Refined Cam Sim comparisons
- ruffy01
- Making Progress
- Posts: 55
- Joined: February 4th, 2013, 6:28 pm
- Vehicle Year: 1996
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Refined Cam Sim comparisons
I refined my methods a little & updated head flow spec's with SilverXJ's recommendation.
With each sim' run SCR was altered (cam specific) to achieve a DCR ~8.3:1.
1st up: Comp cams 2ndly: 505Performance Cams & Comp Cams 239-4 Interestingly, Comp Cams 239-4 & 505Perf Cams 263-265 14H are almost identical with this sim.
From a user POV the 505 cam could be run with stock valve springs (0.427/0.438 Lift) Vs the 239-4 (0.493/0.512 Lift) which definitely needs aftermarket.
The other spec's on these two are:
263/265: IVC=65.5*, LSA=114*, Overlap=36*
239-4: IVC=58.0*,LSA=111*, Overlap=44*
So a higher SCR with the 263/265 cam's late IVC also.
The 505Perf 272/280 14H sacrifices a little low down torque but catches very quickly with a very flat early curve. Nice HP too.
With each sim' run SCR was altered (cam specific) to achieve a DCR ~8.3:1.
1st up: Comp cams 2ndly: 505Performance Cams & Comp Cams 239-4 Interestingly, Comp Cams 239-4 & 505Perf Cams 263-265 14H are almost identical with this sim.
From a user POV the 505 cam could be run with stock valve springs (0.427/0.438 Lift) Vs the 239-4 (0.493/0.512 Lift) which definitely needs aftermarket.
The other spec's on these two are:
263/265: IVC=65.5*, LSA=114*, Overlap=36*
239-4: IVC=58.0*,LSA=111*, Overlap=44*
So a higher SCR with the 263/265 cam's late IVC also.
The 505Perf 272/280 14H sacrifices a little low down torque but catches very quickly with a very flat early curve. Nice HP too.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- BANNED
- Posts: 297
- Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 2:01 am
- Vehicle Year: 1998
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
The gains are mostly between 4000-5000rpm. How often are you in that rpm range? If you have an auto that shifts at 4800-4850rpm, whats the point?
1998 XJ 2D AW4 32"MTR 3.55 4.5"RC JCR Slider Magnaflow 150rwHP/174rwTQ=> Sprintex SC Gibson Header 6lb 120-140*IAT 211rwHP/274rwTQ WasherFluid Inj 70mmTB 7.5lb 100-120*IAT=>Now 12 pounds Boost=> +BV ported head
99 XJ M62 S/C
99 XJ M62 S/C
-
- I made it to triple digits!
- Posts: 157
- Joined: October 5th, 2012, 9:00 pm
- Location: Houston area, Texas
- Contact:
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
I would avoid ANYTHING from 505.....
- SilverXJ
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5790
- Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
- Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
- Vehicle Year: 2000
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
- Location: Radford, Va
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
You would get a better view if your limit the plot RPM to 5000. Enter ALL the data for the camshaft, seat to seat and .050" numbers. Then compare between the two. This will also help DD calculate the ramp rates
2000 XJ. 4.6L stroker
00+ Viper Coil Swap | CPS Timing Increase Mod | Fabricated Airbox | Dash bezel, Arduino Multigauge & RD Conceal
Eat, breath, drink, sleep, Jeep, drink
00+ Viper Coil Swap | CPS Timing Increase Mod | Fabricated Airbox | Dash bezel, Arduino Multigauge & RD Conceal
Eat, breath, drink, sleep, Jeep, drink
-
- I think I'll order a "tab"
- Posts: 42
- Joined: February 11th, 2011, 6:58 pm
- Stroker Displacement: 4.6
- Vehicle Year: 1998
- Vehicle Make: jeep
- Vehicle Model: tj
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
Care to elaborate?FlyinRyan wrote:I would avoid ANYTHING from 505.....
I havn't been on the site for awhile. I have used 505 and had nothing but great service and six cylinders that beat up v8s. Am I missing something?
I am really interested to hear what you have to say as I was concidering your tuning services. Thanks
- ruffy01
- Making Progress
- Posts: 55
- Joined: February 4th, 2013, 6:28 pm
- Vehicle Year: 1996
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
It was simply a 'have a look & see' exercise MartyCobraMarty wrote:The gains are mostly between 4000-5000rpm. How often are you in that rpm range? If you have an auto that shifts at 4800-4850rpm, whats the point?

No good for my needs.
- ruffy01
- Making Progress
- Posts: 55
- Joined: February 4th, 2013, 6:28 pm
- Vehicle Year: 1996
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
Thanks Silver, I did enter all the .050" data but it disappears after saving, not on all cams thoughSilverXJ wrote:You would get a better view if your limit the plot RPM to 5000. Enter ALL the data for the camshaft, seat to seat and .050" numbers. Then compare between the two. This will also help DD calculate the ramp rates

I shall narrow down the RPM range.
- ruffy01
- Making Progress
- Posts: 55
- Joined: February 4th, 2013, 6:28 pm
- Vehicle Year: 1996
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
As BDD asked, I'm also curious.FlyinRyan wrote:I would avoid ANYTHING from 505.....
I've read negatives about their rollers but not their other profiles.
I'm still checking out other cams but I quite like 505's 263/265-14H vs Comp's 239-4: They appear almost identical (according to the Sim' of course, real world may be different)
I could run factory valve springs with the 505 cam but not Comp's 239-4.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- SilverXJ
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5790
- Joined: February 14th, 2008, 7:14 am
- Stroker Displacement: 4.6L
- Vehicle Year: 2000
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
- Location: Radford, Va
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
Search on here for 505 issues. Bad service, bad packaging, failures, etc.
As for DD not saving both the seat to seat and .050 figures I ran into that problem as well. I believe something else changes in the cam manager that has to match when you do the other figures. I can't recall exactly though.
As for DD not saving both the seat to seat and .050 figures I ran into that problem as well. I believe something else changes in the cam manager that has to match when you do the other figures. I can't recall exactly though.
2000 XJ. 4.6L stroker
00+ Viper Coil Swap | CPS Timing Increase Mod | Fabricated Airbox | Dash bezel, Arduino Multigauge & RD Conceal
Eat, breath, drink, sleep, Jeep, drink
00+ Viper Coil Swap | CPS Timing Increase Mod | Fabricated Airbox | Dash bezel, Arduino Multigauge & RD Conceal
Eat, breath, drink, sleep, Jeep, drink
- ruffy01
- Making Progress
- Posts: 55
- Joined: February 4th, 2013, 6:28 pm
- Vehicle Year: 1996
- Vehicle Make: Jeep
- Vehicle Model: Cherokee
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
Thanks mate.SilverXJ wrote:Search on here for 505 issues. Bad service, bad packaging, failures, etc.
As for DD not saving both the seat to seat and .050 figures I ran into that problem as well. I believe something else changes in the cam manager that has to match when you do the other figures. I can't recall exactly though.
I just re-entered the .050" data, saved, closed & re-opened; gone!
It holds the data as long as the session is open.
I've found a few negatives on 505, damn shame, I do like their profiles.
I'll look a bit closer at Erson, Hesco & Crane too.
-
- Making Progress
- Posts: 61
- Joined: June 20th, 2009, 9:07 pm
- Stroker Displacement: 4.7l
- Vehicle Year: 1996
- Vehicle Make: jeep
- Vehicle Model: cherokee
- Location: santa fe tx
Re: Refined Cam Sim comparisons
x2FlyinRyan wrote:I would avoid ANYTHING from 505.....
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests