Author | Topic |
Location: Brisbane
Registered: November 2002
|
An actual technical discussion!
|
Wed, 03 March 2004 03:33
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77ee0/77ee018e1e3677253faa722e08a31e0d56c9dccf" alt="" |
Unlike some people, I am limited to a budget data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/53a6c/53a6c3cb839caebcc9a6bd8fd90f299f63de135a" alt="Sad"
Down the track I was planning on getting a set of cams for a turbo engine running a large amount of boost, but $2000ish in one hit (including adjustable cam gears) is a bit rude if you ask me.
So, I was wondering what kind of benefit the replacement of one cam would be, and which one would offer the greatest improvement? Obviously the second cam would come in time, but I would be interested to know people's thoughts.
The way I'm thinking is that greater lift and duration on the exhaust cam would be of greater inital benefit than it would be on the inlet side. Why?
As the inlet side is seeing air forced in at a particularly high pressure, I would guess that it is less likely to be causing a flow problem. The exhaust side already has a turbocharger in the way so any extra flow capability before then should be taken advantage of!
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the combustion process is already forcing the air out of the exhaust side rather efficiently, and perhaps the fact that the turbocharger is providing a greater restriction means that greater benefit may be received on the inlet side.
Interested to hear people's feedback as this is prettymuch uncharted territory for me. Just got the old cogs turning a little, that's all!
|
|
|
| Subject | Poster | Date |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
An actual technical discussion!
|
7M-Brisbane | Wed, 03 March 2004 03:33 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
adamb131 | Wed, 03 March 2004 03:48 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
gianttomato | Wed, 03 March 2004 03:51 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
onejayzed | Wed, 03 March 2004 07:01 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
Jonny2TG | Wed, 03 March 2004 08:38 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
7M-Brisbane | Wed, 03 March 2004 12:00 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
Jonny2TG | Wed, 03 March 2004 12:17 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
thechuckster | Wed, 03 March 2004 13:46 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
RWDboy | Wed, 03 March 2004 13:53 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
gianttomato | Wed, 03 March 2004 21:47 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/217f4/217f44bb2cded188bd3f327dd22bc903d94866df" alt="Read Message Read Message" |
Re: An actual technical discussion!
|
gold28 | Thu, 04 March 2004 05:28 |