PDA

View Full Version : let's talk dohcs


logan360
12-07-2015, 12:32 AM
Right all, I'm building a boosted dohc. 234. I'm wondering what common problems if any there are with these? I know a high rpm can bend your valves, and **** can get hot internally, but say I've got a squirter block, 230 Pistons, the correct injectors and ford Mustang valve springs, what else could I do in the way of reliability? Looking for around 270 ponies, as the drivetrain (with some abuse) can typically only take around 300. What's this delete kit I hear of where it takes a sprocet/cog out of the system or something? Also what's more reliable, hydraulic or sprung (if exists) tensioner? Cheers for your help chaps.

JohnMc
12-07-2015, 10:55 AM
If you're putting a 16V head on a b230 block, yout can't use either style tensioner. because on the B234, the tensioner mounts on the block, and on the B230 the tensioner mounts on the head. So with the B230 block and the B234 head there's no tensioner anywhere. Yoshifab has a great adapter though, uses Volvo parts of various types (tensioner, idler, t-belt itself) and is a slam dunk solution for that issue. It's neither sprung or hydraulic thout - you twist the center of the tensioner around to tighten and then clamp it in place.

What sort of drivetrain do you have? A Volvo manual trans won't handle that sort of HP, and an AW70 will be sweating bullets. AW71 with accumulator mod might handle it (not very familiar with the automatics).

What sort of car are you putting this in? The B234 intake is rather bulky, and by reputation doesn't work that well in boosted applications - the with end cylinders getting fed less air than the centers.

JohnMc
12-07-2015, 12:31 PM
And on the off chance your squirter block is a B234 block that you plan on putting b230 pistons into (assuming you mean B230FT pistons for the dish and lower comrpession ratio) then:
1) You'd need to carve some valve reliefs into the B230Ft pistons. Some have run without, some have run with incorrectly sized reliefs on the intake side (which would have hit if they'd ever been used), but the safety margin is razor thin between nothing and bent valves. Reliefs give you some more room for valve timing errors/experimentation. But still, they don't really help if the t-belt breaks. That still mangles stuff regardless.
2) You may be talking about removal of the balance shafts and their associated drive belt. Sometimes that belt fails, and the bits of broken belt get in the way of the timing belt, and then everything crunches. Easy as can be to just not install that belt, slightly more difficult to remove the balance shafts themselves and drill/tap/plug the oil feeds in the block for their bearings.

logan360
12-07-2015, 05:57 PM
Yes a 234 block and the balance shaft was the one I was talking about. It's going into a volvo 360. With 2 CT12 turbos off a friends supra. I am talking 230 FT Pistons and had completely forgot about valve reliefs (cheers for reminding me) and I will be looking at a custom FFP for intake. I will have the 234 Pistons so will get the reliefs cut to match them regarding depth, even though I will be running the dish, for extra precautions. I just don't want this motor to break really. Dohcs are so bloody hard to find over here, I finally got one and I don't want to destroy the thing. He says adding two turbos.

JohnMc
12-07-2015, 06:05 PM
The dish and the valve reliefs are in different parts of the piston (mostly).

Main risk to the head is from a broken or slipped timing belt. The turbos will likely blow up the bottom end if you lean on it too hard or make a few tuning mistakes along the way.

Which brings up... H-beam rods? Forged pistons instead of OEM cast? The H-beams are quite a bit stronger than the stock rods, even the stronger 13MM rods. When people blow up engines, it's very often due to a rod breaking from the abuse. Next, forged pistons. They have the ability to bend and yield when subjected to detonation. As I've found out (hah... :( ). Bending vs. breaking is the difference between the car coming up a bit lame (low compression, lots of blow by, maybe some knocking noises) after some hooning and some iffy tuning, vs. the cast pistons breaking and everything blowing up.

John V, outside agitator
12-07-2015, 06:10 PM
If OEM never get twin turbos to work right---and only put them on to make some Japanese/Hong Kong/Singapore rich boy get a stiffy when he looks at the badge on the boot----why would you want to make so much trouble for yourself?
Particularly for such modest output---which we know can be done in a n.a. car with a little work---probably less work in the case of a little bugger like that 360.....and then maybe the gearbox might last in it.

(I know even in nice cars (240) with the steering stuff, even normal turbo is a pain---can't imagine it being easy in one of those..)

Turbo is supposed to be "the easy way" to increase TORQUE
But it alwaus costs something..
N.a. around here is for 99% unknown territory...
But I think the costs are same, just spent in different areas.

John V, outside agitator
12-07-2015, 06:12 PM
The dish and the valve reliefs are in different parts of the piston (mostly).

Main risk to the head is from a broken or slipped timing belt. The turbos will likely blow up the bottom end if you lean on it too hard or make a few tuning mistakes along the way.

Which brings up... H-beam rods? Forged pistons instead of OEM cast? The H-beams are quite a bit stronger than the stock rods, even the stronger 13MM rods. When people blow up engines, it's very often due to a rod breaking from the abuse. Next, forged pistons. They have the ability to bend and yield when subjected to detonation. As I've found out (hah... :( ). Bending vs. breaking is the difference between the car coming up a bit lame (low compression, lots of blow by, maybe some knocking noises) after some hooning and some iffy tuning, vs. the cast pistons breaking and everything blowing up.


Agreed.
And my rods are the best.. Longest and strongest.
And they are in now 3 or 4 ex-works Volvo Group A touring cars---including the best one in Australia---formerly Dick Prince's car --now having been sold.

Karl Buchka
12-07-2015, 06:13 PM
Maybe you're thinking about the balance shaft delete? There's no kit per-se, but the process is pretty simple.

With each balance shaft removed there's a small feed port and a larger drain port below it. I just boogered up the feed port with my MIG welder. I plugged the drain port with a 240 wheel stud that I cut the threaded portion off of and some epoxy.

Block is upside down in this pic.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kRGugDpMpUc/UgcYyU3q3_I/AAAAAAAAd6o/BxR1YOUDCbw/s800-Ic42/photo%2525202.JPG

Remember that the stock balance shaft crank pulley should be kept in place to maintain proper stackup.

The timing belt pulleys on B234s are kinda weak. You should consider getting a billet steel one. KLRacing has them.

The first-gen oil pump pulleys are also a point of failure. Here's a comparison pic showing the difference (newer on top):
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M52x5jo1YmY/UjUlIvzq2II/AAAAAAAAfbA/jcas4JQzqtc/s800-Ic42/IMG_0944.JPG

I don't have the part number for the newer pulley, but it superceeded the old one, so finding it at the dealer shouldn't be hard. It's also recommended to upgrade the bolt to a 12.9 and overtorque it slightly.

The B204FT came from the factory with a windage tray that bolts on to a B234. The part number is 3531227.

logan360
12-08-2015, 12:39 AM
Why twins? Because it hasn't been done very often, it's unique. I'm not sure what H beams were came in, not sure what year this 234 block is either. Wasn't planning on forged anything tbh. The car will be run on either 95 or 98 octane fuel, which is our higher side, but I didn't think 270 would be an issue with the stock Pistons, but had thought about the rods. I've done my research, and if I want to push it past 270-300, and the rear end fails, Porsche 924 or 944 rear end is a suitable match to replace the factory train. What's the pricing on a billet belt pulley? And off what would I find a newer oil pump pulleys? Dealers want the earth for everything here. 800 nzd for a head gasket, by itself.

nordmaschine
12-08-2015, 03:06 AM
Maybe you're thinking about the balance shaft delete? There's no kit per-se, but the process is pretty simple.

With each balance shaft removed there's a small feed port and a larger drain port below it. I just boogered up the feed port with my MIG welder. I plugged the drain port with a 240 wheel stud that I cut the threaded portion off of and some epoxy.

Block is upside down in this pic.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kRGugDpMpUc/UgcYyU3q3_I/AAAAAAAAd6o/BxR1YOUDCbw/s800-Ic42/photo%2525202.JPG

Remember that the stock balance shaft crank pulley should be kept in place to maintain proper stackup.

The timing belt pulleys on B234s are kinda weak. You should consider getting a billet steel one. KLRacing has them.

The first-gen oil pump pulleys are also a point of failure. Here's a comparison pic showing the difference (newer on top):
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M52x5jo1YmY/UjUlIvzq2II/AAAAAAAAfbA/jcas4JQzqtc/s800-Ic42/IMG_0944.JPG

I don't have the part number for the newer pulley, but it superceeded the old one, so finding it at the dealer shouldn't be hard. It's also recommended to upgrade the bolt to a 12.9 and overtorque it slightly.

The B204FT came from the factory with a windage tray that bolts on to a B234. The part number is 3531227.

Updated pulley part number: 9135112

49,50$, IIRC.

I plugged returns with 16mm freeze plugs and dab of RTV, feed port on intake side with M12 bolt, exhaust side M6 grub. I like the idea of being able to return shafts at some point, though no one ever is going to, so your method rocks.

But something tells me he's 13 and isn't going to do this any time soon.

bgpzfm142
12-08-2015, 08:12 AM
Updated pulley part number: 9135112

49,50$, IIRC.

And it's made from Mother Volvo's finest Unobtanium.

When an Aussie <strike>stealer</strike> dealer wanted $190 AUD + GST for one (and a 50% deposit up front before ordering it, if you please!) he told me there was one left in a German warehouse. I decided to try elsewhere, only to find that a chap on this board got the very last one from that same warehouse in Germany several months ago.

John V, outside agitator
12-08-2015, 12:17 PM
Why twins? Because it hasn't been done very often,

it's unique..

http://www.quinncreative.com/wp-content/uploads/unique2.png


The time and money and I'll say it ( you're NZer, so I'm going to assume you aren't the typical, babied since birth, never had the word NO spoken to him, insecure American whiner who regards ANY and ALL words posed as a question or not enthusiastically supporting any whim idea as an life and ego threatening attack)--wasted effort you will dump into the not so unique idea of twin turbos, you could buy some decent internal parts---pistons and rods---and have a motor that will work and work really really well with ZERO or ONE turbo..

The ego stimulating "belief" that some idea is unique, and that is a reason to do anything is a bad sign.. A sign of something not very well thought out..And things not thought out means things probably will never get finished...

Here, you may be pissed, but this is a good guideline on builds, engines or whole cars:

"A good plan today, violently executed, is better than a perfect plan tomorrow"..

That is, of course, presuming you want to one day DRIVE the car and impress yourself---or if you want to wank off over it for years and get the adulation of all the whole Intra-web...

Personally, I like pounding on cars--and the work part is a neccasary evil to be able to DRIVE them...
But what the stuff do I know, Fred?

nordmaschine
12-08-2015, 02:11 PM
What John said... Picture*1000And it's made from Mother Volvo's finest Unobtanium.

When an Aussie <strike>stealer</strike> dealer wanted $190 AUD + GST for one (and a 50% deposit up front before ordering it, if you please!) he told me there was one left in a German warehouse. I decided to try elsewhere, only to find that a chap on this board got the very last one from that same warehouse in Germany several months ago.
I was that chap.

I got another one some two months ago, actually.

Hate me please.

classicswede
12-08-2015, 04:22 PM
Listen to what John is saying. It will save you a lot of expense and allow you to put that money into building the engine right. I could get one of those gears machined up for you if you need it.

bgpzfm142
12-08-2015, 06:13 PM
What John said... Picture*1000
I was that chap.

I got another one some two months ago, actually.

Hate me please.

Is it time for a colourful metaphor? ;-) Hate? Nah, but perhaps a while back I'd have expressed a wee bit of teeth-gnashing, green-tinged envy. :-P Ah, well, things worked out well in the end anyway - it was a good excuse to buy another complete B234 for spares which popped up at a reasonable price.

Anyway, fellow Antipodean with a 360, I agree with what John said so much that I'm placing an order next week with him for rods, CP pistons, and a pair of his Suupa Bitchin' steel flywheels next week, when a certain long-awaited cheque clears. (Would've placed my order earlier, but the USD to Aussie peso exchange rate isn't going back to its glory days like I'd hoped it would). Doing these things properly the first time means they only have to be done once.

If memory serves, space is hardly the final frontier in a 360's engine bay at the best of times. A 16V head will eat a lot of the little it has. Which makes The Outside Agitator's point about avoiding over-complication for the sake of being unique even more prudent.

BTW logan360, what have you considered using in the camshafts department?

John V, outside agitator
12-08-2015, 08:20 PM
Is it time for a colourful metaphor? ;-) Hate? Nah, but perhaps a while back I'd have expressed a wee bit of teeth-gnashing, green-tinged envy. :-P Ah, well, things worked out well in the end anyway - it was a good excuse to buy another complete B234 for spares which popped up at a reasonable price.

Anyway, fellow Antipodean with a 360, I agree with what John said so much that I'm placing an order next week with him for rods, CP pistons, and a pair of his Suupa Bitchin' steel flywheels next week, when a certain long-awaited cheque clears. (Would've placed my order earlier, but the USD to Aussie peso exchange rate isn't going back to its glory days like I'd hoped it would). Doing these things properly the first time means they only have to be done once.

If memory serves, space is hardly the final frontier in a 360's engine bay at the best of times. A 16V head will eat a lot of the little it has. Which makes The Outside Agitator's point about avoiding over-complication for the sake of being unique even more prudent.

BTW logan360, what have you considered using in the camshafts department?

Oi Fred, you going be going turbo or gonna be Abbey Normal and go for a 16v on ITBs and rev it up?
What sorta octane in yer fuel-- No, the CAR's fuel ya silly bastid!

bgpzfm142
12-08-2015, 10:28 PM
Oi Fred, you going be going turbo or gonna be Abbey Normal and go for a 16v on ITBs and rev it up?

Can't be Abbey, since I'm not of the religious right. :-D It shalt be a jurbo (just the one), running about 8:1 static within a 1st oversize B230 bore. Torque to be obtained via mucho gusto from a suitable snail. IOW, big boost, low static compression. I'm aiming for about 300 lb/ft (or 405 Nm as we say) so the T5 won't break. 142s are light, so it should go okay.

What sorta octane in yer fuel-- No, the CAR's fuel ya silly bastid!

What they flog over here as 98, which is 98 RON. E85 can be got, but not easily around where I live... and I don't feel like emptying a tank primarily for the purpose of refilling it (thus interfering with time better suited to personal octane intake). So I foresee the need for water injection.... for the car!

So... how many real moneys do you require for -
- a set of suitable rods
- a set of CP pistons with valve reliefs in them, and rings
- a Suupa Bitchin' steel flywheel?

John V, outside agitator
12-08-2015, 11:22 PM
Can't be Abbey, since I'm not of the religious right. :-D It shalt be a jurbo (just the one), running about 8:1 static within a 1st oversize B230 bore. Torque to be obtained via mucho gusto from a suitable snail. IOW, big boost, low static compression. I'm aiming for about 300 lb/ft (or 405 Nm as we say) so the T5 won't break. 142s are light, so it should go okay.



What they flog over here as 98, which is 98 RON. E85 can be got, but not easily around where I live... and I don't feel like emptying a tank primarily for the purpose of refilling it (thus interfering with time better suited to personal octane intake). So I foresee the need for water injection.... for the car!

So... how many real moneys do you require for -
- a set of suitable rods
- a set of CP pistons with valve reliefs in them, and rings
- a Suupa Bitchin' steel flywheel?

Sounds like a well thought out plan...I've written a number of times about the 'orrible effect of these miserable turbo inlet restrictors rally maniacs have to contend with and how once the size reached 34mm restrictor and the poor motors would not really make any poop above maybe 5200 rpm, everybody fingered out if they won't rev, bugger revving and make the mid-range torque monsters with really high static compression, eye popping compressor ratios, and loadsa boost--like 3 bar:omg:...or so:oogle:
And it came to pass that some engines were happy to do 10+ comp and 3 bar and some were a constant fight...the key element in which were happy was they all had bores no more than 86mm. And those that were unhappy were those--like YBG Cosworth in those Frods and EJ20 in Sub-a-rat which have 90,8mm and 92mm respectively... Those two were limited to about "9,1 to 9,15 comp--and I mean it" said a WRC engine builder/tuner guy in beautiful Essex FORD COUNTRY!!!! FREEDOM!!!!
(geezas spossed to be a Scot but we know better, eh)
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/35277212.jpg

I asked this famous guy "Oi what about us poor sods wif 96mm bores, eh squire?"
He said "Bugger me 96mm wot da fuq? I'd say no more than 8:1 if you intend on givin it fun amount of boost and then flogging the beast..And min 98 okt, too"

Interestingly, since you mentioned Ford and rally, when Ford switched from the tarted up CVH with a pretty 16v head to the REALLY nice:nod: Duratec all alloy thing--which has 87.5mm bore, for WRC they sleeved the thing to 85mm and corrected stroke to 88--which just so happens to be the old Misterbitchy 4G63 Evobitchi motor--a paragon of power..and happy to make 3 bar--and gobs of the desirable ft/lbs..

So a set of pistons complete---and just for the sake of the rings I advise going 96,5mm not Volvos whacked out 96,3---wif dish and reliefs and round wire locks---not the gross disgusting flat circlips or Spiro-loc junk pins etc is ---as far as I know---$720.

Set of rods with big manly 7/16" rod bolts......$400

Balanced steel flywheel with a variety of pressure plate patterns for affordable pressure plates,............$340

And post would be probabaly around $130-140..

And I know you have greedy parasitical bastids who want to squeeze every penny from ya --having sent a fair number of things down there and we can discuss via email ways to keep them happy..Never lie to a bureaucrat bastid when half the truth will do.
;-)

Mueller
12-09-2015, 12:17 AM
John, you seem to be wasting your time, from a quick read it looks like the OP has no intention on upgrading the internals....

Perhaps afraid of doing any real engine work or wants to invest all his money on things people see when he opens his hood? (or is it bonnet over there?)

John V, outside agitator
12-09-2015, 12:26 AM
John, you seem to be wasting your time, from a quick read it looks like the OP has no intention on upgrading the internals....

Perhaps afraid of doing any real engine work or wants to invest all his money on things people see when he opens his hood? (or is it bonnet over there?)

Well I said I saw what I call certain 'markers' in the NZ guys words that means itsa high chance its all a wank-fest..

But the Lurker-to-poster ratio round these parts is pretty high, so discussion I hope benefits those other guys, the ones who want to actually drive their cars..

Can't win 'em all.

bgpzfm142
12-09-2015, 04:03 PM
John, you seem to be wasting your time, from a quick read it looks like the OP has no intention on upgrading the internals....

Perhaps afraid of doing any real engine work or wants to invest all his money on things people see when he opens his hood? (or is it bonnet over there?)

Bonnet. The hood is the driver (short for 'hoodlum'). ;-)

It's unfortunate that he didn't wish to talk DOHC camshafts. While there's plenty of data
around for 8V cams, I haven't been able to find enough data on 16V cams to be able to
compare the numbers on equal terms.

However, I thumped all the numbers I could find into an Excel spreadsheet.

For example, the B234 UI/UA set has a lift of 9.38mm and an advertised duration of 268°,
and the valve opening and closing events are documented.

OTOH, the B204FT FI/FA set has lift of 6.81 mm (intake) and 7.45mm (exhaust), opens the
inlet at 12.9° ATDC and exhaust at 31.2° BBDC... and, well, that's about all I could find on
them.

When it comes to the AQ171 cams there's not a lot of data I could find on them, although It
Is Claimed By People (yes, the ubiquitous People) that they are Better Than Standard,
whatever that means. But when it comes to finding out and documenting the actual
numbers for them, as well as other things, there are a lot of blank spaces.

See?

http://i.imgur.com/wDqAAVW.png

And with the numbers that vendors like to publish, it's difficult for a tinkerer like myself to
compare apples to apples. (Although Cat Cams, bless 'em, seem to publish more
extensive data about their items than what I have listed above).

Might be wrong about this, but I read somewhere that the ideal cams for a boosted
applications had less overlap when compared with NA performance cams, but instead
focused having on greater lift than standard NA units. Yet the B204FT has less lift than
the NA cams. :wtf:

So, people out there with B230 16V turbos and those in the know, I seek your guidance.
What cams are you using? On what fuel? Mechanical or regular tappets? Standard size
or oversized valves? And what kind of results are you getting at what boost levels?

JohnMc
12-09-2015, 04:16 PM
Had stock cams on for a while, which were nice.

Thought I wanted something more, so I stuck some PZ cams on. Something was wrong there, I jsut took the stock cams out, left the hydraulic lifters in place, and then stuck the PZ cams in. Engine ran very poorly. I double, triple checked the cam timing, all spot on. Idled with no vacuum at all (90 kpa?), had no power at low rpms, but if provoked would spool and rev rather violently. I put maybe 15 miles on these cams, trying to figure out what was wrong. Then when I was pulling the cam gear off one to put the stock cams back on, I broke the snout. Thus ended my brief experiment with PZ cams. I almost suspect the base circle was too large for the lifters, and the valves were hanging open a little. Something sketchy.

Then on a later build, I thought I'd tray some 'race' cams that some guy on ebay was selling cheaply. Schneider regrinds. I got some solid lifters to go with them. A bit of a PITA to set up, and I had to get some unusually thick lash caps to go on the valve stems to make up for the missing base circle from the regrind. Yeah.... PITA. And the cams themselves were a bit of a disappointment. At that time I still had a crappy log manifold and a chinaBay knockoff GT30R turbo, so perhaps the top end of the rev range was choked up a bit by a lack of flow there. And these cams were very peaky. The car became a rather violent on/off switch. At low rpms, the cams made the engine absolutely gutless, and reluctant to spool up. Like open the door and stick your foot out to kick it along to get it going slow. Then at some point it would suddenly come to life and scream like a banshee. All or nothing. I had adjustable cam gears and experimented a bunch. Went from bad to worse back to bad. I very carefully degreed them in according to Schneider's specs. They were merely bad there. Sort of entertaining, and I guess if I used it as a race engine that lived between 4000 - 8000 rpms at all times they'd be OK. But they weren't OK for what I was doing with the car.

Now I'm back to stock cams again, and (for ease of setup) hydraulic lifters. With a much nicer hot side now (BW EFR turbo and divided scrol T4 tubular header). Not sure how much HP it is now, it feels a lot faster than it used to with the old setup (dynoed at 300 whp). I'd have to guess it's somewhere around 350? This is at 15 - 18 psi of boost.

John V, outside agitator
12-09-2015, 05:01 PM
Bonnet. The hood is the driver (short for 'hoodlum'). ;-)

It's unfortunate that he didn't wish to talk DOHC camshafts. While there's plenty of data
around for 8V cams, I haven't been able to find enough data on 16V cams to be able to
compare the numbers on equal terms.

However, I thumped all the numbers I could find into an Excel spreadsheet.

For example, the B234 UI/UA set has a lift of 9.38mm and an advertised duration of 268°,
and the valve opening and closing events are documented.

OTOH, the B204FT FI/FA set has lift of 6.81 mm (intake) and 7.45mm (exhaust), opens the
inlet at 12.9° ATDC and exhaust at 31.2° BBDC... and, well, that's about all I could find on
them.

When it comes to the AQ171 cams there's not a lot of data I could find on them, although It
Is Claimed By People (yes, the ubiquitous People) that they are Better Than Standard,
whatever that means. But when it comes to finding out and documenting the actual
numbers for them, as well as other things, there are a lot of blank spaces.

See?

http://i.imgur.com/wDqAAVW.png

And with the numbers that vendors like to publish, it's difficult for a tinkerer like myself to
compare apples to apples. (Although Cat Cams, bless 'em, seem to publish more
extensive data about their items than what I have listed above).

Might be wrong about this, but I read somewhere that the ideal cams for a boosted
applications had less overlap when compared with NA performance cams, but instead
focused having on greater lift than standard NA units. Yet the B204FT has less lift than
the NA cams. :wtf:

So, people out there with B230 16V turbos and those in the know, I seek your guidance.
What cams are you using? On what fuel? Mechanical or regular tappets? Standard size
or oversized valves? And what kind of results are you getting at what boost levels?


When is appropriate to use "hood" as opposed to bogan,? Our gentle readers may not be familiar with the implications so there's this to help them out, me being such a helpful guy:
n Tasmania, Australia there are 2 breeds of bogans, theres the typical male "aussie" style bogan: who wears "wife basher" shirts (singlet tops) with many torn holes, tight stone wash jeans or some other pants, usually either wearing one or tied around the waist or slung over there shoulder a flanelette (flannie) shirt or holden/ford tops, and a pair of old blundstone boots (blunnies) and usually drives and old Holden Commodore or Ford Falcon. And swear the faces off, usually every second word is f**k. And are commonly seen with a can of VB in there hand.
Then theres the 2nd type usually teens who are seen decked out in dada, wutang, fox racing, eminem plastic crap, and the baggy wutang, fubu, emineme brand etc jeans and usually topped off with a cap of some kind, thinking that they're so damn cool but they're not. The female version is jeans that are so tight like you would not believe, have their hair pulled back and slicked down with a whole tub of gel except for 2 front bits which are pulled out and are the same length as the rest of their hair (commonly called "bogan bits") and wear dada, wutang, fubu, fox racing etc, jumpers 10 times too big for them and wear whole stick of eye liner on each eye and way too much foundation and are seen pushing prams around followed by a colony of young children (all to differnt fathers)
My god there is so many bogans around Hobart! It's like Bogan Central or something!
or
Nah, not going there to many scary bogans around!


As for cams might I suggest you take a gander at: Kent Cams oddly enough in Kent, in Pommieland and the cam if for that large bore, short stroke Ford DOHC 16v thing that works so well Why Be Gee?

Part No. Part Type Description
BD8 Camshaft GPN Specification
Applications GPN Specification
Power Band 1500 - 6000
Cam Lift(mm) 8.50mm Inlet/Exhaust
Valve Lift(mm) 8.50mm Inlet/Exhaust
Duration 241 Deg Inlet/Exhaust<--------------------advertised
Timing 6/55 50/11<----------------------well, well well, very mild indeed,, eh?
Full Lift Inlet 115 Deg ATDC/Exh 110 Deg BTDC
VC (mm) 0.00mm Inlet/Exhaust
LTDC 0.23mm Inlet/ 0.33mm Exhaust <---OH dear! Lift at TDC a whopping 0,23mm
Retainer Material Steel
Pulley Material Alloy
VSType Double
VSInstalled Height 34.0mm
VSNomSolid Height 20.0mm
VSNominal ID 16.0mm
VSDiameter 28.8mm
BHP Gain N/A
LinkRefAddInfo N/A

Linie:
http://www.kentcams.com/product-details/790/Camshaft/Camshaft/BD8-GPN-Specification-/

OK I know they're Pommes and we all know about them eh, say no more SAY NO MORE...But sometimes those Pommie bastids fool ya and do some prestty clever things..
Yeah so I think the motorway -toned n.a. B234 cams are pooo....and much more manly rip snortin powerbands could be had with something like the above cam: very very mild.

So grunt thru the mild timing, revs via the nice ports/flow..

Seems to work that combo in that Why Be Ghee powered Squierra sitting over that way<------about 20m.

logan360
12-09-2015, 06:23 PM
Ok so I have my block now and will see what oil pump pulley is on it, as I'm not sure what year it came out of.

I am kinda offended at the stereotype, that's more Aucklanders. I was raised with manners, or a belt. Regarding doing it because it's unique, I'm not doing it BECAUSE It's unique, I'm doing it because I WANT to be unique. Twins hasn't been done a lot.* Singles have been (and I know for a reason blah blah blah)

It is going to get finished. That's why I'm here. to get knowledge and advice. I'm new to these Dohcs,* and I want it to last.

I'll pm you on facebook about that gear soon dai, cheers.

Yea I'm aware space has been an issue for many people, especially with that heater box there, I believe it can be replaced with a 7 inch fan on the firewall if I'm not mistaken?

As for cams, I'll deal with that later. One of my grandfather's cohorts used to work at a volvo repair that's closed down, so through my grandfather I've brought his approx 133 parts (granddad counted as he reorganized the boxes) some second hand, some NOS, with around 7 camshafts, so waiting to see if any of them are good to me.

Also, regarding not upgrading the internals, I was under the impression these rods and Pistons could take a little of a beating, not aomething over stock being too much to kill em, but appears I was mistaken. So what brand do you guys recommend for internals? I would say ARP bolts all round? But for what else? Also I'm getting a flywheel machined here. So no need for that.

That above cam does look quite nice for road and a bit of a thrash, I like.

I have also been informed mustang 4.4 valve springs, yes or was I misinformed?

I have also kinda ditch the twin idea, with the intake mani am I correct to stay away from stainless, I hear a bit about cracking. Or is that mainly because they went too thin?

bgpzfm142
12-09-2015, 10:27 PM
When is appropriate to use "hood" as opposed to bogan,?

Hoods are basically crooked bogans and they're far more antisocial. A bogan (in fact, many bogans) can be found at the shopping mall; a hood will be robbing it.

As for cams might I suggest you take a gander at: Kent Cams oddly enough in Kent, in Pommieland and the cam if for that large bore, short stroke Ford DOHC 16v thing that works so well Why Be Gee?

Part No. Part Type Description
BD8 Camshaft GPN Specification
Applications GPN Specification
Power Band 1500 - 6000
Cam Lift(mm) 8.50mm Inlet/Exhaust
Valve Lift(mm) 8.50mm Inlet/Exhaust
Duration 241 Deg Inlet/Exhaust<--------------------advertised
Timing 6/55 50/11<----------------------well, well well, very mild indeed,, eh?
Full Lift Inlet 115 Deg ATDC/Exh 110 Deg BTDC
VC (mm) 0.00mm Inlet/Exhaust
LTDC 0.23mm Inlet/ 0.33mm Exhaust <---OH dear! Lift at TDC a whopping 0,23mm
Retainer Material Steel
Pulley Material Alloy
VSType Double
VSInstalled Height 34.0mm
VSNomSolid Height 20.0mm
VSNominal ID 16.0mm
VSDiameter 28.8mm
BHP Gain N/A
LinkRefAddInfo N/A

Linie:
http://www.kentcams.com/product-details/790/Camshaft/Camshaft/BD8-GPN-Specification-/

OK I know they're Pommes and we all know about them eh, say no more SAY NO MORE...

Yeah, well, sometimes Poms can be real Kents. :-D Especially when they don't offer Volvo cams. But these Pommies do know how to make cars go. After all, Holden farmed Commodore development out to TWR, and Ford over here did ditto with Tickfords UK, so there ya have it.

The figures above are for the BD8 Grupp N* spec cam for the YBG, which I dutifully looked up on the Kent Cams website. However looking at the BD10 cam, it's interesting to note that by increasing the TDC lift from 0.23mm IN/0.33mm EX to 0.66mm IN/ 0.96mm EX and fiddling the timing a bit and increasing the valve lift a smidgin, they claim a gain of 22 BHP. The rev range is the same as the BD8 too.

(* Do cams need to be homologated in Group N?)

So, with all that info considered, the Cat Cams 7900604 seems to be the BD10 equivalent for a B230 16V+T.

http://www.catcams.com/products/camshafts
/datasheet.aspx?ENGINE_id=215&CAMSETUP_id=905 (http://www.catcams.com/products/camshafts/datasheet.aspx?ENGINE_id=215&CAMSETUP_id=905)

What do you reckon?

JohnMc's experiences with the PZ cams (thanks for posting them btw) do not sound like an endorsement. Nor do his experiences with on/off type performance of the reground race cams, which is reminiscent of how drivers of Grupp A Sierra RS500s used to describe the power delivery of their YBDs back in the day.

Therefore on paper at least, the '604 looks like it ticks all the boxes for me - it uses regular hydraulic tappets, not solids with lash caps; it has more lift than the FI/FA and UI/UA pairs; and its timing is quite close to the BD10. Win! (perhaps)

Has anybody here present used a Cat cam?

JohnMc
12-09-2015, 10:36 PM
The PZ cams really had some sort of setup issue on my car. I'd just taken the stock cams off and stuck them right on. There had to have been some sort of timing issue, or valve gap issue. I'd have gotten to the bottom of it if I hadn't broken the snout off one of them so quickly. Derp.

logan360
12-10-2015, 12:23 AM
I'm not looking for an overly high rpm car, eg I would run a limiter at 5500 most likely, or even 5k. So I don't need an overly high rpm, and too much torque will just kill my driveline quick as. Which I'm hoping not to do. I will have a look at both these sites and see what's suitable for me, thanks for the links chaps.

John V, outside agitator
12-10-2015, 02:33 AM
Hoods are basically crooked bogans and they're far more antisocial. A bogan (in fact, many bogans) can be found at the shopping mall; a hood will be robbing it.

Thank you for clearing that up...now where do yobs fit in in this constellation of louts?


Yeah, well, sometimes Poms can be real Kents. :-D Especially when they don't offer Volvo cams.

But they will, if they have cores in their hands, put some of the more useful profiles on anything....if it can be done.


But these Pommies do know how to make cars go. After all, Holden farmed Commodore development out to TWR, and Ford over here did ditto with Tickfords UK, so there ya have it.

Yeah always thought it interesting that whenever the Fritzies really need a good cylinderhead, like Mercedes, BMW, Opel, they all go to where they were trying so hard 75 years ago zu ausradieren like the Mercedes and BMW 16v 2300 Group A cars and GM with the excellent XE 2,0. Ironic with the history of the 2 countries,,

The figures above are for the BD8 Grupp N* spec cam for the YBG, which I dutifully looked up on the Kent Cams website. However looking at the BD10 cam, it's interesting to note that by increasing the TDC lift from 0.23mm IN/0.33mm EX to 0.66mm IN/ 0.96mm EX and fiddling the timing a bit and increasing the valve lift a smidgin, they claim a gain of 22 BHP. The rev range is the same as the BD8 too.

OK BD10s are extremely popular cams. But when I was building my Frod Crossways Frewbie-frew I went to "THE MAN" --a guy named Ahmed Bayjoo, born and bred Essex boy who worked for Ford (duddnit everybody in Essex?) at Boreham (Motorsport Headquarters for years, and importantly, all though the glory years of the 3 door Group A cars till the end of the Escort Cosworths...Very astute and straight talking guy...
I was building mine and 2 others at the same time and had 2 more waiting to ship and I asked about cams cause 2 were "sellers" and I knew guys would ask--cause for soem reason everybody thinks you need cams in turbo cars--even before they have driven the things...My car was essentially Group N 1/4...40mm restrictor vs 32mm for Group N and Group A engine and gearbox mounts but otherwise stock (which is prety damn good).
He siad "Wait you said you have Group N gearset and final drive, eh? The run stock cams...
Anything else will hurt bottom end and with a wide ratio box you want as wide a powerband as possible..

Me "OK got it but what should I say to the customers?"

Him "Ask them if they want to make the car slower, that's it. "

(* Do cams need to be homologated in Group N?)

Yes and the Homolgation forms list lift like every 10 degrees...and all that is allowed is STOCK profile---and in Group A it was same until 1 Jan 1986 after which cam was "free".
(built a Group A Saab for WRC OLYMPUS rally in December 1986---had to study the rules a lot, wanted to be squeaky clean. It went into wifeys car a month later)

So, with all that info considered, the Cat Cams 7900604 seems to be the BD10 equivalent for a B230 16V+T.

Yeah but you have a stock wide ratio box so as Ahmed said "you want to make your car slower?"
The stock YB profils are good well past 360-375 hp--which is what they made back when Group N had 38mm restrictor rule..
You said you would be happy with 275 (which is considered Stage 1 in a YB: just a eprom and thats IT.


http://www.catcams.com/products/camshafts
/datasheet.aspx?ENGINE_id=215&CAMSETUP_id=905 (http://www.catcams.com/products/camshafts/datasheet.aspx?ENGINE_id=215&CAMSETUP_id=905)

What do you reckon?

Keep looking especially at the timing figures. Let than GpN thing be your guide..

JohnMc's experiences with the PZ cams (thanks for posting them btw) do not sound like an endorsement. Nor do his experiences with on/off type performance of the reground race cams, which is reminiscent of how drivers of Grupp A Sierra RS500s used to describe the power delivery of their YBDs back in the day.

The Group A cars were roadrace cars....big T4 and a wonderful Getrag close ratio box..
2.37 for 1st gear, and 1:1 top--5th...and they revved the buggers to 8000...

Without anti-lag and a closer box I wouldn't think about those roadracers..

Better to look at cars that drive on actual narrow twisty roads..you know like you have everywhere in NZ..

Therefore on paper at least, the '604 looks like it ticks all the boxes for me - it uses regular hydraulic tappets, not solids with lash caps; it has more lift than the FI/FA and UI/UA pairs; and its timing is quite close to the BD10. Win! (perhaps)

So does the stock cams..Same part number for the tappets between YB and B234--good for 7000 continuous and bursts to past 7500

Has anybody here present used a Cat cam?

Answer in pretty magenta up there.

Think of the box your stuck with..
BROAD delivery
And the CAT cams are Oh Mah Gawd dear....like REALLY nuts..

There's a good reason I spent a bunch of time to make these things:
http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr116/janvanv/Volvosteelcamcores1.jpg

To give us an better price alternative to CAT cams for doing serious profiles like this:
(8v rally cam vs stocker)
http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr116/janvanv/Toppingcam1.jpg?t=1242218433

And to have the chance to RETAIN stock hydraulic followers and do full base circle.

Good thread here: http://www.rallyanarchy.com/phorum/read.php?1,67377
Its sorta nice forum without the kiddies here for the most part...lots of Turbobrickers lurk over there.

volvorsport
12-10-2015, 10:58 AM
are you doing 16v NA cams john ?

linuxman51
12-10-2015, 11:09 AM
I don't have much to allow on the PZ cams other than my experience with them was different than JohnMC's, but then the setup they went in is also a bit different from his as well. small turbo, stock 234 intake. idled with a little less vacuum than I remember the stock car cams idling at, spoolup was fine, power was fine, hard to say if they were better up top or not (They oughta be, at least a little), but for sub 400hp applications there's almost no reason what so ever to use anything but the stock cams, at least in a boosted application.

John V, outside agitator
12-10-2015, 11:08 PM
are you doing 16v NA cams john ?


I made all those cores in a co-op deal with my good friend Lawrence Know of the former and soon to be back Knox Motorsport....The idea was really thinking of "interesting":omg: NA cams since its hard maintaining base circle AND having some serious lumps..
So he contracted me to make the cores---delivered for only 1/3 what he was quoted, and then I turned around and bought a pair of 16v ones..He was working with a place in NASCAR CITY where working with steel cams is common...

You have some evil intentions?... Should we key up Ian Anderson's great hit Aqualung to go with your idea?

I seriously think that the wheezy lazy OEM 16v things--which i believe was aimed at the Continental market that Volvo was making a push to broaden their market share (Sweden , England and Merikuh was their BIG markets and they, like Saab wanted to get into Germany, France and Italy cause thats nealy 180 million people just those three and all three have extremely high speeds on the autobahn, Autoroute:omg: and Autostrada---so they made the 16v and gave it weenie cams that will --eventually---keep revving. I'd say "very German-like" (aka Lame) rather than the Merikun, GB, Swedeish and finnish leaning toward more modest durations and high lift....EVERY turbo 16v running those miserable fawkers seems to have peak torque at around 4200 and very lazy approach...

Its a GOOD head, and a decent size motor either way B204 or B234 and the have a good rod/stroke ratio stock, but they don't hit like the YB with its mild boring 199 duration @ 050...
Over on Sävarturbo theres links to Topplockverkstan or just Google it, and this guy here
http://www.topplocksverkstan.se/bilder/kontaktaoss/PICT1408.jpg
is a really smrat feller..He shows flow in the 16v and shows that exhaust really ''flows too good relativ to intake flow'' and again doesnät claim or assert but shows that with larger 39mm intake valves the head can be make to flow good enough for a bit over 310 hp NA ..
Imagine! with just a little bewst that'd be a gazziliion Haitch Peas with a nice braod powerband...

Anyway, whatcher have in mind--Lawrence still has the cam cores both 8v and 16v

volvorsport
12-11-2015, 06:24 AM
need to match Roy Millington et al . 2.5 16v , 330 hp , irish lanes , flat out .......

bgpzfm142
12-14-2015, 05:45 PM
The PZ cams really had some sort of setup issue on my car. I'd just taken the stock cams off and stuck them right on. There had to have been some sort of timing issue, or valve gap issue. I'd have gotten to the bottom of it if I hadn't broken the snout off one of them so quickly. Derp.

Maybe that cam was bent or weakened to begin with? Although one would presume that the hydraulic tappets would auto-adjust themselves.

Speaking of breakages, the original poster would do well to read up on your Guidance on a turbo for my 16V (http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=270800&page=19) thread when thinking about engine internals. It's been very educational to learn that not all aftermarket gudgeon pins are created equal, or perhaps not equally as strong.

There's someone in in the UK who's offering a PZ cam set for sale at the moment for 200 quid plus shopping. Hmmm. But I'd know to know the numbers on the things before I put money down.

I went a-digging and found your picture of the Schneider spec sheet.

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n535/johnmc5/IMG_7604.jpg

What's interesting there is those numbers seems to be on the total opposite end of the spectrum for the YBG's BD10 cam, and (at a guess because of incomplete figures) the FI/FA factory cams.

JohnMc
12-14-2015, 05:52 PM
Dunno, I recall it breaking very easily. But I was being lazy and was prying the cam gear off. Fairly gently, but still going side to side. POP. I should have been using a puller.

Hydraulic lifters can't adjust to make up for a larger base circle - if they're collapsed all the way and the valve is still slightly open, they can't do anything.

I really just didn't have much time to figure out what was wrong with it. Put it all together, it ran like crap, I drove it around very briefly, double checked cam timing a couple of times (re-verified TDC, checked the timing marks on the valve cover vs. the cam pulleys). Then I broke one of them. ARGH.

That's my build thread (sort of a crappy build thread, I guess) where I broke a wrist pin. Wiseco is still sending out lightweight (.16" wall) wrist pins with their turbo 16V piston sets. IMO you should not use them, and get .2" wall wrist pins, same as a stock FT motor already has.

John V, outside agitator
12-14-2015, 06:44 PM
http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n535/johnmc5/IMG_7604.jpg

What's interesting there is those numbers seems to be on the total opposite end of the spectrum for the YBG's BD10 cam, and (at a guess because of incomplete figures) the FI/FA factory cams.


And BD10s have already been described as a great way to kill bottom end torque in a turbo application--on a car with wide ratio box...


Paraphrasing the old maxim about lead a horse to water and can't make it drink, Mary McCarthy was on some 1950s quiz show and got the question "Use the word 'horticulture' in a sentance.
Apropos to TB and 16v and cams:
"You can lead a whore to culture


But you can't make her think"

Love to see T cam specs done in a nice serious and clear chart like that...

adrianpike
12-14-2015, 06:59 PM
I'm not looking for an overly high rpm car, eg I would run a limiter at 5500 most likely, or even 5k.

b234s don't even get truckin' until like 3k. sounds like you want a k-jet b21ft.
http://mailing.nie-spamuj.eu/mailing.html
FWIW, the rev limiter on my junkyard block b234+t is set at 7500.

bgpzfm142
12-14-2015, 10:29 PM
Let's try making a reply to this again (without a browser crash this time...:grrr:)




Thank you for clearing that up...now where do yobs fit in in this constellation of louts?

The terms 'bogan' and 'yob' are fairly interchangeable.

8<

K BD10s are extremely popular cams. But when I was building my Frod Crossways Frewbie-frew I went to "THE MAN" --a guy named Ahmed Bayjoo, born and bred Essex boy who worked for Ford (duddnit everybody in Essex?) at Boreham (Motorsport Headquarters for years, and importantly, all though the glory years of the 3 door Group A cars till the end of the Escort Cosworths...Very astute and straight talking guy...

Yes, he was Ford's hot chips man. Without fish.

I was building mine and 2 others at the same time and had 2 more waiting to ship and I asked about cams cause 2 were "sellers" and I knew guys would ask--cause for soem reason everybody thinks you need cams in turbo cars--even before they have driven the things...My car was essentially Group N 1/4...40mm restrictor vs 32mm for Group N and Group A engine and gearbox mounts but otherwise stock (which is prety damn good).
He siad "Wait you said you have Group N gearset and final drive, eh? The run stock cams...
Anything else will hurt bottom end and with a wide ratio box you want as wide a powerband as possible..

Me "OK got it but what should I say to the customers?"

Him "Ask them if they want to make the car slower, that's it. "

Well, yeah, all of this makes perfect sense. The plan here is to go T5, with a closer ratio set and the tapered bearing input shaft.

But would you agree or disagree that the YB's BD8 cams are closer in spec to Volvo's B204GT cams?

8<


So, with all that info considered, the Cat Cams 7900604 seems to be the BD10 equivalent for a B230 16V+T.

Yeah but you have a stock wide ratio box so as Ahmed said "you want to make your car slower?"
The stock YB profils are good well past 360-375 hp--which is what they made back when Group N had 38mm restrictor rule..

Ah, yes, but the YBG from the Sapphire was rated at 220 BHP off the showroom floor, a bit like how the B204GT was rated at 200 BHP out of the box (with different cams to the B234). And gearbox has been considered.

Hmmm, and lest we forget the Gruppe A 240T made 355 BHP with a (single) standard cam, manifolds, etc and the ever-romantic K-JET... but also by doing the things that racing teams with big budgets can afford to do to race engines that are torn down after each meeting.

So it's not so much that the cam is necessarily a limiting factor to performance, rather that it may be possible to obtain a gain with a change without having to push other components harder to get the same results. I don't wish to be like that fellow years ago who had an Escort which went like stink, but the way he got it to go so hard was by running rock hard valve springs which used to wear the cam down to a little broom handle after each meeting.

How close is the BD8 cam to the factory YBG profile?

And with a change to a BD10, what is killing the low end torque? Kent claims a gain of 22 BHP over (presumably) a standard YBG cam set - is this because of increased overlap, or increased lift, or both? And is that 22BHP gain at the expense of low-end torque?


You said you would be happy with 275 (which is considered Stage 1 in a YB: just a eprom and thats IT.

Actually... no, not I; that was our NZ friend with the 360 who mentioned the 275 BHP and twin turbos. I'm in :aus: with a 140 (yes, I know you're not a fan of 140s! :lol:)

http://www.catcams.com/products/camshafts/datasheet.aspx?ENGINE_id=215&CAMSETUP_id=905

What do you reckon?

Keep looking especially at the timing figures. Let than GpN thing be your guide..

And the gist of that seems to be - less overlap than an NA performance cam (if my guess is right, if not, please correct me).

8<

The Group A cars were roadrace cars....big T4 and a wonderful Getrag close ratio box..
2.37 for 1st gear, and 1:1 top--5th...and they revved the buggers to 8000...

Without anti-lag and a closer box I wouldn't think about those roadracers..

Better to look at cars that drive on actual narrow twisty roads..you know like you have everywhere in NZ..

We have narrow, twisty roads in Australia, too. But this thing won't see them often - it is going to be a weekend track toy on restricted road registration, not a daily driver... so this is why those roadracers aren't far from my thoughts. And so those Grupp-N-style <strike>Luddite fun killers</strike> inlet restrictors which you mentioned before, are also something I have to think about since the category for which my toy is destined also requires them. (The Powers That Be have declared that in this category - and most others based on modified road cars - that only Wankels may have it easy).


Therefore on paper at least, the '604 looks like it ticks all the boxes for me - it uses regular hydraulic tappets, not solids with lash caps; it has more lift than the FI/FA and UI/UA pairs; and its timing is quite close to the BD10. Win! (perhaps)

So does the stock cams..Same part number for the tappets between YB and B234--good for 7000 continuous and bursts to past 7500

This is where I get confused - you said the standard i.e. motorway-toned n.a. B234 cams are pooo, and that better can be done. Well, I'm looking for better.

8<

Think of the box your stuck with..
BROAD delivery

Indeed.. but unlike our Kiwi friend, I am not confined by the 'orrible transaxle ratios of the 360. There's options around for the T5.

And the CAT cams are Oh Mah Gawd dear....like REALLY nuts..

:nod: That may explain why their price lists aren't readily available. Belgians!

http://45.media.tumblr.com/e213c3a489cd6308e4eeb82227418b7c/tumblr_mn7x3n0np41rq5drao1_500.gif

There's a good reason I spent a bunch of time to make these things:
{8< nice pic of cam billets all in row}

To give us an better price alternative to CAT cams for doing serious profiles like this:
(8v rally cam vs stocker)
{8< educational image showing the Big, Quick Gulp of air principle of the performance cam versus a smog cam}

And to have the chance to RETAIN stock hydraulic followers and do full base circle.

That's always desirable. I'll bet you do nizze cams for YB's. Are you doing B234 cams though?

Good thread here: http://www.rallyanarchy.com/phorum/read.php?1,67377
Its sorta nice forum without the kiddies here for the most part...lots of Turbobrickers lurk over there.

Yes, I do read over there too.

What's your preferred method of payment? We better get onto this before that Quebecie fellow posts another picture so big that I'll need a new house extension so I can read your reply...

volvorsport
12-15-2015, 08:53 AM
YB followers are exactly the same ? I need 8000 rpm ...

John V, outside agitator
12-15-2015, 10:48 AM
Let's try making a reply to this again (without a browser crash this time...:grrr:)




The terms 'bogan' and 'yob' are fairly interchangeable.

8<



Yes, he was Ford's hot chips man. Without fish.



Well, yeah, all of this makes perfect sense. The plan here is to go T5, with a closer ratio set and the tapered bearing input shaft.

But would you agree or disagree that the YB's BD8 cams are closer in spec to Volvo's B204GT cams?

8<


So, with all that info considered, the Cat Cams 7900604 seems to be the BD10 equivalent for a B230 16V+T.



Ah, yes, but the YBG from the Sapphire was rated at 220 BHP off the showroom floor, a bit like how the B204GT was rated at 200 BHP out of the box (with different cams to the B234). And gearbox has been considered.

Hmmm, and lest we forget the Gruppe A 240T made 355 BHP with a (single) standard cam, manifolds, etc and the ever-romantic K-JET... but also by doing the things that racing teams with big budgets can afford to do to race engines that are torn down after each meeting.

So it's not so much that the cam is necessarily a limiting factor to performance, rather that it may be possible to obtain a gain with a change without having to push other components harder to get the same results. I don't wish to be like that fellow years ago who had an Escort which went like stink, but the way he got it to go so hard was by running rock hard valve springs which used to wear the cam down to a little broom handle after each meeting.

How close is the BD8 cam to the factory YBG profile?

And with a change to a BD10, what is killing the low end torque? Kent claims a gain of 22 BHP over (presumably) a standard YBG cam set - is this because of increased overlap, or increased lift, or both? And is that 22BHP gain at the expense of low-end torque?




Actually... no, not I; that was our NZ friend with the 360 who mentioned the 275 BHP and twin turbos. I'm in :aus: with a 140 (yes, I know you're not a fan of 140s! :lol:)

http://www.catcams.com/products/camshafts/datasheet.aspx?ENGINE_id=215&CAMSETUP_id=905

What do you reckon?



And the gist of that seems to be - less overlap than an NA performance cam (if my guess is right, if not, please correct me).

8<



We have narrow, twisty roads in Australia, too. But this thing won't see them often - it is going to be a weekend track toy on restricted road registration, not a daily driver... so this is why those roadracers aren't far from my thoughts. And so those Grupp-N-style <strike>Luddite fun killers</strike> inlet restrictors which you mentioned before, are also something I have to think about since the category for which my toy is destined also requires them. (The Powers That Be have declared that in this category - and most others based on modified road cars - that only Wankels may have it easy).


Therefore on paper at least, the '604 looks like it ticks all the boxes for me - it uses regular hydraulic tappets, not solids with lash caps; it has more lift than the FI/FA and UI/UA pairs; and its timing is quite close to the BD10. Win! (perhaps)



This is where I get confused - you said the standard i.e. motorway-toned n.a. B234 cams are pooo, and that better can be done. Well, I'm looking for better.

8<



Indeed.. but unlike our Kiwi friend, I am not confined by the 'orrible transaxle ratios of the 360. There's options around for the T5.



:nod: That may explain why their price lists aren't readily available. Belgians!

http://45.media.tumblr.com/e213c3a489cd6308e4eeb82227418b7c/tumblr_mn7x3n0np41rq5drao1_500.gif



That's always desirable. I'll bet you do nizze cams for YB's. Are you doing B234 cams though?



Yes, I do read over there too.

What's your preferred method of payment? We better get onto this before that Quebecie fellow posts another picture so big that I'll need a new house extension so I can read your reply...


Oi the format of this is getting confusing, I need more tea---its 0630 and I'm groggy.
So sorta randomly first a little note...
The hp figures for the old Group A cars are kinda like those I read these days for the old Group B cars in that the figures since the rise of the Intra-webs have crept ever upwards.
Back then the figures one saw in English, Swedish and French sources were for the Group B cars around 370-380hp--mind you that was just in press. 10 years later fans who had never seen them all claimed "over 400" and another 10 years "They were all like 550".
Volvo at the time--PRE-1987 note well had press releases and interviews--particularly in the motorsport press in Sweden where they said "330 hp" and POST 1 Jan 87 suddenly it was---with no changes "max 300"----in line with the out of the blue ban of Group B and the apointment of Group A as the top catagory (after the horrifying incineration of Toivonen and Cresta in Corsica in the Spring of '86) which mandated "max 300" (and did not specify the method or rpm that was supposedly derived from)...
And considering that Volvo did nothing different on the car from '86 season's 330 to '87 seasons 300.

Restrictors: before going too deep into anything else, what size must you have?


And as for all the YBs except one I've built---maybe 8 of them--all got bog stock cams, one got some odd-ball cams with a profile virtually identical to B234 cams

bgpzfm142
12-17-2015, 07:38 PM
Oi the format of this is getting confusing, I need more tea---its 0630 and I'm groggy.
So sorta randomly first a little note...
The hp figures for the old Group A cars are kinda like those I read these days for the old Group B cars in that the figures since the rise of the Intra-webs have crept ever upwards.
Back then the figures one saw in English, Swedish and French sources were for the Group B cars around 370-380hp--mind you that was just in press. 10 years later fans who had never seen them all claimed "over 400" and another 10 years "They were all like 550".
Volvo at the time--PRE-1987 note well had press releases and interviews--particularly in the motorsport press in Sweden where they said "330 hp" and POST 1 Jan 87 suddenly it was---with no changes "max 300"----in line with the out of the blue ban of Group B and the apointment of Group A as the top catagory (after the horrifying incineration of Toivonen and Cresta in Corsica in the Spring of '86) which mandated "max 300" (and did not specify the method or rpm that was supposedly derived from)...
And considering that Volvo did nothing different on the car from '86 season's 330 to '87 seasons 300.

Restrictors: before going too deep into anything else, what size must you have?


And as for all the YBs except one I've built---maybe 8 of them--all got bog stock cams, one got some odd-ball cams with a profile virtually identical to B234 cams

Yes, the quote/unquote format is getting rather messy...

In response -

- Duly noted re the Internetz Effect on BHP figures, and how the demise of Gruppe B led to manufacturers sometimes understating their actual power figures. The Mark Petch 240T however which ran over here initially (1985) claimed 320 BHP running on what at the time was called "commercial fuel" - AKA 100 RON Avgas. After the 1986 homologation package, the claim rose to 350 BHP. Now, I may be wrong about this, but I do recall reading somewhere ('Motorsport News' in Aus, IIRC) that following a dispute with FISA (one of many!), some parts of the early 1986 homologation package were disallowed.

- Restrictior? 36mm.
http://forums.turbobricks.com/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=2627

- And the camshaft discussion... well, p'raps that may be better suited to a telephonic medium as there is much I fail to understand. I do recall seeing your number somewhere or other...

John V, outside agitator
12-17-2015, 08:15 PM
Yes, the quote/unquote format is getting rather messy...

In response -

- Duly noted re the Internetz Effect on BHP figures, and how the demise of Gruppe B led to manufacturers sometimes understating their actual power figures. The Mark Petch 240T however which ran over here initially (1985) claimed 320 BHP running on what at the time was called "commercial fuel" - AKA 100 RON Avgas. After the 1986 homologation package, the claim rose to 350 BHP. Now, I may be wrong about this, but I do recall reading somewhere ('Motorsport News' in Aus, IIRC) that following a dispute with FISA (one of many!), some parts of the early 1986 homologation package were disallowed.

- Restrictior? 36mm.
http://forums.turbobricks.com/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=2627

- And the camshaft discussion... well, p'raps that may be better suited to a telephonic medium as there is much I fail to understand. I do recall seeing your number somewhere or other...

Yeah phone is good but ya gots to speak up and be kind a bit, I've lost quite a lot of hearing in some frequencies---something about 40+ years running machinery i and 30 something racing and building noisy bikes and cars but maybe worse is the combo of hearing loss and the normal 'strine vowel flattening, been since '79/80 since I wuz hearing ordinary (slightly filtered) strine daily..

I think the number is here V below.. Mind the time difference and make sure i haz ciggies and tea handy, OK..
Oh and 36mm---you can have plenty of fun at 36mm..

where dq fuq did it go?
OH

John Vanlandingham/JVAB Imports
Sleezattle WA, USA

--> CALL (206) 431-9696<----

www.rallyrace.net/jvab

www.rallyanarchy.com

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

"When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: 'Whose?'"
— Don Marquis

haltechsupra
12-17-2015, 08:23 PM
Here's my experience... And look under showroom for "microsquirt 16v+t " for my build.
First off, stock internals and stock trans will have no problem taking 300wheel,See my videos of me hanging right on back bumper of ss camaro with a bit of work, or the others of me dragging a 340 wheel mazdaspeed numerous times till he popped it-all with junk chit and a microsquirt. It takes the right stuff and some experience. See my thread. Second off, measure the head, if its 102mm from top to bottom and valves haven't been replaced, you DON'T need to notch the pistons with stock Na bottom end or a turbo b230f bottom end. However if you shave the head or its less 102mm (as specified in alldata) you will have to notch the pistons. Again , see my build thread. Third of all a Vw 90+ dohc tension er(which has inner and outer guides on it so if crank pulley falls off- the belt will still stay on unless crank gear falls off-please don't ask) will work along with a 850 timing belt, see my thread.I have also worked For Knox Motorsport for Lawrence. Had no idea they are getting back together to do the thing, that's Great News!!

bgpzfm142
12-17-2015, 09:02 PM
I think the number is here V below.. Mind the time difference and make sure i haz ciggies and tea handy, OK..

Caffeine and nicotine: the essential elements of life. Well, I'll try to call you at 7pm yesterday (it's already Friday over here) - or in other words, about 2 hours from now.

Meaning I can get to the bank this afternoon (my time) and get things moving before the weekend.