Opel GT Forum banner

201 - 220 of 245 Posts

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #201
I spoke with Chris from EFI SystemPro today about the sniper unit, it sounds great. What just dawned on me is that I don’t know if it will fit under a GT hood. It is taller than a 38 and with the raised port heads of the 2.2/2.4, I’m not sure it will make it. It’s an expensive gamble to make for sure.

On another note, I called Isky to uncover a little more info about the cam I have in my car right now. They did say that when they recreated my cam card, they used the default form for an Opel, which is mechanical. They didn’t delete the valve lash info like they should have. They also said the power band of my cam is ~2500-6500rpm. So I’m not sure if my lack of low-end torque is mainly due to the cam or if the carbs not being jetted properly is the main culprit. Obviously, collapsed valves springs aren’t helping any, but I would like to know what I’m chasing, instead of guessing or going after the wrong item.

I’m still working through what I’m planning to do. I’ve had some tremendously helpful discussions in the last few days, but I still need to do some more researching to be sure I’m making the right decision for my car going forward.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
764 Posts
If you are going with a Weber intake, and add a Holley flange adapter, you may add too much height. It's almost impossible, without all of the parts in hand, to know what fits. Manta B motor mounts will drop another 1/4" off of the total height.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #203
All of this was posted and discussed in another thread, I’m putting it here for consistency.


I feel the exact same way and I’m redoing part of mine with less than 100 miles on it after being rebuilt 4 years ago. Part of me thinks my cam would be fine and I should try to conquer the beast, but another part says to just make it simple and get it on the road and have fun with it. I just need to be 100% sure that whatever cam I choose right now gives me the results I’m looking for, which is low end performance and streetable for around town, while cruising well on the highway. I’m not a racer and never will be, just need it to get up & go when I push that little pedal on the right!
I honestly don’t get why he (jayhawkjesse) has no low end torque. I ran a .432” lift, 224 degree @ .050” cam in an 2.0 liter automatic Manta with a 3000 rpm converter. It was very well mannered and had plenty of low end grunt. 0-60 mph in 8.2 seconds, 0-100 mph in 22 seconds.

I’ve run cams in the mid-240 degree @ .050” range on 2.2’s and they had great power everywhere.

Something isn’t adding up.
Maybe it’s the dual 45s....? Not being dialed in totally?

My converter is 23-2500rpms. Work completed by Coan Engineering.

Valve spring collapse isn’t helping I’m sure.
Stock is 2200-2400 in a 1.9. With a bigger (torquier) engine, it will naturally increase....a stock converter would be this high or higher.
Eric does not have a stock torque converter. He has stated the stall speed as being in the 2000's range. If Bob's good experience with that [email protected] cam was with a 3000 RPM stall converter, then it seems that the mystery is answered or at least partially so.
  • Eric's cam is not reaching the lower end of the main torque band when the torque converter is locking up/reaching stall speed. So it is trying launch with the RPM's below the main torque band of the engine. That's just like releasing the clutch at too low RPM's on a manual trans... the engine bogs.
  • Eric reports that after the engine revs up some, THEN it takes off. That makes all the sense in the world; it is finally revving up to the RPM where it reaches the main torque band. This maoin torque band is when the exhaust scavenging is starting to work and volumetric efficiency jumps up to around 1.0.
  • So it is pretty simple to see IMHO: The cam is putting the main torque curve too high in RPM for his TC's stall speed. This is a pretty classic and well known problem; happens all the time when folks cam up an engine and don't change the TC stall speed to move up in RPM along wiht the main torque band.
  • He does seem to have decent static and dynamic CR with the 222/228 cam. That ought to make the drop of torque less severe when RPM's below the main torque band, but it is not what he likes. A lot of what constitutes 'good torque' or 'good power' is subjective preference when we are driving and feeling what the car/engine is doing. This often presents problems in online discussions of what is a good combination, or cam, or whatever. One person's 'good' is another person's 'meh'....
Now, having blathered all of the above, yes, there could be other issues piling on too...
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #204
I posted this graph in the 2.4 head build thread that I found in the Cams Cams Cams thread, my question is I loved the way my engine used to launch my car forward from a stop when I had a 38/38 and the stock 2.2 cam. I can’t seem to get anyone to explain to me why I wouldn’t want a cam that matches or mimics the 2.2 stock on. Of this list, what are the pros and cons of other cams listed? And specifically how they would act in a larger displacement motor?

