+1 on all of that. Just a generic comment, but every "air pump" has a physical limit on how much air you can move, so it's axiomatic (and simple physics) that the faster you make that air column move at peak power, the more room it needs and the slower it will move at RPM's below the powerband. Revs will always be an advantage in something like NASCAR where you're in top gear all the time, but not in a line race where acceleration means more than ultimate speed. You'd need a 21-speed tranny or a monster CVT to take real advantage of 11K RPM. In practice, that ain't happening. So the best setups in line races will always be good compromises between ultimate power and the width of the powerband.dash wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:55 amGood point on the 8000rpm limit. Make your motor efficient(more torque) in that range, will deliver whatever you want
Buick GNs only need 5600rpm to melt your face. Starion 2.6, 6300. Ford 2.3sohc, 6700.... and so on
I see no point for hi revving street cars. 10-11,000 rpm gets you nothing, except unreliability it seems
Seen some hi strung 4AGE builds do just that. 1/4mile et no improvement over their 8k rpm conterparts. Zero
ALL three hi revvers did split their cylinder bores tho. So there's your 'prize' ?
Old school 'turbo' cams always had more duration on the intake than exhaust. Those old 2 valvers ripped
This practice rarely seen on 4 valves. Seen a couple ca18 veterans yield excellent results doing so, dyno'd on sxoc
Another built his street supercharged corolla 1.8 version 4age, bigger SC14 blower, HKS 264 intake and 256 exhaust cams
Folks raved over the torque/response/acceleration, from that 'puny' lil 1.8 street car
Point is, some pretty sharp folks continued the cam tune as the old schoolers. Amazing results. I'm sold on it
sxoc and nissansilvia.com dyno'd DE and 2 det exhaust cams. Also showed the benefits of keeping the flaps in the 8-port
First megasquirted 4AGE clubmember was blown away by how the TVIS intake flaps, spooled the turbo almost 1k rpm quicker... producing "V8 like" torque and acceleration. "Tuning" can yield interesting gains
The CA18DE(T) has pretty poor exhaust port flow. Like, it peaks at only 6-ish mm of lift. The intake side does much better. That makes me wonder if that's why Nissan ran more exhaust lift and duration on the turbo cams. Maybe they knew the exhaust port were flow limited compared to the intake? If I could get my hands on some 254-ish cams, I'd love to do a bunch of testing to see how they all compare, but cams are REALLY difficult to get now.dash wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:55 amGood point on the 8000rpm limit. Make your motor efficient(more torque) in that range, will deliver whatever you want
Buick GNs only need 5600rpm to melt your face. Starion 2.6, 6300. Ford 2.3sohc, 6700.... and so on
I see no point for hi revving street cars. 10-11,000 rpm gets you nothing, except unreliability it seems
Seen some hi strung 4AGE builds do just that. 1/4mile et no improvement over their 8k rpm conterparts. Zero
ALL three hi revvers did split their cylinder bores tho. So there's your 'prize' ?
Old school 'turbo' cams always had more duration on the intake than exhaust. Those old 2 valvers ripped
This practice rarely seen on 4 valves. Seen a couple ca18 veterans yield excellent results doing so, dyno'd on sxoc
Another built his street supercharged corolla 1.8 version 4age, bigger SC14 blower, HKS 264 intake and 256 exhaust cams
Folks raved over the torque/response/acceleration, from that 'puny' lil 1.8 street car
Point is, some pretty sharp folks continued the cam tune as the old schoolers. Amazing results. I'm sold on it
sxoc and nissansilvia.com dyno'd DE and 2 det exhaust cams. Also showed the benefits of keeping the flaps in the 8-port
First megasquirted 4AGE clubmember was blown away by how the TVIS intake flaps, spooled the turbo almost 1k rpm quicker... producing "V8 like" torque and acceleration. "Tuning" can yield interesting gains
Until recently (with CAD simulations) finding right combinations of lift, duration, ramp, and port size was something of a black art. Often what seems like restrictive flow is actually an artifact of the OE increasing speed of the air column by reducing valve size but ramping the cam sharply. That was especially true before computer controls and Miller-cycling, because it's generally great for low-end driveability on the street. For racing power, not so much. Without reworking for larger seats or replacing the heads outright, you're kind of stuck working around what the OE did by tinkering the things that are tinker-able, which are lift and duration. In the case of your turbo cams, Nissan was probably doing the same thing, working around the drawbacks in their own "streetable" NA head design without actually having to change heads.float_6969 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:48 pmThe CA18DE(T) has pretty poor exhaust port flow. Like, it peaks at only 6-ish mm of lift. The intake side does much better. That makes me wonder if that's why Nissan ran more exhaust lift and duration on the turbo cams. Maybe they knew the exhaust port were flow limited compared to the intake? If I could get my hands on some 254-ish cams, I'd love to do a bunch of testing to see how they all compare, but cams are REALLY difficult to get now.