To be fair, that's a bit of a misquote. My estimated 360whp limit right now is fueling related because I'm lacking a decent number of significant...
The only way I can convince myself that it's not a crazy idea to upsize the valves is that I would be using all new valves anyways and it's not...
That's what I'm saying. Larger cams and some mild port work will increase flow...which will lower my boost since the turbo is already nearly...
Since you can theoretically push the IVC event later with more boost...I'm now curious if the simulator will show similar results with and without...
That's my bad. You posted a grind that was "close to your current grind but with a lot more lift". So I shouldn't have been referencing values...
Comparing our grinds, it seems you are running a lot more overlap than i am (22deg more in fact). Although you did say your grind has some VVT...
I'm leaning towards the CS cam dyno numbers were based on a boost tune, not load tune. Because you'll notice in the attached shot of SP63 tests...
I will inquire with supertech what their valves weigh, both intake (nitrided 35mm and 37.5mm) and exhaust (inconel 30mm and 32mm). Perhaps we can...
35/30 is correct for stock. I was wanting to do a full rebuild on my head anyways, so I am strongly considering bumping the exhaust valves to...
I didn't figure increasing the exhaust valve size would cause a shrouding issue when it would still be 3mm smaller than the intake valve.
Thanks for plugging away at those number for me. I plan to run +2mm exhaust valves with port work to accommodate them to get more exhaust flow....
ya, obviously adding in VVT would bring up the low-mid range. my grind with full VVT IVO 38 BTDC (0.005} / 18 BTDC (0.050) IVC 26 ABDC (0.050) /...
i wonder if it's the 120deg lobe separation angle that making mine look so off. stock and piper are 115deg, yours is 111deg. a wider LSA...
ewww. that looks like garbage. not sure how though. it's basically a de-tuned Piper S2, but more aggressive than CS cams.
Separate names with a comma.