427696
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Some things are incorrect, the 19E C cam is solid, not hydraulic, also the 25E and 28E cams are marked with a D, not a B(the B is found on 25S and 25H cams). The 19N cam is solid, not hydraulic and the 19S, 19H and 17S A cams are solid too, not hydraulic. The hydraulic 19SH D cam is missing from the list. The 30E, 20S and 20N cams are marked with a K. The 22E cam is marked with an M. The C24NE is marked with an U.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #206
Thanks.......but, what does that all mean?!

I am trying to find correct info on cams, both of stock and common upgrades variety for everyone’s knowledge. I’m starting to wonder if this knowledge quest is attainable.....?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Thanks.......but, what does that all mean?!

I am trying to find correct info on cams, both of stock and common upgrades variety for everyone’s knowledge. I’m starting to wonder if this knowledge quest is attainable.....?
As far as the chart above goes the ONLY thing that seems to be printed in the language I understand as far as reading the cams are the lift numbers to me.

When I took my cam to Schneider to get it re-ground as an alternative to buying a new one. Once I got it back and set it up, I wanted to know exactly what I had so I read up on what all this stuff means.

Here’s a very good article on cams, I’d urge you to take a few minutes it’s an easy read and helped me to get a good understanding of setting up your cam:


I finally got the basics after reading a lot of articles, BTW almost every cam manufacturer has a little educational explanation similar to the one I posted.
After getting the block & head re surfaced, this retards the cam timing on our engines, so along with the 2.0 conversion I wanted to be sure it was set up to have enough advancement for the cam timing (achieved by using a modified adjustable cam sprocket).
D8D2C055-E137-4AE4-A279-5F65BBDDB085.jpeg 884DAC77-B31D-4A5A-A6A8-67BA2B18844B.jpeg

This is good for low end power/torque I also wanted to see my actual lift and duration @ .050” which SHOULD be and is with a few exceptions the universal way of measuring cams, the world of cams sure would be a lot simpler if it were.

So if I set up the cam using the degree wheel I know exactly what I have. At 2,000 rpms I can pull up almost any grade in 4th gear, my power dies out around 6,000-6,500 rpms. I have a streight 2.0 top to bottom converted from my 1.9 and the cam I have is VERY close to stock. Here’s what I have with a little math to get more results at the bottom, I also used the centerline method on the intake for comparison between the two methods

2018 regrind with 4° bushing .051” gasket fully torqued


Intake:
266” lift

05° ATDC

25° ABDC

-05 + 25+ 180 = 200 duration

200 ÷ 2 = 100 + 05 = 105 centerline

Centerline method :

61° ATDC or 61 °

32° BBDC or 152°

61+ 152 = 213 ÷ 2 = 106.5


Exhaust:

265” lift

34° BBDC

14° BTDC


34 + -14 + 180 = 200 duration

200 ÷ 2 = 100 + 14 = 114 centerline


105 + 114 = 219 ÷ 2 = 109.5 LSA

18° overlap

To me how things are set up as a complete engine is knowing what you have :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Of the stock cams it's the 20E R and 19E C cam that are the hottest. A stock 20E with two 45DCOE's is rated at 122hp DIN. A stock 19H Sprint engine with two 40DFO's is rated at 106hp DIN and the only difference to a 19S is 0,5 points more static compression and the carbs, the cam is the same A cam. A 19SH with the hydraulic D cam and a 9,8:1 static compression is rated at 97hp DIN with a single Zenith 35/40 INAT 2bbl down draft.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #209
Just to set the record straight, the cam dictates everything right? Whatever the powerband is of the cam, everything else has to be built around it, correct? Doesn’t do any good to have a cam that’s powerband is 3500-7000 rpm if your city driving and and trying to tune for lower end power? No matter what fuel system and jetting/tuning you do....?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,490 Posts
Just to set the record straight, the cam dictates everything right? Whatever the powerband is of the cam, everything else has to be built around it, correct? Doesn’t do any good to have a cam that’s powerband is 3500-7000 rpm if your city driving and and trying to tune for lower end power? No matter what fuel system and jetting/tuning you do....?
The cam definitely sets the stage.

There are things you can do to add or detract from the cam’s design intents, but generally it is what defines the power band.

If you choose a cam with a specific intent, and then design the sub-systems to compliment it, THAT is how you get a great running engine, and not just a pile of parts that sort of works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guyopel

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #211
The cam definitely sets the stage.

There are things you can do to add or detract from the cam’s design intents, but generally it is what defines the power band.

If you choose a cam with a specific intent, and then design the sub-systems to compliment it, THAT is how you get a great running engine, and not just a pile of parts that sort of works.
So, according to Isky (take that for what it is) my current cam has a powerband 2500-6500.

When I had the original 2.2 cam in the 2.2 motor paired with a Weber 38, my car was ready to go at idle. I mean, it would creep forward at a stoplight and I’d have to be sure to keep my foot squashed on the pedal to keep from going forward. The slightest touch of the pedal would launch my car forward. I could chirp the tires at will. I miss that. I REALLY

According to Gil, the powerband of the 1.9 cam is 500-4800.

Nobody can seem to be able to say anything about the stock 2.2 cam and what the details are on it, specifically the powerband.

Is the 1.9 right? A torquer? A replica of the 2.2 cam? I would really like answers but I have asked OGTS several times about the 2.2 cam specs without answer. Gil just says the 1.9 will “wake up” the 2.2 (he has it in his 2.2 in his car) even though it is far milder than the cam I have now and is the cam that pretty much everyone trying to increase performance out of their 1.9 ditches at the first opportunity. Gil says the torquer won’t work with an automatic.

RallyBob says I should have loads of torque and power throughout the RPM range with the cam I have now. Maybe it’s because the 45 DCOEs aren’t tuned properly yet, maybe it’s because the combo of the cam, torque converter and carbs aren’t matched properly...?

So far, my car is a dog until it gets over 3000ish rpms, then it takes off.
I don’t want to chase the wrong things or do more than necessary, but I feel like I’m flying blind and currently chasing a ghost.

My valve springs are collapsed and need replaced. I’m not sure if my cam does or not. Go stock springs and change to a milder cam? Replace springs and keep the current cam? I’d like an easier time tuning and that’s why I’m planning for EFI with the Sniper in either case; even though I kind of feel like a quitter for abandoning the DCOEs before the are dialed in and jetted right.

I just REALLY miss driving my car and enjoying it, it’s been about 8 years since I haven’t had an issue to deal with.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
Nobody can seem to be able to say anything about the stock 2.2 cam and what the details are on it, specifically the powerband.

Is the 1.9 right? A torquer? A replica of the 2.2 cam? I would really like answers but I have asked OGTS several times about the 2.2 cam specs without answer. Gil just says the 1.9 will “wake up” the 2.2 (he has it in his 2.2 in his car) even though it is far milder than the cam I have now and is the cam that pretty much everyone trying to increase performance out of their 1.9 ditches at the first opportunity. Gil says the torquer won’t work with an automatic.
Eric, I have 2.4 camshaft that I can send you if you decide to go that way.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #214 (Edited)
I'll just throw this into the conversation:
I'm using the stock 2.4 cam that Charlie has determined is a split profile cam with fast lift and slower than that closing. It has a slight lope that doesn't mess around with tuning. I was running an SSD with a DCOE 45 and an automatic. I really love it and wouldn't consider for one second changing it. I spun tires like a madman with it in my high compression 2.5.
I'm now at normal compression with a stock 2.4 and FI and I'm slow off the line. Everything else has remained the same. I think this is because of the smallish throttle body and the slow rate of throttle opening of my system overall.

I changed the position of the linkage/cable on my gas pedal and got a noticable improvement of "launch", but still nothing to write your grandmother about. I could try a mod to make it open even faster by extending the length of the pedal arm or repositioning where on the throttle the cable attaches to, to see what happens. I was using solid linkage on my SSD and had to greatly reduce the rapidity of the throttle opening with a mod or two to make it drivable at low rpm. All of this tells me that how quickly your throttle opens can play a big part in your perceived perception of your engine's power and it's ability to "launch" quickly.

So, Eric, when you mess around with your engine in your garage and you move your linkage by hand at the carb, does it seem to be as powerful or more as your previous engine? Maybe your throttle/linkage/cable set up isn't optimized for strong launch.

:)

That’s a great thought Gordon. Currently I have the dual cable Mangoletsi linkage I’m the dual carbs and the cables used in it are L O N G, like go from the throttle arm up by the cowl, wrap back around over the engine long. I am like you and really like the feel of the solid linkage, I need to find a way to make that work for me.

Until I find the perfect cam for my car (and I’ve only drive less than 20 of trouble free driving since the rebuild, with improperly jetted carbs btw) I don’t feel like I’ve got any idea how this current set-up would behave under properly tuned conditions. I’m thinking right now, I’ll just put in stronger valve springs and try to get things tuned before I go nuts with cam & carb/EFI swaps at the same time.
This exchange happened in another thread and I want it here to help keep the whole picture consistent.

These posts continue to make me think that my lack of low-end launch torque isn’t due to my cam, but my improperly adjusted throttle and my improperly tuned/jetted carbs.

Before going down the path of an unnecessary cam & change, I think it would be prudent to make a judgement on my current motor combo when it is properly tuned.

However, in order to do that I need to find valve springs that “drop in” to what I currently have and are appropriately matched to my cam specs. OGTS is out of stock of the double spring kit, does anyone have a set them or of stronger springs that they’d be willing to sell?

Eric
 

·
Just Some Dude in Jersey
Joined
·
14,402 Posts
I really don't think that those dual springs are necessary. The original engine didn't have them, so why would you need them? As always, all that high end upgrade stuff is almost exclusively for 5000+rpm driving. There's no market for every day driving stuff because that's how cars normally come equipped for. High rpm dudes need their valves to close really quickly 'cuz......well.....they drive at high rpm. I have never driven any of my GTs' various engines at 5000rpm.

You have a 2.2 engine with some upgrades. Charles Goin is the #1 importer of those 2.2/2.4 engines and maker of the 2.5/2.6 modified engines that we get in this country. He has gazillions of parts cheap. I suggest you give him a call or a Messenger message and start talking some serious turkey. I know you don't want to go there, but the Facebook groups tap into the THE WHOLE WORLD of Opelers, parts, and know-how, instead of just the 25-35 guys who frequent this site at this time. I can get any part I want in the blink of an eye on Facebook. In case I haven't already, I'll send you a "Conversation" message with Charlie's phone number.
 

·
Opel Rallier since 1977
Joined
·
1,712 Posts
The cam definitely sets the stage.

There are things you can do to add or detract from the cam’s design intents, but generally it is what defines the power band.

If you choose a cam with a specific intent, and then design the sub-systems to compliment it, THAT is how you get a great running engine, and not just a pile of parts that sort of works.
This is spot on. The cam is the 'core' of the engine RPM range. You can match all the RPM ranges of all the parts to the cam and end up with a very narrow RPM band that has a lot of torque across that narrow band. Thyat is suitable for certain operations, like drag racing or racing on some circle tracks.

Or, you can vary the 'subsystems' (good word!) and tweak the upper and lower needs of the RPM range around to make a broader RPM range engine.

