cam regrind
07-01-2010 | 10:07 PM
#16
Instructor
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
From: Beautiful Melbourne, Australia
Thanks, Jim.
According to the Dougherty website, the DC21 has a 112 deg lobe angle. Their DC 20 is called Super C2 and looks to be essentially the same as the Elgin Super C2.
I look forward to hearing how things turn out for you - hope it goes well and gives you what you were looking for.
Amazing how the complex nature of cam profiles and their effect on performance, when combined with personal tastes, can make it so hard to decide!
According to the Dougherty website, the DC21 has a 112 deg lobe angle. Their DC 20 is called Super C2 and looks to be essentially the same as the Elgin Super C2.
I look forward to hearing how things turn out for you - hope it goes well and gives you what you were looking for.
Amazing how the complex nature of cam profiles and their effect on performance, when combined with personal tastes, can make it so hard to decide!
We just installed this cam in a 993, returned it to solid lifter set up as in a 964 engine, got the car tuned and got 185kw at the wheels which with a 1.32 power train loss (What Porsche cars uses for loss) it equates to 244kw at the flywheel. That's a 44kw increase for a 94 model non varioram 993.
07-01-2010 | 11:43 PM
#17
Thread Starter
Racer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring, MD
The website is incorrect. Talk to John, he will assure you that it is a 113 lobe centre on the DC21.
We just installed this cam in a 993, returned it to solid lifter set up as in a 964 engine, got the car tuned and got 185kw at the wheels which with a 1.32 power train loss (What Porsche cars uses for loss) it equates to 244kw at the flywheel. That's a 44kw increase for a 94 model non varioram 993.
We just installed this cam in a 993, returned it to solid lifter set up as in a 964 engine, got the car tuned and got 185kw at the wheels which with a 1.32 power train loss (What Porsche cars uses for loss) it equates to 244kw at the flywheel. That's a 44kw increase for a 94 model non varioram 993.
That correction in lobe angle leaves the prime difference between the DC21 and Super C2 just the amount of lift (DC21 has a bit more). How do you think that influences performance?
07-02-2010 | 07:45 AM
#18
Instructor
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
From: Beautiful Melbourne, Australia
I looked at all the cams you have and specified it must retain good torque and idling etc on stock chip. After much deliberation it was deemed the DC21 would give the biggest hp gain whilst only moving power band 300 odd rpm upwards and thus retaining good driveability. Not sure on your 993 power figs but a 94 pre varioram 993 is rated at 200kw. We got 244kw so a 44kw increase. Obviously this is helped by optimizing the tune. I am advised that the DC21 typically shows around a 25kw increase at the flywheel.
07-02-2010 | 09:52 AM
#19
Thread Starter
Racer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring, MD
I looked at all the cams you have and specified it must retain good torque and idling etc on stock chip. After much deliberation it was deemed the DC21 would give the biggest hp gain whilst only moving power band 300 odd rpm upwards and thus retaining good driveability. Not sure on your 993 power figs but a 94 pre varioram 993 is rated at 200kw. We got 244kw so a 44kw increase. Obviously this is helped by optimizing the tune. I am advised that the DC21 typically shows around a 25kw increase at the flywheel.
25 kW at the flywheel is 33 hp in USA terms - very nice for a just a regrind.
07-09-2010 | 11:56 PM
#20
Thread Starter
Racer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: Silver Spring, MD
Camshaft – Finally!
Well, I just decided to go with the Dougherty 993SS cam regrind. I talked with John Dougherty today and he gave me the answers I needed and the confidence that his cam would do what I am looking for. I realize that I have beaten this thing to death (sorry), but because my rebuild was unplanned and since a cam change is not something you can easily reverse, I have been short on time while desperate to “get it right”. Here are the specs from John on the DRC 993SS cam:
248I / 234E deg Duration at 1mm
242I / 229E deg Duration at .050”
.490I / .455E inches Lift
114 deg Lobe Sep Angle
1.6-1.8 mm Overlap Setting
John recommended this mild cam for me (which he commonly sees used to convert 993’s from hydraulic to mechanical lifters) because it satisfied my interests in maintaining a stable idle, keeping the upward power band shift to a minimum, and being appropriate for a stock intake. I believe that this was accomplished through his combination (unique?) of wider lobe angle and limited increase in overlap. Right/wrong? He cited a customer who dynoed a 16-18 rwhp increase strictly from this cam. I have also noticed that there are different versions of this cam designation. For instance, Webcam shows a good bit more duration and a tighter lobe angle on their 993SS, which is not what I want.
John told me doing a regrind like this on my stock cam to the 993SS profile without any weld buildup is very low risk since he has not seen any issues with that over the course of many years. He’s also going to give my rockers/shafts a checkout and “tuneup”.
Definitely would recommend Dougherty to others after talking with him. I’ll let you all know how it eventually turns out. I realize that my interests in this mild cam change may only align with a minority of RL’ers, but I thought it worth passing along. Cheers.
248I / 234E deg Duration at 1mm
242I / 229E deg Duration at .050”
.490I / .455E inches Lift
114 deg Lobe Sep Angle
1.6-1.8 mm Overlap Setting
John recommended this mild cam for me (which he commonly sees used to convert 993’s from hydraulic to mechanical lifters) because it satisfied my interests in maintaining a stable idle, keeping the upward power band shift to a minimum, and being appropriate for a stock intake. I believe that this was accomplished through his combination (unique?) of wider lobe angle and limited increase in overlap. Right/wrong? He cited a customer who dynoed a 16-18 rwhp increase strictly from this cam. I have also noticed that there are different versions of this cam designation. For instance, Webcam shows a good bit more duration and a tighter lobe angle on their 993SS, which is not what I want.
John told me doing a regrind like this on my stock cam to the 993SS profile without any weld buildup is very low risk since he has not seen any issues with that over the course of many years. He’s also going to give my rockers/shafts a checkout and “tuneup”.
Definitely would recommend Dougherty to others after talking with him. I’ll let you all know how it eventually turns out. I realize that my interests in this mild cam change may only align with a minority of RL’ers, but I thought it worth passing along. Cheers.
07-24-2012 | 01:39 PM
#21
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,698
Likes: 100
From: California Boardwalk, Skanderborg Denmark
03-26-2022 | 10:41 AM
#23
Instructor
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 148
Likes: 1
camshaft update?
Well, I just decided to go with the Dougherty 993SS cam regrind. I talked with John Dougherty today and he gave me the answers I needed and the confidence that his cam would do what I am looking for. I realize that I have beaten this thing to death (sorry), but because my rebuild was unplanned and since a cam change is not something you can easily reverse, I have been short on time while desperate to “get it right”. Here are the specs from John on the DRC 993SS cam:
248I / 234E deg Duration at 1mm
242I / 229E deg Duration at .050”
.490I / .455E inches Lift
114 deg Lobe Sep Angle
1.6-1.8 mm Overlap Setting
John recommended this mild cam for me (which he commonly sees used to convert 993’s from hydraulic to mechanical lifters) because it satisfied my interests in maintaining a stable idle, keeping the upward power band shift to a minimum, and being appropriate for a stock intake. I believe that this was accomplished through his combination (unique?) of wider lobe angle and limited increase in overlap. Right/wrong? He cited a customer who dynoed a 16-18 rwhp increase strictly from this cam. I have also noticed that there are different versions of this cam designation. For instance, Webcam shows a good bit more duration and a tighter lobe angle on their 993SS, which is not what I want.
John told me doing a regrind like this on my stock cam to the 993SS profile without any weld buildup is very low risk since he has not seen any issues with that over the course of many years. He’s also going to give my rockers/shafts a checkout and “tuneup”.
Definitely would recommend Dougherty to others after talking with him. I’ll let you all know how it eventually turns out. I realize that my interests in this mild cam change may only align with a minority of RL’ers, but I thought it worth passing along. Cheers.
248I / 234E deg Duration at 1mm
242I / 229E deg Duration at .050”
.490I / .455E inches Lift
114 deg Lobe Sep Angle
1.6-1.8 mm Overlap Setting
John recommended this mild cam for me (which he commonly sees used to convert 993’s from hydraulic to mechanical lifters) because it satisfied my interests in maintaining a stable idle, keeping the upward power band shift to a minimum, and being appropriate for a stock intake. I believe that this was accomplished through his combination (unique?) of wider lobe angle and limited increase in overlap. Right/wrong? He cited a customer who dynoed a 16-18 rwhp increase strictly from this cam. I have also noticed that there are different versions of this cam designation. For instance, Webcam shows a good bit more duration and a tighter lobe angle on their 993SS, which is not what I want.
John told me doing a regrind like this on my stock cam to the 993SS profile without any weld buildup is very low risk since he has not seen any issues with that over the course of many years. He’s also going to give my rockers/shafts a checkout and “tuneup”.
Definitely would recommend Dougherty to others after talking with him. I’ll let you all know how it eventually turns out. I realize that my interests in this mild cam change may only align with a minority of RL’ers, but I thought it worth passing along. Cheers.
Just wondering how this all turned out... happy?
