We measured Redblock cam valve events; here's what we got.

[klr142]

Added the Volvo "V" today, and a cam supplied by klr142 we're calling "OC352" because that's the only marking on it.

Currently I run the V in my 240, which is stock B230F (w/EGR), milled 0.040 for 9.8:1, and M47. I used to use the A, but I can say that the V is a little friendlier to the LH2.4. Idle and driveability are a little better (marginal but noticeable), fuel economy MAY be 0.5mpg combined better. MAYBE.

We didn't have time to check the T today, but we will get to it. Given it takes a while to just set it up to check, I'd like to have another on deck when we do it. ENEM V15 or KG003 or something like that would be awesome, something we can all have access to. Any takers?

Big thanks to Kyle for helping to expand the database!

I wish we had more data to go along with it! I guess it's not really helpful to know the information until someone actually runs it, because we don't know what it is or is a copy of.

I should've told you to keep it in the car and run it for a bit so you can report on how it really does, just so people can try and glean some info from the specs if they're looking at something that's maybe comparable. I mean, you're most of the way there already with it setup for measuring, you might as well finish it up and run it for a few weeks for fun to see how it goes as long as you don't mind the worse low rpm performance and idle for the time being. You'd need to open the idle stop a bit more to help it idle at a higher rpm, but LH will run it! Just not necessarily very well. I bet it's less aggressive than the KG7 you guys tried in the race car, though(which is advertised as 12mm lift, 105LSA and 304? duration).

Basically, it looks like it has about 10 degrees more duration and overlap than the H cam's intake lobe, with less overall lift.

Your feedback on the V is also interesting. The A has less lift but more duration at really small openings which agrees to with your findings. A more modern camshaft, basically, not giving up any performance yet being nicer at low rpm and emissions wise. I wish there were more aftermarket camshafts with that sort of thinking in mind. Almost all of them(except with AGAP, basically), have high duration low lift camshafts as being the first available upgrades over an H cam, so the first thing you lose is idle/emissions quality.

I'd like to see something that outperforms the H/K cam noticeably without giving up a lot around idle and under 2000-2500rpm, just because it's a more modern camshaft design. Why doesn't anyone make this?!

My ENEM K13 might be close, as it's 12.5mm lift and "280?" duration. Here's more information on that. [EDIT: I'd say it's pretty close!]


ENEM K13 measurements(RSI had it measured):
intake lift .490" / exhaust lift .489"
intake duration at .020" = 288? / exhaust duration at .020" = 284.2? - Don't know if these numbers are after taking up valve lash.
intake duration at .050" = 240.2? / exhaust duration at .050" = 239.6?

K13 as advertised by ENEM:
280/280/105/107/12.5/12.5/2.8/2.4/ 0.40:
In. duration 280? / Ex. duration 280?
In. centerline? 105? / Ex. centerline? 107?
In. lift 12.5mm / Ex. lift 12.5mm
In. lift at TDC? 2.8mm / Ex. lift at TDC? 2.4mm
Valve clearance or lash 0.40mm
Inlet: Open 35 BTDC - Close 65 ATDC / Exhaust: Close 33 ATDC -Open 67 BBDC.
LSA = 106 and 28 degrees of overlap @ .050

 

[shoestring]

Basically what I'm chasing too. Give me a 110 lobe sep with an intake valve closing maybe 6 degrees later than a K with 12.5mm lift...I'm in. AGAP grinds look the most like what I'm looking for, but I can't afford a $400 shot in the dark. Did that already and lost...

PS: I found the a duration comparison of the D and KG7 that Cam and I had done in a jig on the bench. The seat-to-seat (after lash) on the D is within 1? of as it measures in the car, but the rest of the data points are junk (way too short). With that in mind, the KG7 showed 315? after 0.016" lash!

 

[klr142]

Nice find and WOW! Good job measuring back then as well, thank you!

