Found my new cam

I followed the link and looked at the lobe duration and lift on those cams:

The stage 1:

Intake = 175 degrees @ .050 and .251 lift
Exhaust = 206 degrees @ .050 and .297 lift

Stage 2:

Intake = the same as the stage 1
Exhaust = 210 degrees @ .050 and .307 lift

Stage 3:

Intake = 181 degrees @ .050 and .280 lift
Exhasut = 210 degrees @ .050 and .307 lift

One thing that thing jumped out at me:

The intake lobe on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 cams is the stock Cummins Marine cam lobe.

The Helix 2 is:

Intake = 188 degrees @ .050 and .267 lift
Exhaust = 208 degrees @ .050 and .290 lift


Clearly the H2 has a real intake lobe on it. Not a Cummins Marine lobe.

The widest lobe seperation is 106 degrees on the Colt stuff. Ours is 110. Wide lobe seperation is paramount on an engine that runs high back pressure. This avoids intake dilution.

The Helix is going on 4 years old. The masters were designed and made for us at considerable cost. We did not rip lobes from other cam grinds or stock Cummins cams.
 
Hamilton Cams said:
lift is not the issue cam timing and duration are. Depending on where the installed centerline is interference starts around 195degrees at .050" for the intake. Ramp rates also play a major role. If yr head or block has been decked all of it changes. Also lash can have a dramatic effect. I am thinking about having a saturday where we can install cams and dial them in to show seat timing and lift vs. crank angle. There are a lot of misconceptions about what exactly a cam does. Anybody interested?


Zach Hamilton
Click to expand...

I would be up for that! I would just need to know when a few weeks in advance so I could take off work! Or get *sick* whatever lol.

My head was decked (I don't remember exactly how much) but I believe my valves were re-sunk into the head surface and the stems were cut to get it to the right measurements.

WOW Don M actually posted something other than "mine is better because I say so" just WOW lol. But in my eyes even if the lobe was persay "taken" from another application's camshaft I really don't care as long as it works! I know a lot of people have liked the Helix II but IMO other people bringing out products for us, especially something like camsafts is nothing but good for this sport/hobby that we all have!

Personally Zach has answered dozens of my questions and helped me out with a camshaft that I have had for a while but had no information on it. I WILL buy a cam from him whenever I get some spare cash! I have always gotten replies to my PM's within hours from Zach and he always has great information! I really can't wait to put in an order for a Hamilton Diesel fresh-blank "Big Stick" cam with a bolt on gear retainer!
 
You are incorrect Muddin. I never say "mine is better cuz I say so" From the beginning I have said why I feel one is better VS the other.


Take valve springs for example; I stated ours have produced less wear, lower oil temperatures, lower HP drag ( about 5 HP ) and last longer than the others. Ours do not deflect the stock push rods like others. From the start, they have been a drop in part. One really needs to use aftermarket push rods with those other springs. Recalling their combined spring force exceeds 600 pounds of pressure over the nose of the cam. That is a receipe for long term wear and tear, IMO. We can have a spring produced with any force we want. It is no addtional cost. I would make a change for more force if needed, but so far with over 125 PSI of boost and equal back pressure, we have no need for it.

We have posted our cam specs back about a year ago as well.
 
The widest lobe seperation is 106 degrees on the Colt stuff. Ours is 110. Wide lobe seperation is paramount on an engine that runs high back pressure. This avoids intake dilution.
Click to expand...

I proved that wide lobe separtion sucks on the street..........a long time ago and posted the results, like I have with everything!

Jim
 
Watch out jim if you disagree with the soup nazi he Will cut you off. I am watching what I say for just that reason. And Don are you sure that is the marine intake. Just because a cam has the same at .050" numbers it can be a totally different lobe design based on ramp rates, you were aware of this right? And by the way while we are talking about ripping off things how about ripping off 4.6l springs and calling them cummins sportsman springs. Should we call crower, or Mr. Osbourne? Do you really want to go there?

Good Day sir!

Zach
 
Lobe seperation is not the only reason some cams suck. They suck because the grinder goofed the rest of the numbers up. Most likely less understanding of Diesels is the culprit. Testing a design before you send it out to people is something that the vendor should do. I ran 112 in my engine for a few years. It drove great. The thousands of owners with a Helix 2 have 110.3 degrees of lobe seperation. They drive great, add power, add mileage in many engines, and spool the turbo up quickly.
 
Hmm 4.6 dang I tried to get those to fit last year but the stock retainer is just a hare big and the machine shop did'nt want to grind on the spring but heck it was just a few ths
 
Watch out jim if you disagree with the soup nazi he Will cut you off
Click to expand...
Except I could care less.

That cam might not have been the best down low but rocked midrange and above, the other one with the tighter lobe separtion worked very well overall with no power loss on top........but that was back in early 04'

BOTW, I was part of the R&D team, just like on the intercoolers.

Jim
 
Don, you are cut off from HD products for life......... just kidding you can get in on our sale if you want. You could make pretty good money reboxing our springs! I know you didn't want to go head to head in testing with our springs. How about a head to head comparison on cams? One dyno one truck two cams and two sets of springs........ all in one day! Stop all the b.s. Blah blah blah and stick it out there a little. I have done the research, I have total confidence in my products, Do you?

Zach
 
The spring testing you suggested was bogus. Spintron is not optimal for a boosted engine.

No comparative testing is needed when a simple conclusion can be made from the data already out there. It is a known fact that a spring with higher pressure is going to produce more friction between the components that rub together. It is also known that higher spring force has a higher parasitic drag that ultimately equals less HP produced. We measure in the 1 HP range of added drag on a 550-600 HP engine compared to a stock set of new springs.

The comparative pressure VS lift numbers below:

Stock = 358 pounds
F1 = 460 pounds ( 28% higher )
Hamilton = roughly 600 ( 68% higher )

Anyone can see those numbers and understand that a 68% increased pressure will lower HP by friction. Increased wear rates too. The stock push rods are not really acceptable at 600 lbs of force, IMO.
 
I don't know if things are different in the diesel world but higher spring pressures typically don't equate to loss from friction in my experience. What they do create is more stress on the camshaft (deflection and or twisting which alters cam timing and can obviously lead to parts failure if too high) and deflection on the pushrod side if the pushrods are not up to the higher pressure (one again lower lift or not accurate cam timing equaling less power).
 
2 things don.

Then why the hell did you raise your spring pressures?

If you know anything about engine basics, you should know that the 2 pieces(tappet and cam) never meet because of the oils film strength, and the dynamic wedge. Nicktf, which I don't think builds engine components, Has you cornerd. Yes Nick, More pressure is applied to the camshaft and related components. But because of the properties of oil they never actually have direct friction. Except upon installation when cam lube is not used, Upon install when break-in oil is used and film strength is compromised, When oil starts to break down and film strength breaks down, or when head gaskets fail and coolant dilutes oils film strength, oh yeah and when oil is contaminated by fuel!


Your turn Don!

Looks like it is going to be another fun day of pissing matches!
Also I said I wouldn't post anymore on the open forums about valvesprings because your cronies get upset. So I will try to keep it about engine BASICS for you. BTW I'm glad to see you on our website looking up my cam specs. If you need any more info feel free to ask. I will tell you anything you want to know as long as you don't change up your h-2 cam any. I know it has been the same for four years

Zach
 
Zach, can you PM me info on the stuff you've got for 12 valves? From cams to springs and everything? I tried looking at the site but it hasn't been updated or I'm just dumb. Future customer for sure.
 
No Zach I don't build motors, but i've installed cams in my motors in the past, adjusted valve trains solid and hydraulic (for myself and customers when I had a small ls1 business) had experience with others who do build motors some being very very nasty (helping out, discussions), and talked about many combinations and what goes on in an engine with Erik Koenig during construction of my 434 lsx solid roller street motor so I have a fairly good idea of what goes on. Maybe I should change the above from "in my experience" to "from my understanding". Yes, theoretically the parts never do contact each other as you said. Once more, an argument that was not brought up and one that hopefully won't be brought up, when increasing spring pressure the force to overcome lifting the increased stiffness springs is overcome by the same increased stiffness springs pressing down during riding on the closing ramp of the camshaft's lobe.

Like I said, if you guys were seing a loss related to higher spring pressures I'd guess it was due to irratic timing caused by deflection of the pushrod and or cam and possible harmonics in the springs being caused by this deflection or just showing up through some other means.

The spintron is a good machine but does not tell the entire story as it doesn't account for all the other things going on, especially boost!
 
It isn't actually a frictional loss. It simply takes more effort from the engine to compress the spring with increased pressure. It is more of a parasitic loss. While the extra effort might be minimal, it does require extra rotational torque from the crankshaft.
 
The first basic is that friction depends on the load or force applied. There are numerous simplified models to gauge valve train wear and friction. They all include the force acting on the cam profile. The "engine friction torque" is a common term used in the engine design world. Higher spring forces result in higher friction torque numbers. Everytime. Higher wear rates from the higher friction torque is hand and hand.

Its is not just cam wear, but tappet wear, rocker arm wear, cross head wear and valve stem wear. All of these areas are subject to wear, lubricated or not.
 
Reading about all these diff. springs makes me wonder, how the reg. ol 60#ers thats in mine and many many others compaire? Thier just the white striped springs that many of the diesel dealers sell, and come with the pac brake i believe also for the exh. side? Whats the spring rate on these, and how do they compaire?
Ryan
 
Don, agreed a spintron is not the best test bed for boosted engines, that is why we are working with highspeed cameras to video trucks valvetrain while they sit on the dyno! Were having problems with oil control currently , but if I can get off of the phone I think we can figure something out. I also hold myself to a higher standard as should you. Instead of just posting about frictional losses and cam wear, how about you post some real world data and pictures of failed components. I have heard of a few of your cams failing, but to be honest looking at the scenario objectively I believe it had to do with oil breakdown and lack of maintenance. Care to rise to the occasion?
 
I take issue with much of the stuff you post. You say my cronnies get upset when you post negative info. Forgetting that there are thousands of them you are bashing.

You have called me "Dawn" instead of Don. You have continously posted that our springs are "cheap" or somehow inferior from a material or manufacturing standpoint.

Now you want everyone to believe that spring pressure has no bearing on wear and tear, elevated oil temps, and frictional loss of HP. I really dont know how to react here. You are all over the place in terms of reality. Its not a slam, just an observation. Everything I posted above is fact. You wont find posts by me calling you names, saying your springs are "cheap" or any false information. I mearly post facts like: high spring pressure relates to increased wear or deflected push rods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top