Hi all with an rl31 kent cam what's the most hp figures guys have see hear on a 2 litre pinto cheers mario.
Hi all with an rl31 kent cam what's the most hp figures guys have see hear on a 2 litre pinto cheers mario.
got a email from vulcan he said that an rl31 cam and his stage 4 pinto injection head wont make 190 hp that i need an ht1 e cam for that hp number
were guys on here say an rl31 cam will make 190 hp flywheel.
im sure vulcan stage 4 heads are the best pinto head that you can get cheers mario.
please advise.
i think your find on most engines Rl31 wont make 190bhp, but if the engine is good it wont be far away, i believe vulcan heads are one of the best on general sale and are are good value for money, are they actually the best probably not.
I think 165hp maybe 170 with an RL31 is about right with a good head on a 2.0L in my experience, i run an HT1e
ive seen 200 bhp on a 2.2 from an rl31, which in terms of bhp per litre would give 180 on a 2.0
I'll try to find the graph for you but I've tested Vulcan head, HT1e, Piper A8 and RL31 in the same engine.
HT1e gave +/- 193 Bhp, RL31 +/- 189 Bhp (I can't remember A8 but was close to HT1e)
The RL31 gave nice power band but had the draw back it was not willing to make higher RPM's when you did not wanted to change gear. With HT1e you could make the end of the straight line without having to change up and back down in 2 seconds.
Basic, it is the head flow (CFM) that make the difference in power or not
Hi Mario,
What is the current spec of your engine? I don't remember seeing it? Are you in NSW?
What do you primarily use your car for?
Thanks, Shaun
Hi Shaun engine spec Clive cam 159 twin 45mm webers with 38mm chokes 11:1 comp big bore pacemaker exhaust . I use car for drags run 14.8 1/4 mile time cars 1000kgs
1000kg sounds heavy for an escort, guess its fully trimmed etc
It's an rs2000 mk2 car weights 930kg ,1000kg with me in car cheers mario.
The head work will make the difference in power. The cam has a lot less influence on max power as most think. Many people are still willing to believe, the faster the cam the more power and yes they understand for more power we loose torque. Wel it is not so, you do need a fast(er) cam to make full power but if the head does not flow, no power will come and usual less power we be measured with a cam being to fast for this particular engine. A different cam can and will make the engine useful in different RPM ranges as well. Speedway cams need to run very high RPM's, rally engines need more torque.
The day after I measured 189 Bhp on the first Pinto I had an other one on the dyno, same exhaust, same carbs, same cam but different head and 165 Bhp.
The good thing about RL31, it is not over the top and work in almost all engines using 2x Webers. I'm not saying this is the right cam for any engine but it is at least a cam that can be made working very easy. For a good drag race car with the right head I guess HT1e is a better option (if you do have a good head).
Last edited by Dyno; 04-07-2019 at 07:04.
Ive never found the RL31 to have enough top end, great rally/road cam but for anything more they have their limits.
that basically was what dirk said in an earlier post, your HT1 cam, doesnt make a lot more top end but it does rev on a good bit further.Originally Posted by Erikmex
choice will depend on whether you want something which will take big throttle and pull well from 3K or something which wants to rev to 8, you cant have both
How does an RL32 compare to the RL31, would that allow an engine to rev a little higher and still pull from low down, all be it with a good flowing head?
from what i gather its a bit of a damp squib, it promises what you suggest but doesn't deliver
Oh ok, does anyone do a cam that is somewhere in between an RL31 and an HT1E then?
i think the origonal?? HT1 (which was a copy of a newman P5, which in itself was a tweaked holbay profile) is in between but much more HT1E than RL31
My engine's got a Holbay cam in it.. Can't remember which one, but I think it's a 4011C, I'll double check that though...
What about bf63 with hi comp may fit the bill ? Or German group 1 profile?
Similar cam Alan only the 63 has approx 50 thou more lift. What about a Lulabelle?
My Holbay profile was said to be slightly better than the German Group 1 profile at the time. That was what it was replacing for a bit more Uuumph...
Your old favourite cam Gary certainly sounded the nuts. Did Paul Gardner have it ground him self? Can you get a regrind of profile noways ?.
Lulabelle was a cam I had off PG and it was designed by a Mr Mallinson from NW Lancs and ground by Holbay and had the number 106p etched on the end of it. I was told by Mr G to set the LCA at 102 degrees and 165 thou @ TDC with 15 thou lead. It had 530 lift in and 495 ex. He said I did n't need to know anymore information. The only other thing he said that it loves compression and needs a minimum of 12.0.1.
It was a cam that made a Pinto sound like a BDA. I still have the old cam but it has a damaged lobe that happened at Wilbaston in 89, a long time ago.
