what cam profiles are being used to build slightly improved performance street/AX motors?

I am thinking of using Mahle Euro P/Cs, stock FI

Web cam 86 grind or
web cam 86-5 grind?

Has anyone built a motor using either of these configurations....and how did it work out.

Anyone bump the compression ratio using these combos beyond the 8/1?

Thanks

I thought it was the webcam 73 grind that was being touted as the best for FI.

Whatever John Seidel has done, I'd do that.


KT

86 and 86a are carb cams, dan. as allan said, you're looking for the 73. or, jake might have something even better.

so you're just going to build a 94x71? ("I am thinking of using Mahle Euro P/Cs, stock FI")

jake cam all the way.......

I just had my mechanic refresh my motor after dropping a valve seat and destroying a piston.

Stock heads, Euro 94s with a new Web 73 and stock D-jet. Picking it up tomorrow so I can let you know how the combination works out. Will move over to MegaSquirt later this year.

You're right Nathan and headrage...I went back to the Web cam site and saw that I had misread the informtion.... 73 it is...

Just gleaning as much info as I can before I start a build....

either stock displacement vs. 2056 . How the things work and react.

I have been wondering how a increased compression (8.5/1) stock displacement motor stacks up against a 2056 with (8/1) compression.
Both running simialr cams and FI.
If they have similar characteristics I would prefer to build the stocker size motor since most of it is readily available....from sources I have.

I have had two engines with the Web 73, and if you look at the Anders site, he calls this grind problamatic at best for D-Jet, and I agree. When the C O level is correct it idle hunts for quite some time (15-20 minutes) until warm. I think it adds 5-7 horsepower if I remember correctly, plus it adds 40 points in the new PAX classification system. The first engine I had it in was an 8.7 to 1 2056, with ported heads, and the second is my current driver, 74 2.0 that is totally stock with the exception of this cam. It does the exact same thing in both engines, that both have original D-Jet systems installed.

This is FYI, feel free to discard, but is factual information.

Thanks, that was the kind of feed back I was looking for.

I am going to do some more research with a couple of engine builders and probably contact Jake to see what suggestions he has.

Anders site?

If you have any question about D-Jet, this site is like the Bible, and but written so you can understand it...

http://members.rennlist.com/pbanders/

Due to the charistics of the Web 73 grind, the hydrocarbon, unburned fuel, numbers go through the roof at idle, and improve only slightly at higher RPM. An unsatisfactory cam for FI. The Cap'n

Unsatisfactory for D-Jet FI, or all FI. I am assuming with a programable FI system, it could be tuned.

I guess I just don't understand the differance between a "FI" cam and a "Carb" cam.

the gas don't go in until the intake says so.
I ran a Holley four barrel on a Covette motor that was origially fitted wth FI.
It ran great in my boat.

Albert's 1.8 on Weber's does real well with the stock cam.

I don't know this, but nobody has posted any differances between the cams for the various stock motors that used either FI or dual single Solex's.

Like I said, I don't "get it".


KT

the stock d-jet is non-adjustable. that's where the problem lies. almost any cam can be made to work with a fully adjustable fuelinjection system and the right components ...

the problem is within the limitations of the stock d-jet ...
Andy

So the problem lies in the fact that a nonprogrammable FI system give a certain amount of fuel per intake stroke?

As opposed to carbs that work on vaccum created by the intake stroke?



Did you get my video?


KT

the problem is that the stock d-jet *expects* a certain lift and duration, that's what the whole system is based on. there's *no* wiggle room in there at all ...



nope, no vid ...


Andy

Yes Trekkor, I got the video of the pass going into 7 of the v8 Lotus....
we kind of pulled away rather quickly thru 7 and the Ss.
what was the line he used in 7 anyway?
Poor Greg got caught behind that slacker....

d-jet depends on the manifold pressure (ie the mps). this vacuum signal is disturbed by cams of long duration.

Yes, djet depends for a good idle a 15hg vacuum and the Web73 or Jake 9550 will work fine other than the idle is problematic (lots of adjusting) and the MPS will need to be calibrated to your engine. A stock MPS ends up a bit too lean at cruise and WOT plus too rich at idle.

After a bunch of adjusting on mine, I got a good idle and the correct A/F mix on the MPS.

If you want a plug and play MPS, I could adjust it to my calibrations for a 2056 w/a 9550 Jake cam grind. I am running 9 to 1 compression.

Ask if you have any questions

I purchased a 9550 from Jake for just the same combo.

OK, here's something completely different-

'76 2.0 (originally)
euro 8.0 pistons
injectors rebuilt by Marin FI in Connecticut @ $25 each
early style SSI exhaust
stock D-jet
Isky 485129 cam, as follows-

advertised duration- 282
.050" (about 1.27 mm) duration- 228
lift- .450"
And yes, it's an HYDRAULIC cam (sorry Jake)

I have a smooth idle, with 13 inches Hg. It only has 300 miles on it though, so I may get a tiddle more....

Good mid-range torque, much better than before the rebuild (but then a lot more than the cam has changed). Still sorting it out, not exceeding 4000 RPM very often, but it seems to be coming on strong when I back off....

Probably will get an MPS adjustment when it's got 750 miles or so. Kind of nervous about it, but what the heck.

I am very glad I went hydraulic. The engine is quieter, and the valves self-adjust with wear and temperature. Afterall, that's the real point. I'm not lazy, but every performance car today (I think) has gone hydraulic for these very reasons....

Pictures- cam and crank in a test fit BEFORE I cleaned everything up. Also, oil pump mods to clear the cam bolts. Also, the car at about the time the cam pics were taken.... and today.
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment