Modded Mustang Forums banner
41 - 60 of 116 Posts
try my new cam on for size

262in 275ex .738"/.767" 112 lsa. Solid roller
 
I've wondered about how much cam you can run before the pistons need to be notched or replaced. Does anyone know how much lift and LSA are the limits ?
 
that would be kinda hard since a circle cant really be more than 360*
 
I've wondered about how much cam you can run before the pistons need to be notched or replaced. Does anyone know how much lift and LSA are the limits ?
only way to tell this is to check ptv with a solid lash adjuster.

but generally, a wide lsa will increase ptv.. thats why top fuel cars run a super wide lsa... to fit in serious lift and duration.
 
I've known there are variables for a long time now, I just didn't put them until now. :sorry

I don't need to use the search function though because there are proven setups which have made within 10-15 rwhp of 400rwhp without an intake manifold and basically all of those mods. I'm not trying to be a dyno queen here, I'm just stating my point. I'm not going to say the names of those few people, because whenever I do, it always seems someone is right there to ride my butt and say that the number is invalid(Ex. The correction factor was standard so that number is BS, every dyno is different, or dyno's are just tuning tools- but the number is what it is, and that stays)

I just don't want to get into an argument, I really want to help others with this thread.

Just tell them to meet me at a track and we will show them invalid. ;)

Remember, any correction faction you use doesnt mean ****. Its like i told you before the guys that worry about which CF is used are the real dyno queens of the forums.

Even at SAE correction your not going to make those numbers on a 100 degree day with high humidity or at 5000ft. So its an arbitrary number anyway you look at it, concocted to be able to compare cars on paper.........lol......IE....bench race.

Not to mention, its like i told you, i have a SAE corrected dyno that says 399hp to the wheels, on the same exact mods where I dynoed at 389 on a STD correction dynojet. Any dyno with any correction factor can be off. Which one is correct, the 116.97 is correct. Also if you notice, i always advertise the lower number, the STD number so when they say well if it was sae it would be...i just laugh to myself, to bad the sae corrected dyno was 399.

So just laugh when a guy says dyno numbers don't mean anything unless they are SAE.

Just tell them, actually they mean nothing period no matter what CF is used.
 
I was taught by a top engine builder that high lift is good as long as the head is flowing at that lift. You wouldn't want a .600 lift cam if the head quits flowing at .500.
 
So I guess a custom grind 3v cam with high lift and a wide LSA would be good right?

Edit: Ok, np Rich ;)

I know several people who complain about CF's. :p
Yea me too. Its usually guys with no times in their sigs. Or 12s in their sigs with a blower on the car.

I could care less if people want to think im only making 325rwhp. Actually that would be such a huge accomplishment i wish it were true. yea thats right, i ran 11s @116 on 325rwhp, mustang dyno sae corrected numbers! Good on me right.

Now explain why your blown car did the same with 460rwhp sae corrected. Not to sound like a dick, but some guys dont think before they talk.
 
Discussion starter · #52 · (Edited)
Yea me too. Its usually guys with no times in their sigs. Or 12s in their sigs with a blower on the car.

I could care less if people want to think im only making 325rwhp. Actually that would be such a huge accomplishment i wish it were true. yea thats right, i ran 11s @116 on 325rwhp, mustang dyno sae corrected numbers! Good on me right.

Now explain why your blown car did the same with 460rwhp sae corrected. Not to sound like a dick, but some guys dont think before they talk.
Your not sounding dikish at all, not at all, your just proving a point about the all talk no walk posers. :yes

11's would be possible with 325rwhp on a car with large weight reduction, 15'' bogarts, full suspension, and slicks IMO. It's been close to done with 340-345rwhp on a streetable setup, so why couldn't it be with 325 on a serious drag setup?

Oh and Rich, Mickey is one of those people. :lol

"I dont give a **** about people's std numbers...sae is the only real correction factor"
 
Your not sounding dikish at all, not at all, your just proving a point about the all talk no walk posers. :yes

11's would be possible with 325rwhp on a car with large weight reduction, 15'' bogarts, full suspension, and slicks IMO. It's been close to done with 340-345rwhp on a streetable setup, so why couldn't it be with 325 on a serious drag setup?

Oh and Rich, Mickey is one of those people. :lol

"I dont give a **** about people's std numbers...sae is the only real correction factor"
I like mickey, but it makes my point. No times in his sig. When all you have is a dyno sheet, you gotta defend it like its the gospel.