Most of us can think about step 1.. picking the cam RPM range for the application. We can even do step 2, which is picking compression ratio to work with the cam and altitude. When it gets to step 3, which is picking the induction and exhaust, we often pick what 'seems right', what we want to try at this time (dial Webers are cool looking), or what we have on hand. So Step 3 often is not thought out.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #217
I stepped back, gathered myself and took a look at everything I’ve been thinking about, and it’s been A LOT. After that, and a few long talks with a few people I trust, I am going to get a cam that is suited for my driving habits and the powerband that I spend my time driving in, which like Gordon said, is well below 5000rpm. So I don’t need a cam that starts at 2500 and tops out at 6500, which is precisely the cam I’ve got now. So the cam I have now is going to be taken out and I’ll be putting in a cam that has a powerband that starts at low RPMs, which is where I spend my time driving

Therefore, I won’t need special springs because I’m not going to be running a cam that has a lift that exceeds the stock springs, which is what my current cam needs.
 

·
Opel Rallier since 1977
Joined
·
1,712 Posts
If this helps you Eric, here is a post I just made over in another section that I think may apply to your situation.

And, as far as the low RPM end of cam performance stated by cam manufacturers, I have found that almost all of them are rather 'optimistic' on that matter. I generally add 500-800 RPM to their stated low RPM end of the cam RPM range to get to a good idea of what will actually be experienced. If you make this 'correction' to the stated 2500-6500 RPM range, then that matches up pretty well with what you are expereincing. The only major cam Mfr that seems (to me) to get pretty close on the low RPM end of the range is Crane.. but of course we don't get our cams from them anymore.

If you are going to step back to a standard Isky hydraulic grind, or a stock Opel cam, then you will probably be fine with the stock springs. 2 things drive you to heavier springs: higher RPM's and more aggressive cam lift rates. The ISKY hydraulic rates are pretty sloooow and are almost the same as stock lift rates.

Now one thing I will recommend to you is to look serioulsy at the Torquer cam. After having run the profiles on both that and the stock cam, the Torquer is a good 15 degrees ore more shorter duration versus your present cam (the exact numbers depend on which lobe you look at, intake or exhaust), and are just slightly longer than a stock cam; that is going to get the torque starting at a significantly lower RPM that you have now. And you get a bit of extra lift over the stock cam.
 

·
Opeler
Joined
·
920 Posts
Discussion Starter #220 (Edited)
If this helps you Eric, here is a post I just made over in another section that I think may apply to your situation.

And, as far as the low RPM end of cam performance stated by cam manufacturers, I have found that almost all of them are rather 'optimistic' on that matter. I generally add 500-800 RPM to their stated low RPM end of the cam RPM range to get to a good idea of what will actually be experienced. If you make this 'correction' to the stated 2500-6500 RPM range, then that matches up pretty well with what you are expereincing. The only major cam Mfr that seems (to me) to get pretty close on the low RPM end of the range is Crane.. but of course we don't get our cams from them anymore.

If you are going to step back to a standard Isky hydraulic grind, or a stock Opel cam, then you will probably be fine with the stock springs. 2 things drive you to heavier springs: higher RPM's and more aggressive cam lift rates. The ISKY hydraulic rates are pretty sloooow and are almost the same as stock lift rates.

Now one thing I will recommend to you is to look serioulsy at the Torquer cam. After having run the profiles on both that and the stock cam, the Torquer is a good 15 degrees ore more shorter duration versus your present cam (the exact numbers depend on which lobe you look at, intake or exhaust), and are just slightly longer than a stock cam; that is going to get the torque starting at a significantly lower RPM that you have now. And you get a bit of extra lift over the stock cam.
I’m curious about the charts below....if you’ll notice the 2.2 cam has the lowest duration of any of the cams, which would make sense as to why my car with the stock cam would “launch” at low RPMs. What doesn’t make sense is how those numbers are calculated. My current cam has duration numbers of 222 & 228, for intake & exhaust. I’m curious what the comparative duration number is for the stock 2.2 cam.
I’ve heard excellent things about the torquer cam too, especially from others with an automatic transmission.

I’m also attaching a screenshot from OGTS website that lists the lift & duration numbers for the cams they sell....stock, torquer, combo.
 

Attachments

201 - 220 of 245 Posts
Top