- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,636
Yup,as well,imlooking for turbo kit too
shiroitenshi said:Turbo cams is designed differently from NA.. since air is forced into the cyclinders, there's not much point in having high lifts... so VTEC is kind of wasted on turbos IMHO.
shiroitenshi said:Just opinion only mah.. Overlap wise still can play with cam pulleys no? But isn't high lift related to durations as well? More lift, more duration? (from what I've noted). Everything not so clear cut, you also know, since you're used to turbo units..
But I'm totally out of it when talking turbos.. too much things to learn.. that one have to wait until one person over here does it.. then can study more about it. Too much investment required to do it right for me.
Yeah.. can support 700+ actually, if you read the later versions in the mag. They blew the engine up at 8XX hp after that. NOS+turbo.
shiroitenshi said:I see you've heard about me from mie.. nice work with that grassroot engine management system. Tried messing with it a few years back, but it was not so developed then.
VtecZz&TurboZz said:So how a b20b Built up on 500whp ??
That's okay. it's true, in general NA engine likes more cam overlapping, turbo engines need less. in term of valve lift i'm not so sure. but the idea is to get the most air flow in and out. but how much lift and how much overlap we can't exactly say unless we test it on the flow bench. There are too many variables that need to be considered, not only the cams.
yes it's true that more lift = more duration. but it can be otherwise. two sets of cams the can have same lift but different duration, or same duration but different lift. the lift vs duration determines how `square' the cam is (the ramp rate).
Careful of sturgeon's law. :)
Have a fren who bought performance cams from US. He had problems with his setup. The car was like misfiring. It took him a month to realize that the cam actually was floating. He already had HKS valvetrain. In the end, the HKS valvetrain cannot support the square cam. So money down the drain...shiroitenshi said:Yeah.. but I think there's no longer aggresive ramp rates available on the market nowdays compared to last time, when an older friend of mine told his experiences of having the rocker arms cam surfaces wear out like nobody's business on some previous performance cams (USDM ones, not JDM) In a way, that affected his opinion of US parts, but that's another story.
I might have different approach than you. I notice air fuel ratio will be different if you play-play with the cam gear.shiroitenshi said:The overlap thing is quite playable with the exhaust cam, but well.. not too many people have the time to 'clay' for valve clearances and find out the max degrees to retard or advance. I am planning to do that though, but it's probably only going to be done when I've finished with other minor works. (chassis works, if you're wondering).. It's a lot of work trying to shave weight off a 4 door sedan. esp. if it doesn't involve removing parts of the chassis itself.
A strange note is that I'm told that the EXACT degrees of exhaust opening and closing doesn't really matter, and you'd need quite a lot of degree adjustment to see differences in power output. And thus, it is through the exhaust cam that you have the most leeway in playing with the amount of overlap you want. And from limited playing around with mine.. I find it to be true as well... however, since I didn't clay my engine for tolerances.. no, I didn't go above 1-2 degrees.
Do you have the same opinion, or have your experiences taught you differently?