Originally Posted by buildingsleeper View Post
ok but what's the difference with a single in block cam versus a dual over head cam? they both perform the same task just in a different configuration.with a V-8 like a 348 or even a 351. with a mild cam it still needs the compression and spark advance.now if we were dealing with 4 valve heads versus 2 valve heads then the cam overlap is more efficient with scavenging on the 4 valve heads.it's not rocket science. it's rpm's working together with airflow.untill they make a more efficient way to make the timing of the cams against the measured airflow that goes in and comes out of the heads then were back to square one with trying to improve the volumetric efficiency with just independently moving the cams.the big question is how well does the current intake, throttle body and cam profile truely work with the dynamics of the engine.for the engines we have that's our biggest hurdle. and until they come up with a better system that works then we don't have many choices.park timing only coincides with engine rpm's.
As you point out, there's a lot you don't know. So why make assertions, assumptions, and conclusions about concepts you don't fully comprehend? You're essentially calling all the automotive engineers in the world completely incompetent, while being simply wrong and confused about the matter. Even I especially don't know everything there is to know about engines, but I've known people who are prone to just parroting things they've heard without understanding what they're saying, and that's exactly what it reads like you're doing in that run-on paragraph.
You were originally talking about making a mild tune so you can have ghost cam tunes functional without cons. What does calling the 3.7L's port/intake design bad have anything to do with that? You also wrote out that you understand that air flow is different and low and high RPM, but then you don't understand why the valve-timing profile for high-RPM, maximum-reliable-power-output won't function efficiently for low-RPM versus the low-RPM-tuned, fuel-efficiency profile (which, based on valve/spark timing theory still develops more low/idle RPM power than the other profile).
To answer your second question about intake/exhaust port design, I'll just point out that you're only considering the volumetric efficiency of the air charges - if it was all open holes for air to flow through, you lose a lot of block/head integrity in both strength and heat transfer from removing volume otherwise occupied by aluminum. "Herpaderp use better materials"? **** costs more money in either base cost, or research and development of unknown better materials. A car company can't stay in business trying to sell a car for $22k if it costs $25k to make. The engineers behind the 3.7L knew what they were doing, why assume they would work away from 'common sense'?
Grab something to eat/drink, sit down, and read through these: Variable Cam Timing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Variable valve timing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People like knocking Wikipedia, but it'll learn people lots.
2011 3.7L Performance Pack (3.31 gear); BMR Springs (1.0, 1.25), Adj Panhard, UCAM, UCA, CABs, LCAs; Tokico DSP-12s; GT500 Strut Mounts; DSS AL Driveshaft; JLT Oil Catch; TSW Interlagos 20x8.5 & Falken 255/35R20 x 4; Audio Sys; Amsoil Sig Series 5W-30/EAO17; Pypes 3" Catback;
On the shelf: H&R SS (1.7/2.4); MM 11+ CC Plates;
RICE is anyone driving any vehicle with Race-Inspired Cosmetic Enhancements.