Cam degreeing gurus, please enter.....not an opinion thread LOL - Page 2 - MustangForums.com


4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang Technical discussions on 1996-2004 4.6 Liter Modular Motors (2V and 4V) within.

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-22-2011, 03:19 PM   #11  
tbirdscwd
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
tbirdscwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 4,039
Default

Because I have checked with a compressed lash adjuster and the tightest I am seeing is .045" @ 108. I am not going to call that the clearance until I get in there with an adjustable one so I can set it to zero lash and see exactly where we are.
tbirdscwd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 07:41 PM   #12  
tbirdscwd
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
tbirdscwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 4,039
Default

Official ptv clearance is .025" installed at 107.75 degrees ICL. That was measured at 5 degrees atdc.....everywhere else I had more clearance. I'm not going to even try to get a quarter of a degree to get them in at 108 LOL. If it was a quarter of a degree retarded, I'd probly go over it again and shoot for 108 exactly.
tbirdscwd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 08:08 PM   #13  
mrtstang
6th Gear Member
 
mrtstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MI
Posts: 5,884
Default

Wow that really amazes me! I mean i only got .030"-.035" with mine at a 110 ICL. Hey if you can get away with more advance like that, i'd keep it that way too.
mrtstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 09:30 PM   #14  
tbirdscwd
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
tbirdscwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtstang View Post
Wow that really amazes me! I mean i only got .030"-.035" with mine at a 110 ICL. Hey if you can get away with more advance like that, i'd keep it that way too.
I honestly thought it would be closer than it was. .010" was going to be my "no-go" and would have retarded them accordingly. I had them in at a few different centerlines to see how they did. The clearance was only a couple thousandths more at 109ICL........and really it just changed where (meaning position of the crank) the closest spot was. IIRC, having them at around 110 ICL made the clearance smallest around 15* ATDC and advancing them just made the the clearance smallest closer to TDC. At 110 ICL I was getting in the upper 40 thousandths.........
tbirdscwd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 06:56 AM   #15  
mrtstang
6th Gear Member
 
mrtstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MI
Posts: 5,884
Default

It's weird because we both have the same intake duration as well. With that in mind you would think the measurements would be very similar at the same ICL. Yet you were getting well over .040" to my .030"-.035" at a 110 ICL.

According to Nick you'll loose like .020"-.030" by advancing the ICL 2 degrees. Like going from a 110 to a 108 for example.

Regardless, it seems to work for your application. I'm anxious to see how it all turns out.

Last edited by mrtstang; 02-10-2011 at 07:05 AM.
mrtstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 03:06 PM   #16  
tbirdscwd
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
tbirdscwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtstang View Post
It's weird because we both have the same intake duration as well. With that in mind you would think the measurements would be very similar at the same ICL. Yet you were getting well over .040" to my .030"-.035" at a 110 ICL.

According to Nick you'll loose like .020"-.030" by advancing the ICL 2 degrees. Like going from a 110 to a 108 for example.

Regardless, it seems to work for your application. I'm anxious to see how it all turns out.



I think bottom line is that every motor is going to be a little different when it comes down to thousandths of an inch. I'm willing to bet that both of our readings are within the average range for these motors.

Anther thing to remember is that when it comes down to thousandths of an inch, everything comes into play including piston manufacturer, head gasket thickness, exact tolerances on machine work and block, etc......all of which can vary slightly. Even some of the components were completely different throughout the years.
tbirdscwd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 03:19 PM   #17  
mrtstang
6th Gear Member
 
mrtstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MI
Posts: 5,884
Default

That's a good point and makes sense. It explains why some people may hit the valves while others don't.
mrtstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 03:31 PM   #18  
tbirdscwd
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
tbirdscwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtstang View Post
That's a good point and makes sense. It explains why some people may hit the valves while others don't.
One thing that I noticed that few might even think about is that you need to compress the oil out of the lash adjusters when installing cams on these motors. My valves definitely were making contact when I installed a stock lifter that had expanded. They are hydraulic and will settle down after starting up and running, but not before making contact with the valves on initial startup. When you release the pressure on the lash adjusters to remove the cams, they expand which sucks in whatever oil is still in the passages. Once they do this, they are essentially full length solid lifters for the initial startup, which will definitely cause ptv with an even semi aggressive cam profile. I had ptv all the way back to 115* ICL with an un-bled stock lash adjuster. This is because the valve was hanging open father than it was supposed to due to the lash adjusters being all the way extended. Even when on the base circle, the valve was hanging open like 1/10" which is way more than the clearance these cams are supposed to have.

I think this is why people note hearing a chattering or valve noise on initial start up and then it goes away. Unfortunately, by the time the adjusters settle back down to provide a true zero lash, the damage to the valves and the marks on the pistons are already present regardless of whether or not the cams actually did clear with the right amount of valve lash.
tbirdscwd is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The "I Just Watched A Great Movie" Thread HRnB Off Topic 126 11-13-2017 12:36 PM
New Projects coming 2016 stealth_GT The Racers Bench 4 09-22-2015 02:19 PM
New 5.0 carb build bogs at hit of throttle Daddys Girls GTs 5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang 3 09-14-2015 08:46 PM
Cam and rear end gear questions Ryan Fitzpatrick New Member Area 3 09-14-2015 02:21 AM
Pinion angle, poly bushings, 1 piece DS mtgldr S197 Handling Section 1 09-10-2015 09:43 PM


Tags
104, 1996, 2v, 46, 46l, cam, cams, degree, degreeing, ford, icl, mastang, mustang, sbf, stock, tensioner

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Advertising
Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.