The "epic" 430 rebuild caper!
- Thread starter elagache
- Start date
OK,
I added the 212 and 112 to the RV-12 in a Dyno 2003 comparison below. Dyno 2003 will not calculate below 2000 RPM. I used 9.75:1 static compression for the 212, 9.5:1 static compression for the 112 and 9.25:1 for the RV-12. All of the camshafts had roughly 8.0:1 dynamic compression using the static compressions above. They seem to behave as expected. All have 112 LS and duration and lift is increasing for each cam. As they breath better the are capable of higher rpm and HP. I think you can extend the curves lower in your mind and see that the RV 12 will have greater tourque at lower rpm then any of the others.
How about the 212? I am still trying to give Edouard a little thrill along with good economy. TA describes it as:
"Excellent performance cam. Gives 25 HP increase over stock cam. Substantial improvement without hurting fuel economy. Stock valve train, converter and gears ok. Good idle. 9.0:1 or more CR."
And I almost forgot the graph:
I added the 212 and 112 to the RV-12 in a Dyno 2003 comparison below. Dyno 2003 will not calculate below 2000 RPM. I used 9.75:1 static compression for the 212, 9.5:1 static compression for the 112 and 9.25:1 for the RV-12. All of the camshafts had roughly 8.0:1 dynamic compression using the static compressions above. They seem to behave as expected. All have 112 LS and duration and lift is increasing for each cam. As they breath better the are capable of higher rpm and HP. I think you can extend the curves lower in your mind and see that the RV 12 will have greater tourque at lower rpm then any of the others.
How about the 212? I am still trying to give Edouard a little thrill along with good economy. TA describes it as:
"Excellent performance cam. Gives 25 HP increase over stock cam. Substantial improvement without hurting fuel economy. Stock valve train, converter and gears ok. Good idle. 9.0:1 or more CR."
And I almost forgot the graph:
Last edited:
Hmm, 212 awful tempting!!
Thank you very much Steve!! (Dr. Frankenbuick.) :1st:
Wow, this software that you are using is indeed very handy!! As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words! :thumbsup:
Yes, golly that seems very reasonable. Okay, suppose I play ball with ya. What am I losing with the 212 cam? A little torque at the low end (below 2000 RPM?) I presume a bit of gas mileage? If that's all I'm losing . . . . where do I sign!! :bgrin:
Thanks so much for this sort of analysis!!! :1st: There is NO way I could have made these sorts of assessments without the help of you'all!!
You've made owning a Classic Buick fun again!! :laugh_4: . . . until I try to go back to find more of the scarce parts!! :angry:
Thanks once more!! :shield:
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Thank you very much Steve!! (Dr. Frankenbuick.) :1st:
Wow, this software that you are using is indeed very handy!! As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words! :thumbsup:
Yes, golly that seems very reasonable. Okay, suppose I play ball with ya. What am I losing with the 212 cam? A little torque at the low end (below 2000 RPM?) I presume a bit of gas mileage? If that's all I'm losing . . . . where do I sign!! :bgrin:
Thanks so much for this sort of analysis!!! :1st: There is NO way I could have made these sorts of assessments without the help of you'all!!
You've made owning a Classic Buick fun again!! :laugh_4: . . . until I try to go back to find more of the scarce parts!! :angry:
Thanks once more!! :shield:
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Thank You Doctor once again.
Observations:
As expected there is very little difference between the RV and the 112 cam with the only difference being 5 degrees on the intake lobe. (Same exhaust profile). However the 112 does allow a ¼ point more SCR than the RV probably accounting for most of the performance difference between the two.
The 212 cam has the same intake valve lift as the 112 and slightly less exhaust valve lift than the RV and the 112 but more duration. This gives the 212 a more gradual ramp rate which is easier on the valve train.
Because the 212 allows an addition ¼ point of SCR for the same DCR over the 112, the torque is the same for all 3 cams @ 2000 rpm but it out performs with a large margin from that point on. This is primarily because the dynamics of the 212 is a better match for the airflow characteristics of the head.
Peak torque hits the 500 mark with HP peaking at 400.
One of the factors for fuel efficiency is the expansion rate during the power stroke (The Static Compression Ratio). Since the 212 allows a greater SCR for the same DCR compared to the RV and 112 cam, the fuel efficiency may be close to the same for all three cams when operating around 2000 rpm during cruising.
The best part is the Good Doctor feels better about not wasting the cylinder head’s potential and creating a more spirited ride while maintaining good gas mileage.
It’s ALIVE!!!
Ok bobc455...you can say "I told you so"
Observations:
As expected there is very little difference between the RV and the 112 cam with the only difference being 5 degrees on the intake lobe. (Same exhaust profile). However the 112 does allow a ¼ point more SCR than the RV probably accounting for most of the performance difference between the two.
The 212 cam has the same intake valve lift as the 112 and slightly less exhaust valve lift than the RV and the 112 but more duration. This gives the 212 a more gradual ramp rate which is easier on the valve train.
Because the 212 allows an addition ¼ point of SCR for the same DCR over the 112, the torque is the same for all 3 cams @ 2000 rpm but it out performs with a large margin from that point on. This is primarily because the dynamics of the 212 is a better match for the airflow characteristics of the head.
Peak torque hits the 500 mark with HP peaking at 400.
One of the factors for fuel efficiency is the expansion rate during the power stroke (The Static Compression Ratio). Since the 212 allows a greater SCR for the same DCR compared to the RV and 112 cam, the fuel efficiency may be close to the same for all three cams when operating around 2000 rpm during cruising.
The best part is the Good Doctor feels better about not wasting the cylinder head’s potential and creating a more spirited ride while maintaining good gas mileage.
It’s ALIVE!!!
Ok bobc455...you can say "I told you so"
Last edited:
Calling Dr. Frankenbuick for one more favor - pleeze?
Dear Paul, Steve (Dr. Frankenbuick,) and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion - Many, Many thanks! :thumbsup:
Yup, I think this is indeed correct! What can I say but my ignorance is showing through.
It has been a day of chores and other car "issuez" until now. I just got back to look more carefully at this. Pulling out my now well-used TA Performance catalog, I cannot help but wonder about another "in between" cam: TA 284-88H. I scurried to see if this one had been considered on either run of Dyno2003, but I didn't see it (did I miss it?) According to the TA Performance description it seems mild enough for my needs, but a smidge more aggressive:
I've tried to follow Paul's assessment for the TA 212 to see if I could stop any obvious "won't fly" for the TA 284-88H. However, I can't quite pull that off. So I humbly ask Paul and the good doctor for one last comparison. What do folks think about this last possible nudge toward a more aggressive cam?
Thanks you so much for doing the sort of assessing that I simply couldn't do!
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
P.S. Exactly what is dyno2003? Was it ever shareware or something? It seems to be now owned by Motion Software http://www.motionsoftware.com/ and it certainly isn't priced for amateurs.
Dear Paul, Steve (Dr. Frankenbuick,) and everyone else who has contributed to this discussion - Many, Many thanks! :thumbsup:
Yup, I think this is indeed correct! What can I say but my ignorance is showing through.
It has been a day of chores and other car "issuez" until now. I just got back to look more carefully at this. Pulling out my now well-used TA Performance catalog, I cannot help but wonder about another "in between" cam: TA 284-88H. I scurried to see if this one had been considered on either run of Dyno2003, but I didn't see it (did I miss it?) According to the TA Performance description it seems mild enough for my needs, but a smidge more aggressive:
The RPM range is 100 RPM higher at both ends - so shouldn't be any worse for towing.
I've tried to follow Paul's assessment for the TA 212 to see if I could stop any obvious "won't fly" for the TA 284-88H. However, I can't quite pull that off. So I humbly ask Paul and the good doctor for one last comparison. What do folks think about this last possible nudge toward a more aggressive cam?
Thanks you so much for doing the sort of assessing that I simply couldn't do!
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
P.S. Exactly what is dyno2003? Was it ever shareware or something? It seems to be now owned by Motion Software http://www.motionsoftware.com/ and it certainly isn't priced for amateurs.
I cant’ speak for the Doctor but I suspect he was focusing on camshafts that had 112 degree lobe separation and no valve overlap @ .050 lobe lift.
Notice the TA 284-88H has an additional 6.5 degrees of overlap @.050 and 17.5 degrees @ advertised duration compared to the TA212 which is the amount both intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time.
If you have small diameter, long tube headers that will scavenge all the exhaust at low rpm, this can actually aid in pulling in intake charge before TDC. In all other cases there will be exhaust pressure when the intake valve opens causing reversion at low rpm with some dilution of fresh intake charge. (Internal EGR) Adding hot exhaust gasses to the intake charge will increase the tendency for detonation. The plus side is any exhaust carbon deposited on the intake seats acts as a cushion. The other side is the idle will get a little lumpier and low end torque suffers.
It would interesting to see the difference in response from these two cams between using a long tube header and the stock exhaust manifold.
Since you are starting with the stock exhaust manifold, you could see if it is worth while changing to a set of headers.
Last edited:
OK,
Now we have the 212 vs. 284-88H. I am about out of space on SVT Performance and my normal file server is having upload problems. I hope one of these is it!
The 284 was able to use 10.25:1 static compression and make 8:1 dynamic compression. The 212 used 9.75:1 static compression to make 8:1 dynamic compression. The dynamic compression ratio calculators use advertised duration to determine the intake closing point. This is when the valve is all the way closed and true compression begins. Though these cams have similar intake closing points at .050", they have about 8* difference in advertised duration intake closing points.
I found a free Dyno2003 download several years ago. I don't remember where. It is fun to dust it off every so often to keep me in practice. I updated the cam profiles in both simulations by providing more information and letting the calculator select the lifter acceleration rate. This should help the simulations be more accurate. I think they have to be since we may be down to the final choices.
I was staying with wider lobe separation cams as I thought they have some attributes that you are after: detonation resistance, compression tolerance, improved idle quality and vacuum as well as a broad power band. Widening the lobe separation will push your torque upward in RPM and reduce peak torque. This means you can only go so wide. There are trade offs to everything: you have to pick the best compromise for your application.
TA said the 284 has more torque then the 212, but they did not say where or if that is peak or overall torque. With that in mind, the 284 seems to have less on the low end and more on the high end. I don't think that is what you are after, but you decide:
Now we have the 212 vs. 284-88H. I am about out of space on SVT Performance and my normal file server is having upload problems. I hope one of these is it!
The 284 was able to use 10.25:1 static compression and make 8:1 dynamic compression. The 212 used 9.75:1 static compression to make 8:1 dynamic compression. The dynamic compression ratio calculators use advertised duration to determine the intake closing point. This is when the valve is all the way closed and true compression begins. Though these cams have similar intake closing points at .050", they have about 8* difference in advertised duration intake closing points.
I found a free Dyno2003 download several years ago. I don't remember where. It is fun to dust it off every so often to keep me in practice. I updated the cam profiles in both simulations by providing more information and letting the calculator select the lifter acceleration rate. This should help the simulations be more accurate. I think they have to be since we may be down to the final choices.
I was staying with wider lobe separation cams as I thought they have some attributes that you are after: detonation resistance, compression tolerance, improved idle quality and vacuum as well as a broad power band. Widening the lobe separation will push your torque upward in RPM and reduce peak torque. This means you can only go so wide. There are trade offs to everything: you have to pick the best compromise for your application.
TA said the 284 has more torque then the 212, but they did not say where or if that is peak or overall torque. With that in mind, the 284 seems to have less on the low end and more on the high end. I don't think that is what you are after, but you decide:
Last edited:
Thank you very much good doctor!!
Thank you very much for one last run Dr. Frankenbuick! :thumbsup:
Sorry to impose on your web server space. I've noticed that about using forums. All those images can add up!
