Porting and dimpling

[Majestic]

I'll follow up with that I can't / won't put mine back together until cams become available.

All the work thus far apparently has been for naught.

Have any of you guys reached out to Bo like I suggested? He might not be interested in the least, but he was able to get us Lima guys connected with great cams.

 

[Bluezone]

I think it's time to ask in this particular discussion what people want from cams. Since this sounds like the biggest bottle neck.
What sort of lift, duration, advanced or ******** cam timing. Reduce a little low end torque and more top end or same old relative hp/tq but enhanced. Etc
Too much low end torque is pushing the transmission limits.

 

[802SHO]

I think it's time to ask in this particular discussion what people want from cams. Since this sounds like the biggest bottle neck.
What sort of lift, duration, advanced or ******** cam timing. Reduce a little low end torque and more top end or same old relative hp/tq but enhanced. Etc
Too much low end torque is push the transmission limits.

What I have found is that the top end is lacking. So it would be nice to have the same low end and more top end. Cams aren’t the end all be all though. It would be nice if we could get away from spreading rumors and more into actual data. My engine builder thinks this platform has the most experts he’s ever seen! Porting heads and I’m not talking by hand, an actual CNC program….is going to make more power regardless if cams are part of the equation.

 

[luigisho]

Porting heads and I’m not talking by hand, an actual CNC program….is going to make more power regardless if cams are part of the equation.

 

[802SHO]

Here is a guy with a built motor from RMB Motor Works out of NJ. He’s got a custom grind set of cams. According to him, Matt at GH is going to be tuning it.

 

[luigisho]

I really like that blacked out MKS.

 

[Bluezone]

Wow that thing looks nasty.

 

[stripSHO]

I'm with you. Given that we don't have options I'm open to the idea of dimpling being able to provide a small benefit. But as with any build, everything has to work in harmony. High flowing heads aren't much good without big cams that we don't have either. And neither one of them amount to a hill of beans with stock form factor turbos hanging a noose around the whole operation.

While you babies sit around whining about me not feeding you the confirmation bias you apparently need for your stupid spending decisions, everyone seems to be overlooking my actual point, which I feel like I've made 100 times before. THE TURBINES ARE THE BOTTLENECK. You're all talking about trying to build 20 lane freeways, but completely ignoring that it all eventually merges into a single lane residential construction zone in front of an elementary school.

Here you go, guys. Five logs at varying boost ran out to 6800 RPM, converted to virtual dyno. All done the same night, on the same road, in the same direction, with the same 8 mile freeway cooldown lap in between. The lower chart is ECU predicted exhaust manifold pressure. Everyone wants to pretend I'm an idiot, so go ahead- look what happens to the power band as you load up the turbos and draw your own ******* conclusions.




Next, let's compare some logs at fixed Load targets using various cam advance angles. NA versions of the engine advance the intake cam as much as 60 degrees, but look what happens when you add any overlap with all that exhaust backpressure. Again, I'm not eXpErT enough to understand what it means, so see if you can figure it out. Extra credit: The gap between the vertical white lines and the end of the charts has significance too. See if you can figure it out.




Okay, @802SHO, there's my actual data proving my point. But again, I'm just a dumb simp, ya know. Maybe you can ask your wife's boyfriend to take a break from selling you pipe dreams and come enlighten us all on the benefit of porting heads that 1) aren't a bottleneck and 2) already bench flow enough to support 50% more power than the 3.5L actually makes.

Your turn, Andrew. Share with us all that hard data proving the benefit of head work for this platform and stop repeating your delusional belief that porting always adds power.

 

[SM105K]

While you babies sit around whining about me not feeding you the confirmation bias you apparently need for your stupid spending decisions, everyone seems to be overlooking my actual point, which I feel like I've made 100 times before. THE TURBINES ARE THE BOTTLENECK. You're all talking about trying to build 20 lane freeways, but completely ignoring that it all eventually merges into a single lane residential construction zone in front of an elementary school.

Here you go, guys. Five logs at varying boost ran out to 6800 RPM, converted to virtual dyno. All done the same night, on the same road, in the same direction, with the same 8 mile freeway cooldown lap in between. The lower chart is ECU predicted exhaust manifold pressure. Everyone wants to pretend I'm an idiot, so go ahead- look what happens to the power band as you load up the turbos and draw your own ******* conclusions.

View attachment 83177


Next, let's compare some logs at fixed Load targets using various cam advance angles. NA versions of the engine advance the intake cam as much as 60 degrees, but look what happens when you add any overlap with all that exhaust backpressure. Again, I'm not eXpErT enough to understand what it means, so see if you can figure it out. Extra credit: The gap between the vertical white lines and the end of the charts has significance too. See if you can figure it out.

View attachment 83178


Okay, @802SHO, there's my actual data proving my point. But again, I'm just a dumb simp, ya know. Maybe you can ask your wife's boyfriend to take a break from selling you pipe dreams and come enlighten us all on the benefit of porting heads that 1) aren't a bottleneck and 2) already bench flow enough to support 50% more power than the 3.5L actually makes.

Your turn, Andrew. Share with us all that hard data proving the benefit of head work for this platform and stop repeating your delusional belief that porting always adds power.

I don't think you are a simp. I think you are pretty damn smart, however you come off as a complete pompus ass. To be honest, I am completely okay with that.

 

[802SHO]

Ohhh now things are taking a personal twist lol! Well I’m actually not married lol. No one is selling me pipe dreams and personally I wouldn’t lean too much on virtual dyno, the same program showing that I lost nearly 80 hp and 50 tq with the same tune on the same road in the same conditions with the only change being that I added the phenolic spacer.

I’d like to clear something up. I actually wasn’t singling you out for talking about cams. Ive mostly heard that from Keith and Jordan. Which I believe comes from Matt from GearHead. Clearly I don’t see it as a waste of money to flow more air. I don’t think it’s better to pass on getting the work done, in hopes that one day cams will be available, and then CNC port and install upgraded cams. Rather I think it wise to get the CNC port now, take that small bump in power and then when cams come out, add those and be done with it.

I will tell you that your ranting inspired me to do some web browsing and there are countless discussions of CNC porting heads with stock cams. Depending on the application from 30-70ish hp gain without upgraded cams. With cams 100+. Choosing one over the other cams could be the better singular choice in most cases however one tidbit was in terms to small turbos that potentially can’t keep up with increased top end air flow from cams could potentially reduce low end and then hurt top end where the turbos aren’t designed for, with an overall performance decrease. And we certainly have some smaller turbos and even though I have the largest stock housing upgrade I’m not expecting to find them adequate…ever.

Funny fact, Matt (chainsaw man) even released a video of his ported chainsaw kicking the OEM chainsaws ass lol. Maybe he forgot he preached the Bible on cams already.

There are a lot of bottlenecks with this platform. Cams are one of them. So I’ll just keep trying to slowly eliminate as many bottlenecks as I can with what is currently available and what comes to fruition.

I hope you didn’t spend too much time with your graphs and presentation albeit it looked good. You could have done without trying to take a personal jab at me and making it feel like a StripSHO vs 802SHO moment. There’s a few ppl I’m competing with here on this forum and you Sir are not one of them.

Why do you call yourself StripSHO? Are you a drag strip ***** or is your SHO stripped?

 

[stripSHO]

I don't think you are a simp. I think you are pretty damn smart, however you come off as a complete pompus ass. To be honest, I am completely okay with that.

 

[SM105K]

View attachment 83179

 

[stripSHO]

Ohhh now things are taking a personal twist lol! Well I’m actually not married lol. No one is selling me pipe dreams and personally I wouldn’t lean too much on virtual dyno, the same program showing that I lost nearly 80 hp and 50 tq with the same tune on the same road in the same conditions with the only change being that I added the phenolic spacer.

I’d like to clear something up. I actually wasn’t singling you out for talking about cams. Ive mostly heard that from Keith and Jordan. Which I believe comes from Matt from GearHead. Clearly I don’t see it as a waste of money to flow more air. I don’t think it’s better to pass on getting the work done, in hopes that one day cams will be available, and then CNC port and install upgraded cams. Rather I think it wise to get the CNC port now, take that small bump in power and then when cams come out, add those and be done with it.

I will tell you that your ranting inspired me to do some web browsing and there are countless discussions of CNC porting heads with stock cams. Depending on the application from 30-70ish hp gain without upgraded cams. With cams 100+. Choosing one over the other cams could be the better singular choice in most cases however one tidbit was in terms to small turbos that potentially can’t keep up with increased top end air flow from cams could potentially reduce low end and then hurt top end where the turbos aren’t designed for, with an overall performance decrease. And we certainly have some smaller turbos and even though I have the largest stock housing upgrade I’m not expecting to find them adequate…ever.

Funny fact, Matt (chainsaw man) even released a video of his ported chainsaw kicking the OEM chainsaws ass lol. Maybe he forgot he preached the Bible on cams already.

There are a lot of bottlenecks with this platform. Cams are one of them. So I’ll just keep trying to slowly eliminate as many bottlenecks as I can with what is currently available and what comes to fruition.

I hope you didn’t spend too much time with your graphs and presentation albeit it looked good. You could have done without trying to take a personal jab at me and making it feel like a StripSHO vs 802SHO moment. There’s a few ppl I’m competing with here on this forum and you Sir are not one of them.

Why do you call yourself StripSHO? Are you a drag strip ***** or is your SHO stripped?

I'd also like to clear something up -I wouldn't be so combative if you didn't come in here wailing that I need to shut up and sell my car. You're right, I'm not in competition with you. I'm personally quite happy with my car's performance right where it's at in stock trim. And I'm also pretty confident that with nothing more than some standard weight reduction I'd be within < 1 second of your record. Drop $15k - $20k+ and be within a second of a stock car? No thanks. With that kind of performance it's truly a wonder why you don't sell your car for something else if you want to be superfast badass, or IDK maybe take up mountain biking instead. Because when every other car in the big four door sedan category has examples running 7's, what exactly are you puffing your chest about?

I've stated my pessimistic case about headwork and backed it up with reasoning and data. The factory heads aren't even working to their potential as is, and therefore upping their potential is not likely to amount to any significant difference in the real world. When you have actual data to prove that I was wrong, I'll gladly eat humble pie and I hope I do! Seriously! In the meantime, though, you should probably go ask this chainsaw guy about the OEM cam specs on a two-stroke chainsaw engine before adding that to your list of anecotes that you call facts

 

[Bluezone]

While you babies sit around whining about me not feeding you the confirmation bias you apparently need for your stupid spending decisions, everyone seems to be overlooking my actual point, which I feel like I've made 100 times before. THE TURBINES ARE THE BOTTLENECK. You're all talking about trying to build 20 lane freeways, but completely ignoring that it all eventually merges into a single lane residential construction zone in front of an elementary school.

Here you go, guys. Five logs at varying boost ran out to 6800 RPM, converted to virtual dyno. All done the same night, on the same road, in the same direction, with the same 8 mile freeway cooldown lap in between. The lower chart is ECU predicted exhaust manifold pressure. Everyone wants to pretend I'm an idiot, so go ahead- look what happens to the power band as you load up the turbos and draw your own ******* conclusions.

View attachment 83177


Next, let's compare some logs at fixed Load targets using various cam advance angles. NA versions of the engine advance the intake cam as much as 60 degrees, but look what happens when you add any overlap with all that exhaust backpressure. Again, I'm not eXpErT enough to understand what it means, so see if you can figure it out. Extra credit: The gap between the vertical white lines and the end of the charts has significance too. See if you can figure it out.

View attachment 83178


Okay, @802SHO, there's my actual data proving my point. But again, I'm just a dumb simp, ya know. Maybe you can ask your wife's boyfriend to take a break from selling you pipe dreams and come enlighten us all on the benefit of porting heads that 1) aren't a bottleneck and 2) already bench flow enough to support 50% more power than the 3.5L actually makes.

Your turn, Andrew. Share with us all that hard data proving the benefit of head work for this platform and stop repeating your delusional belief that porting always adds power.

Interesting modelling. What would happen if you increase the LSA by advancing the exhaust cam to 2° to 5° degrees from the stock setting thus decreasing the overlap.

 

[Majestic]

I'd also like to clear something up -I wouldn't be so combative if you didn't come in here wailing that I need to shut up and sell my car. You're right, I'm not in competition with you. I'm personally quite happy with my car's performance right where it's at in stock trim. And I'm also pretty confident that with nothing more than some standard weight reduction I'd be within < 1 second of your record. Drop $15k - $20k+ and be within a second of a stock car? No thanks. With that kind of performance it's truly a wonder why you don't sell your car for something else if you want to be superfast badass, or IDK maybe take up mountain biking instead. Because when every other car in the big four door sedan category has examples running 7's, what exactly are you puffing your chest about?

I've stated my pessimistic case about headwork and backed it up with reasoning and data. The factory heads aren't even working to their potential as is, and therefore upping their potential is not likely to amount to any significant difference in the real world. When you have actual data to prove that I was wrong, I'll gladly eat humble pie and I hope I do! Seriously! In the meantime, though, you should probably go ask this chainsaw guy about the OEM cam specs on a two-stroke chainsaw engine before adding that to your list of anecotes that you call facts

Camshaft in a two stroke?

 

[stripSHO]

Camshaft in a two stroke?

Exactly why I'm wondering what a chainsaw has to do with anything. A big part of porting a two stroke is that you actually change the timing of the engine, just like swapping cams in a four cycle. I suppose some people don't know that. Score that one for Team Cam Fanbois!

 

[SM105K]

To be fair, Andrew never said anything about 2 strokes having a cam. He said Matt ported the head and it ran circles around the OEM saw. Don't get it twisted.

 

[stripSHO]

To be fair, Andrew never said anything about 2 strokes having a cam. He said Matt ported the head and it ran circles around the OEM saw. Don't get it twisted.

Ported head on a two stroke? Also very intriguing lol. Nonetheless, the fact remains that porting a two stroke is equivalent to a cam mod and indeed "preaches the cam bible" or whatever.

Easton if you want to step in and be the fairness referee, how about bringing up how all I said that triggered him was "big flowing heads" in which I was generally referring to real race heads with big valves and huge port volumes. But somehow I got suckered into a strawman about basic porting. A good port job doesn't necessarily require peak flow gains on the bench. Nor do massive bench gains necessarily make for a good port job. Especially if most those gains wreck velocity or are found at unobtainable valve lifts because you don't have the cam to make it happen.

I just find it really weird that a guy would make a plea to move towards discussing actual data, but can't stop speaking in generalities. I, for one, would think if someone went to the trouble of setting up a cnc to churn out a head, they would have first perfected the port design and proven its performance. So, why so hard to just slap me in the face with the proof? Don't have any yet? Okay, then please check back in when you do and in the meantime shut up and don't worry about what I think?

 

[Bluezone]

Ported head on a two stroke? Also very intriguing lol. Nonetheless, the fact remains that porting a two stroke is equivalent to a cam mod and indeed "preaches the cam bible" or whatever.

Easton if you want to step in and be the fairness referee, how about bringing up how all I said that triggered him was "big flowing heads" in which I was generally referring to real race heads with big valves and huge port volumes. But somehow I got suckered into a strawman about basic porting. A good port job doesn't necessarily require peak flow gains on the bench. Nor do massive bench gains necessarily make for a good port job. Especially if most those gains wreck velocity or are found at unobtainable valve lifts because you don't have the cam to make it happen.

I just find it really weird that a guy would make a plea to move towards discussing actual data, but can't stop speaking in generalities. I, for one, would think if someone went to the trouble of setting up a cnc to churn out a head, they would have first perfected the port design and proven its performance. So, why so hard to just slap me in the face with the proof? Don't have any yet? Okay, then please check back in when you do and in the meantime shut up and don't worry about what I think?

Okay I will politely ask again. What would happen to your modelling if you advanced (set) the exhaust cam +2° to 5°?

 

[SM105K]

Ported head on a two stroke? Also very intriguing lol. Nonetheless, the fact remains that porting a two stroke is equivalent to a cam mod and indeed "preaches the cam bible" or whatever.

Easton if you want to step in and be the fairness referee, how about bringing up how all I said that triggered him was "big flowing heads" in which I was generally referring to real race heads with big valves and huge port volumes. But somehow I got suckered into a strawman about basic porting. A good port job doesn't necessarily require peak flow gains on the bench. Nor do massive bench gains necessarily make for a good port job. Especially if most those gains wreck velocity or are found at unobtainable valve lifts because you don't have the cam to make it happen.

I just find it really weird that a guy would make a plea to move towards discussing actual data, but can't stop speaking in generalities. I, for one, would think if someone went to the trouble of setting up a cnc to churn out a head, they would have first perfected the port design and proven its performance. So, why so hard to just slap me in the face with the proof? Don't have any yet? Okay, then please check back in when you do and in the meantime shut up and don't worry about what I think?

I don't have a horse is this race. I could give two ***** less about cams, headwork, weight reduction, or upgraded turbos on ANY 3.5 EB platform. I realized the SHO is a garbage platform to try to go fast with. It is too heavy and the powertrain is completely ass backwards. I enjoy the banter of the forum, and enjoy gapping unsuspecting people at stop lights in a high 11 to low 12 second Taurus.

I do have respect for the guys really digging deep into this platform. I think it is pretty cool and creative. I just realized it was something I wasn't wanting nor willing to do. So I bought a rear wheel drive, smaller, lighter, sedan with a 2JZ. For half the price and half the headache of my SHO, I have the possibly of clicking off a 10 second pass while not really stretching the legs of the 2J.

Banter on by all means.