Technical Shrick Stage 1 Low-Lift cam results

[rev210]

Valve train is no problem, i agree. The drop height though. This is the thing you need to know so that clearences are there for valve lift increases . Drop measure is normally done on a build ,with things like machining block and head faces and head gasket thickness coming into play with it.

 

[langsbr]

I think @martymil and @Torgus are talking about different points of "heat". I believe Torgus is referring to intake air charge, which will be dramatically lower at lower boost - compressing air heats it - that's why we use intercoolers - to get it closer to ambient.

I think Marty is referring to combustion heat and in cylinder heat - the same amount of horsepower regardless of boost should make the same amount of combustion heat.

If the only difference between the high lift and low lift cams are indeed lift, and duration is the same - then peak power RPM won't be dramatically changed running one or the other. Power under the curve should be better with the high lifts tho, since added lift makes more power everywhere - remember you have more lift on valve opening and closing so much more air is flowing. I'm a proponent of high lift, ESPECIALLY when the cylinder head flows like a late 70s Chevy v-8. If it flowed like a Honda B or K series, then lift isn't quite as much of a concern because there is so much flow at low and mid lift.

The whole "too much torque" argument is worthless as stock turbos can build 30psi at low rpms and potentially bend rods (which I still do not think torque bends rods, detonation does, but that's another thread ) so just have your tuner "tune out the too much torque" and make more power everywhere else.

On my setup, since I probably won't ever run a helix or shotgun (too much $ for little return) I would rather improve flow overall and wold rather do a ported head than cams. Sure, a ported head AND cams would be great, but I think a ported head alone (or an N53 head, but damn the extra investment to do that) would be a superb mod for these engines. I'd expect 650whp with hybrids at under 25psi which would be AWESOME. And just imagine off boost responsiveness.

 

[Hydra Performance]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the high lift cams work fine with stock pistons. The difference in lift between them is only 0.5mm or thereabouts and that is at the lobe centerline at which point the piston is far far away from TDC. Have some common sense people...

 

[langsbr]

Is lift the only difference?

 

[RuskiRacer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the high lift cams work fine with stock pistons. The difference in lift between them is only 0.5mm or thereabouts and that is at the lobe centerline at which point the piston is far far away from TDC. Have some common sense people...

But but Marty gauranteed me

 

[E92 420]

Don’t argue with Marty he has decades of experience

 

[fmorelli]

 

[ajpagosa]

Is lift the only difference?

Specs are here:

Schrick Camshaft Set, BMW N54

Configuration: 268° / 268° - 11.5 mm / 10.5 mm Lift - Low Lift; 268° / 264° - 12.0 mm / 11.0 mm Lift - High Lift.

store.vacmotorsports.com

looks like 4 more deg duration on exhaust on the low lift

 

[martymil]

I never said they won't work, I said the stock motor won't hold for long especially during a high rpm misfire

So go put it in if you think it will, just because things can be done does not mean they should be.

This thread is exactly the same as the helix one, no one believed me back then either.

I can see a lot of engine builders getting busy real soon.

 

[langsbr]

I never said they won't work, I said the stock motor won't hold for long especially during a high rpm misfire

So go put it in if you think it will, just because things can be done does not mean they should be.

This thread is exactly the same as the helix one, no one believed me back then either.

I can see a lot of engine builders getting busy real soon.

But based on how you said it, you insinuated that the high lift ones wouldn't have any improvement over stock except at higher rpms.

I'm quite surprised they have less duration than the low lift cams and I would expect peak power on them to be at a lower rpm than the low lifts if that is not a misprint.
Also, plenty of people have blown their motor with stock cams. I don't think you could attribute an extra .5mm of lift, that's just silly.

 

[martymil]

Read my statement from before again, just trying to help you guys.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother as some are just thick as bricks.

Its not the .5mm extra lift but the higher rpm these will easily reach that will cause the issues in event of a misfire.

I've been battling a number of issues since installing these cams and random misfires is one of them.

All my parts are brand new including vanos hubs and vanos solenoids but that's part of another story.

We will sort them out but it will take time, this motor wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for forged rods and pistons.

But the way they where marketed from what I can remember was:

The low lifts are designed for low end response with a slightly raised top end ceiling.

The high lifts are for all out top end, max hp and that's why some are running them to 8200rpm.

 

[Slowagon54]

Schrick is a well known name and a big brand in Europe. They know their stuff. Major part of their products are made for street use. So the product has to fit the stock parameters, no doubt to me.

However, its not worth to point fingers on each others (because of a 0,5mm lift variance) I am more interested in further results. You said you are chasing missfires which you have fixed already, right. Time to turn it up now...


wait, let me get the popcorn first

 

[martymil]

That's if I could be bothered with the response I got here, I might just keep the results to myself.

 

[RuskiRacer]

Oh c'mon Marty don't let some Internet trolls bring ya down

 

[E92 420]

Iv been talking with schrick last week and I am waiting on there next reply tomorrow, now they have just directly told me that sales has a minor part to play in them removing low lifts from the market. After data collecting since release they are in firm belief that the high lifts are “better” for our engines.

Quote from last email. after I asked if sales was reason for removing low lifts from production

“that´s not exactly what it tells, in the time of developing we always have to made some different versions for testing what works best at the engine.

and it turns out that the combination we produce now worked best for the engine”.

No more low lifts! I am waiting on a reply as to why high lifts are better and what they recommend for running them!

 

[martymil]

What works best is very vague marketing statement.

 

[E92 420]

What works best is very vague marketing statement.

I agree it’s very vague! Hence why Iv asked what they actually mean by “better”

 

[fmorelli]

Unlike a lot of parts, the heads on the N54 are typically untouched. Where are the 15 people running cams on this thread? Or running ported heads? Unfortunately it is not common so information is sparse and not with repetitive results that back up information. Textbook is better than nothing. I would think a bunch of people in Europe run these cams in various configurations ... but .... ?

I wanted to leave the bottom end alone, not change the valvetrain, and just improve the abysmal breathing of this head configuration. So I figured the low-lift cam was a likely practical improvement. Still waiting to get my build done ...

Filippo

 

[nyt]

I think @martymil and @Torgus are talking about different points of "heat". I believe Torgus is referring to intake air charge, which will be dramatically lower at lower boost - compressing air heats it - that's why we use intercoolers - to get it closer to ambient.

I think Marty is referring to combustion heat and in cylinder heat - the same amount of horsepower regardless of boost should make the same amount of combustion heat.

If the only difference between the high lift and low lift cams are indeed lift, and duration is the same - then peak power RPM won't be dramatically changed running one or the other. Power under the curve should be better with the high lifts tho, since added lift makes more power everywhere - remember you have more lift on valve opening and closing so much more air is flowing. I'm a proponent of high lift, ESPECIALLY when the cylinder head flows like a late 70s Chevy v-8. If it flowed like a Honda B or K series, then lift isn't quite as much of a concern because there is so much flow at low and mid lift.

The whole "too much torque" argument is worthless as stock turbos can build 30psi at low rpms and potentially bend rods (which I still do not think torque bends rods, detonation does, but that's another thread ) so just have your tuner "tune out the too much torque" and make more power everywhere else.

On my setup, since I probably won't ever run a helix or shotgun (too much $ for little return) I would rather improve flow overall and wold rather do a ported head than cams. Sure, a ported head AND cams would be great, but I think a ported head alone (or an N53 head, but damn the extra investment to do that) would be a superb mod for these engines. I'd expect 650whp with hybrids at under 25psi which would be AWESOME. And just imagine off boost responsiveness.

I believe the duration between the low and the high lift vary. 268 vs 264. I've heard from some that the low lift is the better option of the two as it's longer duration.

 

[rev210]

The extra lift is probably good on a stock head to improve the flow, power curve and reduce the boost required.

The high lifts are not going to kill motors. The tune will.

Cams arent going to lead to missfires, detonation or valve float of themselves . Rpm limits are governed by the tune and right foot.
Point taken however that this community does have its fair share of corner cutters for supporting mods. So the prediction of increased rates of motor harm for any mod that is a power adder is fair enough.