Fortunately, even at the suggestion it seemed like an outside chance to fit. Thanks to your analysis, I think it is a little too aggressive for my needs. However, without something like dyno2003, it is hard to imagine. I need to look again at all the options, but something like the 212 seems like the best fit. It is indeed unfortunate that dyno2003 doesn't perform the analysis below 2000 RPM, but I'll try to make some informed guesses about that.
It is certainly a very interesting application. Certainly worth learning how to use if you do this sort of assessment for more than one engine!
I've saved all these graphs and will give them a careful scrutiny before finalizing my cam choice. If you need the storage space, I suppose you can delete them, but I'm sure the community would appreciate keeping them around. All I can do is thank you for that!
Many, many thanks!! :finish: This project is going more slowly than I hoped, but a little extra time is well worth it to avoid choices I would regret later!
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Thank you very much for one last run Dr. Frankenbuick! :thumbsup:
Sorry to impose on your web server space. I've noticed that about using forums. All those images can add up!
Fortunately, even at the suggestion it seemed like an outside chance to fit. Thanks to your analysis, I think it is a little too aggressive for my needs. However, without something like dyno2003, it is hard to imagine. I need to look again at all the options, but something like the 212 seems like the best fit. It is indeed unfortunate that dyno2003 doesn't perform the analysis below 2000 RPM, but I'll try to make some informed guesses about that.
It is certainly a very interesting application. Certainly worth learning how to use if you do this sort of assessment for more than one engine!
I've saved all these graphs and will give them a careful scrutiny before finalizing my cam choice. If you need the storage space, I suppose you can delete them, but I'm sure the community would appreciate keeping them around. All I can do is thank you for that!
Many, many thanks!! :finish: This project is going more slowly than I hoped, but a little extra time is well worth it to avoid choices I would regret later!
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
No problem. Once File Den lets me upload again, I will move the graphs there and re-link them. That has been a very stable free hosting site for several years until recently. I will have lots of space again when they figure out the issue.
If your car winds up giving you a kick in the pants when you step on it, I hope we have had a small part in that kick each and every time!
:wavey:
Last edited:
Quick update - parts and compression ratio.
Dear Team Buick members, :shield:
Here is a quickie status report on this 430 build. I've been trying to nail down the parts that will be required because Orinda Motors would like at least try to "make a deal" on overall purchase. So I have been "bending the ear" of Tim at TA Performance making sure all the required components are on the list. One of the surprises is that the stock oil tube and dip stick on the 430 will not fit with the TA Stage-1 aluminum heads. So one more "minor detail" that folks might want to keep that in mind!
Good Dr. Frankenbuick provided me with a little additional information about static and dynamic compression ratios. Alas, the dynamic compression ratio calculator he uses runs only on "windoze." Since I have been an enthusiastic contributor to the Steve Jobs institute for intelligent user-interface design (Apple Computer) since 1988, this gave me a problem. Fortunately, Paul Muller pointed me to a web-based compression ratio calculator: http://www.kb-silvolite.com/calc.php?action=comp. That may be useful to those of you who need a quick calculation or if - like me - you "don't do windows" . . . . :bgrin:
Paul gave me these tentative figures for the 430 engine as currently proposed with the EGGE pistons, aluminum heads and so on:
Cylinder Head volume 66 cc
Piston Head volume 10 cc
Head Gasket Thickness .038
Gasket bore 4.375
Cylinder bore (.030 over) 4.2175
Deck Clearance with EGGE pistons .065 (Before any block decking)
Stroke 3.9
Rod length 6.6
Intake Closing using advertised duration. 64.5 degrees
Plugging those numbers into the website calculator above and turning the crack gives a static compression ratio of: 9.91:1 and dynamic compression ratio of: 7.92:1. Tweaking the numbers suggest that the static compression ratio could be raised to 10:1 while keeping the dynamic compression ratio at 8:1. However, until these dimensions can be measured exactly that is neither here nor there.
