Bisimoto Turbo Cams??
02-10-2008, 07:54 AM
#26
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Peg City, 204
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Joseph Davis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Joseph Davis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I sure do like complicated toys, but I am still the #1 biggest fan of simple, expedient setups that don't cost a whole lot of money. Mediocre turbo cars are classically budget builds, using smaller turbos that naturally create broader powerbands. Now, some people are fascinated by machines and would love to tinker on the level you propose, but I'm not one of them and most people are better off spending that money on something else.
I'll read about the theory all day long, though, with ears perked all the way. Ideas and perspective are good.</TD></TR></TABLE>
yeah, cams are not a good idea for most turbo honda people.... it just makes so much more sense to simply crank the boost up than it does to spend $400 on a cam and see the same results in terms of power.
Anyway, I didn't once mention compression ratio in this turbo cam thread, I totally missed it, but it seems pretty damn important to me at the moment.
lower compression ratio=greater need (or should I say tolerance in this case?) for overlap, just like when a larger bore is required. Like J. Davis basically said, we can think of prescribing overlap to an engine the same way we prescribe timing advance...
basically the greater the volume of combustion space, the more the need to flush out leftover unburnt hydrocarbons at the start of the intake cycle... I expletiveing hate unburnt hydrocarbons after TDC in the intake stroke.
I sure do like complicated toys, but I am still the #1 biggest fan of simple, expedient setups that don't cost a whole lot of money. Mediocre turbo cars are classically budget builds, using smaller turbos that naturally create broader powerbands. Now, some people are fascinated by machines and would love to tinker on the level you propose, but I'm not one of them and most people are better off spending that money on something else.
I'll read about the theory all day long, though, with ears perked all the way. Ideas and perspective are good.</TD></TR></TABLE>
yeah, cams are not a good idea for most turbo honda people.... it just makes so much more sense to simply crank the boost up than it does to spend $400 on a cam and see the same results in terms of power.
Anyway, I didn't once mention compression ratio in this turbo cam thread, I totally missed it, but it seems pretty damn important to me at the moment.
lower compression ratio=greater need (or should I say tolerance in this case?) for overlap, just like when a larger bore is required. Like J. Davis basically said, we can think of prescribing overlap to an engine the same way we prescribe timing advance...
basically the greater the volume of combustion space, the more the need to flush out leftover unburnt hydrocarbons at the start of the intake cycle... I expletiveing hate unburnt hydrocarbons after TDC in the intake stroke.
02-10-2008, 02:26 PM
#28
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, Ca, USA
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (nowtype)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nowtype »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What about all of the positive results with pretty aggressive Skunk 2 cams? Tony1 and another member or two have posted significant gains with such cams when using big turbos and 1:1 IMP to EMP. Theory only matters when it is applicable and in this case the theory seems to match the actual results.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Nowtype, you are so funny. S.o.h.c. engines have FIXED lobe separation, and twin cams allow you to adjust lobe centres independently.
I have an easy way for you to solve this "dilemma": tune an N/a setup with your Skunk 2 "aggressive" cams. Create a degree card, with the optimized opening and closing numbers for intake and exhaust....then degree in a turbo application with the same numbers....then, dyno, compare, and post your results. Then attempt to widen the lobe centres...then see what happens. You will be humbled.
Honestly, owning a dyno, and performing research can be humbling, and educational to boot.
Aim, I have not performed that comparison yet...I am sorry, but I do not have any results in regard to an accurate comparison between those 2 heads.
I am not, however, against trying it...
What about all of the positive results with pretty aggressive Skunk 2 cams? Tony1 and another member or two have posted significant gains with such cams when using big turbos and 1:1 IMP to EMP. Theory only matters when it is applicable and in this case the theory seems to match the actual results.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Nowtype, you are so funny. S.o.h.c. engines have FIXED lobe separation, and twin cams allow you to adjust lobe centres independently.
I have an easy way for you to solve this "dilemma": tune an N/a setup with your Skunk 2 "aggressive" cams. Create a degree card, with the optimized opening and closing numbers for intake and exhaust....then degree in a turbo application with the same numbers....then, dyno, compare, and post your results. Then attempt to widen the lobe centres...then see what happens. You will be humbled.
Honestly, owning a dyno, and performing research can be humbling, and educational to boot.
Aim, I have not performed that comparison yet...I am sorry, but I do not have any results in regard to an accurate comparison between those 2 heads.
I am not, however, against trying it...
02-10-2008, 03:25 PM
#29
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mason, OH, USA
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (aimmotorsports)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by aimmotorsports »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hey, since we have Bisi on tap... what's your $0.02 on Y8 cylinder heads? I like them for NA builds, but they seem to have bad juju when a turbo gets bolted on.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Like to know as well
Like to know as well
02-11-2008, 09:26 AM
#30
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Budds Creek, MD, amishtown
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Joseph Davis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Joseph Davis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
There is a window of operability past 400 whp, you just need the same level of gear bolted to the D that you have on the average 600-800 whp B-series. When I say that I'm thinking intake and exhaust manifolding, cam, and other D-specific mojo. The problem with 400+ whp D-series is rooted in how they struggle to breathe in the higher power levels, much like an asthmatic they strangle themselves trying. If you can remedy that situation you can still lay ball. Sure it's not as cost effective, but neither is the average sleeved B-series build making 400+.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree with what your saying here. The only thing I disagree on is the wall you guys are speaking of.. I would say that wall get pretty close around 500hp.. lol
There is a window of operability past 400 whp, you just need the same level of gear bolted to the D that you have on the average 600-800 whp B-series. When I say that I'm thinking intake and exhaust manifolding, cam, and other D-specific mojo. The problem with 400+ whp D-series is rooted in how they struggle to breathe in the higher power levels, much like an asthmatic they strangle themselves trying. If you can remedy that situation you can still lay ball. Sure it's not as cost effective, but neither is the average sleeved B-series build making 400+.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I agree with what your saying here. The only thing I disagree on is the wall you guys are speaking of.. I would say that wall get pretty close around 500hp.. lol
02-12-2008, 12:41 PM
#31
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: howell, mi, 48843
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Bisimoto)
i know the valves are 1 mm bigger in the y7 heads in stock form... but, if they actualy flow better i dont... im considering getting a y7 head if i can sell my a6 to try it on...
02-14-2008, 06:36 PM
#32
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ashEVILle, NC, USSR
Posts: 4,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Newt Dog)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Newt Dog »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I agree with what your saying here. The only thing I disagree on is the wall you guys are speaking of.. I would say that wall get pretty close around 500hp.. lol</TD></TR></TABLE>
You probably have better flowing manifolding and charge pipe plus cam if you are getting close to 500 without issues. So far I've only touched one SOHC that could crack that mark with and easy tune; it made 305 @ 12 psi on a cold engine and a consistent 295-297 once heat soaked, and was running a GT28RS so power didn't go up a whole lot from there it just got a broader and broader powerband. At 16+ psi he was making 300+ from 5000-8000 rpms.
Good stuff.
I agree with what your saying here. The only thing I disagree on is the wall you guys are speaking of.. I would say that wall get pretty close around 500hp.. lol</TD></TR></TABLE>
You probably have better flowing manifolding and charge pipe plus cam if you are getting close to 500 without issues. So far I've only touched one SOHC that could crack that mark with and easy tune; it made 305 @ 12 psi on a cold engine and a consistent 295-297 once heat soaked, and was running a GT28RS so power didn't go up a whole lot from there it just got a broader and broader powerband. At 16+ psi he was making 300+ from 5000-8000 rpms.
Good stuff.
02-16-2008, 09:19 AM
#33
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cocoa, FLORIDA, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Joseph Davis)
In the past I was in firm belief of this so called hp "wall" the SOHCs hit, but not now. The guy who built my engine is running a Z6 in his crx and running the same cheap T3/T4 as me and at 15psi hes making 350whp. Hes got a stage 2 BC cam, blox intake mani, and a panducky ramhorn manifold. Everyone always says vtec doesnt make a big enough difference on sohcs, but his wasn't working at all when he had a previous tune. He was running 20psi and barely hitting 350whp, and retuned with vtec, could hit 350whp at 15psi. Runs an 11.3@124mph on 24" slicks.
02-16-2008, 09:36 AM
#34
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ashEVILle, NC, USSR
Posts: 4,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Only1cam)
BC doesn't make cams for D16, try again.
The Z6 I tuned than made 300 at 12 would have no problem making those power numbers at 15 with a bigger turbo. It is still limited by port, valve, and bore size. Until you break past the 500 figure Newt Dog and I were discussing with room to spare, you can't throw out a mythical 350 whp SOHC and say it invalidates something dozens of tuners across the country have known for a number of years now.
Get a few cars on the dyno, it's pretty interesting how quickly some setups go from making great efficient power to them being bottlenecked and struggling.
The Z6 I tuned than made 300 at 12 would have no problem making those power numbers at 15 with a bigger turbo. It is still limited by port, valve, and bore size. Until you break past the 500 figure Newt Dog and I were discussing with room to spare, you can't throw out a mythical 350 whp SOHC and say it invalidates something dozens of tuners across the country have known for a number of years now.
Get a few cars on the dyno, it's pretty interesting how quickly some setups go from making great efficient power to them being bottlenecked and struggling.
02-16-2008, 10:44 AM
#36
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Witness, Protection Program
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (d16z6Tcrx)
choke on it. 
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Joseph Davis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It's a cold engine run, when heatsoaked she nets a consistent 295-297 at 12 psi:
Turning up the boost did little for peak power but made the overall powerband broader. 18-20 psi range yielded:
</TD></TR></TABLE>
copy/paste from ectunes site.
http://forum.ectune.com/viewtopic.php?t=709
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Joseph Davis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It's a cold engine run, when heatsoaked she nets a consistent 295-297 at 12 psi:
Turning up the boost did little for peak power but made the overall powerband broader. 18-20 psi range yielded:
</TD></TR></TABLE>
copy/paste from ectunes site.
http://forum.ectune.com/viewtopic.php?t=709
02-16-2008, 06:39 PM
#41
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: b00sting my D16s, SoWis, USA
Posts: 7,015
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Re: (nowtype)
One thing to consider: factory turbo motors generally max out everything BESIDES the turbo first. Meaning they end up with lots of back pressure. Given our engines' sizes/flow rates, the Honda crowd uses fairly large turbos. Most t3-turbine'd Hondas don't see PR's of >3:1 like you'd get on a 450whp Evo with clipped stock turbo. 
BTW, there's a saying in the "real world": Put your money where your mouth is. Obviously, people like Bisi and Tony1 have done that to sohc and dohc's, respectively. I don't take their advice/info lightly.
BTW2, the 'sohc wall' is more like the 'sohc INTAKE MANIFOLD wall'. Even the Y8 mani has ultra-long runners compaired to a stock B16 manifold. There are 'mani' examples showing how a change to an aftermarket IM helps greatly from 6k+.
BTW, there's a saying in the "real world": Put your money where your mouth is. Obviously, people like Bisi and Tony1 have done that to sohc and dohc's, respectively. I don't take their advice/info lightly.
BTW2, the 'sohc wall' is more like the 'sohc INTAKE MANIFOLD wall'. Even the Y8 mani has ultra-long runners compaired to a stock B16 manifold. There are 'mani' examples showing how a change to an aftermarket IM helps greatly from 6k+.
02-16-2008, 07:20 PM
#43
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: missouri
Posts: 4,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what kinda of gains can i see going from a zex 59300 to your 1.2 or 1.4.. (im really not looking for numbers obviously, just curious how much better your cam would be compared to my 59300 i already have)
is the 1.4 streetable at all?
is the 1.4 streetable at all?
02-16-2008, 10:46 PM
#44
* B A N N E D *
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (mike93eh2)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mike93eh2 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what kinda of gains can i see going from a zex 59300 to your 1.2 or 1.4.. (im really not looking for numbers obviously, just curious how much better your cam would be compared to my 59300 i already have)</TD></TR></TABLE>
It's funny how I find myself being swayed by this thread, despite the lack of empirical evidence. Naturally, I have much respect for Bisi and am usually prepared to swing from his nuts when given the chance, but so far his claims of empirical testing are only hearsay.
I almost thought "yeah, screw the N/A app. Zex cams - Bisimoto cams or bust!"
But then I snapped back to reality for a second and realized that a majority of the boosted SOHC crowd is happily/successfully running the 59300/105300, including myself.
Now granted, I'm a top-dollar *****, but I consider high-lift cams to be wear-items. When I burn up a 105300 cam, I can find a new replacement for $200. Considering that the Bisi cams are $350, I better see some indisputable evidence of their superiority before I willingly hop off the Zex bandwagon.
It's funny how I find myself being swayed by this thread, despite the lack of empirical evidence. Naturally, I have much respect for Bisi and am usually prepared to swing from his nuts when given the chance, but so far his claims of empirical testing are only hearsay.
I almost thought "yeah, screw the N/A app. Zex cams - Bisimoto cams or bust!"
But then I snapped back to reality for a second and realized that a majority of the boosted SOHC crowd is happily/successfully running the 59300/105300, including myself.
Now granted, I'm a top-dollar *****, but I consider high-lift cams to be wear-items. When I burn up a 105300 cam, I can find a new replacement for $200. Considering that the Bisi cams are $350, I better see some indisputable evidence of their superiority before I willingly hop off the Zex bandwagon.
02-16-2008, 11:20 PM
#45
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Legion)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Legion »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Now granted, I'm a top-dollar *****, but I consider high-lift cams to be wear-items. When I burn up a 105300 cam, I can find a new replacement for $200. Considering that the Bisi cams are $350, I better see some indisputable evidence of their superiority before I willingly hop off the Zex bandwagon.</TD></TR></TABLE>
My 59300 got way worn. When i pulled it out the last time the lobes looked pretty bad. Although i did run it in my car for 4-5 years
Now granted, I'm a top-dollar *****, but I consider high-lift cams to be wear-items. When I burn up a 105300 cam, I can find a new replacement for $200. Considering that the Bisi cams are $350, I better see some indisputable evidence of their superiority before I willingly hop off the Zex bandwagon.</TD></TR></TABLE>
My 59300 got way worn. When i pulled it out the last time the lobes looked pretty bad. Although i did run it in my car for 4-5 years
02-17-2008, 01:53 AM
#46
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deutschland, Germany
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bisimoto Turbo Cam?? (Bisimoto)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bisimoto »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yes, give us a call, as we can help. The biggest mistake boosted enthusiasts make is place an N/A designed cam in their turbo'd engine: the increased duration, and lobe separation qualities cause lackluster performance due to boost blowing right through the exhaust during the overlap event.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Totally agree.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nowtype »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A "traditional" turbo cam has always been high duration low overlap. This was the norm for years, but also this norm went under the assumption that you were running a much higher pressure in the exhaust manifold vs the intake manifold and this was the most effective method to combat reversion. Forget about actually getting some scavenging, they were just worried about battling off reversion. Now we have proven time and time again that throwing in a high duration and moderate to high overlap cam will increase power when exhaust manifold pressure and intake manifold pressure are a 1:1 ratio because reversion is no longer this huge issue we can actually attempt to get scavenging.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Totally disagree by personal experience. Got rid of my Skunk2 Stage1s from my LS/VTEC. It was not cutting it. Put some turbo cams in and the car woke up. Night and day performance.
Totally agree.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nowtype »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A "traditional" turbo cam has always been high duration low overlap. This was the norm for years, but also this norm went under the assumption that you were running a much higher pressure in the exhaust manifold vs the intake manifold and this was the most effective method to combat reversion. Forget about actually getting some scavenging, they were just worried about battling off reversion. Now we have proven time and time again that throwing in a high duration and moderate to high overlap cam will increase power when exhaust manifold pressure and intake manifold pressure are a 1:1 ratio because reversion is no longer this huge issue we can actually attempt to get scavenging.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Totally disagree by personal experience. Got rid of my Skunk2 Stage1s from my LS/VTEC. It was not cutting it. Put some turbo cams in and the car woke up. Night and day performance.
02-17-2008, 05:35 AM
#48
Honda-Tech Member
Re: Bisimoto Turbo Cam?? (crucian)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by crucian »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Totally disagree by personal experience. Got rid of my Skunk2 Stage1s from my LS/VTEC. It was not cutting it. Put some turbo cams in and the car woke up. Night and day performance.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
you probably didnt have a "real" turbo on the engine....
Totally disagree by personal experience. Got rid of my Skunk2 Stage1s from my LS/VTEC. It was not cutting it. Put some turbo cams in and the car woke up. Night and day performance.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
you probably didnt have a "real" turbo on the engine....
02-17-2008, 08:16 AM
#49
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Only1cam)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Only1cam »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">In the past I was in firm belief of this so called hp "wall" the SOHCs hit, but not now. The guy who built my engine is running a Z6 in his crx and running the same cheap T3/T4 as me and at 15psi hes making 350whp. Hes got a stage 2 BC cam, blox intake mani, and a panducky ramhorn manifold. Everyone always says vtec doesnt make a big enough difference on sohcs, but his wasn't working at all when he had a previous tune. He was running 20psi and barely hitting 350whp, and retuned with vtec, could hit 350whp at 15psi. Runs an 11.3@124mph on 24" slicks.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I can vouch for Only1cam on this
He has a stage 2 crower cam and skunk 2 IM though
He uses an ebay .50 trim T3/T04E
11.6@122 no vtec 20psi
1.6 60'
11.3@124 vtec working 15psi
60' ?
I can vouch for Only1cam on this
He has a stage 2 crower cam and skunk 2 IM though
He uses an ebay .50 trim T3/T04E
11.6@122 no vtec 20psi
1.6 60'
11.3@124 vtec working 15psi
60' ?
02-17-2008, 09:30 AM
#50
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cocoa, FLORIDA, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (IAD_ek)
by any means i wasnt discounting anyones experience with boosted sohcs on this thread, i just thought that motor was a little more efficient i could say than most of the sohcs ive seen. Usually i see a t3/t04 sohcs have to hit about 20+psi to get those kinds of numbers, but then again it depends on the supporting modifcations as well. Just throwing it out there, if you want to get your panties in a wad then be my guest. Doesnt hurt my feelings 