Exhaust lobes and the magic cams

[Durwood]

I think Rays with the 635 cam will out accelerate in a head to race with his current cam but wont make the peak numbers he has now.

So you are predicting more area under the tq curve with the 635 over the 662-2?

My money's are on the 662-2's I'v been Wrong Before....

x2 Gotta go with a proven winner 

[Deye76]

My money is tight, so I won't bet against S&S. Hell-u-va track record.

[Durwood]

My money is tight, so I won't bet against S&S. Hell-u-va track record.

This is monopoly money John, no risk here..lol

[Deye76]

My money is tight, so I won't bet against S&S. Hell-u-va track record.

This is monopoly money John, no risk here..lol

I got plenty of that. LOL

[No Cents]

My money is tight, so I won't bet against S&S. Hell-u-va track record.

[1FSTRK]

Looking at the low end tq of the TR-662-1 with almost the same top end HP in a 107ci I wonder if the big duration exhaust of the 635 is going to raise the tq curve at all.

[No Cents]

Eric...gordonr pm'd me with a few questions he had for me...but told me the 635's looked pretty good so far. 
maybe he will give us some of his results running them thru the program he has.

[1FSTRK]

Probably the best way to use dynomation in this case would be to put all the information from your present combination into the program and then tweek the program until it matches the actual dyno information from the best run, then just change the cam in the program and see what it spits out. I have seen it used for this type of change many times and the margin of error with the program on a motor like a Harley is usually greater than the difference made by the cam change.

As I look at the two 107 builds I posted here I see two different ways to make good power but I do not see a hands down winner that is revolutionizing the way cams should be designed. The initial reason I started the thread was because the sheets in the OP have two different philosophies on cam lobes and timing yet they both work well with the right combination of parts. Now we have a more conventional grind in the TR662-1 that is producing equally well so I do not see any of the "New" cam designs setting any kind of records when just bolted into conventional designed motors. It is looking to me like a different way to get to about the same place.

[WI Bob]

Probably the best way to use dynomation in this case would be to put all the information from your present combination into the program and then tweek the program until it matches the actual dyno information from the best run, then just change the cam in the program and see what it spits out. I have seen it used for this type of change many times and the margin of error with the program on a motor like a Harley is usually greater than the difference made by the cam change.

As I look at the two 107 builds I posted here I see two different ways to make good power but I do not see a hands down winner that is revolutionizing the way cams should be designed. The initial reason I started the thread was because the sheets in the OP have two different philosophies on cam lobes and timing yet they both work well with the right combination of parts. Now we have a more conventional grind in the TR662-1 that is producing equally well so I do not see any of the "New" cam designs setting any kind of records when just bolted into conventional designed motors. It is looking to me like a different way to get to about the same place.

As we are comparing, remember the first sheet has the 2004 tranny. Some say 5-10% better numbers than the six speed clunk drive.

[No Cents]

 
with you Eric. I know these programs give you a rough general idea of what the actual end results will be...until it's spun on the dyno.
I'm curious now what gordonr's program showed after he pm'd me yesterday.

[TorQuePimp]

  What both of those builds have in common is a very good set of heads.

[1FSTRK]

As we are comparing, remember the first sheet has the 2004 tranny. Some say 5-10% better numbers than the six speed clunk drive.

That is a good point. If we take subtract for that it puts the numbers in line with the 107ci motors that along with the shape of the curve and the cam is why I included it.

  What both of those builds have in common is a very good set of heads.

As I mentioned in the OP they all have very good components right down the build list. They are parts that are know to work well with other builds and I consider them to be conventional in design. So the thing that takes these builds to the next level is the special cams until you look at the fact that the cams are radically different from the norm and  different than each other, yet producing similar results when used with good heads. By adding the TR662-2 we see a conventional cam design with good heads running right with the other two for HP per CI and area under the curve so are the other two cam designs doing something special or just doing the same thing differently?

[strokerjlk]

As we are comparing, remember the first sheet has the 2004 tranny. Some say 5-10% better numbers than the six speed clunk drive.

That is a good point. If we take subtract for that it puts the numbers in line with the 107ci motors that along with the shape of the curve and the cam is why I included it.

  What both of those builds have in common is a very good set of heads.

As I mentioned in the OP they all have very good components right down the build list. They are parts that are know to work well with other builds and I consider them to be conventional in design. So the thing that takes these builds to the next level is the special cams until you look at the fact that the cams are radically different from the norm and  different than each other, yet producing similar results when used with good heads. By adding the TR662-2 we see a conventional cam design with good heads running right with the other two for HP per CI and area under the curve so are the other two cam designs doing something special or just doing the same thing differently?

wonder what would happen if you swapped the exhaust on the two original bikes 
would you need to swap the cams then ?

[1FSTRK]

Good question. I had said in an earlier post just swap the cams. The thing is we have seen all these exhaust systems work with all kinds of builds, it is the exaggerated lobes on the cams that stand out at first but when you look at the results there is little exaggerated power difference. One has 260 duration intake compared to 243 dur. and then you have the opposite on the exhaust 252 dur compared to 276 dur. Take a look at the Intake closing 54 degs on the first and 43.5 on the S&S and the Tq curves are do not show any great difference.

[Hillside Motorcycle]

As we are comparing, remember the first sheet has the 2004 tranny. Some say 5-10% better numbers than the six speed clunk drive.

That is a good point. If we take subtract for that it puts the numbers in line with the 107ci motors that along with the shape of the curve and the cam is why I included it.

  What both of those builds have in common is a very good set of heads.

As I mentioned in the OP they all have very good components right down the build list. They are parts that are know to work well with other builds and I consider them to be conventional in design. So the thing that takes these builds to the next level is the special cams until you look at the fact that the cams are radically different from the norm and  different than each other, yet producing similar results when used with good heads. By adding the TR662-2 we see a conventional cam design with good heads running right with the other two for HP per CI and area under the curve so are the other two cam designs doing something special or just doing the same thing differently?

wonder what would happen if you swapped the exhaust on the two original bikes 
would you need to swap the cams then ?

probably need to re-gap the plugs also.............

[rigidthumper]

Looking at the low end tq of the TR-662-1 with almost the same top end HP in a 107ci I wonder if the big duration exhaust of the 635 is going to raise the tq curve at all.

My feeble attempts with simulators (Dynomation 4 & 5, Engine Analyzer) say the 635HO will be softer by up to 10# compared to the -2s, purely based on the numbers given. Without a cam analyzer to accurately plot the lobes, and flowsheets, it's just guesswork.

[1FSTRK]

Looking at the low end tq of the TR-662-1 with almost the same top end HP in a 107ci I wonder if the big duration exhaust of the 635 is going to raise the tq curve at all.

My feeble attempts with simulators (Dynomation 4 & 5, Engine Analyzer) say the 635HO will be softer by up to 10# compared to the -2s, purely based on the numbers given. Without a cam analyzer to accurately plot the lobes, and flowsheets, it's just guesswork.

This is what I was saying about the Sim programs earlier. They were for the most part developed for multiple cylinder car motors and when you get right down to the fine points which is what you use them for they do not work as well on these high tech state of the art harley motors. Plug in a 48 valve,4 cam, individual runner, V12 Ferrari and you can start tuning LSA .5 degrees at a time while designing header length.
When you Sim a Harley have you tried switching between the Honda intake and the  individual runner to see the difference?

[rigidthumper]

Honda short or single plane, whichever one most closely matches actual dyno results.

[gordonr]

From the preliminaries I have run with the little flow details released I have come up with some intel. I did take Rays existing dyno chart and made my file to get as close as I could to his numbers. I used a stock Hurricane file and fudged the flow numbers for Rays heads. Then I chose  "tunnel ram" and set the runners to 3.5". The runner length is what I chose to manipulate to gets his numbers to match the dyno results. It was at 6.5" in the final. The BMEP numbers are as 189.17 with the 662-2 and 189.57 for the 635 HO. The 635 makes more Tq and Hp after 4000 RPM than the 662-2. The 635 could be a wild card based on what Ray explained about the ex lobe in real world. Also take note Rays head flows a lot and a head with lower numbers may reverse the cams outcome. This 635 cam also shows that compared to 640 it is stronger. As with all programs this is only to be recognized as one possible trend analysis only, not gospel. 

                      662-2                     635 HO

      Rpm      Hp          Tq               Hp    Tq
      2500     47          98                44    92   
      2750     51          97                49    93
      3000     56          98                55    96
      3250     65          105              62    100
      3500     76          114              72    108
      3750     88          124              86    120
      4000     100        131             100    131
      4250     109        135             111    138
      4500     119        138             121    141
      4750     127        140             129    143
      5000     134        141             137    144
      5250     140        140             144    144
      5500     144        137             149    142
      5750     146        134             152    139
      6000     147        129             153    134

[Durwood]

John "Deye76" good thing it's monopoly money, looks like Gordon has the S&S grind on top..

[strokerjlk]

8 up 
no cents 
Ray 

[No Cents]

now if the end cap let's it pick up the tq on the bottom end before 4k...I might be on to something 

8-up= me
no cents= my wallet
Ray= the fools image I see in the mirror   

[1FSTRK]

now if the end cap let's it pick up the 16% tq on the bottom end before 4k without losing anything predicted up top ...I might be on to something 

Here Ray I fixed it for you.

[No Cents]

now that would be an accomplishment if it did that !

[1FSTRK]

That is where the bottom was with the other pipe.