I could put the rear camshafts in the front bank right?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
front and rear cams interchange
Collapse
X
-
No cams are differant.1997 Z34 Monte,: testing 4 exh cam\'s, RSM STB, K&N, Eagle077 245/40/ZR18 Nitto Extreme
1972 3/4 ton 4X4 longbed, built 350, 400 auto, 6\" spring lift, 35\" AT/BFG\'s, dana 60 front axle, 14 bolt gm w/detroit locker 4.56 gears. My ricer smasher
-
Actually, the lumps themselves are the same both front and back. but phisically the cam fit is completly different. Why would they have different "timing" on front and back? I don't get the question here. Even the flats are in the same place if thats what you are asking. That's why you have to time them 180 out from the opposite bank, other wise you have two three cylenders both sucking air at the same time. Runs the intakes and ignition out of there efficiency range and runs like crap for that reason.
If you are looking for potential drop in differences with just stock cams, you could use four intake cams or four exhaust cams in your motor, its just a bitch to time since the cam flats would be useless on the mismatched cams. (the intake cam in the exhaust cam hole, or vice versa) But supposedly there may be gains to be had with some combination of the two.
Also keep in mind that the cam profiles changed quite a bit for the 96-97 models, believed to be a bit tamer in the later models. That might explain the only 5 horse improvment with higher compression, bigger ports and runners... You would figure the power would have gone up 10-20 or so with just those "improvments" alone. So there is the possibility of gains just by using the older cams in the newer motor, but that has never been done or tested. I know that the 13 degree retard makes the 96-97 motor run real rough. I tried it years ago and disliked it greatly. Supposedly the timing is different, as well as the duration.
One thing ALL LQ1's have in common, is the .370" lobe lift, witch is the same for valve lift. Interestingly enough, even though the Quad 4 has roughly the same valvetrain (very simular) it has .410" lift, and an aggressive pattern in both the duration and timing. I firmly believe it is the model witch we should base our cam modifications on. Mostly because the motor has good vacuum, a stable idle, clean emmissions, and a very high specific output, I believe the LQ1 can put out 50% more power then a Quad 4 HO, or close to 300 horses. All it needs is the right cams, and exhaust. The intake I believe is overkill, and would suite nicley with the more aggressive cam modifications.
But again, untill each modification to the cams is tested. We will be left with more questions and ideas then real world answers.
I also firmly believe that the exhaust alone is a huge problem with the LQ1's, and a good set of headers, equal length or not, will yield the biggest results right off the bat, and for a reasonable price. And cams will compliment this with really impressive results. Again, not proven yet, but I have reason to believe this is the case.
Comment
-
Its the firing order. I didnt say the front bank has different cam specs, just that you don't want cylinder 2 with the cylinder 1 specs.
All speculation. We have seen headers put out about the same power as a stock motor with the 96 intakes and a stock motor with just heads put out a hell of a lot more than any other motor short of boosted or nitrous. The quad 4 cam timing is not something I will base any of my motor specs on. Intake design is different, combustion chamber is different but closer to 96, exhaust manifolds are different. Lifters are the basically same, valve sizes are similar. Thats about it.
Im pretty sure he was asking because his front cam carrier and a cam are screwed up and he needs to find replacements.Ben
60DegreeV6.com
WOT-Tech.com
Comment
Comment