vtecmasta85

hey whats up HT? i have built a b20 vtec and used rocket motorsports m24xx and so far like the performance with the cams. on a low reading dyno i made 224whp and 171 max tq. ive never seen a stock stroke b series make this torque with rockets cams, if anyone else knows another one that has please post it here. im also running out of fuel so im thinkng thats why my torque falls off after it peaks. my setup as follows:

pr3 itr head stock ports
supertech valves
rocket motorsports valve springs(set at 55 lbs pressure)
2002 k20a2 retainers
Supertech dished valves stock size
rocket motorsports m24xx cams
golden eagle cam gears set at +2,+1 currently
golden eagle fuel rail
base fuel pressure currently set at 70 psi
machine shop valve job(sketchy *** hell lol)
AEBS intake manifold portmatched to 70mm throttle body
3 inch cold air intake with v stack
knockoff small tube rage tri y header that is 3 years old lol
rdx 410cc injectors
walbro 255 lph pump

b20b block
84.5mm supertech pistons 12:5:1
balanced block
brian crower rods(440 grams a rod)
acl rod bearings/main bearings
b16 crank pulley
exedy 9.5 lb flywheel
s4c b16 transmission
car is tuned on e85

i am not creating a pee pee contest, im just sharing my info. So any negativity i dont care at all to hear. but input is very welcome so please give feedback! yall are free to post dyno graphs or any related info here!!

vtecmasta85

this what i made with the cams at 0,0
the other two pics are the valve job from nearby machine shop. i call it a v8 valve job lol.

93egSLEEPER

Are you running an aftermarket fpr? 70psi seems a bit high

vtecmasta85

Yes sir I am sorry I didn't put that in the mod discription.

raverx3m

iTrader: (1)

i know one with bc5 cams but dont have dyno anymore its been like 5 years since it was built

stock sleeve b20 13.0 compression bc5 cams no headwork made more torque but less whp

Uncle Dave

Great job but man that valve job is YUK for sure.

7rrivera7

iTrader: (1)

Trying to learn here...Uncle Dave please explain why the VJ is YUK. Thanks.

slowsleeper

really good power and torque for what the setup is, wait until you get more injector in the setup so you can run more rpm.

89si-rex

Glad to see someone posting results of rockets cams, I to am going with the m24xx cams on my 86x87 13.5:1 compression build, have been talking with him and getting input since back in October and he has been nothing but helpful, how did the valve springs hold up high in rpm being they're 55 lb seat ?

vtecmasta85

Haha yes sir you see what I mean right?

vtecmasta85

As long as you get proper headwork you'll love them man. Also run high octane to get the most out of the setup. As far as the valve springs go, I have no complaints. They are designed to be run at lower seat pressures for longevity purposes while still being able to be ran hard on. The valve train setup is good for 10, 000 rpm constantly. There's a dude who has them on his hillclimb car and has been racing on them for about 7 years. Not sure how well this vj(valve job) flows but if it flows up to 9500 rpm I will be taking it there when needed :-D.

vtecmasta85

Yes sir! Thanks Tou!

vtecmasta85

Any link to that? Thats also buddy club and not sure of the performance on those are.

93egSLEEPER

BC5 cams are HUGE. Almost too big for pump/street setups IMO.

raverx3m

iTrader: (1)

i drove the car few times it a beast lol i might be able to find it. not my own car it was built by intec racing some time ago...
it did 13.2 i think in a full interior 98 gsr no weight reduction. he had no traction at all with street tires.

93egSLEEPER

here
https://honda-tech.com/forums/all-motor-naturally-aspirated-44/2-0l-itr-dyno-cams-bc5s-vs-itr-1523438/

vtecmasta85

Ah ok. I couldn't see the pics in that thread so idk, but they say there's a lot of duration. They also don't say how big the cams are at 050, only 1mm. I'd also like to know how fast the ramps are on those BC5 since thats more important to me. My cams are 270* at 050 which is big enough for any 2L IMO and its more at higher lifts, and the ramps are fast. The primaries of the xx are equipped with a lot of duration than most would think they'd have. So with good vj/headwork and the right intake manifold and you're golden.

DDTECH

That 170 wtq is not a correct reading.
Good results on the second go around, the 213/148 is more believable and very doable on a budget build, the 170wtq is hard to get out of a 89mm stroke, on a b series, motor wise, specially on a unported head and only 84.5mm. Torque like that is very hard to come by without going to at least a 92mm stroke, or going to a custom length rod of some sort, there are always acceptations to the rules, however, we all know that. But the thread title is alittle misleading lol.

You're having some issues on flow, your peak torque comes in at around 6700-6800 and falls like a cliff after 7400. That would almost be due to a air flow issue.. whether the head isn't flowing enough for the cams, or something of that nature. On Corn, what was the total timing and AFR like?.. I'd say its got a few more hundred RPMS in it, but even after a new fueling system, I'd tackle the other stuff first, was V2V checked on these camshafts??

3'' intake -> 4'' intake
70MM should be enough, but I'd look into a better manifold.
The small tube head is also hurting you as well, I'd like into getting something that's more breathable, and definitely a 3'' exh at least.

Results are very good for what you have, 70psi is a fuckton but on Corn, I'm sure you're pressing the limits of the duty cycle, I'd look into some 725cc ID's.

DDTECH

Look at the second valve pic, half is ported, half isn't, look at the dimples still there on the seat. I believe people underrate a very good valvejob / porting job.. at least cleaning up. The setup is strong and for whats done, it makes good power and can make a good bit more with some TLC.

vtecmasta85

Nah that's the correct number because without smoothing, it made more tq. The tq drops because of the fuel issue. I already have FID 725cc injectors and when I retune I will update resutls. The car spins from 20 mph in second gear and i "out-torque" turbo cars(not numerically). I do plan to change the header sometime soon. With new injectorinjectorsn fuel value went from 1500 to 1800 btw. V2V was checked on the motor also

DDTECH

You think your fueling is causing your torque to drop
lmao ok!..

Spinning is winning, right??



I gave you legit suggestions to fix your issue..fueling isnt why torque is dropping like a cliff.
In the first dyno your torque is dropping before 6400rpms, youre reving it out to almost 8700
In the second dyno, your torque is dropping off before 7000rpms..and you're reving it out to about the same
now know why I post less and less with "real info"..

Fueling is causing you to limit your max revs, not why torque peaks late and drops fast..
You're also looking @ "engine" torque, 170 ENGINE torque is very believable, infact, its what I would expect.. 148 is WTQ..

The motor doesn't have the mods, or porting to support the flow above 8 grand, the dyno shows it. Don't listen though, keep on believing that bro science, out torqueing turbo cars LMAO.. I was really trying to help, but its obvious you have no idea.

That one looks like its on a dynacom ... Those dynos are all over the place. No consistency from one to the next. Take it to the track, lemme know what it traps.

And before you go ape ****, this isn't me taking a stab at ****, I'm correcting your misinformation. And it HAS nothing to do with cams from a/b/c/d or **** town.

Spawne32

iTrader: (3)

What dyno was this done on, because id congratulate you on making the most torque ever in the history of honda tuning on a generic NA b20b setup with a stock bore and stroke. What exactly were your torque numbers without smoothing, since you said they are higher, and im also curious what you mean by "out torquing" turbo car's, but not numerically of course. That kinda seems like a contradiction, but don't quote me on that.

Spawne32

iTrader: (3)

lmao im glad im not the only one who took note of that

slowsleeper

Geez any post with RM stuff seems to get attacked lately. The OP was just sharing info with the forum and I am sure he wasn't expecting these kind of responses.

vtecmasta85

Lol What's wrong with it?