Re: [AMC-list] Cam grind specs, OOPSIE

[tom jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

OK, I screwed up. I made three mistakes:

1) Apples vs. oranges, as Bruce pointed out (a man of few but correct words,
I should take the hint)

2) I flubbed cam data entry

but worst

3) I bad-mouthed someone's work (Doug Galvin's cam grinder) before I knew
WTF I was talking about.

I know seat to seat vs. .050 is wrong. I got confused comparing "modern" cam
specs vs. the factory grind. If I was comparing brands A, B, C it would be
easier. I should have just looked at the resulting curves. But the reason
for the bad results in SCDynoSim was that I did not clear all the old cam
data out when I entered the new cam's data; there were some old seat-to-seat
#'s in there (I typed over an old cam and did save-as). When I cleared and
reentered it it all makes sense. The cam looks great now (about 15%
improvement at low speeds, moved the HP peak down to 4000 rpm.)

I truly regret bad mouthing the grinder though. No one remembers kind words
but posterity records all the bad ones! I can take my lumps but I don't want
anyone to read that in the future and think that cam Galvin's sells is no
good. That's entirely my fault.



On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 14:19, Bruce Hevner <scramblr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Don't bother trying to compare "advertised" or @.006 or .002 or .020,,, the
> industry de facto standard is .050.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list-amc-list.com/attachments/20100212/822a5b5d/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com