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xvq3ZObywQE
Re: cam lobe separation [Re: Ian] #1476350
08/04/13 11:14 AM
08/04/13 11:14 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 99
South Dakota
W
wireweld Offline
member
wireweld  Offline
member
W

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 99
South Dakota
What about efi. Does a wider lsa work better? Like a 112 or 114?

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1