Lets look at the BS. I have seen poeple claim that sae numbers are 12% lower then STD. That means im at 340rwhp, trapping 116.97 in a 3650lb car.

Then i have heard people say that mustang dynos are 15% lower then a dynojet....ok should i take 27 percent from my 389? Or lets just take 18% for the mustang dyno and SAE cf. im at 317rwhp trapping 116? To begin to see the bs in the theories.

Dude im a bad man if im running 11s in a 3650 lb car with 317rwhp.


Lets call it 3 percent so im at 377 sae corrected.......on what day of the month????

Fact is, i garuntee on the day that car ran 11.7s @116 it was putting 400 to the wheels all day.


Remember the difference between sae and std is simply the conditions they correct too??? either way, last time i checked the weather changes. Reality is, you dont make the same power eveyday, everywhere. CF is only good for comparing cars. And i dont compare my car to another based on any dyno sheet. Cars with less power can beat it, cars with more power will loose to it. Its a argument about nothing, that in the end proves nothing. Also as i pointed out by saying I have a SAE corrected dyno that reads 399 which even i really dont beleive, dynos using SAE CF can still be off. Which shows the problem with mickeys statement, any dyno with any CF, is just a dyno sheet. Useless.
 
Discussion starter · #54 · (Edited)
+1 I agree with all of that. It's just so stupid how so many people put TONS of emphasis on dyno numbers. At least you can have a convo like this. :shiftyeyes

You: I have 389rwhp
Poser: You dynoed with STD correction factor, so your numbers are BS, tell me your numbers SAE
You: Well it doesn't matter because I ran 11.79 in the 1/4. Oh and to fill your dyno number appetite, my SAE numbers are 340rwhp. So you think a 3650lb car would trap 11.79 @ 116 with 340rwhp?

;)

I made this thread to make the posers happy while also providing tech info. LOL
 
Discussion starter · #57 · (Edited)
:funnah
Come on, no picking on our favorite bench racer, he's just trying to "help"...
No seriously I'm trying to help. I study more about which modifications benefit a 3v most HP wise than I do on how a motor works, so that can explain the ill knowledge of duration. Also I'm here to learn right? I've learned a good amount of what I'm interested in, so I decided to share it with you all in this thread. Remember I'm 14, you don't see many my age talking about 3v power gains. ;)


Edit: Check out my new signature
 
+1 I agree with all of that. It's just so stupid how so many people put TONS of emphasis on dyno numbers. At least you can have a convo like this. :shiftyeyes

You: I have 389rwhp
Poser: You dynoed with STD correction factor, so your numbers are BS, tell me your numbers SAE
You: Well it doesn't matter because I ran 11.79 in the 1/4. Oh and to fill your dyno number appetite, my SAE numbers are 340rwhp. So you think a 3650lb car would trap 11.79 @ 116 with 340rwhp?

;)

I made this thread to make the posers happy while also providing tech info. LOL
Truly if search my threads back 2 years. I had a goal to hit 400rwhp n/a. So im not knocking power goals, thats fine.

If you look at the thread where I first hit 389 I had people say, well add this, add that, and you will hit your goal. To me, i didnt care, I had hit my goal I was close to 400. I said that in that thread.

I would have been no more impressed if the dyno said 405....no matter what its just a arbitrary number, close enough.


Plus, I have been on 3 different dynos, on many different days. So i know what my car makes. I dont have one sheet from one day and think that becuase it has a certain CF that its blessed by God for accuracy.

Beleive me, if i could get away with telling people at the track i was on stock cams with bolt ons making 298rwhp.....lol....i would do it.

I only share numbers on here becuaes I know first hand how it was to really not have any dyno numbers to show what mods gained what on these cars.
 
The easiest way to make 400 up na is wait till the new 4v 5.0 is out and swap one in and put a cai and tune with it and hand the new camaro it's ass
 
14? Ok, that's impressive. My own son started early. I guess the only thing further I can say is be careful what you regurgitate, and think clearly before leaping to conclusions. I mean, it seem like you were setup in that post. You have to understand what lift is before thinking that just more lift is "better". Did you know that lift is the rocker arm ratio x camshaft lobe lift. And rocker arm ratio is...? See what I mean? And just looking it up doesn't mean it's easy to understand. There are some cool engine modeling software programs that let you do "what-if" and visualize exactly what some of these things are.

Anyhow, didn't mean to lecture. At 14 I'm glad you're interested in cars and will drop into the driver seat in a few years with some good background knowledge and be a step up on others your age.
 
41 - 60 of 116 Posts