Are you wanting something this mild because you’re wanting to stay with the powerband below 6500? You could email Erland and ask for his thoughts on the matter? Also, you don’t really care about how a cam behaves below 2500rpm in your race car, so you could go with something a little more aggressive as long as it doesn’t lose too much below 3500rpm or so. The D cam is already one/if not THE highest duration stock cams at first movement, so the KG7 is huge at another 25 degrees of duration there!

You should try that OC352 in either car!!

 

[klr142]

You should try that OC352 in either car!!

Speaking of which, when you do get around to putting it in a car, if you set the valve clearances to .020"/.5mm, you will have similar seat to seat opening times as the H cam at .015". It'll run! Do it and enjoy. Maybe we'll end up putting it in the General Leif next and I can put the K13 back into my 244. Or the other way around, depending on how my big valves head flow looks at higher lifts.

 

[JE Jr]

Thanks for the really good info! Just a question, "Intake Valve open at TDC" is that measured with 0.015" valve lash or not?

BR

 

[shoestring]

Thanks for the really good info! Just a question, "Intake Valve open at TDC" is that measured with 0.015" valve lash or not?

BR

Yes.

 

[shoestring]

Yes.

I was just looking at these and I think I should clarify. Our "valve open at TDC" figure is just as it reads on the micrometer as it's being measured. If you if you need to add the 0.015" lash figure back in (say you find a manufacturer that wants you to), add 0.35mm to that figure.

Also, we added the Volvo T cam plus RSI Steg 2 and Steg 3 cams yesterday, took us about 7 hours. Thank you snailpoweredbrick for the RSI pieces, I'll be sending them back this week.

These RSI cams are going to invite some discussion. First, let me clarify and say that we didn't cross the numbers around, they are correct for the appropriate cam. I say this because if you look, the Stage II has longer low-lift exhaust duration than the Stage III. Cam and I talked about it for a while and the only conclusion was that each was designed to be used with the corresponding RSI head. We're not sure what else could be behind the differences. There also may be some rationale with regard to turbocharger design and function that I'm not aware of. If someone's got some insight here, please share.

 

[shoestring]

What happened with the info that was in this thread?

https://forums.tbforums.com/showthread.php?t=152021&highlight=ipd*turbo

 

[klr142]

We didn't have time to check the T today, but we will get to it. Given it takes a while to just set it up to check, I'd like to have another on deck when we do it. ENEM V15 or KG003 or something like that would be awesome, something we can all have access to. Any takers?

Man, all this time I have had an old V15 NA cam lying in my stash(damaged) that I hadn't thought of. I can send that to you when I get the other cam back from you for measuring. I feel bad about sending in a company's product so maybe if you just post the opening/closing data and timing of things(with peak lift) as opposed to the full range of measurements it's not a big deal?

Also, we added the Volvo T cam plus RSI Steg 2 and Steg 3 cams yesterday, took us about 7 hours. Thank you snailpoweredbrick for the RSI pieces, I'll be sending them back this week.

These RSI cams are going to invite some discussion. First, let me clarify and say that we didn't cross the numbers around, they are correct for the appropriate cam. I say this because if you look, the Stage II has longer low-lift exhaust duration than the Stage III. Cam and I talked about it for a while and the only conclusion was that each was designed to be used with the corresponding RSI head. We're not sure what else could be behind the differences. There also may be some rationale with regard to turbocharger design and function that I'm not aware of. If someone's got some insight here, please share.

I'll have to look sometime! - Ok, I looked. I doubt there was any thought behind this difference. I suspect it just happened to be a difference in the lobe design from the lobes that they picked out of a book based on some of the other specifications. It's definitely interesting that the Stage III has less duration on the exhaust lobe until it finally starts making more at .3" of lift. It does have a couple degrees more duration at the first movement, but we're really splitting hairs there as these low lift measurements can vary even between the same lobe(check the VX's intake lobe vs. the V's intake lobe measurements, which in theory are the same). The Stage III does have more max lift and a fatter exhaust lobe at higher lifts as well as a larger intake lobe(duration and lift) than the Stage II, so it's definitely more aggressive in general.

