Has anywone on this forum try a ph4 newman cam in a pinto and have this cam a good power from down below ?
Or is an 134 grind from burton a better choice ? I have an modified 2.1 pinto whith an stage 1head and std 32/36weber and it must be an engine whit a goog torque in the lower and mid range for circuit whith single gear use
134 is WAY better, PH4 has a lot of overlap and I would not recommend it, 134 from Piper, Kent, Burton etc are all very similar if not identical to one another, it is a nice torquey cam and well suited to single carb or twin's, Ph4 would be a bit of a pig with single carb and ok with twins
"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Enzo Ferrari
Ok , the 134 grinds has 23/23 overlap and the ph4 cam has 22/18 whith 110 degrees lobe centers but a little more duration as the 134 grinds , so i think its a very torqey cam whith a stronger mid range , tell me if i,m wrong , greetz
The book figures you read there are nothing to go by tbh, I have mapped PH4 and it has a Much tighter LSA than advertised more like 104 to 106* max no where near 110*, the 134 would be around 110 to 112* at a good guess, 134 is the better cam by a long shot tbh
"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" - Enzo Ferrari
106 lobe centers is totaly ......fore my application , thats the answhere i looking for . I think i go for the burton 134 cam these are friendly priced
And i think it is a good drivebel cam whith match more toque than the std 2000 cam
thank you for comment
Don't try 106° lobes centers on a road car with standard cam. 110° - 112° is more what you need. There are different versions of the original ERSON 134. The data from Kent Cams is at least wrong. I had this cam in my turbo engine and lift at TDC is less than the standard cam, not what they advertise. All other 134 profiles I had where from Piper and work extreme well for your application. Idle is like standard, got very good torque in very low revs, good mileage and will spin with little headwork to 130 Bhp.
OK, I was not reading all info. It's for speedway use ? Than you better use one of the speedway cams. These will let you run the engine over a wide RPM range. Will not give you more power but these cams are special designed for this applications. I used to see 145 Bhp with standard valves and minor head work in a 2 ltr engine. Some tuners in the Netherlands where claiming 170 Bhp but it's fake. I've measured several of these 170 Bhp engines and on my dyno none made 150 Bhp. About 145 will be it.
Hello , i have more on an usabel torque than an off cam from down below , my older engines has an race rally cam from cat cams whith lifts up to 13/14mm
on a dyno it gives 153pk and 205nm by 4600tpm but this is totaly undrivabel when the power comes on the cam , last year i tryd an fr32 and it goes better whith 134pk and max torque on 4000tpm , but i search more torque in the lower and mid range so I see this 134 and ph4 cams
I search not a cam that is off at 1700tpm but when i pull the pedal it must going and going and going till alround 6500 tpm
CatCams does not produce a F2 camshaft's ( F2 is what they call it in England) so this will have been a wrong cam anyway and FR 32 is also not a F2 cam spec. But please note the real F2 cams also start at higher RPM's but the good thing is, they keep revving. So you can come out of the corner at a fairly high RPM and go on.
Try one of the Piper F2 cams. OK 134 will give you a massive torque but will not be willing to rev far past 6500 RPM
Onyd, what is your name again, I keep forgetting?
You should not measure lift at TDC but lift when both inlet- and exhaust valves are open the same amount.Originally Posted by onyd
The best F2 engine make approx. 165 bhp.
CatCams has (or had) the C312 spec with they sell as F2. Timing is 45/75 85/35, lift 12,95 mm. From the timing figures you can see this is a S = -5 degrees cam just like the old RL2 that lots of the current F2 spec cams are based on.
Regards, Leon.
OK, It's Dirk here.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about For 134 it's approx 0,5 mm lift at TDC. As far as I know, the CatCam camshaft was never as good as the one sold by KentCams at the same time (when I had several F2 guys coming over). CatCams do make good cams, I sell them as well. As a matter of fact's, I got several on order at this moment. But Kent and Piper where leading in F2. At least, I would try the Piper grind (or KentCams).
F2 engines had to run standard valves, only minor head work and 32/36 DGAV and will never make 165 bhp. Really, I can't believe someone ever managed this. At least, I had several of this 170 Bhp engines on my dyno and never saw 150 Bhp. But some drivers had 2,4 ltr engines!!!! That's an other story. And when people where complaining against them they started fighting with at least 20 guy's around them. I've seen people loosing there teeth in Baarlo when hit with a jack in there face. I know you are a long time into racing and I'm sure you remember this kind of scenario's. An remember the names of the drivers as well.
I don't want to be rude or go into war, not at all, and want to stay good friends with you and all others here on the forum. For the same reason I'm not going to name any of these tuners but I'm sure you know these tuners names just as I do. At least if they ever had 165 Bhp engines why where they charging for 170 Bhp when they sold 145 Bhp?
I always say, big numbers sell easy. And sadly, that's how it always will be.
Ah Baarlo, that were the days ...
I know what you are saying Dirk, I always say people add VAT to the real bhp numbers!
But I've seen some proper 2 litre Pinto engine F2 spec make 165 bhp on the engine dyno.
And that were race-winning engines.
Regards, Leon.
That's a good joke, VAT at the Bhp number. Next thing I'm going to tell my customers when they want more power.
Baarlo was one of the best things I've ever seen. World champions ship Hotrods and Stock car F1. Yes, those where the days. I've never understand why they had to close this track. I believe the tarmac is still there.
Still not sure about the 165 Bhp. Without cheating in carburetor setup (Holley or DGAS), bigger valves or putting an extra throttle plate in the brake servo, it will be hard to find these extra 20 Bhp. At least not the power they sold to my customers. The trick with the extra throttle plate in the brake servo was nice found. It was popular in the "standard class" in Baarlo. Lot's of MK2 escort's. But also lot of bigger engines. You could easy hear a 2,4 ltr out of a 2 ltr. The sound was much deeper.
A very nice car I remember was Van De Velde with MK 1 escort (at least I think it was Van De Velde). In F1 stockcar it was Rien Rutjens and Piet Keijzer. I believe Piet Keijzer later died on track but not in Baarlo. In Baarlo they where very spectacular drivers.
?????? tell us moreThe trick with the extra throttle plate in the brake servo was nice found. It was popular in the "standard class"
155hp is the best I've seen on a F2stockar engine this was measure on Agra Engineerings dyno in Scotland.
Ha, now everybody is listening ???!!!! As you will all know, at a point, the standard carburetor becomes a restriction. Rules say, standard carb chokes and standard throttle plates. No mods, except jets.
So if you still want more air into the inlet manifold it has to come from an other door. Well there is an other entry that can be used. The manifold has provision for brake depression. You drill out a hole as big as possible in the manifold ( carb plenum ). You install a tube from here to the brake servo. Big but not to big so you can still let all others believe it's there for servo. Inside the brake servo you install a butterfly. Throttle pedal is very close so you install a second cable to open this butterfly when second step of the carburetor comes into play. You got you extra air. Now it's just a matters of fitting a larger jet into the second step of the carburetor to compensate for the extra air entering the engine. Tubes of 22 mm and larger where common. Even bigger.
In a race where everybody is restricted by carburetor size this can be the difference between first and second place. You don't have this from me don't you. Please note, I've NEVER done this modification myself. Does not mean we have never tried to "bent" the rules.
That's nice power but as you know 155 Bhp is still not 165 Bhp. Large distance to go. And question is, was this 155 Bhp useful in a race. Did the engine had the torque to come out of the corner in single gear race as speedway always was ?
Yes it was a race winning engine used on a very short oval with low gearing, if I remember right it used an Anderson cam, Anderson f2 engines are very good.
So never say never. I thought 150 Bhp would be max. But still faaaaaar away from 165 bhp. I remember Anderson had a good reputation.
Hello Dirk,
here is an old postcard from Baarlo and a pic of Laurens van de Velde 's Mk1 HotRod car.
Baarlo was a great place, it was shut down because of noise restrictions.
I remember clearly when a mate with a Schenk dyno tested a Pinto for the Standard class from a guy from Belgium (honest).
The engine didn't run properly, overrich mixture. Then the owner opened a valve which was in the hose for the brake-servo.
Then it ran very well, gaining at least 15 bhp over other Standard engines!
Soon everyone found out what was going on and copied this trick.
In all race-classes you have clever/inventive people who come up with tricks. In the old Sierra-cup you had to use the std anti-rollbar. This gave a very understeering car. One entrant had the centre of the anti-rollbar milled down to 16 mm or so. This mod could not be seen as it was exactly under the rubber with which the bar was bolted to the car!
Regards, Leon.
Hi Leon,
Very nice pictures, good memories, bring almost tears in my eyes. Honest. Look at the flames !!! Man this was a good Pinto. 100% sure I must be standing there somewhere in the mass of people. Close to the exit of the corner. Can't remember what I was wearing. Can you send them direct to my email address ? Would like to print them. Info@amtdyno.be
I'm glad to here the "trick" was invented by Flemish people. There where not so many Belgium drivers. I don't have much contact with these guy's anymore but I will try to find out where it started. Never know the difference would be as big as 15 bhp.
Hello,
v/d Velde has his own website, with all of the old pics.
http://vandervelderacing.nl/site/
His engine was very well prepared (and owned) by one of his mechanics.
If you pm me your address I will send you the old postcards I have from Baarlo. (FOC).
O.K. , an speedway cam is onjusable for me , i tryd an rl2 to , a very fast and easy cam but down below it was boring , we came out the corner ( autograss ) whith somtimes 1500tpm an before your engine is pick up an other car whith( std )engine is faster out of the corner and jou lose .
So i searc an cam wit an short overlap and a little more duration and faster valve opening and more lift than the std 2000 cam so i think the only option is to grind an special cam for ultimate torque or the burton 134 , ckfr34
Erson 134 wil be the best high torque cam, no other cam will do better. But please note it's not only a cam that will make your car go faster. Are you sure all the rest was OK ? Was it dyno tested? Correct setup? What about your ignition, was it standard or mod? How about the carb setting? RL2 is not the right cam for standard carb if you want low torque but maybe you lost a lot more because other parts where wrong setup. I've seen lots of engines on my dyno. Many of them did had the right parts and where making low power numbers. It's only going to work if all is right. I've seen lots of standard engines not running right. Let alone modified.
I only used the PH4 once on a customer engine, on 2x45dcoe's . It was a std engine , skimmed head and usual 4 branch , it made 147bhp and drove like a std car in traffic.
Originally we were going to run it on the std carb and it was what Newman recommended for that. I was apprehensive at first , wanting to go for the cam they list before the PH4 but they were adamant it would work and it did.
I've got another engine ,similar spec, i built years ago , but running an RL1, giving the same power on a DGAS but its a lot lumpier at the bottom end.
HTH
The best drivers have dead flies on the side windows.
No idea how good the PH4 i with standard carb. With twin Webers you can have a lot more lift at TDC without the usual issues. For sure, the RL1 is not a good cam for a single carb setup.
From experiences I know Pinto's up to approx 150 bhp on twin Webers can be very nice road engines. All above are compromises. I'm sure this must have been a nice road engine.
I guess the 147 Bhp engine with standard carb was full prepared?
Hello Leon,
Hello Dirk,
Since I am not familiar with the F2 circuit racing, I had a difficulty of understanding the typical specs of a F2 camshaft. However, apart from those engines built with rather standart components and therefore lots of restrictions to live with, apparently they have been producing very good bhps as far as I understand. So I guess there is a lot coming from a very succesful camshaft of course up to a certain bhp. But exactly this is where I would like to ask to understand better ; can these spec camshafts not be used in typical rally engines with higher CR, bvh, twin carbs etc and produce much higher bhp ? Or these cam's inlet valve ABDC degree is not suitable to run with much higher CR to begin with so basically they are not suitable for higher spec engines or in other words there is no point fitting a F2 cam into a full spec rally engine ?
By the way, I always found the Kent GTS range of camshafts quite interesting and very usable ( only on paper of course) in rally engines ( medium speed gravel rally ) but I never had a chance to map or use a GTS camshaft.
So, I would very much appreciate if you could share your thoughts regarding the GTS range or the well known F2 profiles in a typical rally spec engine which should have a great medium range torque and reasonably high bhp = good balance.
Regards,
Kerem
So did John Reed and Paul Finch ..... you don't half have to get the fuel in thou and we use to see 9k on the tack and they lasted ....
Half bearings ;DDDD
Hello Leon,
Hello Dirk,
Since I am not familiar with the F2 circuit racing, I had a difficulty of understanding the typical specs of a F2 camshaft. However, apart from those engines built with rather standart components and therefore lots of restrictions to live with, apparently they have been producing very good bhps as far as I understand. So I guess there is a lot coming from a very succesful camshaft of course up to a certain bhp. But exactly this is where I would like to ask to understand better ; can these spec camshafts not be used in typical rally engines with higher CR, bvh, twin carbs etc and produce much higher bhp ? Or these cam's inlet valve ABDC degree is not suitable to run with much higher CR to begin with so basically they are not suitable for higher spec engines or in other words there is no point fitting a F2 cam into a full spec rally engine ?
By the way, I always found the Kent GTS range of camshafts quite interesting and very usable ( only on paper of course
So, I would very much appreciate if you could share your thoughts regarding the GTS range or the well known F2 profiles in a typical rally spec engine which should have a great medium range torque and reasonably high bhp = good balance.
Regards,
Kerem
I do believe, just because Twin carb setups can handle so much better (more) lift at TDC, some of the F2 stockcar cams can be a good rally camshaft. Again, as far as I also been reading the camshaft data. For sure they are not "road cams".
Dirk, thank you very much.
I will try to gather little more information about the F2 cam profiles if anyone actually mapped a cam from that range then I will try it on the engine. Searching for different profiles has always been nice but apparently there are not many people using the Kent GTS range ( apart from the rather famous GTS4 ) which is surprising since that range always seemed quite interesting on paper to me.
old posts, but just got here by googly google. I remeber the times at Baarlo. Great it was, a shame it closed 1998. I know Laurence van der Velde with his Escort mk1. And for the standard class
i knew there must have been some "bending the rules" habit from a lot of racers. They were fast for so called standard 2.0 ltr. Anyhow, nice to read about how some cheated to gain more power.
I don't mind the tricks, we all love to find something to make it faster without knowing. There were some fights in the paddock erea, and there were some people not to mess with. But in all, it was
great racing. Laurence Had his OHC Pinto very well build back in the days, with connection to Esslinger engineering. The Escort mk1 car had been sold to Augsburg Germany after he moved to a
For Fiesta shell. After that he'd run a Opel Corsa shell when 2.0 ltr 16Valve was in hotrod division, his last one before he quit racing.
For the camshaft, i have a Newman PH 4 cam in my CVH engine wich is my current project. It is on the edge of road use, don't expect comfort, but it can and will do on road. Tickover may be a bit
lumpy, but it makes good mid to top end power. I use custom made roller rockers on my CVH. However the big challenge is the clutch setup to drive on public roads.
Last edited by gid; 29-08-2019 at 17:55.
Hi Gid
Yes, it was extreme nice racing in Baarlo, probably best we ever had to me. I was also big fan of the Escort MKI of Laurence. I was Pinto fan so I had to.
And yes, in so called "standard class" a lot of bigger engines where used. Must have been a lot of 2,3 Ltr. And indeed, in this class, I've seen some extreme fighting. You better did not messed with those guy's. But it was nice racing.
I use to run a Sun Ram 12 rolling road many moons ago well over 20 in fact ... i use to do quite a few F2 Hotrods with the Pinto in there and a 38 DGAS. I use to see regularly 165-168hp with 2 particular engine builders and that's with 6-7% fuel at the top end and about 7800-8000 rpm and they use to hold together for a good time only requiring a top & tail when the ringlands use to start failing. Camwise cant remember now but they was Kent or Piper ...
F2’s didn’t allow use of a 38Dgas only 32/36
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks