From the Reference Section:
- Street Cam Selection Guide
- Buick 455 O.E. Camshafts
- High 10's Secrets for Your Buick 455
- 400/430/455 Poston Cams Grinds and Numbers
- 400/430/455 Kenne-Bell Cams Grinds and Numbers
- Buick 455 Drag Strip Tests from Kenne-Bell
    - Buick 400, 430, 455 Engine Specifications
- Buick Staging Chart
- Differences Between 1970-71 And 1972 and Later Type Block
- Head Flow Chart
- Cam Button
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: The "epic" 430 rebuild caper!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    275
    Rep Power
    0
    Dr. Frankenbuick

    Would you be willing to do another Dyno2003 run
    using the TA 112 cam at 10:1 compression?

    Also can you start the run at 1500 rpm

    Thanks

    Paul

  2. #22
    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:


    Last edited by Dr. Frankenbuick; 02-11-2011 at 09:44 AM.
    Steve B.



    67 GS 525 Buick Stage IV
    66 GS Convertible
    65 GS HT
    63 Riv
    02 Subaru WRX Turbo
    03 Ford Cobra Convertible (Factory Supercharged)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    Thumbs up Hmm, 212 awful tempting!!

    Thank you very much Steve!! (Dr. Frankenbuick.)

    Wow, this software that you are using is indeed very handy!! As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    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."
    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!!

    Thanks so much for this sort of analysis!!! 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!! . . . until I try to go back to find more of the scarce parts!!

    Thanks once more!!

    Cheers, Edouard
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    275
    Rep Power
    0
    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"
    Last edited by pmuller9; 02-10-2011 at 07:02 AM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by pmuller9 View Post
    Ok bobc455...you can say "I told you so"
    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:

    Excellent performance cam. Gives 25 HP increase over stock cam. Slightly more torque than TA 212. Substantial improvement without hurting fuel economy. Stock valve train, converter, and gears ok. Good idle. 9.0:1 or more CR
    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

    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.
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    275
    Rep Power
    0
    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?
    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 by pmuller9; 02-11-2011 at 07:00 AM.

  7. #27
    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:


    Last edited by Dr. Frankenbuick; 02-11-2011 at 09:46 AM. Reason: SP
    Steve B.



    67 GS 525 Buick Stage IV
    66 GS Convertible
    65 GS HT
    63 Riv
    02 Subaru WRX Turbo
    03 Ford Cobra Convertible (Factory Supercharged)

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    275
    Rep Power
    0
    Dr Frankenbuick

    Thanks again for doing another run.

    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.


    Thanks also for making this correction from my reply. I edited my reply to prevent confusion.
    Last edited by pmuller9; 02-11-2011 at 10:18 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    Thumbs up Thank you very much good doctor!!

    Thank you very much for one last run Dr. Frankenbuick!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    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!
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    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.
    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!! 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
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by elagache View Post
    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!! 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
    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!

    Last edited by Dr. Frankenbuick; 02-11-2011 at 09:07 AM.
    Steve B.



    67 GS 525 Buick Stage IV
    66 GS Convertible
    65 GS HT
    63 Riv
    02 Subaru WRX Turbo
    03 Ford Cobra Convertible (Factory Supercharged)

Similar Threads

  1. "1962 Buick Special Deluxe" Wheels & Tires (Aftermarket)
    By patshotrods in forum General Chat!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 05:20 PM
  2. Is "Riviera" synonymous with "hardtop"?
    By Gas Giant in forum Interiors, Trim, Glass and Tops
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-04-2010, 07:47 PM
  3. I feel a"Thump"??or a"Bump"
    By Rusty in forum Tools, Shops, and Garages
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 05:55 AM
  4. "Shop" or "Assembly" Manual for 1962 Invicta
    By Adam Bernstein in forum Nailhead: 264, 322, 364, 401, 425
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 12:54 PM
  5. "Buick Tech", "Buick Talk" or...
    By Bob in forum Site Help and Development!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2003, 01:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
TeamBuick.com Privacy Policy