Welcome to the SR20 Community Forum - The Dash.
Register
SR20 forum logo

Thread: Cams question

+ Reply To Thread
Posts: 21-30 of 42
2009-06-10 21:08:56
#21
Originally Posted by donttazmebro
it's directed at anyone uneducated in how the VE works and that foolishly believes that the motor was designed as a 2L

this is all too funny...seriously i haven't even begun to go into detail about all the things that prove the 20ve was an afterthought yet people want to have a 'technical' debate

Why does the 16ve and 20ve have the same stock intake manifold?



economies of scale, the molds and machinery where already in place.
2009-06-10 21:15:48
#22
Originally Posted by MR-4Door-SR20DET
Interesting thread..........Keep discussing.


X2
2009-06-10 21:22:03
#23
Originally Posted by ca18
economies of scale, the molds and machinery where already in place.


so they can make a new crank but not an in intake manifold
They could make a different cam profile but not intake manifold?

Why make a new 20v intake and exhaust manifold? Why make an N1 manifold?



to simplify economy of scale is not the answer
2009-06-11 00:22:13
#24
Originally Posted by donttazmebro
it's directed at anyone uneducated in how the VE works and that foolishly believes that the motor was designed as a 2L

this is all too funny...seriously i haven't even begun to go into detail about all the things that prove the 20ve was an afterthought yet people want to have a 'technical' debate

Why does the 16ve and 20ve have the same stock intake manifold?

To be clear im talking about both of these motors outside of the 20v and VET


I guess I’m one of those “fool”.

See, that’s the problem, you haven’t put up any hard facts, numbers, details in order for this discussion to be a “technical debate”. Everything you stated so far is “I know this person so I probably know more than you”. Please no name dropping, stand on your own. You are and want others to ignore cold hard facts and data.

You want to ignore and dismiss hard facts like the block is from a 2.0 with:

-86 mm bore
-34 mm intake valve
-Valve curtain area for the 34mm intake valve with 12mm valve lift is good enough for 8,500 rpm on a 2.0
-the head flow enough for 230 hp 2.0 at 8,000 rpm, already done.
-The intake runner length on the SR20VE and SR16 is basically the same as 20V and 20VET.
-The pinnacle of the VE development were 2.0, the 20V and 20VET

If VE was original design to be a 1.6 then you shouldn’t be putting on the N1 intake manifold on your 2.2 liter engine. Contradicting yourself.
2009-06-11 03:41:22
#25
Originally Posted by donttazmebro
The sr16 is nothing like a b16. If you had a K16 and a K20 then you might have something to discuss.

Just because a motor uses a 86m bore doesn't mean anything.

But that's ok, people that haven't built motors don't really know what they are talking about. People that haven't had conversations with the companies that make cams don't know what they are talking about. People that haven't done standalone tune's and have seen how the intake and exhaust affect power and why don't know what they are talking about. And finally people that think just because a cam holds power to 9krpm even though they aren't making **** for power don't know what they are talking about.


The VE motor was designed from intake to timing events to header to be a 68mm stroke. The 20VE is an afterthought and it shows in the lack of power.

But since no one here has actually built a 16ve no one here will understand...

Here's a simple question that if any of you had actually spoke to cam producers would easily be able to answer: Why is it so difficult to make better performing cams than N1's on a stock 20VE? it's not due to lack of technology or demand since at least 3 companies have tried.


Im not comparing a B16 to a SR16, but comparing it to its variant. A B16 has the same bore, but different stroke. Same as the SR16, when compared to its variant (the SR20VE). Same bore, different stroke. It was designed FIRST, and Nissan always uses the parts-bin strategy on cars. Why does the DE/DET use the same intake manifold? Why not make a better manifold for the DET? Pffft. Cost, it's an accounting measure.

The SR20VE was designed with an AUTOMATIC transmission, so all-out power WAS NOT the goal. So why spend so much money on new development? The cams were specifically designed for the 1.6. Whoopdeedoo. But there are some cams that were made specifically for a 2.0. In fact there are more 2.0 grinds than 1.6.

If Nissan wanted to capitalize on the greatness of the 1.6VE why did they retain the use of the SAME block? Same head casting? I'll tell you... cost. They want to eek out as much as they can out of development, just like GM and the ancient 350.

With your argument you are basically saying that because the better cams were for the 1.6, that the motor was designed for a 1.6. That's like saying the SR20 was built around the SR18.

Fact of the matter is, Nissan already had stores full of SR20 blocks and they tried to come up with ways of using them up while offering something fresh.

But saying the VE was based around a 1.6 because of the cam profiles is just foolish.
2009-06-11 16:57:38
#26
Originally Posted by 5speed
I guess I’m one of those “fool”.

See, that’s the problem, you haven’t put up any hard facts, numbers, details in order for this discussion to be a “technical debate”. Everything you stated so far is “I know this person so I probably know more than you”. Please no name dropping, stand on your own. You are and want others to ignore cold hard facts and data.