What happened with the info that was in this thread?

https://forums.tbforums.com/showthread.php?t=152021&highlight=ipd*turbo

Probably a Photobucket failure sort of thing. I tried to get the info reposted years ago as can be seen in the last post, but nothing happened of it.

 

[shoestring]

How about we do the V15 at all relevant comparative points? First, 0.5mm, 1mm, 0.050"? Fair enough not to show the whole profile, although I bet it's 10 degrees per 0.050", because, well, they all are.

 

[klr142]

How about we do the V15 at all relevant comparative points? First, 0.5mm, 1mm, 0.050"? Fair enough not to show the whole profile, although I bet it's 10 degrees per 0.050", because, well, they all are.

I hadn't noticed that before, but indeed they pretty much are until near the lobe tips! The V15 will probably be the same as the "IPD Turbo" cam you guys measured already, just with a different LSA as it's for the NA application.

I got the OC camshaft back today and will try to get the V15 out to you soon. I also have a re-grind here that may be similar to the C2 camshaft but it has a smaller base circle...

 

[shoestring]

Kyle, you did bring up a fair point about displaying all the measured points on cams still in production. From here out, I will ask the cam provider if they would like to provide the complete cam profile or the abridged version. Whichever they decide to share, I'm sure the group will appreciate it.

For the record, I have received no complaints or concerns about this.

 

[runslikeapenguin]

*Edit*

I actually found that my cam measurements were way different than the posted numbers. Not sure if it was a measurement error or a difference in the way our heads were milled.

So i pulled my cam and had it measured by a local cam shop.
This is a cam card, that as far as i can tell does not exist anywhere on the internet, for the IPD turbo cam.

 

[klr142]

I actually found that my cam measurements were way different than the posted numbers. Not sure if it was a measurement error or a difference in the way our heads were milled.

It says events measured at 0.050" tappet lift, which I interpret to mean .050" on top of the .015" lash because that's when the tappet starts moving? As opposed to our Google worksheet that shows measurements including the .015" of lash, so it's like comparing to what would be .065" of lift on our worksheet? My mind is hurting a little here. Hah

Who knows. Adding .015" to the readings on our worksheet for total lift pretty closely matches Delta's measurements for full lift, though.

 

[runslikeapenguin]

It says events measured at 0.050" tappet lift, which I interpret to mean .050" on top of the .015" lash because that's when the tappet starts moving? As opposed to our Google worksheet that shows measurements including the .015" of lash, so it's like comparing to what would be .065" of lift on our worksheet? My mind is hurting a little here. Hah

Who knows. Adding .015" to the readings on our worksheet for total lift pretty closely matches Delta's measurements for full lift, though.

I think the errors i was seeing was a mix of the measurement method and the difference in machine work on my build.

The measurement error solution are some 45 degree needle extensions for my dial indicator, plus a more robust bracket to hold my mag base on an aluminum head.
And the rest of the error i think is in the fact that my head is milled a ton, and my block was also cut. The relationship between the cam advance and the head thickness is certainly NOT .010" to 1 degree from what i can see.

The last thing im doing is ditching the IPD pin adjust gear and getting an STS unit because pulling the pulley off and trying to get the slack out of the belt the right way is for the birds. I think i might have also gotten off a tooth a couple of times.

 

[linuxman51]

hey I re-found the c2 whilst cleaning the shop last night. I'll work on getting it out the door.

 

[klr142]

*Edit*

I actually found that my cam measurements were way different than the posted numbers. Not sure if it was a measurement error or a difference in the way our heads were milled.

I don't see what you're referring to. Did you make a comment and do some measurements elsewhere that are not in this thread?

I think the errors i was seeing was a mix of the measurement method and the difference in machine work on my build.

The measurement error solution are some 45 degree needle extensions for my dial indicator, plus a more robust bracket to hold my mag base on an aluminum head.
And the rest of the error i think is in the fact that my head is milled a ton, and my block was also cut. The relationship between the cam advance and the head thickness is certainly NOT .010" to 1 degree from what i can see.

The last thing im doing is ditching the IPD pin adjust gear and getting an STS unit because pulling the pulley off and trying to get the slack out of the belt the right way is for the birds. I think i might have also gotten off a tooth a couple of times.

I don't know what you're referring to, what errors? The head and block being cut doesn't change the shape of the camshaft lobe and if you have the cam set at TDC to the factory marks on the timing belt cover it doesn't matter what the crank is doing either when measuring the cam.

I've most always used the pin adjust gear and prefer it to the other style, so far, but mainly because the kinds that adjust without being removed have always gotten damaged from being tightened or just stuck and won't adjust easily. I have more recently used a really old IPD adjustable gear with some anti-seize in it and that has worked. It definitely is more convenient if the style you have doesn't have the securing hardware tightening down onto aluminum instead of a steel insert or washer.

I typically don't take into account the cam-crank height difference when setting a cam, I just set it to TDC according to the factory marks and adjust the cam timing from there to my liking based on the powerband. Also, if you bring the two close enough together, the TDC marks are straight up again eventually after it just skips a tooth.

 

[shoestring]

I was wondering where Cam got the picture of the cam card...now I know. I've looked at this and have a couple thoughts. If you look at the 0.050" open and close points and compare to our 0.035" (which would be 0.050" of you add our lash back in), the numbers are pretty close, at least on the intake. The exhaust...not so much.

When we measured the Blue Stripe, we didn't have any preconceived notions as to what it was. Somewhere we found the specs and what few points were advertised kinda lined up with what we had measured. We concluded this must be what we had based on those numbers and relative ease of access: it's way easier to call ipd than to get one out of Sweden. I would almost dismiss the differences except that the lobe centers and separation angle are bugging me. 5 degrees is a lot, which leads me to wonder if our guess as to what it is is wrong or something else is amiss.

Were there a couple iterations of this cam?

@runslikeapenguin: I'm assuming you bought this directly from ipd and not through someone else. Can I ask when?

Can anyone else chime in?

 

[shoestring]

I think the errors i was seeing was a mix of the measurement method and the difference in machine work on my build.

The measurement error solution are some 45 degree needle extensions for my dial indicator, plus a more robust bracket to hold my mag base on an aluminum head.
And the rest of the error i think is in the fact that my head is milled a ton, and my block was also cut.

Please elaborate. Was this measured in an axis that is not in the same plane as the valve stem? If so, then yes, there would be disparities.

The relationship between the cam advance and the head thickness is certainly NOT .010" to 1 degree from what i can see.

I've measured this at both 0.040" mill and ~0.100" mill and it is extremely close to 1 degree per 0.010". Also, the math backs it up.

 

[runslikeapenguin]

I don't see what you're referring to. Did you make a comment and do some measurements elsewhere that are not in this thread?

I don't know what you're referring to, what errors? The head and block being cut doesn't change the shape of the camshaft lobe and if you have the cam set at TDC to the factory marks on the timing belt cover it doesn't matter what the crank is doing either when measuring the cam.

I typically don't take into account the cam-crank height difference when setting a cam, I just set it to TDC according to the factory marks and adjust the cam timing from there to my liking based on the powerband. Also, if you bring the two close enough together, the TDC marks are straight up again eventually after it just skips a tooth.

I'm referencing the fact that a difference in milled heads vs stock castings will yield different cam to crank angles (if using the stock belt). The lobe information in the spreadsheet wouldn't change but the relationship to the crank angle would.

Shoestring shot me a PM about the pin style IPD gears being way out of wack in relationship to their markings and i agree this is highly likely. I installed the gear in every location starting from the most retarded to the most advanced and tried to interpolate a trend so i could check the .010" to 1 degree relationship and determine where to advance my cam to get my engine near zero.

The numbers i ended up with did not show a linear trend between the cam gear markings and the crank angle.