So all of this is tentative, but thought I would share the info as a way to say thanks and to reassure the Team Buick brotherhood, this build is still underway - just plodding along at its own peculiar pace.
Thanks again, Edouard
Dear Team Buick members, :shield:
Here is a quickie status report on this 430 build. I've been trying to nail down the parts that will be required because Orinda Motors would like at least try to "make a deal" on overall purchase. So I have been "bending the ear" of Tim at TA Performance making sure all the required components are on the list. One of the surprises is that the stock oil tube and dip stick on the 430 will not fit with the TA Stage-1 aluminum heads. So one more "minor detail" that folks might want to keep that in mind!
Good Dr. Frankenbuick provided me with a little additional information about static and dynamic compression ratios. Alas, the dynamic compression ratio calculator he uses runs only on "windoze." Since I have been an enthusiastic contributor to the Steve Jobs institute for intelligent user-interface design (Apple Computer) since 1988, this gave me a problem. Fortunately, Paul Muller pointed me to a web-based compression ratio calculator: http://www.kb-silvolite.com/calc.php?action=comp. That may be useful to those of you who need a quick calculation or if - like me - you "don't do windows" . . . . :bgrin:
Paul gave me these tentative figures for the 430 engine as currently proposed with the EGGE pistons, aluminum heads and so on:
Cylinder Head volume 66 cc
Piston Head volume 10 cc
Head Gasket Thickness .038
Gasket bore 4.375
Cylinder bore (.030 over) 4.2175
Deck Clearance with EGGE pistons .065 (Before any block decking)
Stroke 3.9
Rod length 6.6
Intake Closing using advertised duration. 64.5 degrees
Plugging those numbers into the website calculator above and turning the crack gives a static compression ratio of: 9.91:1 and dynamic compression ratio of: 7.92:1. Tweaking the numbers suggest that the static compression ratio could be raised to 10:1 while keeping the dynamic compression ratio at 8:1. However, until these dimensions can be measured exactly that is neither here nor there.
So all of this is tentative, but thought I would share the info as a way to say thanks and to reassure the Team Buick brotherhood, this build is still underway - just plodding along at its own peculiar pace.
Thanks again, Edouard
The TA 212 cam has 4* advance ground into it when installed straight-up (like most camshafts). The RPM and power range provided by TA are based on the cam installed in that configuration. The cam card specifies a 108* intake lobe centerline (4* advanced) for installation. This means your intake closing point at .050" will be 37* and your advertised intake closing point will be 60.5*. I would re-calculate your dynamic compression ratio figures with the correct advertised intake closing point.
Here is another good on-line DCR calculator that uses the advertised intake closing point: http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php. It is less confusing and more accurate since it doesn't try to use @ 0.050" intake closing events and a formula to provide an advertised intake closing point.
Last edited:
Shucks - you mean the numbers have to be correct too?
Dear honorable Dr. Frankenbuick, :shield:
Thanks for you help in correcting these numbers. I did make a college-try to find a good tutorial on how to compute these values from the cam specs but I came up empty.
With the corrected intake closing point, the Dynamic compression ratio comes up a bit over 8:1 - 8.15:1 to be exact. However, all the figures are approximate, so its premature to do anything about it.
I dunno about this calculator . . . . is says something about "Boost Pressure in PSI". Does that mean I have'ta use a supercharger in order to use it! :bgrin:
Seriously, thanks for the reference. I had stumbled across it yesterday, but hadn't tried it. Not that I'll be taking advantage of all of the parameters it provides!
Thanks again for all the help!
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Dear honorable Dr. Frankenbuick, :shield:
Thanks for you help in correcting these numbers. I did make a college-try to find a good tutorial on how to compute these values from the cam specs but I came up empty.
With the corrected intake closing point, the Dynamic compression ratio comes up a bit over 8:1 - 8.15:1 to be exact. However, all the figures are approximate, so its premature to do anything about it.
