[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SVO: 4.940



Dave Compton wrote:
> 
> Here I go...
> 
> I called Nick and discussed this "cam debate" with him.  In just a few
> minutes, I understood how Nick gets this much lift in the car, even though
> it's been said that it can't be done.  Well, it's not rocket science.
> 

1) You haven't a clue how it all works...that is...unless Nick passed
his (apparently to you) considerable knowledge of valvetrain geometry to
you -- all during a 10 minute conversation.

2) You have a personal and financial interest in seeing that his stuff
"works".

 
> um, this is a personal foul.  If you can participate in the list discussion
> without this kind of behavior, then you're welcome to stay, and share your
> knowledge.  If not, you are welcome to leave.  My only rule was "be nice",
> and you guys just can't get it.

"Nice" doesn't have anything to do with it...

You call my integrity into question...and imply that I'm either a
complete fool that can't read a simple dial indicator (I most assuredly
can), that I fudged the numbers (I certainly didn't), I used a modified
head (I didn't...and I offered to demonstrate in person to any
interested parties) and that I was only raising the issue to scare away
Nick's business -- as a way to bolster my own...NEWS FLASH!  I'm not in
the business and I don't sell cams.

I'm a student and a racer who builds his own engines. 

 
> It wasn't an implication, it was an example of "dirty pool", which I (and
> other listmembers) don't need or want.

No -- "Dirty Pool" is when I ask a straight-forward question that Nick
apparently is afraid of answering im public...then you get out the
flamethrower to cover his apparently inept ass -- and try to stifle the
conversation short of resolution.


> So far this cam debate has just consisted of; Joe posting a number, and
> leaping to the conclusion that the cam couldn't happen the way Nick says it
> does.  I think it's gonna be pretty obvious when I install it, whether or
> not there's room on the valve stem for the increased lift.  I'll even
> measure...

1) If you think I got a wrong number...try it yourself and see what you
get.  I did it twice...on two different days...with the idicator on the
stem and the head of the valve.....611" once (stem)....615" head...I
think .004" is close enough, considering that the conflict is 10 to 20
times that.

2) If the cam doesn't actually make .505 lift (your proposal BTW), then
your buddy is selling the cam in a fraudulent way (I did not say
this...you did).

3) The cam could work on a stock head...for a while.  Crushing the seal
itself, especially on the exhaust side, won't make much difference...if
it was run hard (and I suspect that most aren't), things would start to
get crushed.

4) In a "best case" scenario, he would have to have a seal that measured
no thicker than .050" at the top in order to maintain what is generally
considered to ba an acceptable retainer/seal clearance of 40-60
thousandths.  I'd reiterate the numbers once again, but since you didn't
get it the first few times...I'll save the keystrokes.

I've learned that there are a certain number of list members (no matter
the list) that don't like a vigorous discussion of issues, or overly
technical issues...others want more tecnical information and less
discussions on car wax...ironically, sometimes these are the same
people. 

You can't please everybody, right?