|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> racing cam /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1209539982 Message started by stinger on 04/30/08 at 00:19:42 |
|
Title: racing cam Post by stinger on 04/30/08 at 00:19:42 Wa hooo!! Lancers racing cam came in the mail yesterday Looks like Ill be riding for the first time this year by the end of the day! Web Cam did a very nice job on the cam. Not hard to tell it was a professional job. I hope with rejetting, a supertrapp exhaust, K@N air filter, and now the new cam, Im hoping to see some increase in performance. Greg D is coming over this morning to install it while I put the rest of my bike back together. New cam chain too! 34,000 on the original and it was still only 19 out after Greg checked it at 30,000. Hadn't moved. Seriously think I could have ridden 50,000 before replacing. Also found out I was running the original infamous leaking head plug and was amazed in all that time it had not leaked a drop. Gonna install a new one anyway. We put new rear brake pads on, and there is still alot of wear after 34,000 on the originals. Maybe only half worn. New header pipe, and polished all my casings till they shined like chrome. Bought Gregs old rear wheel belt sprocket and am taking it in to be chromed. Gonna have Greg post a pic. By the way, Web Cam states that you should not use any type of synthetic oil in your bike at all. They say use a good petrolium based motor oil. 30 wt. thanks lancer for the quick delivery! Next purchase is your carb! |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/30/08 at 01:52:30 I hope you thought to soak the cam chain a few hours, so all the pins & plates will be oiled nicely. Maybe the manufacturer has them slicked up enough, but the oil system seems like its slow to get the chain good & wet, so I like to soak the thing before it gets installed. May make exactly zero difference, I dunno, |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by KwakNut on 04/30/08 at 02:17:36 3D3A2720292B3C4E0 wrote:
You'd want to use a traditional mineral oil like that for bedding in a new cam, but if their advice was to avoid synthetic altogether, they need to go back to school and learn about lubrication because they are totally, utterly wrong, and clearly do not understand oil in engineering terms. Sadly, there are plenty of people even in the motor industry who suffer ignorance on the subject of lubrication and base their opinions on old wives' tales about oil. Ignore them, they're wrong. Bed your new cam in with a traditional mineral oil for a couple of hundred miles, or longer if you like, then switch to a full synthetic like Mobil 15W50, and your engine will last twice as long. I base that advice on fact and experience from working a few years in the oil industry in industrial/automotive lubrication, seeing hundreds of test engines run on synthetics vs mineral, and seeing the results with my own eyes when those engines are stripped for inspection – the difference in wear is just staggering. I despair every time I hear about people who should know better giving out dumb, ill-informed advice to the market end-users. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by LANCER on 04/30/08 at 05:34:26 That is remarkable isn't it ? Synthetic is so freaking good. Of course the other side of the coin is that the oil, any oil, MUST be kept clean and that is where the filtering system is so important. That is the reason I really want to add and accessory oil filter to the system and include a cooler as well. Keep it cool and clean, more total oil for the system and keep the grit that grinds the parts down out of the system. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 04/30/08 at 07:01:48 474A45484E59191C2B0 wrote:
Once again, the oil conversation is about like one's choice of toothpaste ;D I am braking in my new piston and rings with regular old dino fluid. Then I'm going to give some Mobil 1 Motorcycle oil a try. Well, it won't be long 'til I go over and screw with Stinger's bike :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Max_Morley on 04/30/08 at 09:02:34 FWIW= I've read some auto trade journal articles about some of the new economy rated oils and I think that is why WEBER makes their point. It seems with the old style crowned bottom lifters, there were some concerns over cam/lifter base scuffing vs the roller style lifters that are found most of the new style pushrod engines. Seems it wasn't a concern on OHC units and they did not have a rationale for that. Max |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by vtail on 04/30/08 at 09:34:58 I second Kwaknut's position, having used synth-oil since 1976 on everething I ride or drive. Only time I use Dino-oil is during break-in to purposely create extra friction for bedding-in ;) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/01/08 at 08:54:01 3B392C24214D0 wrote:
Well, I second Vtail's position too :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/12/08 at 04:46:34 And so, here we are...finally got Stinger's bike ALMOST back together yesterday. We're still wondering where one missing engine bolt went, and still curious about where an extra bolt is supposed to go...but aside from that the bike is nearly ready to go. Been a process :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Sandy Koocanusa on 05/12/08 at 18:40:14 My brother-in-law had that happen once. He found the missing bolt when he started the engine. It was sitting on top of one of the pistons. (Things that make you go "hmmmm...") |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/13/08 at 05:25:25 383E3F3D20263D3C520 wrote:
Yeah. If that happens, it'll make me go #@&++**#@!!! |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by mick on 05/13/08 at 12:28:55 The mobil 1 you guys are talking about is it regular mobil 1 or is it mobil 1 for motor cycles? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/13/08 at 13:23:07 3B3F353D223E333A3F3B332F560 wrote:
Mobil 1 for motorcycles. I made the mistake of using the stuff for autos several years ago. Worked pretty good if you don't mind that your clutch won't want to actually engage :o |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/19/08 at 07:18:21 So where's Stinger? Here we are at his house on Saturday, but he's out riding :P http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b277/gmdinusa/2008_GMD_4.jpg |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Max_Morley on 05/19/08 at 10:09:35 Greg how do you like the new cam? Max |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/19/08 at 12:58:31 1F332A0D1F3D203E372B520 wrote:
I like the improved mid range with the cam. It feels like it is breathing a bunch better. It's a little hard to tell, since I carved out the exhaust port and installed an OS piston, but I'm pleased with what I have now. Stinger said about the same thing about his...but I still gotta go readjust his noisy valves(...since I cautiously set them loose when I installed the new cam...) Did I mention? Yesterday, I accidentally dumped the clutch and grabbed too much throttle when I was leaving a store, and the darned back tire broke loose on dry pavement. When that happens while you are leaning over on the left, it is nothing short of inspirational :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 05/19/08 at 13:33:51 635641437B121114240 wrote:
Oooo, I hate when that happens, especially to a little thumper. ;D |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Reelthing on 05/19/08 at 14:32:24 The '02 with the new cam and near open 'trap is certainly a stronger running engine - I may be running the rpms up to far - need to move the tach from the '95 or just get another I'm on my 3rd valve adjustment and they still get pretty loud after the engine is hot - might have something else not quite correct - may pull the head and case cover check over things - might have let the cam chain get too tight or let the cover sealant dry too much before it was torqued down Did you folks find a need to change the mixture/jet either direction ? I have not done so |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/19/08 at 15:39:57 1225252C3428292E27400 wrote:
Funny that you ask that...mine isn't quite right anymore either. The idle speed drops a little below idle when suddenly closing the throttle and idle speed seems either too high or too low. Last weekend, I had too much fun and just put up with the annoyance, but I do need to take a peek at things :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/19/08 at 15:41:06 564552534C4147454E11200 wrote:
Oooo, I hate when that happens, especially to a little thumper. ;D[/quote] It was a RUSH! :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by LANCER on 05/19/08 at 21:07:19 Quote:
After an incident like that all it takes is a short stop at Sluggo's dumpster and things just calm right down...it is amazing how that works :D 8-) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/19/08 at 22:02:53 The valves should be quieter when the engine is hot, since the gap is diminished with the longer valve stems. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/20/08 at 06:53:00 687771766B6C5D6D5D65777B30020 wrote:
Certainly. Everything expands. I intentionally set them loose, though. Wanted to get Stinger's new cam rolling with a minimum of wear. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/20/08 at 06:54:34 7D707F7274632326110 wrote:
It's funny how those dumpsters do that :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by stinger on 05/21/08 at 01:14:10 I hope they have a dumpster at the FSSNNC get together in Montana this June. Even a ride thru Glacier National park is a bummer without a good dumspter visit or two! I often plan my trips from dumpster to dumpster! On to Lancers cam!....Was it worth the money invested for the difference in performance? I think so, Im glad I bought it! Not only did I get a very professional looking cam back I also got 50 lbs of free packing peanuts(enough to make a pillow) that it was wrapped in! If Lancers mechanical ability is half of what is packaging skills are, this guy has a future! Took me a half hour to find the cam! Much more pull in the mid range now! Crank open the throttle and there is no lag, just solid acceration all the way into 5th gear. Where I noticed the biggest difference was when I hit the throttle at 70 mph. It just got up and took off! I was going 85 in nothing flat. The cam does run smooth, altho you will notice a small difference from the stock cam. My bike even sounds healthier to me now, deeper and throatier. Matches up pretty well with my supertrapp. I havent enough miles on it yet to figure out how it has effected my gas milage, but I cant imagine it would be much. Someone else in here compared the difference in performance between running a stock cam and Lancers cam. he felt the difference was comparable to that of riding a stock savage to riding one that has been rejetted and a aftermarket muffler installed. I agree! Im glad I bought it! Thanks Lancer! (by the way, these packing peanuts taste like crap!) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/21/08 at 07:04:16 484F52555C5E493B0 wrote:
I'm thinking that someone was just out by the dumpster before logging into the forum... ...after all, you should know that you ONLY eat the pink peanuts! |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by LANCER on 05/21/08 at 09:39:22 Quote:
Ohhhh, it's like a proud papa watching his son ... or sweet music to my ears :D I appreciate the good report. The Savage responds so well to the assorted upgrades, especially the Performance Camshaft. Not only does it sound healthier & feel healthier but it just makes a fun bike MORE FUN ! |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Reelthing on 05/21/08 at 14:47:51 405F595E43447545754D5F53182A0 wrote:
Alright! this could be as much fun as a motor oil or octane debate! On a valve train like this one the gap widens as it gets hotter - the valve expands enough that it will no longer go into the seat as far this causes the gap to expand On valve trains with push rods and solid lifters the gap shrinks as it gets hotter as the push rod lengthens enough to over ride any valve stem heigth reduction Hey honestly pop'd a wheelie on the '02 yesterday leaving a stop sign :) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/21/08 at 23:51:22 On a valve train like this one the gap widens as it gets hotter - the valve expands enough that it will no longer go into the seat as far this causes the gap to expand Wowzaas! I had never considered the valve face diameter increasing due to the same heat that causes the valve stem to get longer. I can see how that could happen. SO!!! If & since the gap increases when its hot, then why not have even LESS valve lash? Why not set them at .001? Would it hurt anything? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/22/08 at 06:41:05 1126262F372B2A2D24430 wrote:
Alright! this could be as much fun as a motor oil or octane debate! On a valve train like this one the gap widens as it gets hotter - the valve expands enough that it will no longer go into the seat as far this causes the gap to expand On valve trains with push rods and solid lifters the gap shrinks as it gets hotter as the push rod lengthens enough to over ride any valve stem heigth reduction Hey honestly pop'd a wheelie on the '02 yesterday leaving a stop sign :)[/quote] Oh, but let's remember that the rocker arms get longer, the adjuster screws get longer, the camshaft gets fatter, the head gets bigger, the cylinder gets longer, the cam chain gets looser, the primary gears get fatter, the crankshaft grows bigger and the connecting rods become longer....plus the cases get wider, the drive pulleys get bigger and the drive belt gets longer...and eventually the whole bike is huge... ...that explains why you were able to pop a wheelie too :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/22/08 at 06:44:56 716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:
You could probably get it closer than that if you adjust them hot instead of cold ::) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/22/08 at 06:49:40 None of my fingers have an asbestos coating & the top of that engine is what I call"close quarters". Why cant I do it cold & get it closer. IF the gap grows as the engine warms up, then as long as I leave ANY lash, cold, it cant ever hold the valve out of the seat,, Unless the seat moves or the valve suddenly wears & starts to squish into the seat?? I AM asking here..Why? Cuz, I want every bit I can get. Has anyone gone in to adj. valves & discovered they had gotten tighter? What caused it? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/22/08 at 07:13:03 7D6264637E7948784870626E25170 wrote:
Justin, for whatever reason, you were pretty much right that the valves get quieter after the engine warms up. Why that happens is up to a lot of speculation...and silly conversation, too. However, don't ya reckon that discussing the idea of setting the valves at any gap that is not recommended by Suzuki is also a bit silly? After all, why? Everything has tolerances; from bearings to rings. What's the point in discussing the possibility of tightening up the "valve lash gap" to .001" or less? Who said that valve lash is a bad thing? Besides, all that I know is that I set Stinger's valve lash to .005" just to reduce any wear on his new cam on startup. And it's even possible that one or two may be around .006" anyway. It involves more work that way, but then an expensive cam shaft deserves a little bit of extra attention too. I'm sometimes kinda anal about things that way :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/22/08 at 08:28:34 When a machine does something & it is repeatable & predictable, I want to understand it. I just discovered that the valve stem length change after the engine is warmed up, is less than the amount the valve moves away from the cam due to the valve face widening & not sitting so deep in the seat. If you guys want to call it silly, you go for it. To me, its interesting & if I can come to understand it, then that would make me happy. I'll bet that theres a ratio of vale stem length & valve face diameter that would hold the gap. When people "Get It" & the light goes on in their head, I believe it affects them in more than that one area. Speculation? Isnt that considering the possibilities? Trying to understand something & have it dismissed as "just speculation" is really rude. If you dont want to entertain the subject, walk on by, but dont take a slap at me for my curiosity. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 05/22/08 at 09:09:45 There's quite a few factors to take into concideration. Thermo growth of steel, of aluminum, geometry, how the cam floats in the bearings, etc. You need a minimum of a .001" lash at all temperatures to guarranty the valve completely seating or you'll burn it up. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by vtail on 05/22/08 at 14:44:45 3D2E3938272A2C2E257A4B0 wrote:
I'll second this. Cause you mess with the bull, you get the horns. Do not set those valves tighter than FACTORY specs or you WILL burn them (and the valve-seat). Then you'd wish you'd never messed with it (Hindsight=20/20). Thermal expansion gows the stem which make the clearance tighter and quiets the noise. ;) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Reelthing on 05/22/08 at 22:50:32 If normal I guess - seems the '02 might be lean enough for the gap to grow - of course some folks believe the hot/cold stuff is only part of the story - yes you need the valves to seat all the way - but another part of proper valve adjustment with high performance cams is - one must consider the change in the ramp of the lobe - these cams have a more sudden opening so a shaper ramp as they use a more of the lobe for the higher lift and longer duration - a little more clearence reduces the shock this causes - good write up some place - I'll look for it - even has pictures if memory serves yes - here's a little reading: http://www.motorcycleproject.com/motorcycle/text/cows-clear.html of course there are many other topics to study and argue http://www.motorcycleproject.com/index.html |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/23/08 at 07:25:07 I tried to copy & paste a small section from th4e "Sacred Cows" article. Author states that the high [performance cams need more clearance, to take up the "shock", as Reel said. But, what doesnt work in MY mind, is.. well, If I was a lump, on a stick, & I was gonna run into something, it SEEMS like the impact would be a lot gentler, IF what I was gonna run into, was Close to me at th lowest part of my lump. Seems like, IF we opened the clearance UP to Maximum, plus a lot, so that the valve didnt open mure than .025 or so, then the cam would come flying around & BANG its nose on the lifter, but, IF I set the clearance tight, it seems the cam & lifter would work more smooooothy together. SO, that is where MY thinking is stuck. I READ the article & I KNOW what they say, I Just dont get it. So, can anyone splain this in a manner that would Help me see it? I accept that I am wrong, I just want to understand the mechanics that make it so. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/23/08 at 07:40:48 7A656364797E4F7F4F77656922100 wrote:
Sometimes, it's far better to just accept things as they are before you try to understand why they are that way. Do we, after all, have any of the engineering data that Suzuki used in designing the engine? No. Therefore, I am fine with accepting that Suzuki set the specs at .003-.005" for the valve lash...which, if you work on lots of engines, as I do, you'll realize is a pretty common amount of clearance for any engine that does not have hydraulic lifters. This holds true for a LS650 with nut/screw adjusters or a CB750 with bucket/shim adjustment. Either way, there is a clearance, and the reason can be simply to allow sufficient lubrication between metal parts. Of course, if you want to adjust them tighter at about .001", your challenge will be to find a .001" feeler gage. Good luck :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/23/08 at 07:41:44 Went & read Mike Nixon's blast on degreeing, now I will read his other articles. Thanks Reelthing. That guy may have just started sumpthin here. We have these cams put in, BUt,, IIRC, the drive sprocket IS a solid little dude & maybe could be slotted, to make for the degreeing being possible. Once degreed, a new pin poked in in a spot not slotted? Gotta have that pin, dont we? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/23/08 at 07:46:19 3032272F2A460 wrote:
I'll second this. Cause you mess with the bull, you get the horns. Do not set those valves tighter than FACTORY specs or you WILL burn them (and the valve-seat). Then you'd wish you'd never messed with it (Hindsight=20/20). Thermal expansion gows the stem which make the clearance tighter and quiets the noise. ;)[/quote] Yes, to both of you guys... Personally my solution for valve clatter is a louder pipe. Heck, I think that my speedo rattle is back, but I can barely hear it over the Raask exhaust anyway :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/23/08 at 07:59:09 Went over to Stinger's cave again yesterday :P All his valves are now readjusted at .004"...some may have been as loose as .007" Oh did I mention that his timing plug is stuck and will not turn with the standard tool or any amount of beating and turning? There's a new chapter in this saga coming soon, but we did find a new way to rotate the engine to find TDC on the compression stroke......it's called the: "Bike on Block, Watch the Valves, Feel the Piston, while rotating the Rear Wheel Technique". Definitely more complex, but certainly doable in a pinch :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 05/23/08 at 08:06:48 So how much lash is there between the rear wheel and piston? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/23/08 at 10:00:31 Greg, would running the thing till it was good & warm & using either ice or dry ice on the plug do any good? Would antisieze be applied next time? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/24/08 at 08:54:29 6D7E6968777A7C7E752A1B0 wrote:
About 4 feet plus/minus a foot, I think ::) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/24/08 at 09:00:57 382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:
Ideas yes. Believe it or not we actually tried an ice pack on it the first time because his engine was still hot. Antiseize might help, but those are some pretty loose threads anyway. Just funny how you get it bottomed out but then give it just a tiny bit more torque, and it is seized. There are 3 unfortunate issues here: 1. The plug is gonna be destroyed just to get it loose. 2. A new one is about $15. 3. I'm the one that tightened the @&*())*@ Thing >:( The good news is that Stinger says his valves sound just fine now :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 05/24/08 at 09:07:47 352A2C2B3631003000382A266D5F0 wrote:
I wonder how these things ever seize up as it's well oiled on the other side. I replaced my o-ring last time. Hope it's easier to get out the next. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Reelthing on 05/24/08 at 13:34:01 don't know - but as easy as they do it think i'll start using a Quarter to tighten the things |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/24/08 at 20:02:16 before I got too vicious with it, I would have one guy put it in a bind & another take a piece of wood to keep from messing things up & a light hammer & tap around the perimeter while as much torque as could be put on it was on it. ( Grunting sounds indicate sufficient torque) You guys have me worried. Ill be pulling mine tomorrow,,just to make sure I can. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/25/08 at 06:22:22 607364657A7771737827160 wrote:
I wonder how these things ever seize up as it's well oiled on the other side. I replaced my o-ring last time. Hope it's easier to get out the next.[/quote] The trick is that last bit of grunt. It's a habit to just tighten things sometimes, but with the plug you have to be reserved. When the plug stops turning, just stop turning the plug. If you give it that last little "snug" at the bottom you can have it like Stinger's. Now, I guess we'll just wait until the whole cover needs to come off, and then work on it from the backside too. Another complication to this problem is that while Stinger's bike was parked, he got bored and did stuff. What did he do? He put one heck of a really nice polishing job on his aluminum cases. So now, not only does he have a really shiny plug (that's stuck), but I have to worry about using some kind of brute force and putting a deep scratch in all his hard work.... :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Sandy Koocanusa on 05/25/08 at 08:02:51 Some of you metal workers will know this. Could a guy weld a nut on that plug and polish it up pretty enough to look good? Then next time, just throw a socket on it and twist it out of there. Is there any reason it has to be that stupid huge slot, other than the flat, flush look? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/25/08 at 08:11:23 6E68696B76706B6A040 wrote:
I don't know if you can solidly weld cast aluminum...and you definitely can't weld steel to aluminum anyway. I wonder why so many manufacturers use these slotted plugs anyway. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Sandy Koocanusa on 05/25/08 at 08:15:49 Another thought would be those square, ugly plugs that you terminate steel pipe runs with. I've also seen them used as bungs in metal stock tanks. It would not look good, but if you could get it threaded in there, it might come out easier. I've been working up the nerve to check my valves, but at the moment, I'm afraid to tackle this plug. Hopefully mine won't be as persnickety, at least on my first try. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 05/25/08 at 08:52:05 Here's a thought for you, don't weld. find an appropriate sized pipe plug with a recessed square hole (you don't want protruding square biting your angle, besides it'll be alot easier to polish) have (or diy) the plug drilled and threaded for it. Then red loctite the b'tard in there. Leave it up just a bit and polish the hell out of it. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/25/08 at 09:41:00 OR...note to self: Don't add that last little grunt of torque! |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Max_Morley on 05/25/08 at 09:55:43 and use a new o-ring each time so it doesn't seat so hard. Honda uses a internal hex in theirs but I've not found the correct thread yet. Max |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 05/25/08 at 10:17:05 6B475E796B49544A435F260 wrote:
I know what you're saying, but all that I can say is "Yeah, right." If I did that, I'd have a collection of them by now. Of course, I could use that as my excuse, and blame Stinger for not getting a new o-ring (I like the sound of that)...:P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Reelthing on 06/03/08 at 00:20:15 ok the new gaskets showed up today - going to open the right side again - and check this baby out top to bottom - might have let the cam chain get too tight - ordered in 4 clutch cover gskets and all new bolt gaskets for the head bolts - half dozen of the .003/.004 stick feelers and now I have the 1/4" torque wrench in my hands - goes down to 24"/lbs - was just now fooling with it seems to be right on at 60"/lbs(5ft/lbs) and 120"/lbs(10ft/lbs) - we be ready |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 06/04/08 at 14:34:55 You mean "pounds per foot" or lb/ft, right? Kinda hard to do foot per pounds :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 06/04/08 at 17:01:37 724750526A030005350 wrote:
Actually it's lb-ft. or force times distance. Slang is ft-lbs. But usually the force is varied and the distance is held constant. ;D |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 06/05/08 at 07:10:39 2B382F2E313C3A38336C5D0 wrote:
Actually it's lb-ft. or force times distance. Slang is ft-lbs. But usually the force is varied and the distance is held constant. ;D[/quote] I said something different? Darned engineers think they know everything. :) ;) :D ;D :o 8-) :-? ::) :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 06/05/08 at 07:46:32 Not everything, but we know our feet from a pound of... potato's ;D |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/08 at 07:55:50 So, IF a guy takes an S.A.E. thread bolt & tightens it to 50 ' Pounds & then takes a different type of bolt, same diameter, but with 16 threads /inch & tightens it to 50 foot pounds, which will create the greater clamping force? I say the S.A.E. will create a much tighter "Squeeeeeze" for any given torque applied. ( Of course, I wouldnt want to get anything STarted,, ohhh NO, Not meeeee) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 06/05/08 at 09:19:50 The only SAE bolt that fits your guidelines is a plain 3/8 Grade 8 bolt. Available in UNC (16 tpi) and UNF (24 tpi). Please note that both are SAE spec bolts. Cross sections for each are .0775 and .0878 sq.in. respectively. The torque to achieve the same yield strength factor is 47 and 54 ft-lbs respectively. So if both bolts are tightened equally to 50 ft-lbs, the 3/8-16 will be over torqued and the 3/8-24 will be under torqued. Adjusting for the difference in cross section gives a 13% drop in applied force. Varience in torque is 6%. I believe that gives the 3/8-24 a 1% advantage. "Just the facts, maam" Sgt. Jack Webb. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Sandy Koocanusa on 06/05/08 at 09:51:28 You guys amaze me. I am definitely a "insert tab A in slot B" kind of guy. It must be fun to actually understand all of this stuff. I guess it helps not to be too bright, though. I don't know what I'm missing most of the time. :) While I do occasionally deem it appropriate to employ sesquipedalianistic tendencies in discourse, my grasp of the physical sciences is sadly deficient. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 06/05/08 at 09:57:45 yeah, what you said. :-? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Sandy Koocanusa on 06/05/08 at 12:01:47 ;) |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/08 at 13:56:39 6D7E6968777A7C7E752A1B0 wrote:
Okay,, let me try again,, since I couldnt even begin to grok all that without someone sitting down, teaching for hours & all that, The question I was getting at was, IF one bolt has more threads per inch than another, then if each is torqued to the same torque, doesnt the finer threaded bolt create higher clamping forces? Now, if I have a bolt thats, as you say, Undertorqued, then is that a problem? Will it tend to get loose? Or, is it just an ineffient use of the bolt & a manufacturer would be better off using a different bolt in an application that shouldnt be clamped so hard? I thought I could look at the threads & recognize SAE, as opposed to what I dunno, just thot SAE bolts had a finer pitch..duhh, Clas is open,, teach away.. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Reelthing on 06/05/08 at 14:03:10 ok - just-in-o wha have busted now ? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Oldfeller on 06/05/08 at 14:18:06 I'll bite. The finer threaded fastener CAN/COULD develop more clamping force at the same torque IF the grade of the fastener (mechanical stretch resistance of the fastener alias PSI/point count/hardness/strength) is greater than the coarser threaded fastener to support that extra tension. The included incline plane of the thread is at a lower angle on a finer thread. More to the point in the real world: torqued fasteners should be untorqued, lubricated with appropriate lubes such that the torque applied by the torque wrench gets effectively turned into pure bolt "stretch" which we also refer to as clamping force. An error is to take a corroded fastener such as a head acorn nut and apply an increase torque with a torque wrench starting from the fully tight and corroded condition. Nothing is going to move, you just twist the long shanked stud around in a rotational fashion -- does a little damage to the stud's integrity but does nothing to increase clamping force on the head gasket. First you break the acorn nut free, unscrew it, clean it up, put a little never-seize on the stud threads, put the nut back on then run it up to the specified torque with the torque wrench in one increasing movement. Now you got some increased clamping force compared to when you started out. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/08 at 14:24:20 Honest, I havent tore Nothin UP, No kiddin. In fact, all Ive done today is tie the tomato plants up some, till I get the cages & built me a string holder. I am building a Keyboard stand for the wife. She wants one that will let her sit down or stand up. I am using a pair of aluminum crutches for the stand, using a piece out of a drum set to allow them to adjust( The part that allows the drummer to set the angle of the drum. It will need some modification, but I think it will work) & I swiped the part that goes under the arms & stuck some copper tubes, heavy walled junk( they Were parts of the worlds UGGliest windchime someone built before we moved here) between them, so its about a foot long & the "Swoop" in them make winding string on easy enough. Did I mention I make stuff outta junk? It keeps stuff outta the trash & keeps me from buying things AND,, It's fun. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by verslagen1 on 06/05/08 at 15:06:58 My analysis was gleamed from here... http://www.zerofast.com/torque.htm The requirement for the 75% stress factor is fatigue life. Story goes, years ago, wheels used to pop off and roll off down the street by themselves cause they were tired of black cars and wanted to roll with color. Well the owners of the black cars got pissed off and complained that tires were breaking the studs in 2 cause it couldn't be the color of the car. The car mfg's looked at it and found that the tire would rest all it's weight on one stud to break them one at a time (someone must have told them the story of how to break a bundle of sticks). So how do you keep the wheel from putting all its load on one stud? You tightened them all down real tight so that the wheel has no room to move. Ok, really... there's 2 types of stress, static and dynamic. Static, there all the time and dynamic, moving, fluctuating, changing all the time. Static failure in a bolt would be like a head twisting off from torquing it down. Dynamic failure would be from snapping off while driving down the road. This might give you a little insight as to why our head cover bolts twist off upon retorque. The life of a bolt is acummilative. You torque it down, it goes for 20 years bouncing up and down. You twist it off without much effort. Torquing it the 1st time takes a little life. Bouncing up and down takes more. Taking it off and putting it on just isn't in the picture. (excuse me I've got to go replace some bolts) ;D |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/08 at 15:49:01 I just dont feel good enough right now to be "figuring", but since you seem to have a clue about stuff, wouldnt it be fair to say that IF we have equal bolts in all areas except thread pitch, it takes fewer foot pound of torque to get the 75% stretch load with the higher thread / inch bolt? This is why I dont use antisieze on the valve cover bolts. I am still using the stock bolts & can see no sign of " I am about to give up" on any of them, tho I suspect I should get some real ones & stick in there, soon. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 06/06/08 at 09:22:55 7C7A7B7964627978160 wrote:
Huh? Do you talk like that all the time? My "Hooked on Phonics" brain can't handle that one ;D |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 06/06/08 at 09:31:58 7B646265787F4E7E4E76646823110 wrote:
Verslagy - he said "foot pounds"! :P Justin - Just go by the manual. Torque those bolts as "good book" says (5 - 8 lb/ft, I think). It doesn't suggest using anti-seize on those bolts. ...oh, but it does suggest oil on the head nuts for a wet torque. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 06/06/08 at 09:34:25 6C7F6869767B7D7F742B1A0 wrote:
There...my civic duty is done :P |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by bill67 on 06/06/08 at 09:51:21 I just wondered is that racing cam made to do the 0-30 thing or 0-50? |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by rigidchop on 06/07/08 at 08:56:56 i wanna see pics of the polished cases. i was gonna do mine, but got lazy and put it all back together after a quick inspection. |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by Savage_Greg on 06/07/08 at 09:08:39 4B4045451F1E290 wrote:
More like the 15 - 70 thing. Better hurry too 'cause it looks like Lancer is closing up shop (sadly, I say) :'( |
|
Title: Re: racing cam Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/07/08 at 10:42:09 The Supertrapp & jetting made a big difference in the acceleration. The cam went in & made about another third of the TRapp& Jetting difference, so, added up, they amount to a pretty good improvement. Looks like the heads gonna come off this winter, to see about solving the oil usage issue, so, while its on the bench, I will work the ports over. I was thinking I would just do valve seals, unless someone can tell me how to decide if its rings..it will hit 94 & I have a Dayton on, so its a bit taller than the stocker, so the engine isnt exactly sick. I expect a comp test would indicate good health, BUT, I need a way to do it, My tester wont thread into that hole.. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |