0Innes

iTrader: (3)

Joe and Reed at Pittsburgh Performance recently performed a little before and after dyno comparison between the Edelbrock 4730 Camshafts and the OEM GSR Camshafts

Once again proving that larger aftermaket camshafts do make power in turbocharged applications.

This was literally a back to back test - Run #34 was with the Stock GSR Camshafts -- Run #35 was with the Edelbrock 4730 camshafts

No map changes at all, same boost, ignition timing, fuel, etc, etc -- direct back to back comparison

In fact the Edelbrock camshafts actually have a bit left on the table as there is some more power that can be made once the fuel tables are gone through and re-tuned.

0xenocron

Need to see the air/fuel plots on that one since there were no changes done...never understood a test where one set of cams were tuned and another was not.

Difference in power on this graph could simply be letting the car cool down and then doing a quick pull on the new cams.

Put air/fuel plots on that graph by chance?

Vtec6000

Agreed

01DC4

iTrader: (3)

Eh not really, this is a racecar that was towed to the dyno, and fully tuned prior to this session. It made one pull switched the cams and made another pull.

chialpha2006

Thanks for posting this man, I don't know how many people usually appreciate these sort of posts but I have been looking for real results and write-ups from people with these cams for a while. I bought some for my ls/v build, however I'll be using a b16 head. This may be a noob question, but what kind of change in boost response have you guys experienced with these? as in, more/less lag, harder hitting, streetability, etc....?

TheShodan

iTrader: (14)

Installation and specification sheet of the Edlebrock 4730 camshaft

Advertised Duration: Int. 288° Exh. 266°
Duration at .050” Lift: Int. 250° Exh. 232°
Lift at Cam: Int. .316” Exh. .293”
Lift at Valve: Int. .490” Exh. .454”
Intake Centerline: 100°
Lobe Separation: 104°
Timing at .050” Lift:
Open Close
Intake: 25° BTDC 45° ABDC
Exhaust: 44° BBDC 8° BTDC

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_.../4000/4730.pdf

chialpha2006

i have a little difficulty really understanding what all of those numbers REALLY mean... my knowledge of engine geometry is not quite that advanced yet.

DDTECH

From my math, and Cam program This is what i'm came up with, based upon the valve events supplied.

Calculations:
Intake duration 250
Exhaust duration 232
Intake center 100
Exhaust center 108
Lobe separation 104
Advance 4
Degrees overlap 33


This seems like a pretty "decent" mild turbo cam honestly. This type of profile is what i would recommend on a mildly built to a very stock type turbo setup. This cam probably would leave a good of room for improvement as well. I too like Harris would like to see the afr chat... this profile would kick some serious *** with a little bit of a taller exhaust cam.
Cams left @ 0/0?? If so, Ya, there's still a good bit left on the table.

Thanks James for the test.

narfdanarf

it already has +4 ground into it, what would you do?

DDTECH

I was asking if the cams were left @ 0/0, straight up, dropped in. I believe in the OPs first post, he said nothing was changed / touched. So i'm assuming yes..if so, moving the gears or actually dialing them in, will produce a very good powerband.

narfdanarf

lol that's what I thought.

GodFather of Boost

Tested these cams 2-3 years ago over a type r intake cam and gsr ex. And made 40 whp more at 30lbs. This was on a 67mm car making 720whp. Also used them on a car making 880 that went 9.2
Defintetly a great cam for the money.

RickyLee53

To me it just looks like there is a shift in pickup/rpm. This wouldn't effect peak power but it'd explain the bigger gains during spool etc.

blackeg

I was just about to ask how these compared to an itr cam. Good to know.

Just noob obviousness, but if the fuel map was untouched nd its making that much more power shouldn't this thing be running pretty lean?

Natural Aspirations

A fantastic deal for the $173 edelbrock had them on sale for.

rich7777

When you say "mildly built" what sort of power are you referring to?

0Innes

iTrader: (3)

no matter how any dyno test is performed there will always be variables, the tester just needs to chose what variables they want to try and control and what variables they want to leave unattended...it is what it is...this is a test for that simple point....here is the information we gathered now a customer can work on making their own decision...if we had air/fuel and boost maps on this graph that still wouldn't stop someone else from pointing out something else that they felt was overlooked during testing

take it for what it is.