Blimey Wilbaston in 89. An old mate of mine rolled his Cossie turbo powered MK2 there in 88 or 89, can't remember which, think it was 88...
Checked this yesterday, definitely a 4011C...
http://coltecracing.com/camshafts.html#pinto
Yep that's the one. The 1st cam was ground in about 87 an belonged to the guy I bought my car off, then a couple of years later I bought the head an cam off him. That was cross drilled so no spray bar, just a splash shield to bolt over the cam towers.
That cam died in early to mid 2000's and Coltec ground me a new one to the same specs, but that wasn't cross drilled as he said it killed drill bits trying to drill the cams... So I refitted a spray bar back on it.
Hi rally rob what power are you making with your cam
It's been a long time since it was on the road but at it's best it was putting out around 160-165bhp at the wheels. I don't know what torque I'm afraid.. But it's also 2.1, not 2.0ltr. It's got 2.8 Karl schmitt 93.5mm cast pistons (not the best I know) on cossie rods an cossie crank an early 80's spec big valve head on 48 Dellorto's running at the time Micro Dynamic's non vac electronic Bosch style dizzy with a rev limiter. It's got 10.79:1 cr. But it was also running 4 star petrol at the time, so that would've made a difference at the as well.
I wondered if it had a set of forged piston so you could give it more compression could it have made any more power...
With that sort of timing info and just one good profile a good cam grinder could reproduce it - CNC measuring and grinding have moved along - tempted?
Just out of interest - with 12:1 CR are you using 'good' fuel ie. high octane or hi-test pump piss with reduced timing? I prefer the former but it does get expensive!
I still have the cam knocking about somewhere with a damaged lobe. I had thought of asking a company like Newmans to see if they could reproduced it but I have never got around to it.
The cam was last used 30 years ago to this very month and we ran the engine on good old leaded 4 star with a sniff of octane booster.
The 159 Grind from Clive Cams in Australia mentioned in this thread is essentially an original group 1 grind that has had the exhaust lobe moved to tighten the lobe centres. From my understanding Frank Lowndes (father of V8 supercar driver Craig) was behind the development of it when they first started racing the cars in Australia.
I would agree with statement about the RL31, not good enough to make a genuine 190.
The issues I've had with the larger Kent grinds are
- the lobe centre line, in my opinion a lot of them are too far apart
- what you get is actually what you pay for. There seems to be major discretion in the specs listed, and what you actually get on paper in a lot of instances. So much so I've measured supposedly identical camshafts that are also different from one another
- not quoting .050" figures on their camshafts. That really annoys me
I have been playing around with hybrid versions of a number of grinds with varying results. I 100% agree with comments about the HT1 & HT1e grinds, and also about the Pinto lift figures vs power results, and also the part that cams play in power. What I will say is that I have found Cams with staggered lobes favouring the inlet (eg: larger inlet lobe vs exhaust lobe) seem to work best on a decent cylinder head for overall power curve.
A lot of Pinto heads I see don't achieve any more flow by lifting the valve past .480-490" as stated on this thread, but there are exceptions to the rule on a very good cylinder head where you will achieve more flow past this without sacrificing any low lift flow. What is also evident with heads I see is that the exhaust ports Work much better that they need to in relation to the inlet (which is why I suspect the staggered camshaft profiles seem to work).
My latest cylinder heads based around exhaust port velocity rather than size combined with an appropriate cam and pipes are achieving decent results thus far (making the same/more power at less rpm). In my experience traditionally Pintos required large pipes, 48 carbs with large chokes and up to 9000rpm to achieve over 200hp & 160ftlb @ 2000cc on pump fuel. I'm seeing these numbers now on smaller pipes, smaller chokes and under 8000rpm, and a much fatter curve.
Cheers, Warren
Warren Heath Performance (Aust)
WARREN HEATH PERFORMANCE
https://www.facebook.com/Warren-Heath-Performance-135194779879292/
Hi warren thanks for your input cheers mario.
Hi Mariors2000,
That Clive cam 159, is that the same as the wade 520x? Apparently Clive worked for wade and Frank Lowndes created the 520x, which I have in my car.
thanks,
Steve
What your engine spec and hp figure cheers Mario
i spoke to clive from clivecams he said its the same as the 520x cam cheers mario
Do you know what sort of power it was producing?
Around 180 hp at the flywheel
If you are refering to the 106p cam, no power figures were obtained at the time. In the Hot summer of 89 I drove the car some 80 odd miles to Paul Gardners for a timing and power check of the engine on his Rolling Road.. Unfortunately part way through the session we had a problem so we had to abandon it for the day as I had to drive the car back Home.
I would think the above cam would be something similar to one of the HT pairing. I have never tried the RL31 in an engine so I have no experience of it, the one I bought with some spares was sold to redhf for an engine that was built by Graham.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks