Thanks for the explaination. I thought the tower was involved but didn't think it was a heat exchanger! Oh well - a couple of aditional water cubes required or find someone with a swimming pool
Thanks for the explaination. I thought the tower was involved but didn't think it was a heat exchanger! Oh well - a couple of aditional water cubes required or find someone with a swimming pool
Hot tub in the workshop ?
9.85 @ 145mph202mph standing mile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss_c7fML3rw
i can see a whole new business opening in the next unit , may get a bad reputation but it will have hot tubsOriginally Posted by stevieturbo
right ignoring all this hot air!!
i went over the dyno engine yesterday and found a couple of tappet clearances too big, one quite a lot. probably my fault in nopt tightening a lock nut enough, but trying to set clearances in a hurry in on a red hot engine isnt easy. anyway the currrently installed cam a wr40 is making numbers very close to what it did before the load cell died.
what can i tell you about rl31 wr40? both cams can have the power shifted about by swinging the cam timing a bit, but trying to get the best average.
RL31 slightly more torque and better below 5 k, WR40 runs away at the top with a solid 8bhp gain, its case of where do you want the power................
Last edited by Graham; 19-08-2023 at 10:19.
Any figures to post yet Graham or are you keeping us all in suspense until all the tests are final?
I ran a WR 40 cam in an engine with a single 45 and nearly std head in 1984, the valve lift was only 450 thou. The engine had bugger all power but what it did do was Rev like mad at the top end which seemed so strange considering the induction and head.
im at home now so dont have many figures, i had to stop testing firstly i ran out of time. secondly started to overheat the water and the last test started doing odd things, i think i was boiling the water in the absorber as i havnt yet been able to inrease the volume of the system. thats said i did get as far as fitting the GTS6 before things went wrong.
so what can i tell you, well this is the running order i used
BLF40/41, 4.75, WR40, GTS2,GTS3,GTS4.
in this test the GTS3 was pointless the GTS4 was better everywhere. other than that every cam made a bit more power than the previous one. no substanical jumps in power though, i started @159 on the BLF40/41 and finished @ 180 on the GTS4. torque varied from 140lbft to 156lbft
Last edited by Graham; 20-08-2023 at 07:12.
I thought the 40/41 started at 159 bhp which is pretty much what would be expected of a cam of thar period.
Any news on the BF63 yet Graham?
yes i think your right on the bf 40/41. i did it from memory.
i was going to run the BF63 last. so it would be in the engine ready for testing split webers and lynx. although im now wondering where to extend the test into race cams as i have several at my disposal
whats interesting is i have needed to make suprisngly few jet changes on the way
Last edited by Graham; 20-08-2023 at 07:23.
Re: rally cam testi have edited the post now. in todays world of cams the 40/41 is a bit pointless unless you need a drop straight in cam otherwise you might as well go straight to a RL31.
i already knew and only included it in the test because it was already in the engine
That is very interesting regarding the carb jetting. I am looking forward to you testing the BF63, it doesn’t have the massive overlap as the GTS4 does so it’s mid range torque should be better. Which Race cams were you thinking of testing?
Are you doing a video on all these tests or is it too time consuming? keep the good work up as I have never seen or heard of anyone going to all this trouble to test Pinto cams on the Dyno
i will make a video on it, but im doing very little recording, its just too time consuming.
as for race cams i have a p5, ht1, bf322 and RC1.
As for jets, carbs are easy-ish, more air pulls more fuel, so unless you have a dramatic change in airflow you often dont need a jet change. Not to menation the AFR window which makes most power is bigger than most internet experts wil tell you.
i might go into work to day and do a bit more dynoing, but i know i wont get a lot of running the dyno water will still be pretty warm from yesterday
Last edited by Graham; 20-08-2023 at 08:23.
thinking about it i also have a holbay 660 which will wear out fast!
As expected the dyno water is still to warm to get any meaningful running time. so no dynoing today but here ssome numbers and graphs for you all.
in all cases i just fitted each cam and swung the cam timing to find the best results, on some cams i had to decide on low speed torque or peak power in which case went for best compromise.
BLF40/41 159bhp@6100 151lbft@4400 operator note worked ok no drama, low lift so will probably last forever
4.75 162bhp@6500 152lbft @5100 operator note i expected a bit more, more power to be had in cam timing at the expense of torque
WR40 170bhp @7000 148lbft @ 5100 operator note, for an old cam it worked well, significant top end gain over 4.75 but not too much loss low down
GTS2 176bhp @6700 151lbft @ 5200 operator note lighting rod cam, designed for limited mods
GTS3 176bhp @ 6900 155lbf @ 5300 operator note better tha gts2 everywhere, retarding this cam picked up a big chuck of low end torque but killed bhp
GTS4 179bhp @ 6900 154@5300
Last edited by Graham; 20-08-2023 at 15:16.
all tests together make a messy graph
just power
just torque
resized to split lines up a bit
Last edited by Graham; 20-08-2023 at 15:09.
Thanks for all the hard work so far!
Maybe add a list of which ZZZZ is what cam.
No real reason to have GTS2, 3 and 4 in the range, all give similar results.
Current spec of WR40 is different to what it was in the old days (GP1 homologation cam).
Do you mean retarding or advancing?
i wrote retarding on my notes! the old school rule of retard for top end advance for low doesnt always work.
yes i thought you might comment on the zzz the superflow software wont allow me to rename them, i normally edit the graph. in superflow world the Z means an averaged file. when i am confident the results are repeating i do a couple more test runs and let the software average the results, which is why although i saw 180bhp on one run the highest figure here is 179bhp
z127 BLF 40/41
z131 4.75
z132 wr40
z133 gts2
z134 gts3
z135 gts 4
thers a gap betweem z127 and z131 because i tested some other stuff inbetween cam swap
Last edited by Graham; 20-08-2023 at 19:22.
but thats part of the reason for the test, i couldnt see how much different they would be, with the gts2 being an oval race cam which makes good power with limited mods it was really interesting to see what it would do on a higher spec engine, and the answer was ok. i also wanted to see what difference the was between a tarmac and loose rally cam, theretically one would have a much stronger top end and the other more midrange, thats kind of true they do but im not sure many drivers would notice!
Last edited by Graham; 20-08-2023 at 16:06.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post all this information Graham. Looking at the torque graph the 4.75 seems to be so much better at low RPM than some of the others. The WR40 seems to be about bang on the money regarding HP, I think that figures are about the same as Vulcan quote. As for the GTS3 and 4, according to Kent’s figures if they are to be believed, the valve timing’s the same but with the 4 having more valve lift, I think they are both old Holbay copies. Get yourself off to the Pub for a few Beers this evening Graham, you have earned it.
no time for the pub ive got the harris pinto head on the flow bench!
yes of these cams low down 4.75 is best by far, on this engine it peaked a little earlier than expected. from these tests if you wanted more power than a 4.75 and try and keep some of the low end you would jump to a GTS3
That sounds interesting the Harris Head on the flow bench, will you be posting any figures Graham?
I think the Dyno has earned a rest for a day or two. It will be interesting when you get back testing to see where the BF63 cam slots into the graph, from my experience it’s certainly a cam that has good Road manners so it might be well suited to the 2.2 Harris engine.
Hi Graham will you be sharing the flow figures of the harris head to give us a base line to see
dont have the numbers to hand but at peak it flowed 115cfm @10"
maybe, the thing is he wants an engine which is good for a track day. but with road manors and im not sure any cam i have in my normal cam portfolio so far will do the job.
Sounds like a typical customer Champagne tastes but with Lemonade money! We would all like a fully dual role vehicle but sadly there MUST be a compromise and sometimes that compromise is never acceptable to some people. If people just accepted the fact and still wanted to do track days - just build a 2nd vehicle more dedicated to that use - and use the nicely mannered road car to tow its trailer LOL! The other advantage is on track you can go 'balls out' and if you blow or wreck it, you can still get to work the next day. And when you get bored of being an average race car driver, it can be sold seperately with the nice daily driver parked on the drive!
Has anyone ever tried Variable Valve Timing on a Pinto?
It sounds like your customer possibly wants his cake and to eat it too. I am sure there’s a suitable cam with a compromise that will do the job if those silly big 50’s can be suitably choked down. As I have mentioned before it all depends what gearbox, final drive, wheel and tyre size the car has. A 2.01 first gear and a 3.54 diff’s going to make most 4 cylinder engines grunt on take off.
Ex hillclimb car so its probably got a silly low diff ratio, bearing this in mind and a drag race pinto i have to do, its owner wants real power from 4 to 8k so it makes sense to extend the rally cam test into race cams.
no but i have a few ideas as to how you might do it, you would have to pick the right cam profile though it would be a waste of time on a lot of them
I fear the Race cams might need at least 1 ratio higher compression to get the best results especially if they are long duration like the RC1.
absolutely they will, but the shapes of the power curves are whats important here not the absolute numbers. compression ratio wont really change the power curve just move the whole curve up or down.
if i was to ring up Rick wood and order a head from him all these cams would of made more power. the Rl31 would probably made well over 180bhp rather than the low 160's it did on this test.
I have never seen one of Rickwoods CNC Pinto heads anywhere near a Dyno so we can only go on his flow figures that are advertised, I would be very surprised if the difference was as much as 20 bhp against your head.
The problem with a lot of long duration Race cams like the RC31 is the late closing of the inlet valve that reduces the dynamic compression resulting in less charge in the cylinder. I have known people fit Race cams without raising the compression and finish up with less power than with the milder cam it replaced.
It looks like another busy Bank Holiday weekend for you testing more cams, once again I look forward to it with interest.
Last edited by Forest_rallying; 22-08-2023 at 17:16.
My head isnt my head! its just a head i have aquired and it really isnt anything special, its still got std ford exhaust valves in it!
i have dyno'd a rick wood head and it worked! it looked like every other head, but if you know where to look there are subtle differences. thats all i can say on that subject.
to a large extent i agree on the dynamic compression, the engine has 11.3 cr so should work reasonably well on most cams. If i feel im wasting my time going up in cams i will stop.
incidentally last time i tried an RC31 it didnt really work, holbay 660 was better, but even then i went back to a newman p6 which was an old blank so didnt wear out lol!
I have a Newman Holbay/Mallinson copy from the same batch as the 4.75, I’ll have to check out what the part number is.
Some say the std 36mm exhaust valves are big enough for most applications with the correct porting,all the heads I have had have been fitted with 38mm Group One valves.
It would be interest to know if Rick Woods head was indeed a copy of an-other, maybe Brookes’s, or his own work.
What head did you have before this one?
on a 2.2 at least i got 200bhp on 37mm ex valves.
I think Rick would of developed his own stuff. I was talking to him one day and commented on the flow figures of his pinto head as was shown on his website at the times, and his reply was thats an old one it will be better now. bearing in mind he has made alloy v6 oh and his own design alloy pinto heads, recastiron x/flow heads i dont see him as a copy cat. He will actually do any head/port shape you want. Incidentally Burton cnc heads are actually rick wood Andy Burton told me himself
What are the specs of the Holbay 660? Never heard of it.
i dont like that one i look old!What head did you have before this one?
I knew RW did an alloy X Flow head but not a Pinto one, I think Brookes might have dabbled with one, maybe they were in conglomeration. I can’t see RW spending endless hours trying to develop the Pinto further as I know longer think there’s the demand for them like there once was. Yes I had heard they were doing CNC heads for Burtons, they are probably only done to a basic specification.
The camshaft I have was ground by Newman and it’s stamped Holbay 665 copy. I bought the original cam in 1989 off Paul Gardner. He told me how to set it up in the head and how many thou overlap at TDC to set the timing. He said it required a minimum of 12.5.1 compression to operate efficiently.
In Hot Summer in mid July we did a stage event at Wilbarston and part way through the Rally number 8 cam lobe started wearing, the cam was now knackered. On the end of the cam it was stamped Holbay 106p, so I decided at the time to phone John Reid regarding a replacement. He told me it was a batch of cams that were ground for a Man called Mr Mallinson that was from the Fylde Coast near Blackpool and they were ground to his specification. Many years later Carey that once posted on here took it to Newman’s and they replicated a brace for both of us to use. Newman’s posted the cam direct to me along with the 4.75 and some other bits and bobs, but they never gave me a data sheet with it. It’s still sat there in the box if you ever wanted to try it Graham. Unfortunately it’s probably made from the same coco beans as 4.75.
Last edited by Forest_rallying; 23-08-2023 at 17:12.
We are all getting old Graham, that’s why we are messing about with 50 year old Pintos.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks