Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
914World.com _ 914World Garage _ Webcam Camshaft Question
Posted by: aggiezig Feb 7 2017, 11:38 PM
Howdy World,
I've been lurking through some old threads to find that the two most recommended Webcams out there for a mild / street engine are the 86a and 494. What I can't seem to determine is what the long-term wear & tear would be. I know the 494 is a quicker ramping cam that would be harder on the valvetrain... but is it enough of an issue to go for the 86a instead? Also, the 494 has more lift than the 86a - will both still work with single HD springs?
If it helps, I am planning to run whichever cam in a 2056 with stock 2.0L heads.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
Posted by: lonewolfe Feb 8 2017, 12:22 AM
Howdy World,
I've been lurking through some old threads to find that the two most recommended Webcams out there for a mild / street engine are the 86a and 494. What I can't seem to determine is what the long-term wear & tear would be. I know the 494 is a quicker ramping cam that would be harder on the valvetrain... but is it enough of an issue to go for the 86a instead? Also, the 494 has more lift than the 86a - will both still work with single HD springs?
If it helps, I am planning to run whichever cam in a 2056 with stock 2.0L heads.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
The 494 cam needs the duel springs because of how much lift it has. I am torn between these two came as well. I look forward to see what others with more expertise have to say.
Posted by: bdstone914 Feb 8 2017, 04:40 AM
Howdy World,
I've been lurking through some old threads to find that the two most recommended Webcams out there for a mild / street engine are the 86a and 494. What I can't seem to determine is what the long-term wear & tear would be. I know the 494 is a quicker ramping cam that would be harder on the valvetrain... but is it enough of an issue to go for the 86a instead? Also, the 494 has more lift than the 86a - will both still work with single HD springs?
If it helps, I am planning to run whichever cam in a 2056 with stock 2.0L heads.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
Call Web Cam and talk to them..They know their stuff.
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 8 2017, 07:27 AM
If you're going to do the valvetrain I'd go with a 86b.
Dual springs you must use 1.7 rockers, 911 adjusters and manton CrMo pushrods. Plus CrMo keepers and retainers and a steel shim in the spring recess of the head.
Posted by: stugray Feb 8 2017, 08:59 AM
Howdy World,
I've been lurking through some old threads to find that the two most recommended Webcams out there for a mild / street engine are the 86a and 494. What I can't seem to determine is what the long-term wear & tear would be. I know the 494 is a quicker ramping cam that would be harder on the valvetrain... but is it enough of an issue to go for the 86a instead? Also, the 494 has more lift than the 86a - will both still work with single HD springs?
If it helps, I am planning to run whichever cam in a 2056 with stock 2.0L heads.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
The 494 cam needs the duel springs because of how much lift it has. I am torn between these two came as well. I look forward to see what others with more expertise have to say.
That is not true. I have been running a 86b with .500 lift and have no problem up to ~6200 RPM using single springs, swivel adjusters, CrMo pushrods and stock valves.
I just upgraded to dual springs, but that is just to raise my redline a few hundred more RPM.
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 8 2017, 11:29 AM
Howdy World,
I've been lurking through some old threads to find that the two most recommended Webcams out there for a mild / street engine are the 86a and 494. What I can't seem to determine is what the long-term wear & tear would be. I know the 494 is a quicker ramping cam that would be harder on the valvetrain... but is it enough of an issue to go for the 86a instead? Also, the 494 has more lift than the 86a - will both still work with single HD springs?
If it helps, I am planning to run whichever cam in a 2056 with stock 2.0L heads.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
The 494 cam needs the duel springs because of how much lift it has. I am torn between these two came as well. I look forward to see what others with more expertise have to say.
That is not true. I have been running a 86b with .500 lift and have no problem up to ~6200 RPM using single springs, swivel adjusters, CrMo pushrods and stock valves.
I just upgraded to dual springs, but that is just to raise my redline a few hundred more RPM.
Just because you can't "feel" valve float doesn't mean it's not happening.
You do realize that with that cam HP drops off big time after 5800rpm
But dual springs is a good idea...
Posted by: stugray Feb 8 2017, 11:46 AM
Howdy World,
I've been lurking through some old threads to find that the two most recommended Webcams out there for a mild / street engine are the 86a and 494. What I can't seem to determine is what the long-term wear & tear would be. I know the 494 is a quicker ramping cam that would be harder on the valvetrain... but is it enough of an issue to go for the 86a instead? Also, the 494 has more lift than the 86a - will both still work with single HD springs?
If it helps, I am planning to run whichever cam in a 2056 with stock 2.0L heads.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
The 494 cam needs the duel springs because of how much lift it has. I am torn between these two came as well. I look forward to see what others with more expertise have to say.
That is not true. I have been running a 86b with .500 lift and have no problem up to ~6200 RPM using single springs, swivel adjusters, CrMo pushrods and stock valves.
I just upgraded to dual springs, but that is just to raise my redline a few hundred more RPM.
Just because you can't "feel" valve float doesn't mean it's not happening.
You do realize that with that cam HP drops off big time after 5800rpm
But dual springs is a good idea...
I could definitely feel and hear the valve float at 6500 so I set my rev limiter to 6200.
For my first build I wanted a relatively mild cam (racecar speaking) since I wanted it to still be street driveable.
What cam would you suggest as an upgrade that is still manageable on the street?
Or what characteristics should I look for in a cam to get more hp up top?
If you recall the big argument: I spent extra $$ to get a professional cam consultation, but it devolved into anything but... so I got zero consultation and I STILL have a full race cam (.550 lift) that I cannot use New in Box.
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 8 2017, 11:58 AM
Or what characteristics should I look for in a cam to get more hp up top?
A cam for a /6
All T4 cams start to drop HP at 5400 to 5800 RPM.
What cam number is the one in the box, or what is its specs?
Posted by: lonewolfe Feb 8 2017, 08:12 PM
Howdy World,
I've been lurking through some old threads to find that the two most recommended Webcams out there for a mild / street engine are the 86a and 494. What I can't seem to determine is what the long-term wear & tear would be. I know the 494 is a quicker ramping cam that would be harder on the valvetrain... but is it enough of an issue to go for the 86a instead? Also, the 494 has more lift than the 86a - will both still work with single HD springs?
If it helps, I am planning to run whichever cam in a 2056 with stock 2.0L heads.
Thanks in advance for any advice!
The 494 cam needs the duel springs because of how much lift it has. I am torn between these two came as well. I look forward to see what others with more expertise have to say.
That is not true. I have been running a 86b with .500 lift and have no problem up to ~6200 RPM using single springs, swivel adjusters, CrMo pushrods and stock valves.
I just upgraded to dual springs, but that is just to raise my redline a few hundred more RPM.
Just because you can't "feel" valve float doesn't mean it's not happening.
You do realize that with that cam HP drops off big time after 5800rpm
But dual springs is a good idea...
I could definitely feel and hear the valve float at 6500 so I set my rev limiter to 6200.
For my first build I wanted a relatively mild cam (racecar speaking) since I wanted it to still be street driveable.
What cam would you suggest as an upgrade that is still manageable on the street?
Or what characteristics should I look for in a cam to get more hp up top?
If you recall the big argument: I spent extra $$ to get a professional cam consultation, but it devolved into anything but... so I got zero consultation and I STILL have a full race cam (.550 lift) that I cannot use New in Box.
Ok, you had to pay for a cam consultation and your paid call ended up not being a cam consultation. I would have called my credit card company, reported it as a fraudulent charge and had it removed! Let me guess who it was that charged you the consultation fee? Actually, I only know of one vendor that charges a fee for the privilege to get to speak to him. I'm sure he has a lot of knowledge but don't see how the guy can even walk a few yards without tripping over his ego.
Posted by: type2man Feb 8 2017, 08:54 PM
LOL
Posted by: aggiezig Feb 13 2017, 12:31 PM
Thanks for all of the advice.
I just spoke with Webcam who strongly recommended the 86 over any other option for a street cam.
Posted by: stugray Feb 13 2017, 12:54 PM
Thanks for all of the advice.
I just spoke with Webcam who strongly recommended the 86 over any other option for a street cam.
I would even argue that for a carbureted street car, even the 86b is fine.
I had zero trouble starting it, and it would idle just fine.
Posted by: yeahmag Feb 13 2017, 04:52 PM
I've run both the 494 and the 86a in the (more or less) same 2056 motor in the same car. Either will be fine for a street car in my opinion. The 494 has a bitter more grunt down low while the 86a has more top end.
The main reason I switched to the 86a was for more power up top for autocross (trying to avoid shifts). The 494 will loft the valves about 6250 with single springs, I'm running duals on the the 86a for extra protection...
I've not run the 86b, but I was advised by Jake that the cam really needs more headwork (and ideally stroke) to have the all the benefits of that big a cam. I think there are a few guys over on STF (shoptalksforums.com) that have tried that cam in a 2056, but they are mostly in bugs.
Posted by: colingreene Feb 13 2017, 06:20 PM
I have a 86A in my 2258, its flat after 5800 like Mark says it is.
Keeping that in mind, with my 78mm stroke the motor offers ample torque down low and plenty up top. I have run it as fast as 6200 on my dual springs but it just seems like useless engine speed so why do it.
I never understood people that want to rev everything to the moon.
Posted by: Dave_Darling Feb 13 2017, 11:34 PM
Because HP == torque * RPM.
Of course, if you can't flow air into and out of the engine at higher revs, then they don't matter.
I'd bet that some head-work could help an 86 or 86a to make some power above 5800, but you need someone who knows what they're doing to perform that work. And that isn't most of us...
--DD
Posted by: gothspeed Jan 23 2018, 02:00 PM
I was choosing between the 494 and 86A during my build .... I ended up going with the 494 with 1.7 rockers, dual springs and larger valves on 2.0 heads. We'll see how it runs, but I have not ruled out going to an 86A.
Posted by: 914Sixer Jan 24 2018, 07:26 AM
Another option in to call Elgin cams. I spoke to Demi about my camshaft.
Posted by: gothspeed Jan 24 2018, 12:06 PM
I've run both the 494 and the 86a in the (more or less) same 2056 motor in the same car. Either will be fine for a street car in my opinion. The 494 has a bitter more grunt down low while the 86a has more top end.
The main reason I switched to the 86a was for more power up top for autocross (trying to avoid shifts). The 494 will loft the valves about 6250 with single springs, I'm running duals on the the 86a for extra protection...
I've not run the 86b, but I was advised by Jake that the cam really needs more headwork (and ideally stroke) to have the all the benefits of that big a cam. I think there are a few guys over on STF (shoptalksforums.com) that have tried that cam in a 2056, but they are mostly in bugs.
Reading the bold above, the 86a cam has 'more' power at upper RPM than the 494. Meaning the 86a would actually have more peak HP at say 6000 RPM?
Posted by: yeahmag Jan 24 2018, 04:11 PM
That is correct. I’ve run both. The 86A is better for autocross with a stock box so you don’t have to take the 2-3-2 shift as often (you can stay in 2). I run dual valve springs and 9.5:1 CR on it in a 2056CC motor.
Posted by: gothspeed Jan 24 2018, 04:52 PM
That is correct. I’ve run both. The 86A is better for autocross with a stock box so you don’t have to take the 2-3-2 shift as often (you can stay in 2). I run dual valve springs and 9.5:1 CR on it in a 2056CC motor.
What you describe of the 86a is closer to what I was looking for. I wanted more upper RPM power than lower end grunt. IMO the stock 914 transmission gear setup more than compensates for a lack of lower RPM grunt.
I also prefer the slower ramp rate of the 86a and the reduced lift should not be a big issue as I have went with oversize valves. 42mm IN x 38mm EX if I recall correctly. I am running 8.5:1 CR and dual springs as well.
Looks like I have a good excuse to install an 86a now ... or an 86b???
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)