Port CFM for Simulations
Moderator: Team
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Here are the flow numbers I used to get those 2 cam.
Stan
Stan
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
And I did. One of them anyway.
DV replied.
Kevin,
The flow required refers to the cylinder head flow only. The program assumed the use of an entirely adequate induction and exhaust, You should find intake and carb specs on subsequent pages.
Between Stan's input and that reply posted above, I've got a pretty good handle on how this should shake out.
So, the onus is on me to ensure that the manifold is properly fitted. Whether that's the two plane Air Gap or a Vic Jr the cam spec will fall where it may. Then it's also up to the engine designer to make sure it's the right manifold.
Kevin
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:00 pm This is from a program which is still in alpha testing. Hopefully I got all of your information entered correctly. The only difference between the 2 runs is one used your flow numbers and for the other all flow numbers were adjusted and 254 became 247. Both are for peak HP at 5610 RPM.
Stan
254 CFM/283/279/105
247 CFM/284/280/105
Running a few simulations with this program and I get these results.
What's interesting (but perhaps shouldn't be surprising ) is that at 10:1 and 254 CFM port flow, peak HP RPM falls in exactly as your 254 model. 5610 RPM. If I change the flow to 247, with the same CR, peak HP RPM falls to 5370.
254 CFM/284/284/106
247 CFM/279/279/106
Unlike the Cam Master results, there's still a substantial spread in the duration and overlap.
Something I just noticed was the reversal of the typical intake/ exhaust split. I get 4 degrees more on the exhaust whereas Cam Master has the reverse. I suppose that's indicative of Cam Master using the full cylinder flow spec as opposed to only the peak intake flow. Which makes a lot of sense.
I'm curious as to what Cam Master would specify if choosing a single pattern.
This a dual pattern as opposed to the single pattern posted earlier.
254 CFM/284/288/106
247 CFM/279/283/106
Still the same 5 degree spread.
More than one way to spec a cam I guess (duh)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Kevin
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Kevin,
The 2 programs work differently. The program you are using based on your entered flow calculates a peak HP RPM and specs a cam. In Cam Master I enter the full flow numbers which I posted above and what I want for peak HP RPM. I used 5600 for both sets of flow numbers to get the 2 cams I posted. You cannot do that with the program you are using. Cam Master lets you do more, but at the same time you can also more easily get your self into trouble.
Stan
The 2 programs work differently. The program you are using based on your entered flow calculates a peak HP RPM and specs a cam. In Cam Master I enter the full flow numbers which I posted above and what I want for peak HP RPM. I used 5600 for both sets of flow numbers to get the 2 cams I posted. You cannot do that with the program you are using. Cam Master lets you do more, but at the same time you can also more easily get your self into trouble.
Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
That's how I see it Stan. Both on the methods used for each program and the getting into trouble part.
That said, I genuinely like the results of the TM program and Cam Master. If I compare the two, I see a reasonable spec emerging.
~282 to 284 for a single pattern on a 106 LCA. I'm fully acquainted with dealing with that amount of overlap in a 350 which not coincidentally is the same for both programs at 72 degrees. Tuning a 383 with the same should be a piece of cake.
The peak HP RPM is spot on too. All in before 6k.
Thanks for your input. Much appreciated as always.
That said, I genuinely like the results of the TM program and Cam Master. If I compare the two, I see a reasonable spec emerging.
~282 to 284 for a single pattern on a 106 LCA. I'm fully acquainted with dealing with that amount of overlap in a 350 which not coincidentally is the same for both programs at 72 degrees. Tuning a 383 with the same should be a piece of cake.
The peak HP RPM is spot on too. All in before 6k.
Thanks for your input. Much appreciated as always.
Kevin
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
I have PT Engine Analyzer Pro. When looking for an ideal cam for a combo in that software, I will use this calculator...
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/calccam.php
I then calculate the E/I flow ratio to get the duration split and go digging into Comp's lobe catalog. For this particular 350ci LT1 wanting to shift around 6800 rpm, the calculator above said it needs to have 248* @ .050". So I picked out some HR XFI lobes in Comp's catalog.
298 / 312 @ .006"
248 / 260 @ .050"
.624" / .624" lift (1.7 rockers)
111 +3 LSA
Here's what it spit out....
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/calccam.php
I then calculate the E/I flow ratio to get the duration split and go digging into Comp's lobe catalog. For this particular 350ci LT1 wanting to shift around 6800 rpm, the calculator above said it needs to have 248* @ .050". So I picked out some HR XFI lobes in Comp's catalog.
298 / 312 @ .006"
248 / 260 @ .050"
.624" / .624" lift (1.7 rockers)
111 +3 LSA
Here's what it spit out....
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
While it still needs some work which I never seem to get to. Try this version.RDY4WAR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:42 pm I have PT Engine Analyzer Pro. When looking for an ideal cam for a combo in that software, I will use this calculator...