You want to ignore and dismiss hard facts like the block is from a 2.0 with:

-86 mm bore
-34 mm intake valve
-Valve curtain area for the 34mm intake valve with 12mm valve lift is good enough for 8,500 rpm on a 2.0
-the head flow enough for 230 hp 2.0 at 8,000 rpm, already done.
-The intake runner length on the SR20VE and SR16 is basically the same as 20V and 20VET.
-The pinnacle of the VE development were 2.0, the 20V and 20VET

If VE was original design to be a 1.6 then you shouldn’t be putting on the N1 intake manifold on your 2.2 liter engine. Contradicting yourself.


Let's begin...
The heads are the same on the 16 and 20 ve. The cams are different. One set of cams is made for the longer stroke the other set of cams is made for the shorter stroke.

One set of cams makes more power than the other no matter which motor you put them on. But why? Why is one set of cams more agressive than the other? Maybe because you can take better advantage of the piston dwell time on one motor more so than the other. And maybe the reason why people run adj cam gears is because you are trying to dial that out on a 20VE.

I am not sure who has made an SAE corrected 230whp on a standard dynojet. But i have seen back to back dynojet/dynapack and saw 231 dwindle to i believe 204 or something like that.

Also i believe max lift on a VE head is above 13mm but i don't the emails from when i was talking to kelford (twice) about making custom cams over 4 YEARS AGO.* this statement will be important later on


Let's talk intakes.
Stock intake is the same on both 16 and 20ve. As i said above the air flow between a short and long stroke motor is completely different. BUT take the 20ve head, add 16ve cams on a stock intake behold you are making more power. The intake manifold is not a bottle neck on either the 16 or 20ve. Considering how radically different the timing, cams, stroke etc are it's pretty clear that it takes more to optimize for the 16ve and 8200rpm than a 7500rpm 20ve.

Now for timing.
This is easy we know which has more agressive timing and why (well i hope you know why since we just discussed the difference between the long and short stroke motor). It's funny that you can run more timing safely on 1 motor and then take that same map and apply it to the 20ve and MAKE MORE POWER. Wow it seems like the VE loves timing...I wonder why? Maybe because it was designed to be more detonation resistant than the DE? Hmmmm sounds like the 16ve is the target here too.

Finally, and possibly most importantly and something no one ever talks about
Transmission
What is a CVT transmission designed to do? Considering the limitations placed on the 20VE from the timing, transmission, cams etc it's very clear that the VE motor is most clearly a 16VE first 20VE compromised.



*to my final note
Before 5 years ago I didn't know a single thing about motor building much less VE's. I bought my 16VE when they were being sold as parts motors and you could get $400 for the stock 16ve cams. I bought my N1 manifold kit for $450 when they first came out. I knew i was building a 2.2L motor before Kelford or Franklin had any cams outside of N1 copies. That's why I got custom kelfords 4 years ago. The N1 manifold had a larger plenum and knowing that there were no true aftermarket options I got mine honed and port/gasket matched. 3 years later it's finally getting dyno tuned and we are seeing the MAP sensor go static above 7100rpm. There isn't enough velocity to fill the cyl in time to make more power. I also discovered that the original Kelford cams were outdated and they were kind enough to send me another set to test. In the mean time I dyno tuned the N1 cams to hitting 200whp at 6500rpm and hitting 215 (depending on smooting) SAE corrected whp. I also provided a dyno of a K20 hitting 238whp on the same dyno and comparing it to mine. While that motor blew up it's glaringly obvious what needed to be done.

I have learned and shared with this community. There is a post i made i believe on the other forum that there arent any cams that will make more power on a stock 20ve than N1's.

My new intake manifold is done and my new secondary injectors have arrived. Everything will be fitted and dynoed shortly, both N1's and custom kelfords. I doubt i will post any of that info here because this community is no longer give and take. It's a bunch of people ready to dissect work they've never done or encountered.

Put your dyno on trial, make it SAE corrected and show the dyno of another car, preferably a K20 to help us compare both your number and your numbers on that dyno. Then you can talk to me about what im doing and ill gladly share.


oh and no one here is going to do anything more than get N1 cams and actually post hard evidence so there's no real need to keep beating the subject to dealth.


ps if i don't put a k24 in my car down the line I will build a big bore 16ve I just have to see how difficult the k24 will be, after i hit my hp goal for my 2.2 that is
2009-06-11 21:24:22
#27
Let's begin...
The heads are the same on the 16 and 20 ve. The cams are different. One set of cams is made for the longer stroke the other set of cams is made for the shorter stroke.


This will shock you, but you are absolutely right with this one, and you should of stop there, instead of insisting the VE was design from the beginning to be a 1.6

One set of cams makes more power than the other no matter which motor you put them on. But why? Why is one set of cams more agressive than the other? Maybe because you can take better advantage of the piston dwell time on one motor more so than the other. And maybe the reason why people run adj cam gears is because you are trying to dial that out on a 20VE.


Dial what out? The Devil? Make no sense. People use adjustable cam gears to tune. Every engine is different due to manufacturing differences/tolerances. It obvious the SR16 cams can make more power, because they are bigger in lift and duration on the big cam. If you haven’t realized yet, the SR16 revs higher and make peak power at 7800. The stock SR20VE make peak power at 7,000. Look at what happen when you pop on the 20V cams on the SR20VE. Wow magic, it makes more power. It makes the most low to mid range power of all the factory cams. Simple reason why is because the low cams are the largest in the factory line.

I am not sure who has made an SAE corrected 230whp on a standard dynojet. But i have seen back to back dynojet/dynapack and saw 231 dwindle to i believe 204 or something like that.


Read again, I said 230 hp. Damn you’re demanding, how about 230 whp sae dynopack?

Let's talk intakes.
Stock intake is the same on both 16 and 20ve. As i said above the air flow between a short and long stroke motor is completely different. BUT take the 20ve head, add 16ve cams on a stock intake behold you are making more power. The intake manifold is not a bottle neck on either the 16 or 20ve. Considering how radically different the timing, cams, stroke etc are it's pretty clear that it takes more to optimize for the 16ve and 8200rpm than a 7500rpm 20ve.



You are stating the obvious, yes the SR16 and SR20VE are different. Hell, they are different in displacement, therefore requiring different timing, cams, crankshaft, pistons, rods.

Now for timing.
This is easy we know which has more agressive timing and why (well i hope you know why since we just discussed the difference between the long and short stroke motor). It's funny that you can run more timing safely on 1 motor and then take that same map and apply it to the 20ve and MAKE MORE POWER. Wow it seems like the VE loves timing...I wonder why? Maybe because it was designed to be more detonation resistant than the DE? Hmmmm sounds like the 16ve is the target here too.


What? Both the Sr20VE and SR16 share the same combustion chamber so they are more detonation resistant than the DE. Again, you fail to realize both factory engines were meant to make peak power at different rpm range, SR16 7800, SR20VE 7000. For the SR20VE guys with bolt ons, and wanting to rev past 7,000rpm, the SR16 ignition map works because it has more timing higher up in the rpm range. So what? Down low the SR20VE ignition has more timing so it better down low. Even on the SR16 there are three different ignition map. The N1 itself has two versions.

The SR16 ignition is no where near optimum for my engine, yours, or for any other SR20VE. It's the best if people don't want to tune themselves.

Finally, and possibly most importantly and something no one ever talks about
Transmission
What is a CVT transmission designed to do? Considering the limitations placed on the 20VE from the timing, transmission, cams etc it's very clear that the VE motor is most clearly a 16VE first 20VE compromised.


What? I don’t see the logic or connection.

As for your personal stuff, I don't care. I just want a "technical" discussion.

I still have not seen any evident the VE was designed to be a 1600cc engine. You are just stating the obvious.

I don't think nissan design the 53j block back in the mid-80's just so they can come out with the SR16 in the late 90's for a three years production run.
2009-06-11 21:45:46
#28
Originally Posted by donttazmebro
Let's begin...
The heads are the same on the 16 and 20 ve. The cams are different. One set of cams is made for the longer stroke the other set of cams is made for the shorter stroke.

One set of cams makes more power than the other no matter which motor you put them on. But why?


bolt on any oem cam designed for a high revving smaller displacement/stroke onto a larger stroked engine with the same head and it will make more power. simple, as the cam has to be more aggressive. The reason why cam producers struggle to make a better cam for bolt on 20ve's is because the n1 is sooo huge standard. fs4's have made more power than n1's but you have to rev the crap out of them to get there, and most bolt on ve'ers arnt willing to do this, especially when there is an oem cam suited for the rev range most require.
2009-06-11 23:00:39
#29
the N1 cams are not huge standard. and while I do believe you folks in NZ make good power I have yet to see that translate over into US folks running Fs4 cams and actually making more power than N1's

To 5 speed it seems like you are just willing to believe that just because a block is the same it must be true. The facts around how people are modifying these motors (cams and timing) continue to prove my point.

im sorry can we see your dyno again? SAE corrected? I do believe you are running franklin cams correct?

outside of you stating the dimentions of the block and measuring valves and incorrectly stating max valve lift where is your tuning experience helping to prove your point? I have an FSM too
2009-06-11 23:55:55
#30
So, since the VE N1 cams make the most power, and they were designed for the 1.6 it must mean the VE was prioritized and designed for a 1.6?

I am confused?
+ Reply To Thread
  • [Type to search users.]
  • Quick Reply
    Thread Information
    There are currently ? users browsing this thread. (? members & ? guests)
    StubUserName

    Back to top