Have just been across at Maitland with Graham for nearly 3 weeks fitting/testing his heads and cams in his 3.5 AWD. All went very well. The ECU accepted the cams and got everything OK in a few minutes running. Idle is just a touch loopy but engine response is very good and there is a small improvement in fuel consumption of about 5%. In 7000km on all sorts of roads, and some 4WD tracks, in NSW and Qld averaged 10.8ltr/100km on E10. Ordinary unleaded should be about 3-4% better, and premium 4-5% better than E10. Best tank was just under 10ltr/100km. Surprisingly that was over quite twisty roads on Mt Lindsay hwy and Lions Rd (Beaudesert, Woodenbong, Bonalbo, Casino, Kyogle area). Over the next month Graham is going to run on the stock injectors to get a better idea of around town consumption and then he will fit 380 injectors to see if they help economy on another run to Qld. He hasn't had it on the dyno yet or tried a reflash so I don't know what sort of power numbers. Graham was hoping for about 200kw after a reflash but I think it may be already close to that. Accelaration 80 - 120 in 3rd is just over 18% faster, and it was a touch faster in 4th and 5th too. On the highway the car now feels like it needs another gear. Seems weird sliding through dry round-abouts in 3rd with rear wheels breaking traction in an AWD.

The valve gear is quiet like stock so we didn't pull the cam covers to look at cam lobe condition after the running. I think Graham will have a careful inspection when he swaps the injectors. I don't think there will be any issues but this process hasn't been tried on Magna cams before so Graham wants to be sure its OK. Then he will fit them in his 3.8 engine and run that in the AWD to check them with the 3.8's slightly different rocker geometry. I would be happy to fit a set in my engine now but Graham won't sell me any yet.

These should be good in Pajeros and other Mitsubishi V6s too. Graham took me for a day over some really slow rough tracks out around Yengo to show me some ancestral rock carvings and the engine was good and torquey just crawling.

I've got all the cams specs in my notes and will post them when I get them sorted out in a few days.

Cheers,
Alan

Congrat's fella's, well done!

Thats 200kw at the fly i am assuming or has he got more engine mods done?
Thanks for the feedback. I am sure I would have looked down this path if i had not already got the cams done in my car. haven't had issues tho. Ppeaking of which there may be people interested on how these specs/cams might compare to Stage one cams.thoughts.....?

I'd definetely be interested in some improved pattern camshafts.

Even without modified/improved heads, the gains in responsiveness, torque and fuel economy would be more than noticeable.

That's excellent news, Alan, thanks very much. Things had a gone a bit quiet so appreciate the update.
Are you in position yet to register AMC members interest and possible orders? Or is this still premature for 380 owners?

Well done Alan J, this is all good stuff...looking forward to more info....

Sounds sweet mate hope to hear more about the cams.:happy:

This is fantastic Alan, it is fantastic to see people doing meaningful things on these motors and unlocking the potential that is there

While these are regrinds, I know Graham was expecting big things with being able to achieve higher lift figures than the Tighe billet can provide. Last measurements on Tighe 'stage 2s' had lift only 5thou more than stock cams, or 35thou less than Ralliart lobes.

While these are regrinds, I know Graham was expecting big things with being able to achieve higher lift figures than the Tighe billet can provide. Last measurements on Tighe 'stage 2s' had lift only 5thou more than stock cams, or 35thou less than Ralliart lobes.

Ralliart lobe/lift heights vary that much it aint funny though. I reckon out of all the ralliart "sticks" made over half wouldnt have the advertised lift increase over stock "6" cams.
DaveTJ will agree with me on that (as he knows first hand why it happened)

As for Tighe cams well ya know my thoughts on those bunch of bodgy useless cock smokers

Ralliart lobe/lift heights vary that much it aint funny though. I reckon out of all the ralliart "sticks" made over half wouldnt have the advertised lift increase over stock "6" cams.
DaveTJ will agree with me on that (as he knows first hand why it happened)

Care to comment as to why?

Care to comment as to why?

They used factory "castings" and if they didnt clean up at "ralliart" lobe height they just got stuck thru until they did, so some cams had the right lift amounts and some didnt.

Anyway, this is AlanJ's thread lets not get it off topic.

They used factory "castings" and if they didnt clean up at "ralliart" lobe height they just got stuck thru until they did, so some cams had the right lift amounts and some didnt.

Well thats not very encouraging, as I just bought a set of the ralliart cams. lol

Edit: Is there anything obvious on the cam to check?

If you got the pair from that guy in SA with a few sets spare then you have decent ones. He chose his spares carefully.

DaveTJ will agree with me on that (as he knows first hand why it happened)

Funny story that is! If only is wasn't so sad.

Awesome news mate, just as I am considering an AWD rada as well!

Oh something to put in the 380 with real gains

I LIKE THAT

Ralliart lobe/lift heights vary that much it aint funny though. I reckon out of all the ralliart "sticks" made over half wouldnt have the advertised lift increase over stock "6" cams.
DaveTJ will agree with me on that (as he knows first hand why it happened)

As for Tighe cams well ya know my thoughts on those bunch of bodgy useless cock smokers

they wouldnt even be able to do that first go

Back on topic.

Guys, this is great news.

BTW the testing that has just been done, is this with standard un-modified heads??

It seems that there is a real possibility of Ralliart + outputs, and a power delivery curve that works well with AWD's.

It may also show that although maximum power is substantially improved, there is good road speed driveability.

Keep up the good work!!

Gerry

These will fit in a normal FWD magna? Was there work done on the head as well?

Away from the property so long I've had a lot of catching up/checking up to do but the following should cover most of the questions raised. If not just ask again and when I get some time I'll try to answer.

The cams have been designed to OEM standard meaning they are for quiet and reliable operation, easy on valve seats, and would be the sort of profile characteristics Audi/VW, Jaguar/Aston Martin, etc would specify for a high output road engine or 24 hour endurance engine. How they compare with what Tighe has done Graham doesn't know. Graham's comments were to the effect that as Dean only "measured" his cams virtually using Cam Doctor software Dean's numbers don't mean anything anyway. Even when using professional software from Prof. Blair any rocker type OHC engine is very hard to get a consistent/accurate set of numbers. Just a few thou variation in valve stem protrusion, rocker machining, roller dia, cam tunnel to rocker shaft seat relationship, cam tunnel to valve stem relationship etc all serve to scatter the physical, as compared to the virtual, numbers.

The actual numbers as physically measured are:

Inlet lobe - Duration @ 0.050" = 197 deg, Duration @ 0.200" = 109 deg, Valve lift 10.9mm

Ex lobe - Duration @ 0.050" = 181 deg, Duration @ 0.200" = 76 deg, Valve lift 9.4mm

Valve lift @ TDC * - Inlet = 0.038", Ex = 0.018"

Valve to piston clearance *+ Inlet @ 10 deg ATDC = 0.110", Ex @ 10 deg BTDC = 0.320"

* This is with cams ground @ 107.75 deg separation and installed 3.5 deg advanced
+ This is with heads skimmed 0.025"

Fitted to the 6G75/380 some numbers change a little due to different rocker/valve stem geometry. Graham will fit these cams in his 3.8 engine soon and depending on the outcome may go with slightly wider lober separation, perhaps 109 or 109.5 deg, and 2 deg advanced. At the moment the Lift @ TDC is Inlet 0.063" and Ex 0.018"; Valve to piston clearance Inlet @ 10 deg ATDC 0.073", Ex @ 10 deg BTDC 0.217". For 380 owners this means the stock 380/Ralliart cams can be advanced 8-9 deg (from stock 6 deg retard position)without any valve/piston contact.

The heads Graham did have stock reprofiled valves and modified combustion chambers to open up around the inlets. The primary inlet ports are heavily filled as is the lower inlet manifold, and the secondary inlets and valve bowl lightly opened up. They were skimmed 0.025" and give 9.3:1 compression ratio. I posted the flow numbers a few weeks ago and I'll try to get some pictures up too.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan,
When you talk about the inlet ports and lower manifold being filled, how was this done.

Weld and grind, or scuffed up and built up with some sort of epoxy filler?

Thank you for putting some real numbers up.

This motor really needs to go south a long way and end up on the SKR rollers for a before and after tune!!



Gerry

Alan,
When you talk about the inlet ports and lower manifold being filled, how was this done.

Weld and grind, or scuffed up and built up with some sort of epoxy filler?

Thank you for putting some real numbers up.

This motor really needs to go south a long way and end up on the SKR rollers for a before and after tune!!



Gerry

Inlet ports can be filled OK with metal epoxy when naturally asperated or well intercooled forced induction as most materials can handle 120-150 C deg and most fuel additives. Epoxy varies so it is necessary to test what suits different applications/fuels.

It will eventually end up on the dyno for a reflash but for the moment Graham wanted to verify that it performs well on stock mapping, and he wants to check for lobe durability and lobe/roller material compatability, valve stem/guide wear over a few more km. Then it will go for remapping, or cams will be fitted in a 3.8 and remapped, but either way it will be remapped.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan,
Thank you. Yup got the correct stuff here at wor - Ductile Iron foundry.


Having just seen the news about the DI 3.0 and 3.6 commondores, the 3.6 producing 210Kw, it will be interesting to see how the Cyclone engine with sensible changes will fare.

Gerry

Alan,
Thank you. Yup got the correct stuff here at wor - Ductile Iron foundry.


Having just seen the news about the DI 3.0 and 3.6 commondores, the 3.6 producing 210Kw, it will be interesting to see how the Cyclone engine with sensible changes will fare.

Gerry

The power is one thing but torque is what gets ya off the mark. The 3.0L SIDI engine only has 290Nm and the 3.6L SIDI engine has 350Nm. Its all well and good for holden to brag about flywheel kilowatts but in a heavy car like the commodore (and falcons) ya need a good amount of torque, spread over a wide rev range.

I'll be driving the SIDI equipped commodores in a couple of weeks time (relative is getting a couple for me to try out), so i will hold full judgement of them until then but at least the old 4speed auto has finally been put to pasture, that has got to be a big bonus of this upgrade.

How would these cams perform in a stock engine, or would a compression lift and head work really wake these cams up?

I've been waiting for a decent set of aftermarket cams as i would like to do a simmilar build to Jasons but wanted to avoid the hassles Jase had with his cams.

Alan,
Thank you. Yup got the correct stuff here at wor - Ductile Iron foundry.


Having just seen the news about the DI 3.0 and 3.6 commondores, the 3.6 producing 210Kw, it will be interesting to see how the Cyclone engine with sensible changes will fare.

Gerry

Direct Injection has been a bonus to car makers as they can meet emissions and fuel consumption targets easier. There isn't necessarily a power benefit, there can be, but usually what makers do is add a revvy cam to make for good power numbers but do little in the real world for nice drivability with our modern nearly 2 tonne monsters. If they just kept to a sensible cam and compression ratio, and used the benefit of DI at low rpm it would make a lot more sense to me.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan, another ?.

If one was prepared to run on 95 or 98 ron would a 10.0 to 1 comp ratio be any more benificial?

Alan, another ?.

If one was prepared to run on 95 or 98 ron would a 10.0 to 1 comp ratio be any more benificial?

Its only a few $ more per tank to run a higher octane anyways. I suspect you'd be able to run 13:1 static compression without problems - just make sure your valves and pistons don't clap hands.

Its only a few $ more per tank to run a higher octane anyways.

Exactly.

The power is one thing but torque is what gets ya off the mark. The 3.0L SIDI engine only has 290Nm and the 3.6L SIDI engine has 350Nm. Its all well and good for holden to brag about flywheel kilowatts but in a heavy car like the commodore (and falcons) ya need a good amount of torque, spread over a wide rev range.

I'll be driving the SIDI equipped commodores in a couple of weeks time (relative is getting a couple for me to try out), so i will hold full judgement of them until then but at least the old 4speed auto has finally been put to pasture, that has got to be a big bonus of this upgrade.

Bingo. Different if the 290nm was on-tap from 1500-4500. Seems holden can't let go of the kw game. Funny that a 4L BA with flash tune and zorst can keep up with a 6L commo.

No reason these days that motors shouldn't be making peak figures above 50kW and 100nm per litre. It's not that hard to do.

Still yet to sit in a late model V8 that pulls like a carbi 351. Guess hp isn't hp anymore.

Dead right guys,
All very well to have horsepower / Kw bragging rights.
However as has been correctly stated in the real world a nice meaty torque curve from low down will make a much more driveable engine.

Case in point - in 2007 I took the family back to the Uk and europe for 5 weeks.
Hired a Renault Scenic. 2 adults, 11 year old and 14 yr old and all luggage for 5 weeks.
First car was a 1.9 diesel. Cruised at between 120 and 135 on the mororways, come to a hill, just push a little harder. Did close to 4.5 l/100!!
Second was the 2.0 petrol version. What a dog. did around 8/100. Had to keep changing gear!

Difference was that the diesel engine had heaps more torque.


This work on sensible cams, and I hope affordable, that are actually quiet and are timed correctly - achievement in itself!! coupled with limited engine mods and a freer flowing exhaust and a bit of SKR magic appear to be the way to go.
In particular the AWD really needs a heap more torque low down. The majority of us live in the big cities and are always going up to 60 or 80 then stopping again. In my case I have a 12Km run to work with lots of short sharp gradients. I dream about say 30% more, and useable power, but really the best thing would be to have 30% more useable torque and trade off the top end power.
The car will be so much quicker and more enjoyable in the real world.
It also seems that this package would embarrass the Ralliart engine!

Coupled with AWD grip and decent tyres the Magna will still embarrass many much more modern cars.

Alan, keep up the good work.


Gerry

I really can't wait to hear more on expected cost and availability :D

Its only a few $ more per tank to run a higher octane anyways. I suspect you'd be able to run 13:1 static compression without problems - just make sure your valves and pistons don't clap hands.

Does anyone actually know how much you can shave off the heads to up the compression without valves hitting pistons and what sort of compression that would be? Because 13:1 :eek2:compression sounds quite high for a standard magna with standard pistons.

How would these cams perform in a stock engine, or would a compression lift and head work really wake these cams up?

I've been waiting for a decent set of aftermarket cams as i would like to do a simmilar build to Jasons but wanted to avoid the hassles Jase had with his cams.

Graham's car is a TL AWD so pretty sluggish stock due to extra weight and auto but with the cams and head work it was quicker, only slightly, in both 4th and 5th in 80 -120 acceleration. This is a good test for how a cam will work in real day to day driving. In 3rd gear with the engine up into the working power band the time was cut by over 18%. The reduced size inlet ports would have helped low rpm response but for those with FWD Magnas I think the cams without any head mods would work very well but with to the high lift you need the valve springs replaced. The heads Graham did only have 9.3:1 comp ratio so you don't need big comprerssion to get the cams working either.

Very high compression isn't nececessarily a good thing for performance. It helps fuel economy, which is why car makers are going higher these days, but you have to back off the spark advance to get around detonation at mid-range engine rpm and that can result in a revvy sluggish engine. As well as less spark adv they can also retard the cam/s, and/or change the lobe separation angles if the engine is DOHC, and has variable cam timing, but again engine torque suffers. A good guide is fuel octane divided by 10, then add 0.5 for a good chamber in an alloy head with flat top pistons.

Cheers,
Alan

A good bolt in cam, excellent.
Thankyou Alan.

Does anyone actually know how much you can shave off the heads to up the compression without valves hitting pistons and what sort of compression that would be? Because 13:1 :eek2:compression sounds quite high for a standard magna with standard pistons.

From what we measured with Graham's high lift cams there isn't a valve/piston issue with the 3.5 engine due to its very small inlet valves. The limitation with milling the heads is head deck thickness/strength plus all the problems getting the lower inlet manifold to fit/seal and water passages to line up/flow properly. Graham decided on a 0.025" skim for those reasons which resulted in a 9.3:1 ratio with his modified chambers. Pajero DOHC pistons could also be fitted to get just over 10:1 but unless the engine needed new pistons its a lot more work and money for little gain. Might as well put the $ toward a 3.8 engine.

The 3.8 starts out at 10:1 and the heads can be milled 0.025" with Graham's cams. That will get the inlet valves about 0.050" off the pistons 10 deg ATDC. Thats about the safe limit. Anyhow 10:1 is good for a road engine with mild cams. Any higher and you can be restricted with how much spark or cam advance the engine will accept, and that just kills mid-range torque.

Cheers,
Alan

Just been ratting through pics of things we took while fitting on the heads/cams. These show the inlet lobe, yes it just clears everything, and the bee-hive valve springs.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan,
Thanks for the new pictures.

Cam finish looks good.
Like the minimal clearance to the head casting!!

What is the coil to coil clearance like on full lift.
I understood that the ovoid wire shape gives a tad more clearance.

Gerry.

Alan,
Thanks for the new pictures.

Cam finish looks good.
Like the minimal clearance to the head casting!!

What is the coil to coil clearance like on full lift.
I understood that the ovoid wire shape gives a tad more clearance.

Gerry.

Sorry Gerry I can't remember the actual details but think Graham was saying the springs will handle something like 16mm lift. That would be a nice cam for a competition engine! No, actually probably about 12-13mm would be max the rockers and valve geometry would permit.

The springs are very light weight too. Cut valve train weight quite a lot, and softer seat pressures should help valve seat life/wear.

Cheers,
Alan

Sorry Gerry I can't remember the actual details but think Graham was saying the springs will handle something like 16mm lift. That would be a nice cam for a competition engine! No, actually probably about 12-13mm would be max the rockers and valve geometry would permit.

The springs are very light weight too. Cut valve train weight quite a lot, and softer seat pressures should help valve seat life/wear.

Cheers,
Alan

What did Graham think of the ralliart valve springs?
You said that he decided on a 0.025" skim 9.3:1 ratio with his 3.5 engine due to its very small inlet valves. The limitation with milling the heads is head deck thickness/strength plus all the problems getting the lower inlet manifold to fit/seal.But why did ralliart do there heads to 9.4:1?

Ralliart motors start with the Pajero sourced 10:1 pistons. When the heads are deshrouded at MMAL there is a compression lost (due to material removed from the combustion chamber) and the final ratio is 9.4:1. Graham started with 9:1 std pistons and decked the heads (reducing combustion chamber volume).

What did Graham think of the ralliart valve springs?
You said that he decided on a 0.025" skim 9.3:1 ratio with his 3.5 engine due to its very small inlet valves. The limitation with milling the heads is head deck thickness/strength plus all the problems getting the lower inlet manifold to fit/seal.But why did ralliart do there heads to 9.4:1?

The Ralliart springs will not handle the extra valve lift Graham wanted. According to Graham they are at their limit with the Ralliart cam. So he had valve springs made to do the job. He could have made a cam with less lift and more duration but that would have defeated what he was after; an engine with good economy and good grunt at all rpm.


Ralliart motors start with the Pajero sourced 10:1 pistons. When the heads are deshrouded at MMAL there is a compression lost (due to material removed from the combustion chamber) and the final ratio is 9.4:1. Graham started with 9:1 std pistons and decked the heads (reducing combustion chamber volume).

Yes correct EZ Boy, plus Graham doesn't chase after big compression ratio. He likes to get power with head work mainly, then everything else falls into place and you have a nice engine.

Cheers,
Alan

Ralliart motors start with the Pajero sourced 10:1 pistons. When the heads are deshrouded at MMAL there is a compression lost (due to material removed from the combustion chamber) and the final ratio is 9.4:1. Graham started with 9:1 std pistons and decked the heads (reducing combustion chamber volume).

Ralliart pistons are not pajero 10:1 pistons they are simply the magna 9:1 pistons with a slightly "smaller" bowl in them, the piston crown is the same shape, the piston crown and first ring land is then coated for better strength.

The pajero 10:1 piston uses the same shaped "piston crown" with the 4 small valve reliefs as the 3L piston but with a slightly larger "bowl" volume compared to the 3L piston.

Just like to clear a point up about the pistons. The Ralliart pistons are unique to that engine and were produced by ACL they are nothing like a DOHC Pajero piston, they are more like the standard piston with a slightly smaller dish. The chamber unshrouding only adds up to about 1.1cc. Not having a go Ian, just trying to make the infomation clearer.

Cheers Dave

Just like to clear a point up about the pistons. The Ralliart pistons are unique to that engine and were produced by ACL they are nothing like a DOHC Pajero piston, they are more like the standard piston with a slightly smaller dish. The chamber unshrouding only adds up to about 1.1cc. Not having a go Ian, just trying to make the infomation clearer.

Cheers Dave

LOL i think i just beat ya to that dave ;)

Ralliart pistons are not pajero 10:1 pistons they are simply the magna 9:1 pistons with a slightly "smaller" bowl in them, the piston crown is the same shape, the piston crown and first ring land is then coated for better strength.

The pajero 10:1 piston uses the same shaped "piston crown" with the 4 small valve reliefs as the 3L piston but with a slightly larger "bowl" volume compared to the 3L piston.

Took the words out of my mouth.:shock::happy::shock:

Explains the differences in the images I had acquired over the last few years. :think:

Explains the differences in the images I had acquired over the last few years. :think:

There is a new ACL catalogue out http://www.acl.com.au/ but it now states the 10:1 Mitsubishi 6G74 3497cc 6 DOHC 4v (Pajero) (6MKRY8069) piston set is a Mahle brand manufactured by ACL with pics in the link.

http://catalog.acl.com.au/aclwebcatalog/Modules/Catalog/UsageTechInfoForm.aspx?c=IT13268

This compares to the std 3.5 9:1 Mitsubishi 6G74 3497cc 6 SOHC 4v piston (Magna) (6MKRY8068)

http://catalog.acl.com.au/aclwebcatalog/Modules/Catalog/UsageTechInfoForm.aspx?c=IT13269

You can clearly see the std Magna ones have a much deeper dish and hence lower compression.

The piston top height to the first ring land of the Pajero pistons is alo noticeably greater and hence stronger particularly when you take the shallower dish into account - much meatier

They dont list one for the MITSUBISHI 6G75 3828cc 6 SOHC 4v (380) or the Ralliart ones

There is a new ACL catalogue out http://www.acl.com.au/ but it now states the 10:1 Mitsubishi 6G74 3497cc 6 DOHC 4v (Pajero) (6MKRY8069) piston set is a Mahle brand manufactured by ACL with pics in the link.

http://catalog.acl.com.au/aclwebcatalog/Modules/Catalog/UsageTechInfoForm.aspx?c=IT13268

This compares to the std 3.5 9:1 Mitsubishi 6G74 3497cc 6 SOHC 4v piston (Magna) (6MKRY8068)

http://catalog.acl.com.au/aclwebcatalog/Modules/Catalog/UsageTechInfoForm.aspx?c=IT13269

You can clearly see the std Magna ones have a much deeper dish and hence lower compression.

The piston top height to the first ring land of the Pajero pistons is alo noticeably greater and hence stronger particularly when you take the shallower dish into account - much meatier

They dont list one for the MITSUBISHI 6G75 3828cc 6 SOHC 4v (380) or the Ralliart ones

Mahle bought out ACL a few years ago and merged the 2 companies

Graham has just emailed to update that he has pulled the cam covers and valvegear and the cams look great. No sign of any lobe or roller wear. He did that while swapping to the 380 injectors. He's off for another run to Qld and will report back if there has been any improvement in fuel economy. He doubts it but as he had the injectors anyway he wanted to try them now . His tyres are nearly had it so wanted to check before he changes over to 17" wheels and new tyres that could change fuel economy.

The car has been running around town for about 3 weeks and fuel economy is a bit better than before the cams and heads were fitted. Best tank was 12.9lt/100km and average 13.2lt. Before was mid to high 13s. These are actual calculations, not the inaccurate dash readout.

Graham arranged for EZBoy to take car for a run to, was impressed by how well it went with good power at low rpm and pulls hard up top. I liked that too and it felt like a nice smooth powerful engine. You wouldn't know it had a cam except for slight beat at idle.

Cheers,
Alan

Graham arranged for EZBoy to take car for a run to, was impressed by how well it went with good power at low rpm and pulls hard up top. I liked that too and it felt like a nice smooth powerful engine. You wouldn't know it had a cam except for slight beat at idle.

Cheers,
Alan

I didn't get the big 'rush' of torque I was expecting but that was because the power delivery was quite linear and held on into the 6000s when left in D. Certainly brought the car to life! Pulled well. Should've been the OEM cam profile, certainly has it over ralliart specs.

The standing in N rev makes a very nice note (certainly not a magna one!), be even better if that rattle under his car could be sorted out. Sounds like a heat shield has lost a bolt.

I didn't get the big 'rush' of torque I was expecting but that was because the power delivery was quite linear and held on into the 6000s when left in D. Certainly brought the car to life! Pulled well. Should've been the OEM cam profile, certainly has it over ralliart specs.

The standing in N rev makes a very nice note (certainly not a magna one!), be even better if that rattle under his car could be sorted out. Sounds like a heat shield has lost a bolt.

For a heavy auto I thought it pulled very well, certainly gave my arthritic neck a bit of stress when Graham floored it in lower gears. Was very linear like EZBoy says and should feel a lot more potent in a manual without trouble of lots of wheelspin.

Totally agree that it should have been the OEM cam. I don't see any downsides except for an idle that is just a bit loopy, and I think that is due to it being only 600-650rpm. Should be more like 750-800rpm and most wouldn't pick it had cams. But with much better power at all engine revs (pulled well right up to cutout), better economy, and it seems no trouble with lobe/roller wear from Graham's latest inspection all seems good. I don't know how many km they have done now but must be getting up toward 9,000. We did 7,000 running around the bush and highways and he has put a tank a week around town through it since I left him, so that must be another 1,500 km. Generally if cams are going to have wear trouble it is obvious in the first 20-30 minutes.

The cams/valve gear were very quiet too. Thats always an indication the cams are well suited to the engine/valve gear design. My ears aren't so good though. Apart from that horrible ex buzz at 2000rpm (my AWD does it too but not as loudly) how did you think the cams sounded EZBoy? Did you pick any clatter or noise when idling?

Cheers,
Alan

Graham is back from latest running with cams. All is still going very well. As he expected the 12 hole 380 injectors had very little affect on economy. There was a very slight improvement. When he sends the figures I'll post them up. He said the acceleration may be a bit better with the 380 injectors. He hasn't timed it but seat of pants it felt a bit quicker. He thinks the 12 hole injectors may have been fitted to help Mitsubishi get through emissions test OK, rather than any gain elsewhere. The other possibility is that Graham's high velocity inlet ports helped so much with fuel atomisation that there is not much room for improvement so the 12 hole squirters couldn't help.

He is now negotiating valve spring prices with the manufacturer. He is hoping for about $20 per spring so he can supply cams and springs for less than $1500.

Cheers,
Alan

when will this package be available, and where can it be brought from, also is it possible to just get the valve springs ???

Graham has indicated to me previously that springs will be available without a camshaft purchase and HIGHLY recommended for the abovementioned camshaft and folks with ralliart cams.

keep us updated on the valve springs as i am very interested in getting some to go with the ralliart cams i got off you, especially if they are going to be that cheap. cheers luke

Graham has just back to me about valve springs. He got prices fixed yesterday with the spring manufacturer. They will do batches as small as 100 springs on a specialist small run line. In small runs they are going to be more than he was wanting to pay but still only about half the price of similar springs made from clean Kobe steel wire retail off Comp Cams, Isky, Luanti, PAC, PSI etc,(this company makes nearly all the springs these companies sell anyway).

I don't think there would be any problem just getting springs off Graham, and anyone that gets cams he intends to supply springs too as a kit.

If you want more info send me a private message and I'll pass it on so Graham can contact you direct. He can get springs right now and I think he will do the Magna cams now too, but he might want to hold off on 380 cams until he runs them himself in his 3.8 engine.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan, have you any dyno figures for the cams yet?

Alan, have you any dyno figures for the cams yet?

No we don't. Graham was going to do a reflash and get back to back numbers but decided to leave that until he fits the 3.8 engine in his car. My feeling is that its not far off 200kw. 3rd gear acceleration 80-120 kph was nearly 20% quicker and 4th and 5th were a bit better too so the cams give a good increase right through the rev range.

Dyno figures can be illusionary just like head flow numbers so we trend not to put a lot of emphasis on them. How the engine actually performs and fuel economy is a lot more important. Wheel dyno numbers are all over the place, and 4WD dynos are even more up and down unfortunately so its difficult to nail anything like an accurate number.

Cheers,
Alan

Can we has video?

+1. Very interested in this setup, if it work well with a very mildly modded 6G74, Pacemakers, Hi flow metal cat, 2.5" sports exhaust.

Had a look at one of the reground cams and some springs in-the-flesh. The regrind is a VERY good looking job. The lobe is clearly meatier and blended in as if it WAS the stock lobe. The springs are a must-have for these or any of the extra lift cams, including ralliart and 380 profiles. There's like 1mm if that before spring bind on std and MMAL ralliart springs. I'd doubt a cam will ever fit into a magna head that'd trouble these ovate springs from Graham.

Any updates on how these cams are going?

Any updates on how these cams are going?

I have had them in my AWD for a few weeks and am very pleased with the performance, particularly in the mid-range, and the slightly improved fuel economy is a bonus. Graham's first set have completed well over 10,000km, may be closer to 12,000km, in his AWD. He now has a set in a 3.8 engine. I'm not sure if thats in his car yet. I'll update when I know.

Cheers,
Alan

Awesome! looking forward to the update

when will these be ready for sale???

can you guys drop one of your cars onto a dyno to see how much power/torque was gained throughout the whole rev range? I'm really interested in these cams + springs packages you guys might be selling

when will these be ready for sale???


can you guys drop one of your cars onto a dyno to see how much power/torque was gained throughout the whole rev range? I'm really interested in these cams + springs packages you guys might be selling

So far as I know only AWD owners have fitted them so far so the initial dyno figures when available wont relate to FWD. I have a set being installed in my 15,000 Km spare 3.5 6G74 engine at SKR in Adelaide at the moment and will be heading there in a week or two to do the engine swap into my TJ AWD and get a 4WD dyno flashtune. I'll post the figures after in the AWD dyno thread in the AWD forum.

Please note it will be with stock pistons, the heads shaved 20 thousandths of an inch (comp approx 9.5:1), HM headers, a 100CPI high flow cat, straight through exhaust muffler and a stock inlet manifold.

Results will vary depending on FWD/AWD, exhaust set up and whether you run stock ECU, get a flashtune or run a piggyback ECU etc.

As all AWD run 5 sp tippy auto and have much higher drivetrain losses (approx 43-45%) the figures will be substantially less than the dyno figures a FWD will get which in manual form should only have approx 20-23% drivetrain losses.

i.e. An AWD with 92 ULP, stock cams, headers, high flow cat, straight through muffler and a stock inlet manifold will usually only get 92-94 KWATW which would be approx 164KW at the flywheel and typically get 103-105 KWATW with an SKR 98 PULP flashtune = to about 180-185KW at the flywheel. There is easily 2-5% variation between identical engines and spec levels due to manufacturing variations/tolerances.

Alan's friend Graham Bell is the developer (but is not an AMC forum member) and is currently fitting a set of the cams to his 380 6G75 engine that will be replacing the 3.5 6G74 in his TL AWD that he did the 10-12,000 Km initial development in with stock ECU, HM headers and straight through muffler. He will be heading to Adelaide for his first SKR flash tune this month as well. Both of Graham's 380 6G75 and 3.5 6G74 engines have/had modified/flowed heads fitted as well.

Alan and Graham have said that the cams should still suit a stock engine without a flash or remapped ECU tune but obviously better results will be gained with the extra tuning and exhaust mods etc.

As Alan has posted previously any enquiries/orders should be sent via PM through Alan who will forward them on to Graham who will then deal directly with the buyer. Thats how I got mine and Graham's a great bloke to deal with.

Hi Guys, eagerly watching this thread .... I have a 97 Verada with LPG. REcently bought to do lots of miles...any increase in hp AND economy sounds fantastic.....however what are the implications on a LPG car???

I assume that since it has a higher octane rating there will be minimal impact. is it likely that it will need a retune? I have never had an LPG car and know very little about it compared to petrol except to that it seems a lot simpler system. 97 6G74 Verada Xi BTW

thanks,
Lach.

Been a while since an update and as we haven't seen his mate on line 'Alan J' for while I'll post the latest, so here you go straight from the horse's mouth - Graham Bell sent me an email today.

Hello Peter,

Sorry for taking so long but finally good news! My master cams were on there way and beat the volcano and arrived here yesterday. So I'm now about to order manufacture of cams here from steel billets.
I now need to know how many pairs to order and collect deposits. This is costly and getting more done reduces the price a little but I can't afford to be left with cams sitting in stock.

I'm hoping that I can get enough orders to sell them with valve springs for under $1500 as I did before with the plasma exchange cams. (edit by Ishrub: which were $1462 + post)

At the moment I have orders for 2 sets so please let me know ASAP if you want a set and let other Magna/380 owners know too. I also need half deposit. I'll give you bank details later.

(edit by Ishrub: re Graham's 380 engine transplant with his cams/spings and modified head, lower inlet manifolds and upper manifold intake plenum. These are his own extra mods and not being offered for sale at this stage)
I've had my short runner big plenum upper manifold on now for a few weeks. Going well with no loss of low rpm grunt and feels a lot better at upper end with easy running to 6500rpm. I'll wait putting it on the dyno for back to back runs until I get the new billet cams.

Lambda voltage offsetter also doing well with fuel economy. I think I'm now pretty close to the lean cruise limit. Its at 7.85 lt/100km over my 344km test route at 110-120kph but there was a touch of surge cruising over very long hills at light throttle. Wider plug gaps might fix that but even if I have to richen a little it will be well under my original target of 9lt/100km and well under the best I ever got out of my 3.5 engine over the same route which was 10.2lt/100.

Very best regards,

Graham

Ishrub,

It'd be no harm to see if Graham will share his dyno results to the public. There's already some cams going around that promise the world but don't deliver. I'll be at SKR's later in the week with my 3.8l AWD, (with stock cams), so it'll be interesting to see how much difference his cams have made to the equation.

Has he had a piggyback installed yet or is he still running with the SKR tune he had done last year? I know he wasn't entirely happy with the AFR's that he ended up with there.

Ishrub,

It'd be no harm to see if Graham will share his dyno results to the public. There's already some cams going around that promise the world but don't deliver. I'll be at SKR's later in the week with my 3.8l AWD, (with stock cams), so it'll be interesting to see how much difference his cams have made to the equation.

Has he had a piggyback installed yet or is he still running with the SKR tune he had done last year? I know he wasn't entirely happy with the AFR's that he ended up with there.

Email sent to alscall@netspace.net.au

Thanks for that but I already have most of that info from Graham.

My point is, that this info should be made available to the Forum, as he may find a larger market waiting if it is. I'd also like to know if he's had a retune done that he's happy with & that he believes truly reflects the effectiveness of his cams? To this date, I haven't heard if he has or not.

What alscall said... need some figures to go by at least.

Al,

Feel free to post the attachments etc I sent you, I dont know how to, but I know Graham is a great believer in sharing. If you want to know more specifics email him. I cant really do more at this stage because it may infinge the AMC sponsor rules and as you know Graham is not a forum user at all.

I suppose if any one wants to email me as per my sig I can pass on Graham's email address and Cc him into their enquiry so he knows where its coming from.

This will certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out

One thing I want to point out here however, we at this stage will not approve any group buy or selling on the forums until such a time as I have seen some sort of evedence of these cams and the fact that they work and work consistantly.

Tighe as wel know may have one in 20 work and the rest are all different, I would love to see that Graham has got this right finally and can produce results replicated across several cars.

Next question, why does he not post here himself instead of using this Alias "Alan J" to post on his behalf. I know if I had the skill to make these cams and I was having results I would want my name on them

This will certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out

One thing I want to point out here however, we at this stage will not approve any group buy or selling on the forums until such a time as I have seen some sort of evedence of these cams and the fact that they work and work consistantly.

Tighe as wel know may have one in 20 work and the rest are all different, I would love to see that Graham has got this right finally and can produce results replicated across several cars.

Next question, why does he not post here himself instead of using this Alias "Alan J" to post on his behalf. I know if I had the skill to make these cams and I was having results I would want my name on them


Valid point.

Could not agree more.

Firstly FACTS.

If there are verifiable before and after power / torque figures then the cams will sell themselves.

All very well having re-worked heads, lower inlet and inlet manifolds done.

If the cams are being sold as a cam / spring package then the facts should be a before and after, say at SKR, on a known benchmarked car.

The owner can then add his 5 cents worth regarding throttle response, driveability and fuel consumption effects.

I, for one, would really like to buy some decent cams.
At the moment I have followed the cam advance advice with headers, really a different car. Very spritely off the mark as compared to the sluggish AWD feeling before. Tickle the accelerator and it goes so much better.

However my dream is that Grahams cams will unleash the potential of the 6G74 engine.

Second, quite correctly is that to sell, commercially on this forum, then the vendor will have to be a sponsor.

So, in summary.

1) Prove it.
2) Sponsor
then off we go.

gerry

This will certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out

One thing I want to point out here however, we at this stage will not approve any group buy or selling on the forums until such a time as I have seen some sort of evedence of these cams and the fact that they work and work consistantly.

Tighe as wel know may have one in 20 work and the rest are all different, I would love to see that Graham has got this right finally and can produce results replicated across several cars.

Next question, why does he not post here himself instead of using this Alias "Alan J" to post on his behalf. I know if I had the skill to make these cams and I was having results I would want my name on them

Graham Bell is in his mid 60's, in poor health and doesn't do forums at all. It is a free country and he can choose as can everyone else. As posted previously in response to Alscall's request to post stuff etc. I dont know how to post the attachments he has sent me (which Alscall also has) and I am aware of sponsorship rules and I am not organising a group buy or acting as an agent and neither did his old mate - Alan J. WTF is the alias bit. Alan J is a contributing member and is not Graham. Alan J has provided a lot of valuable info to this site and has a heap of race car team and build experience himself. Its been posted just to let people know they are out there and available. Read the threads and make up your own minds and contact him direct if you like.

If the mods and Graham approve I will post his email contact details but otherwise I can pass them on via email.
I'm not getting into any bunfights over whether they work etc so leave me out of it but he would have to be the most informed and knowledgable person I have come across and people can at least judge that by checking out his published books some of which have been in print for more than 20 years I believe. However I admit I am no expert or very mechanically educated myself and most of it goes over my head.

When I was at SKR last Saturday DaveTJ walked in (sorry, forgot his actual name!). He and Steve Knight go back a long way at MMAL. I asked him about AlanJ and the Magna/380 cams, and the fact that AlanJ hadn't posted on these forums for many months. He advised that AlanJ was in the US at the moment and very unwell, and that he and Graham Bell are definitely NOT the same person. He also advised that Graham's cams were not yet 'proven' in his mind and more work & testing was needed yet before he was convinced that they achieve what they set out to do.

KJ.

I agree 100% with spud100. The performance gain has to be verifiable for this to work.

On the other hand I've been in contact with Alan J who got a very hard time from some of us, unjustifiably IMO. I respect his experience and advice and hope he continues to post here and educate us. So I really hope this works out for all of us.

Added to that, DaveTJ races 380s so you can't get better advice for my model anyway.

Added to that, DaveTJ races magnas with 380 motor (6g75) in it so you can't get better advice for my model anyway.

corrected :)

corrected :)

Oops! Thanks.

I'd just like to correct KJ380's comments on Graham's cams, I was actually talking about my cams needing testing to see if they were any good. I was touching bases with Steve for I dyno session with cams in an enginne I'd built. We were also discussing Graham's cams at the same time, so I think Kym might of confused which cams I was talking about, I was in a hurry appologies Kym. Steve had dynoed Graham's cams in a couple of cars but the results were'nt there but the tune probably needs more time/work.

Cheers Dave

I'd just like to correct KJ380's comments on Graham's cams, I was actually talking about my cams needing testing to see if they were any good. I was touching bases with Steve for I dyno session with cams in an enginne I'd built. We were also discussing Graham's cams at the same time, so I think Kym might of confused which cams I was talking about, I was in a hurry appologies Kym. Steve had dynoed Graham's cams in a couple of cars but the results were'nt there but the tune probably needs more time/work.

Cheers Dave

My fault too for mixing up which cams Dave was talking about. I assumed (wrongly) that Dave was using Graham's cams and not his own.

KJ.

I got the response below from Graham today after I emailed him Madmagna's thread comments and my reply and I was there when he got that great figure of 132 Kw at the wheels BEFORE an SKR was done. Grahams car was not stock though as despite the stock ecu tune he had already advance the cams by filing the cam gear slots and had rigged up a spark advance mod which is in the threads.

The SKR tune only gave an extra 2Kw from memory and Graham was not that happy with the fuel mapping and time constraints on the tune etc because Steve was over booked with urgent overdue jobs at the time. He was lucky and got away late in the afternoon - I didn't finally get my engine in the TJ AWD and a very rushed tune done till about 0130 AM with lots of assistance from his mates and Steve was still going to try and do another Evo gearbox install by himself that night after I left. It was totally :nuts:.

I got to drive Graham's car when we went and did some post tune onroad testing for detonation with an in car stethoscope set up he had in the Adelaide hills south of SKR and it really pulls much harder than my TL AWD tippy with an SKR tune.

As the SKR dyno charts have a lot of smoothing and couldn't provide the detail he was seeking Graham had Steve download the actual source data and sent them off to Mainline Dynos tech office for further diagnosis and used the data to further examine AFR and fuel maps etc in finer detail than the graphs allow. He got data on the torque split between F & R and much finer tabulated data of AFRs, degress Advance and RPM ranges etc I can forward to any one who emails me.

I have sent his original attachments to Alscall and Madmagna and anyone else who has posted recently and they may know how to download them

Hello Peter,

I can understand to some extent the stand taken on the forum. There is a need for some checks and balances but as adults Magna people should be able to make choices.

Why does he say Alan J is an alias? I've got no need to advertise. I did this for my benefit initally and if other Magna owners want to get the parts then I'm happy to share it with them. There isn't any money in it for me.

And if the cams didn't work why did my AWD make 132kw on stock ECU map on Steve Knight's Dyno when AWDs generally make 90-93kw? I've attached the actual Mainline dyno file for my cams with stock factory ECU map and running a 50/50 mix of standard unleaded and 95 octane E10. I normally use 95 octane E10 but on my way to Adelaide had to refill with ordinary unleaded. Column 10 is the horsepower and column 14 the rpm. The engine had the 3.8 crank and pistons, and 3.8 heads but with comp ratio lowered from 10:1 down to 9.8:1. The ex had HM headers and the rest was stock VR VRX. 3.5 AWD generally make 90-93kw. The 3.8 would make about 10% more I would estimate, so about 99-102kw.

So I would reckon from this that my cams and port reduction on the 3.8 heads was gaining about 30kw at the wheels. Mainline say its about 225kw at the engine. I've done some data logging for accelaration and the 80-120kph consistently is 4.37-4.38 sec. I recently got given the Sprintex blower AWD road test and it was rated 225kw and did the 80-120kph run in 4.4 sec so the Mainline estimate could be

Its OK to post the dyno results and my email address.

theagrahambell@hotmail.com

All the best,

Graham

YESSS!!

Thank you for the details.

That sort of power and the info that the rolling acceleration times match a S/C car is great news.

I can see that sorting out what is the effect of the cams alone vs increased capacity and serious head/ inlet work is difficult.

It will be great to see to see some dyno charts compared to a standard untuned and a SKR tuned 3.5 AWD.

I have been saving for the last 6 months and will commit for a set WHEN I am happy with the data.

Has someone else got a set of the new cams in a "Standard" AWD configuration, i.e. with headers and bigger cat and sports muffler?

We have seen several SKR tunes on this configuration AWD and the results, from memory, were fairly consistent.

I am all for changes that give the most benefit in the lower / midrange, just because this is the powerband area where the car is driven all the time.
INMHO I am not into ultimate top end power bragging rights, it is all about a smooth, gutsy, tractable drive experience.
I want to be able to tickle at accelerator and just pull away. Already with my limited work on the car, especially with advanced cams the AWD is so much better to drive.
However I still want more. The financial controller will not let me go down the S/C route as well as the fact that I have a P plate driver in the family and an L driver in 2 years.

Gerry

I have emailed Graham's results/analysis attachments to those recent posters who have an email address.

Here is some earlier info in italics I got from Graham and the text from the emails with the attachments I forwarded for those who missed out.

Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: TJ AWD dyno 17/12/2009


Hello Peter,

Have had some interesting discussions with Mainline tech over a few days. They seem to think that at my 3.8 power level losses would be 85-90kw, so putting the engine near 220kw. The acceleration times seemed to confirm that too. Audi A6 quatro 4.2lt V8 is similar weight and rated 246kw does 80-120kph in 4.7 sec, Fairmont 5.4 V8 is 230kw and does it in 4.7 sec, Chrysler 300 5.7 V8 is 4.5 sec, Nissan 350Z manual 4.6 sec, Porsche Boxter S manual 4.4 sec.

They have a Holden Rodeo test vehicle in their fleet. They say it puts out 140kw flywheel, 100kw in 2WD and 85kw AWD. Its a manual.

Mainline say tyre drag & friction can account for 7-10kw each axle, so 14-20kw for both front & rear rollers. So tyre wall height and pressure, plus weight in the car have a large influence on wheel dyno output. If your TL was different from your TJ in this regard that could explain some of the power differences. Also they say they didn't install Steve's dyno and calibrate it, and it was 2nd hand, so could be inconsistent too. Mentioned too that their dynos read lower than Dyno Dynamics. Dyno Dynamics have different air correction and they correct for retarder cooling drag.

I may make another trip over and see if he can do better next time. I haven't decided yet.

Very best regards,
Graham

Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Adelaide results


Hello Peter,

Meant to get back to you earlier about Adelaide but run out of time and I didn't have proper results anyhow until Mainline got converted files to me Christmas day so I could check actual dyno numbers without smoothing etc.

Overall it went very well and car has a lot more grunt overall. Feels much more lively but the WOT dyno curves actually show a loss through most of the range from the reflash. Steve seemed very tired and unenthusiastic.

As I said test driving the car felt very good but the results weren't showing at WOT. Steve was worried about detonation and pulled out timing and that is what cut the power. It was only after I got the actual numbers back from Mainline that I found out that his fuel mapping was very, very lean. It is 14.2:1 around 2700rpm richening slightly to only 13.5:1 at 4000rpm so no wonder it wouldn't take any advance and lost power compared to the stock map. That would have overheated the pistons and combustion chambers and brought on detonation at higher revs too. It also explains why the engine is a bit dead below 3500rpm. There isn't enough fuel and spark advance to get it going in a heavy car with auto box.

The stock map peak was 132kw. From what you and Al were saying apparently most AWDs with headers, hi-flow CAT, and intake mods peak at about 93kw on that dyno so the 3.8 was about 42% stronger and has a very broad power spread. The reckoning is thats its about 225kw flywheel. I didn't think it was that good but since getting back here I've done some data logging and its doing consistent 4.37/4.38 sec 80-120kph runs in 3rd. I've just last night got onto some Sprintex AWD data and that car was doing 4.4 sec 80-120 and was claimed to be 225kw. I must log mine in auto mode to see if that slows it down. Or it may be quicker as at 80kph in 3rd its slightly off the best power because of the lean fuel and reduced spark.

I've attached some files for you to have a look over. I sent them on to old Al too but he must be away. Hes still not answering his phone or emails.

Have you got files of your dyno runs? Steve may have the fuel very lean on your's too and thats why it won't take more spark advance.

Best regards,

Graham



----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Bell
To: pwhite60@pcug.org.au
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: Adelaide results


Hello Peter,

Just got in last night and haven't had time to go over my dyno graphs yet but will do so as soon as I get a few moments. Car is going quite well and we averaged 10.745lt/100km on E10 which is close to what the 3.5 with heads and cams was delivering on long highway runs. 3.5 engine run 10.852lt/100 on stock injectors and 10.582lt/100 on 380 injectors. That should mean about 10-10.2 on straight unleaded 95. So for steady 130-140kph is quite respectable.

I've been trying to get onto old Al to let him in on Adelaide result but hes not answering phone or emails. Must be away. Just hope hes OK. Closest neighbour is an hour away.

Best regards,

Graham

This Graham Bell fellow must be pretty smart, he did invent the telephone way back in the late 1800's.

I request proof, but would not be against getting a free set and paying for the dyno testing.

And if the cams didn't work why did my AWD make 132kw on stock ECU map on Steve Knight's Dyno when AWDs generally make 90-93kw? I've attached the actual Mainline dyno file for my cams with stock factory ECU map and running a 50/50 mix of standard unleaded and 95 octane E10. I normally use 95 octane E10 but on my way to Adelaide had to refill with ordinary unleaded. Column 10 is the horsepower and column 14 the rpm. The engine had the 3.8 crank and pistons, and 3.8 heads but with comp ratio lowered from 10:1 down to 9.8:1. The ex had HM headers and the rest was stock VR VRX. 3.5 AWD generally make 90-93kw. The 3.8 would make about 10% more I would estimate, so about 99-102kw.



Short reply from me here, as I'm a bit pushed for time........

AWD's should be able to push out ~110 ATW with r/art cams plus 98 tune.

My AWD with a stock 3.8l engine dropped in & tuned for 98ron just made 134.4 KWs ATW. The only other mods are headers, highflow cat, 2.5" piping + straight through muffler.

I have a comparison sheet of G. Bells & mine, which I'll email him when I get back to VIC & will post it up later if he permits. I'll post my dyno results in the AWD & 380 sections, regardless, as soon as i get home.




Oh........& by the way, in case you were wondering it feels absolutely f**ken awesome now!!!! lol lol

I got to drive Graham's car when we went and did some post tune onroad testing for detonation with an in car stethoscope set up he had

G'day Ishrub
What kinda set up was that? How did you pull the hose through? Was the sound clear or distorted by surrounding noises? Where did you place the hose in the engine bay? Enuff questions?

I didn't look at it closely as he already had it in the car. I think he had been using it while Steve was dyno tuning as well. He had a home made set up with a rubber/plastic hose going through the transmission tunnel or front firewall connected to a pair of plastic earmuffs in the car with holes drilled in them to push hose into so the sound entered the muff. I think it was only one side but you could easily use a Y piece and fit to both sides. (Irrigation fittings would work or even Y pieces off car washer jets} I'm not sure but think the hose through the transmission tunnel/firewall was just placed near the engine block but I suppose a small funnel on the end wouldn't hurt especially if it was a tin one (I think these are still available from auto places or kitchen catering shops) and could be place very close or even taped to the engine block itself.

You could clearly hear the normal engine mechanical noises and the tinkling of detonation separate to the exhaust and later road noise etc.

Email Graham for more info theagrahambell@hotmail.com

Killer,

I dont have your email adress to send the attachments received from Grahsm I forwarded to most other recent posters already. If you want send me your email address.

Peter

I didn't look at it closely as he already had it in the car. I think he had been using it while Steve was dyno tuning as well. He had a home made set up with a rubber/plastic hose going through the transmission tunnel or front firewall connected to a pair of plastic earmuffs in the car with holes drilled in them to push hose into so the sound entered the muff. I think it was only one side but you could easily use a Y piece and fit to both sides. (Irrigation fittings would work or even Y pieces off car washer jets} I'm not sure but think the hose through the transmission tunnel/firewall was just placed near the engine block but I suppose a small funnel on the end wouldn't hurt especially if it was a tin one (I think these are still available from auto places or kitchen catering shops) and could be place very close or even taped to the engine block itself.

You could clearly hear the normal engine mechanical noises and the tinkling of detonation separate to the exhaust and later road noise etc.

Email Graham for more info theagrahambell@hotmail.com

Tnx Bro, this will do. You answered bascially what I was interested about. All I need to do now is train my dog to do the tuning while I drive - his hearing is much better than mine!

More from Graham following the posting of Alscalls and Zero's 380 engine installs.

From: Graham Bell
To: pwhite60@pcug.org.au
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: Reply to 'Alscall'


Hello Peter,

Thanks for sending Al 's info on. Al contacted me too. I've included my reply to Al below>>>>>>

Hello Al,

Good to hear about your 3.8 now being a goer. Its probably the best cheap mod for Magnas, expecially AWDs. Is yours an AWD? Sorry to ask but I've forgotten.

Just be a bit careful of getting too excited by the numbers cheap wheel dynos throw up. Even the expensive kit used for by manufacturers for final ECU mapping and emissions testing aren't perfect. Wheel dynos are notoriously inconsistent and unreliable. Add an auto and its even worse and with AWD they are pretty hopeless. According to Steve's dyno my 3.8 lost power after remapping. The best run was the first one with the stock ECU map. But when I tested the acceleration I think it was 17% faster remapped and certainly felt a lot better. Since then I've fitted a Haltech Interceptor to get more fuel and timing into it. Steve had it far too lean and on the dyno I only had 91 ULP and I topped the tank up with a 20 lt drum of E10.

A couple of AWD guys have had Mainline numbers all over the place. I think Ian Driver told me, Streetfighter manifold guy, though he had around 130kw on one Mainline and it showed 110 on another Mainline a few days later. Two other guys told me theirs recorded 92-93kw but after Steve remapped they jumped to 103-105kw. Thats not possible. A remap is worth 4-6% at most. A turbo engine with big intercooler might get 10% or a bit better remapped but not a NA engine.

I'm not having a go at Mainline either. All cheap wheel dynos are pretty much the same. The only way to get any sort of consistency is by regular recalibration, careful attention to tyre pressures, tie down strap location and tension, engine and trans oil temp etc, and even then you probably won't come closer than 4-5% consistency with a non-AWD manual. Mainline have a fleet of vehicles they test their dynos against before they deliver them but its then up to the operator to have the dyno correctly installed and checked by Mainline and have the load cell strain gauge regularly tested.

Evo IX generally show 145-150odd kw on a Mainline. Flywheel they are about 223-230kw. Mainline told me the AWD Magna auto box would drop that wheel figure about 10% to 130-138kw. So they would expect a AWD Magna showing a true 130-135kw to be on par with an Evo, or about 225kw flywheel.

I reckon the stock 380 engine is a 190kw engine with headers and proper mapping. I've been told by Mitsubishi R & D guys the best they ever saw was 184kw without inlet restrictions, so I might be a bit optomistic in saying 190kw. What that equates to at the wheels for an AWD I don't know but from what other AWD guys have said for their modified 3.5 it would seem to be about 110kw. But wheel dyno numbers being what they are????

Basic wheel dynos were designed to allow live tuning without getting out of the workshop so that tuners could see and hear how engines responded under load. It saved time getting to isolated test roads and avoided Police troubles. But now they have been turned into a bragging or propoganda tool and those quoting the numbers haven't got a clue any more than they understand turbo boost numbers, cam duration numbers, port flow numbers etc.

You are right in saying about all the useless hot up stuff about the place. But its not just Magnas. A lot of the bits getting about for all sorts of engines are useless. That was why in 1978 I began writing my first book so that with some education car guys would have a better understanding and look out for the traps. Back to back testing won't show what works and what doesn't either. Even on good calibrated engine dynos with 2% repeatable accuracy you can't feel what an engine will drive like, or what its transitional response will be like. Thats why there are many modern cars with loads of power on paper but aren't fun to drive or aren't as quick as engines with less power. My AWD will outrun my nephew's SV8 Commodore thats supposed to be 255kw and my brother's Evo VII has more power but is less fun to drive.

How does the fuel economy of the 3.8 compare with the 3.5?

All the best,

Graham


> From: pwhite60@pcug.org.au
> To: theagrahambell@hotmail.com
> Subject: Fw: Reply to thread 'AWD dyno results *no discussion*'
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:37:51 +1000
>
> Graham,
>
> For info here are Al's ('Alscall' from Melbourne) latest SKR
> results with stock 380 cam and SKR tune. How does it compare to yours?.
>
> I have posated your responses and email adress and sent your dyno and
> previously emailed results to all and sundry and posted email texts.
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Australian Magna Club" <admin@aussiemagna.com>
> To: <pwhite60@pcug.org.au>
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:23 PM
> Subject: Reply to thread 'AWD dyno results *no discussion*'
>
>
> > Dear Ishrub,
> >
> > alscall has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - AWD
> > dyno results *no discussion* - in the AWD Forum forum of The Australian
> > Magna Club.
> >
> > This thread is located at:
> > http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?71053-AWD-dyno-results-*no-discussion*&goto=newpost
> >
> > Here is the message that has just been posted:
> > ***************
> > *Car:* KJ2 AWD
> > *Mods:* 6G75 swap, extractors, 200 cpi cat, 2.5" catback, plus straight
> > through muffler
> > *Dyno:* SKR Mainline DynoLog Chassis Dyno with all runs in 3rd gear.
> > *Power: * 134.4 KW ATW @ 110KPH
> > *Torque:* 535.5 NM @ 84KPH
> >
> >
> > Image: http://i644.photobucket.com/albums/uu168/alscall/awd_380_skr.jpg
> >
> >
> > The lower figure was a 'base' tune with only AFR's corrected, before
> > tidying it up & adding some spark.
> > ***************
> >
> >
> > There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more
> > notifications until you visit the forum again.
> >
> > All the best,
> > The Australian Magna Club
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Unsubscription information:
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
> > http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&type=thread&subscriptionid=57773&auth=1b67b5edf621502071fe93c0533345b0
> >
> > To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
> > http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all
> >
> >


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet local singles online. Browse profiles for FREE

Just thought i may add some info after discussions with Steve (SKR) today. He informed me that Mainline (Todd Lewis) DID infact calibrate his dyno, steve also had a brand new heated 02 sensor added and the new lastest software installed at the same time as this calibration was done.

Steve was also mildly offended by a certain persons comments/email that have been posted on here.......

"Two other guys told me theirs recorded 92-93kw but after Steve remapped they jumped to 103-105kw. Thats not possible"

I dont agree with the comment above....and there's at least 5 awd's that have gotten similar gains!

Also a large number of fwd's with similar percentage gains.

Thanks for posting Ishrub, good read!

How long ago was the dyno calibrated, Jason? Before all the 3.8l's were on it?

Just thought i may add some info after discussions with Steve (SKR) today. He informed me that Mainline (Todd Lewis) DID infact calibrate his dyno, steve also had a brand new heated 02 sensor added and the new lastest software installed at the same time as this calibration was done.

Steve was also mildly offended by a certain persons comments/email that have been posted on here.......

Thanks for the feed back and clarifications Jason. Not meaning to offend anyone, just posting what people have asked for which are Graham's results as he described them and was happy to have posted. They are not my views and experience as I am just trying to learn or become as informed as I want to from anyone who provides information. As posted previously and like anyone else it is up to the individual to assess for themselves and contact and discuss with the service providers or commentators themselves. I personally know sweet FA about performance builds and mechanics and can just obtain as much info as I can / want to absorb and make my own decisions and wear them.

To indicate my lack of bias (and tendency to accept what is said at the time) I still have in use an EZBoy Streetfighter manifold, SKR tunes and Graham's cams, with Grahams modifed heads and lower manfolds still to fit. I had also previously obtained Tighe cams which were all the rage initially but after some poor feedback/results for AWD use sold them before fitting.

My post content and comments about my own experience are just what happened. I was happy with the engine swap, cam install and tune done to my car which was the second car I have driven to Adelaide from Canberra for an SKR tune. Like Zero I have seen the consistant results achieved for AWD with a flash but feel that some of Graham's comments re effect of AWd and auto on dyno readings may have some validity and what really counts is what it feels like on the road.

We have all paid or will our own money for what we have got or want to get done and I think have the right to post our results and observations and have them read, commented on and assessed for what they are.

For starters anyone who has any respect for the "street fighter" people has just lowered them selves many steps in my eyes.

I also have seen some bad comments on Steve and his tuning. I will put it out here and now, Steve when the tuned Graham's envine did so to Graham's specs, on 92 ron and was also told to "lean" out the fuel map to increase economy. This is the most stupid thing to do to any car as lean mixture can lead to melted pistons in a flash, the reason to run rich is to make for a cooler burn and in the case where you have a street car you need to leave a buffer to make sure if something is not right down the track you protect your engine.

Quite frankly, I have seen Steve's work first hand in both members cars and in person, he has proven his ability in many cars as Zero stated. These cams and springs have had absolutely no definate proof and the comment about dynos is now bringing back Tradewind nightmares where a product clearly did not work but no, was not the fault of the product, was the Dyno.

I have said my bit, until I see some consistant results in these super duper cams, I will stick to what I have and I know and will put my $1500 towards a 380 engine for my wagon me thinks

Finally, i am not having a go at this Graham who seems to be able to write a lengthy email but not post oin a forum :nuts: but as I stated, I have seen and heard several instances where SKR has been flamed for not getting results wanted by GB despite GB not allowing SKR to tune as they would in most normal cases.


Short reply from me here, as I'm a bit pushed for time........

AWD's should be able to push out ~110 ATW with r/art cams plus 98 tune.

My AWD with a stock 3.8l engine dropped in & tuned for 98ron just made 134.4 KWs ATW. The only other mods are headers, highflow cat, 2.5" piping + straight through muffler.

I have a comparison sheet of G. Bells & mine, which I'll email him when I get back to VIC & will post it up later if he permits. I'll post my dyno results in the AWD & 380 sections, regardless, as soon as i get home.

Glad you are happy with this mate, took a long time to get done I know but was worth it in the end. now I have a far better idea what is involved so hopefully the next one will be a little quicker (Looking at your AWD FamilyWagon hmmm)

Short reply from me here, as I'm a bit pushed for time........

AWD's should be able to push out ~110 ATW with r/art cams plus 98 tune.

My AWD with a stock 3.8l engine dropped in & tuned for 98ron just made 134.4 KWs ATW. The only other mods are headers, highflow cat, 2.5" piping + straight through muffler.

I have a comparison sheet of G. Bells & mine, which I'll email him when I get back to VIC & will post it up later if he permits. I'll post my dyno results in the AWD & 380 sections, regardless, as soon as i get home.

Oh........& by the way, in case you were wondering it feels absolutely f**ken awesome now!!!! lol lol

Al, Graham has said that he is happy for all his results to be posted and sharing of information. I haven't actually seen his printed SKR dyno graph just the dissected attachments of Graham's I have emailed to anyone interested. Can you post them up please?

For starters anyone who has any respect for the "street fighter" people has just lowered them selves many steps in my eyes.

I also have seen some bad comments on Steve and his tuning. I will put it out here and now, Steve when the tuned Graham's envine did so to Graham's specs, on 92 ron and was also told to "lean" out the fuel map to increase economy. This is the most stupid thing to do to any car as lean mixture can lead to melted pistons in a flash, the reason to run rich is to make for a cooler burn and in the case where you have a street car you need to leave a buffer to make sure if something is not right down the track you protect your engine.

Quite frankly, I have seen Steve's work first hand in both members cars and in person, he has proven his ability in many cars as Zero stated. These cams and springs have had absolutely no definate proof and the comment about dynos is now bringing back Tradewind nightmares where a product clearly did not work but no, was not the fault of the product, was the Dyno.

I have said my bit, until I see some consistant results in these super duper cams, I will stick to what I have and I know and will put my $1500 towards a 380 engine for my wagon me thinks

Finally, i am not having a go at this Graham who seems to be able to write a lengthy email but not post oin a forum :nuts: but as I stated, I have seen and heard several instances where SKR has been flamed for not getting results wanted by GB despite GB not allowing SKR to tune as they would in most normal cases.

Hey I'm a noob LOL and have said meny times I know SFA and haven't got room in my shed to store it. Good to see some feedback/comment. Mal, did you have a chance to look at GB's attachments I sent you and any further comment as it all goes over my head? Does any of it have any value or interest in your opinion - I have sent the attachments to most followers of this thread and nobody has attached or posted any of them or provided comment on the attachments themselves (I dont know how to post the actual attachments which is why I have sent them via email)From the results I have seen lately I would agree with you that the cheapest and most effective gains are to be attained with a 3.8 engine install and SKR tune. I still think it is of value to post have posted GB's own comments as this thread has been going quite a while and questions have been raised about about lack of info or updates. I thought some of GBs comments about dynos from discussions he had with Mainline were useful re torque distribution, power losses and difficulty in dynos measuring AWD output and the effects of tyre size, inflation etc.

Its requires informed individuals like yourself to offer comments etc to allow uninformed people like me to make their own good or bad decisions.

Peter, i have had a good look at all grahams attachments that you have emailed people. I have my opinion of his findings/thoughts BUT do not wish to post them on these forums, reason for that is i dont want to be shot down/flamed... I guess at the end of the day i know what i works with the 3.5L and the two 3.8L that ive now done.
Hell i offered Chaddy74/levi info when he wanted to build up his engine and look what the outcome was..... a nice 190@wheels engine.

Sometimes theres no need to "reinvent the wheel" when doing something to get good results......

For starters anyone who has any respect for the "street fighter" people has just lowered them selves many steps in my eyes.


I'm pretty sure that Graham was referring to Ian aka EZBoy in the e-mail, unless Tradewind's name is also Ian. I think that EZBoy has credibility.

Glad you are happy with this mate, took a long time to get done I know but was worth it in the end. now I have a far better idea what is involved so hopefully the next one will be a little quicker (Looking at your AWD FamilyWagon hmmm)

Hhehee, nice one mate. A serious consideration at the moment as well as the AWD manual conversion.

I'm pretty sure that Graham was referring to Ian aka EZBoy in the e-mail, unless Tradewind's name is also Ian. I think that EZBoy has credibility.

He does, but the results of that manifold spoke for themselves on the car's I had seen it installed on. he does great work, R&D etc, But when it comes to that manifold on AWD's the results (losses across the board) on the car's I had seen with them on is pretty self explanatory!

Al, Graham has said that he is happy for all his results to be posted and sharing of information. I haven't actually seen his printed SKR dyno graph just the dissected attachments of Graham's I have emailed to anyone interested. Can you post them up please?

OK, thanks for that Peter.

I've posted it (http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?52148-380-Dyno-Charts&p=1245870&viewfull=1#post1245870) in the 380 dyno section as that's where I believe the info needs to be.

Based on the a Al VS Graham dyno printout comparison, I noticed although Graham is making less power (obviously with the lower RON fuel tune), however is making its peak power at a higher rpm, just in theory, the engine is breathing better at higher rpm and that as Al's power starts to dip slightly, Graham was still slightly ahead at the higher revs. Perhaps if Graham had his car tuned to 98ron, we may have a better comparision for performance that is prove of his cams design and headwork. Thats just 1 theory.

So from what details have been posted so far we have;

Als car:
3.8 litre 6G75 (10:1 comp) stock, 98 RON, with extractors and SKR tune and sports exhaust = 134.4 KW
Grahams car:
Bored 3.5 with 3.8 pistons (9.8:1 comp) and modified heads + modified cams, ~ 91RON, no tune, extractors and sports exhaust = 132KW

Correct?

So maybe Graham's cams themselves have yet to be tested in an apples to apples test.

I dont have Graham's car with 3.8 engine I have only provided Grahams info on his.

I am not flaming GB but a motor or cam set up for an AWD that produces power higher up is like having a car that will not move under 100kmh in 60 zones, for those who do nto get it, it is useless.

AWD need bottom end, they need the lower down power and torque to get the extra few 100kg's going. If I ever bother owning an AWD (and if they made a wagon I already would) then I do not want to red line the mother everytime I want power.....

I have had a look at the email, I would however be very hesitant to comment until I have both spoken to SKR in person (Jason, I do not doubt what you have posted here bud but I like to hear from the horses mouth so there is nothing taken away from the information) and I would also need to see the sheets from GB run in SA. I do know he wanted a leaner mixture, this was for economy. That to me does not work as if you want more grunt, you also need more fuel. I also was told third hand he shaved his heads something like .5mm, this is insane as this is way over the factory recommendation. Obviously it still works at the moment but there are 2 types of modded car. One you can drive in daily, one you tow dialy (As Ego knows lol)

I will sit with these sheets more shortly once my move is completed however from what i have seen thus far, I am not very impressed given that even the 3.5 with ralliart cams has been made to get up and go well

Sorry if this sounds dumb or missinformed, but wouldn't the best mod for an AWD be the 3.8L engine, or a supercharger? Like Mal said, you need that low down grunt. The 3.8L would make a lot more torque under 3,000rpm than a 3.5L wether it was worked or not. Likewise, a supercharger would make boost around 2,000rpm (correct me if I'm wrong please) So again, torque gains low down.

I have had a look at the email, I would however be very hesitant to comment until I have both spoken to SKR in person (Jason, I do not doubt what you have posted here bud but I like to hear from the horses mouth so there is nothing taken away from the information) and I would also need to see the sheets from GB run in SA. I do know he wanted a leaner mixture, this was for economy. That to me does not work as if you want more grunt, you also need more fuel. I also was told third hand he shaved his heads something like .5mm, this is insane as this is way over the factory recommendation. Obviously it still works at the moment but there are 2 types of modded car. One you can drive in daily, one you tow dialy (As Ego knows lol)

I will sit with these sheets more shortly once my move is completed however from what i have seen thus far, I am not very impressed given that even the 3.5 with ralliart cams has been made to get up and go well

No probs there Mal.

As he said to me the other day, magnas arnt his passion as hes into performance cars (hence why theres always a heap of evo's, vr4's and skylines etc at his workshop) BUT he does have alot of knowledge on magna/verada to give people in this club and that knowledge can only be gathered from working on them for years and years.

I think everyone including me has to take a step back and leave things as they are for a while.... Let Graham bell sort out his cams (as a proven saleable package), Let Graham bell himself post up his findings/results and then and only then should people make there OWN decisions on what or who they want to believe.

I see merit in grahams cams but im not going to splash out $1500 to trial/test them, only to have them not equal or exceed the performance/drivability outcomes that the current donkey 3.5 engine (with the small cams) in my magna has done.

Mal PM or call me if you want to discuss anything as i dont want to be "shot" down as the messanger anymore :hmm: lol

Hoping to catch up with Graham in the coming week or so. Going to see how his AWD holds up (or leaves behind) my Raptor AWD. G tells me he's got a Haltech intercepter now and has added some fueling at higher throttle positions. He's also been in Holden's face trying to substantiate their Syd to Melb claim with a view to doing the same run in his AWD - I think he'll need a drop tank thou... ;)

Will post info and hopefully some footage of the runs. Will get off my bum (I swear) and get my water to air connected in time.

i did the syd - melb run on less than a tank - 69litres in fact

Any updates???

Any more resurrections? :D