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/calccam.php
I then calculate the E/I flow ratio to get the duration split and go digging into Comp's lobe catalog. For this particular 350ci LT1 wanting to shift around 6800 rpm, the calculator above said it needs to have 248* @ .050". So I picked out some HR XFI lobes in Comp's catalog.
298 / 312 @ .006"
248 / 260 @ .050"
.624" / .624" lift (1.7 rockers)
111 +3 LSA
Here's what it spit out....
ST Pic 1.jpg
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/calccamb.php
Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:09 pmWhile it still needs some work which I never seem to get to. Try this version.RDY4WAR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:42 pm I have PT Engine Analyzer Pro. When looking for an ideal cam for a combo in that software, I will use this calculator...
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/calccam.php
I then calculate the E/I flow ratio to get the duration split and go digging into Comp's lobe catalog. For this particular 350ci LT1 wanting to shift around 6800 rpm, the calculator above said it needs to have 248* @ .050". So I picked out some HR XFI lobes in Comp's catalog.
298 / 312 @ .006"
248 / 260 @ .050"
.624" / .624" lift (1.7 rockers)
111 +3 LSA
Here's what it spit out....
ST Pic 1.jpg
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/calccamb.php
Stan
How does 220 @ .050 translate to advertised values in a hydraulic roller? I'm seeing everywhere from 270 -280 in COMPs lobe index.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Kevin
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
How did you arrive at 83 degrees of overlap? And that huge exhaust split?
Which heads as well? My 6500 RPM 355 was with 72 degrees with these same 254 CFM heads. .050" was 236 on the intake. But the heads are small. Same cam was in an AFR 195 Eliminator headed 355 that buzzed to 7k. 288/294/236/240/110/106 off the shelf grind.
Kevin
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Stock LT1 heads that flowed 205 / 140 @ .400".skinny z wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:29 pmHow did you arrive at 83 degrees of overlap? And that huge exhaust split?
Which heads as well? My 6500 RPM 355 was with 72 degrees with these same 254 CFM heads. .050" was 236 on the intake. But the heads are small. Same cam was in an AFR 195 Eliminator headed 355 that buzzed to 7k. 288/294/236/240/110/106 off the shelf grind.
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Interesting.RDY4WAR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:56 pmStock LT1 heads that flowed 205 / 140 @ .400".skinny z wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:29 pmHow did you arrive at 83 degrees of overlap? And that huge exhaust split?
Which heads as well? My 6500 RPM 355 was with 72 degrees with these same 254 CFM heads. .050" was 236 on the intake. But the heads are small. Same cam was in an AFR 195 Eliminator headed 355 that buzzed to 7k. 288/294/236/240/110/106 off the shelf grind.
Using this TM program I had a question along those lines. With a flow limited port, keep the valve open as long as possible was the general consensus. That's where the seemingly excessive duration from I guessing.
That said, I thought the Vortec intake port was modelled after the LT1. That would be 220 @ .500".
Being an LT1, and I'm assuming a Gen 2 SBC, is that also a relatively high compression ratio?
Kevin
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Yes. 10.4 stock compression with reverse cooling. The LT1 heads aren't quite as good as the Vortec 062/906 heads. The smaller 54cc chamber could be why.skinny z wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:09 pmInteresting.RDY4WAR wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:56 pmStock LT1 heads that flowed 205 / 140 @ .400".skinny z wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:29 pm
How did you arrive at 83 degrees of overlap? And that huge exhaust split?
Which heads as well? My 6500 RPM 355 was with 72 degrees with these same 254 CFM heads. .050" was 236 on the intake. But the heads are small. Same cam was in an AFR 195 Eliminator headed 355 that buzzed to 7k. 288/294/236/240/110/106 off the shelf grind.
Using this TM program I had a question along those lines. With a flow limited port, keep the valve open as long as possible was the general consensus. That's where the seemingly excessive duration from I guessing.
That said, I thought the Vortec intake port was modelled after the LT1. That would be 220 @ .500".
Being an LT1, and I'm assuming a Gen 2 SBC, is that also a relatively high compression ratio?
When flow is limited, you have to hold the valve open much longer to fill the cylinder at higher rpm. That's why stock eliminator cams can be in the 270-280 @ .050" range.
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:09 pm While it still needs some work which I never seem to get to. Try this version.
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/calccamb.php
Stan
How does 220 @ .050 translate to advertised values in a hydraulic roller? I'm seeing everywhere from 270 -280 in COMPs lobe index. I suppose that's a question of application vs intensity but for this TM program, all values are advertised.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Kevin
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Kevin,
That is a very limited calculator and only has enough input for the output it shows.
Stan
That is a very limited calculator and only has enough input for the output it shows.
Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Port CFM for Simulations
Fair enough. It certainly isn't overly complicated although it does have some interesting features.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:08 pm Kevin,
That is a very limited calculator and only has enough input for the output it shows.
Stan
Now, as for the 220@.050" your calculator produced (in the post above your latest reply), how does that translate in seat to seat values? Or is that now more of a choice of the engine designer? As I'm thinking it's now a question of durability vs intensity.
Kevin