I dunno about this calculator . . . . is says something about "Boost Pressure in PSI". Does that mean I have'ta use a supercharger in order to use it! :bgrin:
Seriously, thanks for the reference. I had stumbled across it yesterday, but hadn't tried it. Not that I'll be taking advantage of all of the parameters it provides!
Thanks again for all the help!
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Here is a good calculator for cam events:http://www.wallaceracing.com/cam-deg-calc.php. You would plug in 265, 280, 112 and 108 to find advertised camshaft duration events, and 218, 230 112 and 108 to find camshaft events @ 0.050" lift. Most cam providers do not provide all of the specs for a cam. This is so you don't run off and have your old cam ground to their specs on a smaller base circle, or just have another company put those specs on a blank for your car without paying for any assoiated R&D costs. It may take a little digging or familiarity to get all of specs you are after.
You would just use 0 for boost and elevation. I have two turbocharged and one supercharged vehicles. So, the calculator is a bonus for me. Boosted vehicles make the impossible possible (great mileage and unbelievable power). Having had one, I now want a power adder on everything. Maybe we can get you to try ......................... That cam would not be bad for ............... Hmmm..................
They have a whole host of vehicle related calculators here: http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculators.htm. That may keep you ocupied for days.
Last edited:
Thanks - some things will have to wait!
Dear Dr. Frankenbuick,
Thanks so much for these additional bits of info!
Thanks, finding this would have saved me a bunch of scratching my head!
Don't tempt me!!! :rod:
Seriously, I have at least daydreamed a little about it. However, I'm making so many changes to this car - I've gotta stop somewhere! However, if indeed that cam would work with a power-adder of some sort . . . . perhaps someday!
However, maybe I ought to focus on getting the engine built and along the way get the poor car finally repaired and painted at the body shop! :angry:
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Dear Dr. Frankenbuick,
Thanks so much for these additional bits of info!
Thanks, finding this would have saved me a bunch of scratching my head!
Don't tempt me!!! :rod:
Seriously, I have at least daydreamed a little about it. However, I'm making so many changes to this car - I've gotta stop somewhere! However, if indeed that cam would work with a power-adder of some sort . . . . perhaps someday!
However, maybe I ought to focus on getting the engine built and along the way get the poor car finally repaired and painted at the body shop! :angry:
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
You just have to imagine your partner beside you, a few kids in the back and your trailer behind this: http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/30/249718/Cobra 040216 Mods.mpg. Forged pistons would be a must though.
Last edited:
So that's the purpose of rear-wheel drive!
Dear good Dr. Frankenbuick . . . .
After a careful review of the video . . . . . *GULP*!!
So how do you make sure you haven't torn off the trailer hitch and left the trailer a few miles back? :bgrin:
At least with rear wheel drive you can't tear the car in two!!
Uh, I'll save turbocharging or supercharging for later!!
Thanks for sharing the video though! :finish:
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Dear good Dr. Frankenbuick . . . .
After a careful review of the video . . . . . *GULP*!!
So how do you make sure you haven't torn off the trailer hitch and left the trailer a few miles back? :bgrin:
At least with rear wheel drive you can't tear the car in two!!
Uh, I'll save turbocharging or supercharging for later!!
Thanks for sharing the video though! :finish:
Cheers, Edouard :beers:
Last edited by a moderator:
After a careful review of the video . . . . . *GULP*!!
So how do you make sure you haven't torn off the trailer hitch and left the trailer a few miles back? :bgrin:
No worries: class three hitch, secure the doors and china in the trailer and make sure the dog stays to the back. Then buckle-up kids, we are going on vacation! :car:
:
you guys might want to take note that my antivirus software is tripping out when i go to access that page. says i'm being attacked by the Blackhole Exploit Kit.
you guys might want to take note that my antivirus software is tripping out when i go to access that page. says i'm being attacked by the Blackhole Exploit Kit.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, it looks like File Den is under attack. I cant open any of my files and my anti-virus software is also getting a work out. I have been having bad luck with them lately. I removed all the links and I will see if I have it hosted anywhere else.