TheShodan

iTrader: (14)

I think that's about right. A little less aggressive than a Skunk2 Tuner Stage 1. Since the Edlebrock was measured at 1.2mm lift, the Skunk2 was at 1mm lift.

Specifications are @1mm lift (.040" lift)

INTAKE lift- 11.58 mm, duration 252 @ 1mm
EXHAUST lift - 10.8 mm, duration 249 @1mm

The Skunk2 seems to have a higher lift (nice for turbo cars) with a bit more duration than the Edlebrock. the ramp angles also seem to be slightly more aggressive for mid-framed turbochargers, even though this test was made with the larger of the midframe.
Not bad for what this is.

From my information it seems that the order of the use of these camshafts in accordance with others based upon the lift, duration, and ramp angle for turbocharged vehicles seems to be:

1- "Mild" -------> 5 "Most aggressive"

1-Edlebrock 4730
2-2.5-Skunk2 Tuner Stage1
3-3.5-GSC Power-Division T1 -- very broad range
4-Skunk2 Pro Series 1 --- 61lbs/min +
--CUSTOM---
5-Web Cams
5-DDTECH
-etc

This is just my personal "reference" just based upon lift, duration, and ramp angle and should not be taken as true empirical data towards any particular decision.

All are made by chill cast iron as their base, and not a custom billet or Regrind, with the exception of the custom applications..

01DC4

iTrader: (3)

I think you guys are really under estimating these cam's by how they look on paper. The BWS362 is a 75lb min turbo, and they made over 50whp in the mid range along with 30+whp up top. Just by being dropped in with OEM cam gears, and without the aggressive ramp rates that beat up valve train.

CLM Tested them making 40whp over ITR cams on a 67mm, On a 720whp application.

Where you guy's are coming up with these are meant for "stock type" "Under 61lbs/min turbos" is beyond me.

Natural Aspirations

I believe that number and a similar scale originally came from Jeff Evans.

Mike Lowwryyy

Where did you see that? And Nobody said anything? lol

Natural Aspirations

https://honda-tech.com/forums/showth...7#post47225657

Apparently everyone that knew bought them up to re-sell for profit.

0xenocron

its making about 13% more power everywhere...if it was tuned for 11.5 AFRs...then in that test it could be running 12.8-13.2 AFRs now without the fuel maps touched. #1, we all know leaner air/fuel ratio will generally make more power like this...as a tuner though, I certainly wouldnt let a customer leave out the door running those AFRs.

AND...if the afrs DIDNT change during this test, then realistically the cams didnt make more power...if the power on the dyno jumps, and the AFRs remain the same, then the power most likely didnt change all that much if any.

Well, that's the thing...as an uneducated consumer and an educated "tester" someone could clearly attempt to fool the public with a test that could be picked apart. Tests take time, and unless you are just trying to offload some overstock cams for some reason and fool a bunch of people then I dont understand doing a test like this.

Im not saying is isnt valid...it just could be done better. We are all after the most accurate info here right? No smoke and mirrors?

0Innes

iTrader: (3)

I take that jab a bit personally, you apparently really don't know my character -- I have no problem telling you how it is or the truth...I have no reason to try and fool anyone in fact that is the sole reason we didn't even personally do the testing, we sent the camshafts to a 3rd party and let them do the testing for us...that is just ignorant on your part to make a statement like that regardless of if it is directed into the air or directly at someone personally and i take that shot as the former based on how you worded it.

0xenocron

Well...you shouldnt take it personally number #1, I didnt know what your intentions were or are. I thought maybe you just saw the test and posted it up to share, I didnt know you were personally involved since you didnt write that in your initial post.

James you and I are on the same level...hell a lot of the guys up here tell me Im the NY version of you and you the Florida version of me when it comes to business, parts etc so PLEASE accept my apology if I offended you in any way.

I was just offering up my opinion on a public forum that I thought this was an incomplete test...ignorance played no role in my comments or remarks.