[Travis]

Scott,

The lobes don't look too wild for street use but the lobe seperation is VERY narrow. I'm also not sure why they bothered with a split profile as there is very little difference between the two lobes.

Hopefully RallyBob will pop his head up at some point and comment as I'm still in the 'learning phases' of cam design

-Travis

 

[Travis]

Trent,

Be sure to get your head flowed if you're considering running high lift cams like this. Few people have been able to get the 1.9l head to flow well above .475" or so. If the head wasn't prepared by one of the Bobs, the deck is stacked against you

Also, if you're running Bob/Roger/Cameffects roller rockers, the lift will be more like .548"

-Travis

 

[Travis]

Scott,

What do you mean by '2.2 converted head'? If this is a 2.2l casting, don't forget that the 2.2l head has a much larger combustion chamber. This is seriously going to lower your compression ratio on 1.9l. You'd have to run through the math to determine what size dome would be required to bring the compression up to where you want it. It may turn out to be impractical as large domes can create complications in the combustion process.

-Travis

 

[Travis]

Scott,

Thats great, the combustion chamber in the head is the same as a 1.9l...

-Travis

 

[Travis]

Calvin,

Yes, the advantages and reasons for a split profile cam have been discussed here in detail in the past. I even run one in my GT. However, on the cam Scott has, there is almost NO difference between the two according to the specs. Just over .001" of valve lift, Just over 1 degree duration difference @.050"(much less that Bobs usual 4-6 degrees), and very little difference in lobe area. They are so similiar that slight variations in adjusting the valve lash could make those differences moot.

I'm still quite curious...

-Travis