Camshaft:- Performance or Stock? you be the judge.

[jawbraeka]

for anyone that's had the fortunate experience of using a Performance camshaft for a Festiva, Could you please tell me if these specs for this camshaft meet the FMS performance camshafts at all?

here they are as follows

Engine Camshaft
Notes: Cam Type--HYD
Exhaust Duration--205
Exhaust Lash--0
Exhaust Lift--0.2143
Intake Duration--205
Intake Lash--0
Intake Lift--0.2147
Overlap--0

Not 100% certain, but i think this is stock.

Can anyone confirm this for me please?

also if anyone knows the specs for both types of cam created by FMS for Rally and Performance, could you kindly list the specs here.


Thanks in advance.

Gary.

[blkfordsedan]

Those look like the stock cam specs to me. Somewhere I posted a thread last summer that had all the specs of the stock cam and the FMS cam listed out in spreadsheet form. Try doing a search for it.

As for getting a cam reground, I would just get one of Dickmeyer's cams. You'll be much better of and it will cost less in the end.

[jawbraeka]

thanks heaps brian.. much appreciated

[blkfordsedan]

No problem. It's in this forum. The thread is labeled "FMS camshaft specs.....coming soon"
I would copy and paste it, but I have iPhone issues.

The FMS cam is not a bad grind for mild street and DD performance, but since Matt has developed some custom grinds, we finally have some viable options.

[jawbraeka]

yeah i found that article.. very cool.

also looking at a dickmeyer setup sometime in the future..

the headwork on the B3 on his facebook page http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater was also quite impressive too..

I would just love a bolt-on and go type solution and i wonder if they will ever have a complete festiva racing "catalogue" at all where you can just buy particulars or a complete engine, built to spec and so on..

Maybe a partition is in order?

[mattdickmeyer]

The cam that you have appears to be stock. The lift you have lifted is stock, the duration on the OE B3 cam @ .050 lift is 190 degrees. If you measure @ .020 lift duration is approximately 205, so possibly the specs you have are @ .020. I spoke with a guy at FMS years ago when I was considering developing my own cams, they had absolutely no idea what the specs were on "their own" cams indicating they had no involvement in the production of their product. As for a catalog of parts for Festiva's, I am working on making more parts available. My problem is that there's around 6 engine combinations that are popular for the Festiva & it can cost $1,000's if not tens of thousands to develop performance products for 1 engine alone. I have talked with several members & the 1 thing that I keep hearing is, "I want the most power I can get but yet get the best fuel economy", this is why I have focused mainly on the B3 as it fits that criteria. I am working on an engine right now to test some future products that I am sure will eclipse any level of power ever produced by any engine combination. Along with the performance parts that I already have available & with what is coming in the future, I would certainly offer complete engine assemblies that are ready to install.

[blkfordsedan]

IIRC, Sealed Power catalog lists their stock replacement cam as 205@.050. That's probably where he's getting the specs from. Im not sure where they came up with that figure. When I messed with my well-used stock cam, I had to be at approx .0325" to get 205 out of it.....but that was using a dial indicator at the valve and dividing backwards using the rocker ratio at max lift. Not exactly precise, And I was having quite a challenge with the cam follower geometry and my crude method. I came up with less duration at. .050" (179*) doing it that way, as expected. I should have ground a flat pad on the cam end of a rocker to allow a direct measurement at the lobe, but Oh Well. Im sure it may be comical to some one like yourself, but the goal was to get a rough idea of how the FMS cam compares to the stock cam. I figured as long as I was consistent on both cams, I should get dependable results.

Your're right, FMS had no idea what they were selling and no one has ever received a spec card with any of their cams. I suspect they just imported existing cams in bulk from Australia or somewhere. They were probably designed for a Mazda 323 would be my guess. It would be great if you could post the specs of the cams you currently offer and prices. I would still like to swap out my FMS cam in my B6 for something more aggressive and have the proper VS to match.

[mattdickmeyer]

Here is a print out of a '93 B3 cam that I ran on the profiler. The results are exact.

If you look at the lobe separation on the print out, it reads 122 degrees. The actual LS is 109 degrees. On any Hemi or opposing valve head the profiler adds 6.5 degrees on each side of the lobe because the lobes run opposite of a inline valve head.



http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/...ps9e967626.jpg

[blkfordsedan]

Sweeeeeet. Thats GOLD right there! I should have just sent you my FMS cam so you could profile it. How many thousands does one of those cost?

[blkfordsedan]

Matt, not trying to be a pain, but I have a few questions if you don't mind. I'm just trying to learn something here, lol.
Where does the follower diameter thats on the printout come from? Is that what you calculated based on the curvature of the follower pad? I noticed its different for intake and exhaust. If it was a flat tappet, would that be "0"? I also noticed you show a rocker ratio of 1.52:1. When I measured my stock B6 cam, I got a lobe lift of .213" (fairly close to yours), but measuring at the valve, I got a lift of .374" which gave me a rocker ratio of 1.75:1. Its obviously possible (and likely) that I mismeasured it, but that's a lot to be off (even with a dial indicator) and I took numerous measurements on both cams, with results never varying more than a couple thou. I assume it would be due to not having my dial indicator in perfect line with the valve stem. My main concern is that there is not a difference in ratios between the B3 and B6 rockers, since I mixed-n-matched them on my engine. I assumed they are the same, but I never actually measured and compared.

[mattdickmeyer]

Matt, not trying to be a pain, but I have a few questions if you don't mind. I'm just trying to learn something here, lol.
Where does the follower diameter thats on the printout come from? Is that what you calculated based on the curvature of the follower pad? I noticed its different for intake and exhaust. If it was a flat tappet, would that be "0"? I also noticed you show a rocker ratio of 1.52:1. When I measured my stock B6 cam, I got a lobe lift of .213" (fairly close to yours), but measuring at the valve, I got a lift of .374" which gave me a rocker ratio of 1.75:1. Its obviously possible (and likely) that I mismeasured it, but that's a lot to be off (even with a dial indicator) and I took numerous measurements on both cams, with results never varying more than a couple thou. I assume it would be due to not having my dial indicator in perfect line with the valve stem. My main concern is that there is not a difference in ratios between the B3 and B6 rockers, since I mixed-n-matched them on my engine. I assumed they are the same, but I never actually measured and compared.

The differences in the IN/EX is because the lobe contours are different between them. A wheel diameter was entered because you can't leave anything blank when entering info. Also the rocker ratio of 1.52 is what it is when the valve 1st starts to open. As lift increases, the geometry of the rocker changes because the lobe contacts the rocker pad closer to the pivot center line as the cam rotates. Changing the rocker ratio to around 1.762 @ max lift. As a note the roller rockers range from 1.61-1.82 thru out the range of motion.

[blkfordsedan]

The differences in the IN/EX is because the lobe contours are different between them. A wheel diameter was entered because you can't leave anything blank when entering info. Also the rocker ratio of 1.52 is what it is when the valve 1st starts to open. As lift increases, the geometry of the rocker changes because the lobe contacts the rocker pad closer to the pivot center line as the cam rotates. Changing the rocker ratio to around 1.762 @ max lift. As a note the roller rockers range from 1.61-1.82 thru out the range of motion.

Thank you very much. That really does help me a lot. One of my questions was actually if the profiler is designed just for conventional OHV tappet designs, and if so, how it deals with the changing geometry of the rocker arm.

So if I understand correctly, the "peak valve lift" listed on the printout is incorrect because it's based on the initial ratio of 1.52:1. Since it profiles the actual lobe and the duration figures are based on lift at the lobe, the rocker ratio and valve lift are inconsequential. However, If I try to compare the measurements I obtained to the actual ones from you, it doesn't really translate very well.....because I measured lift at the valve and interpolated lobe lift based on a constant 1.7XX:1 rocker ratio (which is wrong anyway, because the ratio changes and is actually closer to around 1.5X or 1.6X at the low lobe lift levels I was shooting for). It would also appear to me that with the opposing valve layout, the rocker ratio progression between the INT and EXH are reversed. SO, the measurements I took could be reasonably accurate (seat-to-seat probably being the closest), BUT, the problem is that I really don't know what the actual lobe lift was when I recorded the timing events and calculated the duration.....rendering them pretty much meaningless.


Am I correct?

[mattdickmeyer]

Thank you very much. That really does help me a lot. One of my questions was actually if the profiler is designed just for conventional OHV tappet designs, and if so, how it deals with the changing geometry of the rocker arm.

So if I understand correctly, the "peak valve lift" listed on the printout is incorrect because it's based on the initial ratio of 1.52:1. Since it profiles the actual lobe and the duration figures are based on lift at the lobe, the rocker ratio and valve lift are inconsequential. However, If I try to compare the measurements I obtained to the actual ones from you, it doesn't really translate very well.....because I measured lift at the valve and interpolated lobe lift based on a constant 1.7XX:1 rocker ratio (which is wrong anyway, because the ratio changes and is actually closer to around 1.5X or 1.6X at the low lobe lift levels I was shooting for). It would also appear to me that with the opposing valve layout, the rocker ratio progression between the INT and EXH are reversed. SO, the measurements I took could be reasonably accurate (seat-to-seat probably being the closest), BUT, the problem is that I really don't know what the actual lobe lift was when I recorded the timing events and calculated the duration.....rendering them pretty much meaningless.


Am I correct?

In this application that is correct & yes the lift values calculated are based off 1.52 ratio. My particular profiler is 16 yrs old & does not calculate variances in peak lift value from changes of rocker geometry. It only calculated the geometry of the lobes themselves. This last year I have been selling off alot of my old equipment that has served me well, but is out of date. This spring I am putting in several state of the art pieces of equipment. Valve lift on the hyd '90-'93 B3 is .374 IN .378 EX. The '88-'89 mechanical has slightly less lift typically .008-.012 less lift. the '94-'97 roller cam I just did for a customer had .382 lift IN/EX.

[blkfordsedan]

Have you done any testing with the Aspire roller cam? Just wondering if it offers the typical benefits of a roller grind.....and if there would be any practical advantage to running a stock roller cam over a stock HLA cam. Obviously, there's the reduced friction and the oil/ZDDP thing, but I mean in terms of the ramp profiles.


I believe you talked about a possible future performance grind for the Aspire roller cam???

[mattdickmeyer]

Have you done any testing with the Aspire roller cam? Just wondering if it offers the typical benefits of a roller grind.....and if there would be any practical advantage to running a stock roller cam over a stock HLA cam. Obviously, there's the reduced friction and the oil/ZDDP thing, but I mean in terms of the ramp profiles.


I believe you talked about a possible future performance grind for the Aspire roller cam???

Ya just did 1 for drumnerd33. Lots of info about it on my shops Facebook page. The lobe profile is much more aggressive, requiring less duration for the same type of power output. What I came up with will produce tremendous increase in power & compliments the increase flow of a ported head, cam specked @ 209/219 @ .050 .512/.513 lift 109 LS