danglerb

Mark have you ever tried something more than the Euro S2 cam (84/86)?

And I am good on this, really, shopping for parts, making lists and checking them twice etc. is all.

danglerb

I don't think my first whack will lose the vane, but I might come back to it later with alternate engine management or just a MAF and translator box.

Why not measure the pressure in a convenient spot post vane at wot and full rpm and see how much is lost going through it? That should be the gain except for increased AF tuning and throttle response from the MAF.

Power isn't what might push me as much as later engine management includes things like knock sensors, but maybe something piggy back might work. First I want it basically working and me driving it.

*** BTW sorry if I am snappy, but royal headcold going, dent in car, and shop closed half hour early so I didn't get my Mustang back with the new X pipe and cats.

mark kibort

The vane is not the issue, very little pressure drop across it . the main gains would come from the size of the AFM opening. its basically like a 50% restrictor plate compared to a 3.5" MAF. Now, its not as bad as it seems. it does have a very efficient bell mouthed (radiused) inlet and obviously , works extremely well. there is no response issues AT ALL with the Ljet. in fact, in driving/racing them, i cant tell the difference on the track or on the street. the AFM is that good! in fact, its much simpler to tune with using the rising rate fuel regs alone! then, timing can be adjusted by the distributer cap rotation. very NICE!! you have fuel and timing at your disposal, to tune for any type of target operation. (racing or street or fuel economy)

proof is in the pudding. 293rwhp vs a few CIS 5 liter conversions of 300rwhp or slightly more. not a big deal.

Mk

danglerb

I was rereading the article from 1985 on Greg's hybrid motors, and it kind of looks like he used a US intake spider and ported the hell out of the runners, its sure no 1.5 vs 1.6. I need to find the whole article and print it, was going blind trying to read it on screen.

It also was showing the MSDS headers alone were good for about 20% more hp, wonder how the 85/86 manifold compares to that, not that I think much chance of me getting away with headers in SoCal.

Daniel Dudley

Danglerb, I haven't read this whole post, but I'm sure the point has been made that these engines don't do well at stratosheric revs. The crank has to be redrilled for high RPM oiling, and this is usually reserved for race engines.

My 2 cents says that a torque monster is the way to go, and that revs, cams is asking the engine to do something for which it was not designed. If you do plan on running the car with a race engine, plan on changing your rod bearings every few years as a precaution. 6K is a good limit for a stock crank, and an added baffle in the sump will help prevent oil starvation from cornering if you go to super stickies on the wheels.

Fabio421

Where can I find this article?

danglerb

Sept/Oct 1985 issue of European Car (formerly VW & Porsche)
Haven't found where I found it again yet.

"Nothing" really seems to work to raise the redline, too many issues, 6600 rpm with a stroker seems the current reliable choice for NA. Thats too expensive for me.

Reading the thread would have helped. NA torque monsters don't hide in 4.5L motors, best you can do is to use resonant tuned intakes and exhaust, thats what the S4 does with the flappy thing. What I am looking at is just freeing up the flow which is highly restricted on the US motor, not much change in torque, just the top end breathes better.

mark kibort

the whole performance thing is about 4000rpm and higher. the drivability thing is all about what the flappy is for. better torquey feel off the line from a stop light. passing without downshfting on the freeway, but if i pull up in a 2 valve 5 liter, you better downshift or you will be left in the dust and i dont care what your peak torque is! our engines puurrrr at 4000rpm and higher. safe 'til 6000rpm all day long! when ive pulled apart so many 928 engines and seen rod bearings that look like new after they have 175000miles on them, with several years of DE on the engine, it proves the design is pretty phenominal. if you got a flappy, and its working on a 4 valver, enjoy. if you have a 2 valver or are building a new one. dont fret with the torque peaks. its HP that matters! And, the 2 valve euro equipment can flow with the best of them, especially when you mount it all to a 5 liter bottom end. I becha scots euro with the devek B1 cam is going to put down 290 rwhp with the standard MSDS headers and a 3" single pipe.

MK

danglerb

Mark tell me more about the B1 cam, what tricks does it do while fitting through the bearing things?

No reason why a system "like" the flappy would not work on a 16v.

I had my factory catted H pipe replaced with a X pipe and high flow OBDII cats on my Mustang and picked it up this afternoon. My how pleasant a bit more power is. I crossed the threshold of throttle induced wheelspin on nice dry pavement. Gives me the itch to get the ball rolling on the 928.

drnick

mmm.... i just took delivery of an 85/86 block to put some euro top end parts onto and thoughts of camshafts and valve sizes is going through my mind too. i might do what i did with the GTS and have the cams ground with a smaller base circle, when i get that far.

mark kibort

Ill see if i can find the spec. I think its .5" lift, vs the .43 or something of the stock euro S cam. duration is better too. probably worth 5-10hp over the best of the euro cams. call devek and ask them about it. no problem for the bearings, it is possible that they are made from 928 cams and reground and shimmed. not sure though.

no way of doing a flappy thing with the 2 valve plenum. no way to separate the two sides from "talking" to one another. plus, who cares about 2700rpm to 3700rpm torque!!



Mk

Jim bailey - 928 International

Many years ago Bob Devore and Lucky Eckman managed to buy a number of unground new cam blanks for the two valve. These are what devek has sent out to be ground into more agressive cams which are still small enough to slide into a stock camshaft housing. I am not sure if they still have any blanks left from over 15 years ago...Others have hard welded and reground stock cams with success for their applications.

danglerb

Mark I didn't mean to put a flappy in a 16v spider plenum, I mean make a later style twin path intake and use it on a 16v motor.

No point in more cam than a 5.0L 6300 rpm redline motor and the heads can support, but I don't know what the weak link is, heads, cam, or intake.

John Milledge does some interesting stuff for the 944 NA guys, but I hear its not cheap. I think their website says they use German cores for the cams, but they don't seem to answer email, and last time I called it was just a machine and I wasn't ready with a message.

Larry Velk

OK, not really a thread I have personal insight into, however this is the data from PCA "UP-FIXEN...etc.:
1980-82 US - number on cam: 173/174 Lift (in/ex): 0.396/0.350 lobe area: 29.0" (square this)
25.0"
1983-84 US - 203/204 0.435/0.395 31.5"
27.8"
1978 -79 ?? 155/156 0.435/0.395 32.06"
28.98"
1980-86 EURO 187/188,211/212 0.472/0.432 36.20"
32.20"
ELGIN "Project 928" 0.463/0.441 37.1"
34.0"
Old address for Elgin (a name I recall from hot rod days) is:53 Pery Street
Redwood City CA94063
415-364-2187
I somehow doubt they're still in business. The point made in the article was the lobe area was important (Lord knows how they measured it - presumably from 0.020 lift or something, as duration was often measured). I'm just repeating this for you guys as it may be too old to be in circulation. The car in question DID NOT RUN PROPERLY until fine tuned with chips. As evidence to how old this info is - they "discovered" that the exhaust needed the 'ole "X-factor" - the now well known power adder.

BC

Elgine Cams is still there.