Anyone running a Crower 15380/288FDP - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
» Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > The Garage - Tech Forums > Engine Specific Tech > Cleveland Tech
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2005, 02:16   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
northiam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Victoria. Australia
Posts: 381
Anyone running a Crower 15380/288FDP

Anyone had experiences with this cam? I like the figures!!
COMPU-PRO / PERFORMANCE LEVEL 5 - High torque, short oval
camshaft.
RPM Power Range: 3500 to 6500 / Redline: 7000 plus.

Part Number/Work Order Number 15380
Engine Application 351C-400M FORD
Grind Number 288FDP
ADVERTISED CAMSHAFT SPECIFICATIONS:
INTAKE: Duration: 288º Lift: 0.567
EXHAUST: Duration: 294º Lift: 0.58

RECOMMENDED VALVE SPRING INFORMATION:
Part # 68390-3 Single Dual X Triple
Approximate spring pressure: valve closed: 100/115 LBS.
valve open: 335/355 LBS.

INTAKE Opens: 26.0 BTDC 26
Closes: 48.0 ABDC 48
EXHAUST Opens: 58.0 BBDC 58
Closes: 20.0 ATDC 20

LOBE SEPERATION 105º

Duration at .050" Intake: 254 Exhaust: 258

LOBE LIFT Intake: 0.328 Exhaust: 0.335

Thanks for any comments
northiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-09-2005, 10:15   #2 (permalink)
'60 F100 Q-Code
 
davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 750
Re: Anyone running a Crower 15380/288FDP

Quote:
Originally Posted by northiam
Anyone had experiences with this cam? I like the figures!!
COMPU-PRO / PERFORMANCE LEVEL 5 - High torque, short oval
camshaft.
RPM Power Range: 3500 to 6500 / Redline: 7000 plus.

Part Number/Work Order Number 15380
Engine Application 351C-400M FORD
Grind Number 288FDP
ADVERTISED CAMSHAFT SPECIFICATIONS:
INTAKE: Duration: 288º Lift: 0.567
EXHAUST: Duration: 294º Lift: 0.58

RECOMMENDED VALVE SPRING INFORMATION:
Part # 68390-3 Single Dual X Triple
Approximate spring pressure: valve closed: 100/115 LBS.
valve open: 335/355 LBS.

INTAKE Opens: 26.0 BTDC 26
Closes: 48.0 ABDC 48
EXHAUST Opens: 58.0 BBDC 58
Closes: 20.0 ATDC 20

LOBE SEPERATION 105º

Duration at .050" Intake: 254 Exhaust: 258

LOBE LIFT Intake: 0.328 Exhaust: 0.335

Thanks for any comments

A camshaft is only as good as its intended purpose and the related combination of parts that make up the engine and vehicle. Here is an image that I made comparing this particular cam to a few others.



#1 is the camshaft you discuss here. #2 is a Crane F246 solid flat. #3 is the Crane F238 solid flat. #4 is the Lunati solid flat cam that I chose for my street/strip engine (that doesn't yet have a chassis). I'm not trying to compare my choice to this particular cam, rather it is intended to illustrate a point.

Torque is the green lines and Horsepower is the red lines. The base engine was taken from my own "Q-code" (the name that I've given it) engine specs. Basically, a 4-bolt Q-code block +.030", factory crank/rods, forged flat tops, 4V CC iron heads w/stainless valves, Torker single plenum inlet, 800 CFM DP and small tube headers with mufflers as the exhaust choice. Flow figures were as taken from my iron 4V heads that have no porting and only good bowl blending and hardened exhaust seats for unleaded petrol.

Note that in each case, the total lift figures were corrected for my 1.70:1 ratio rocker arms. Had I used a set of 1.73:1 rockers in the simulation, the lines would be only very modestly different. Since all are corrected for the different rocker arm ratio (than stock), then the data should be normalized for these purposes.

The "bigger" cams show much lower torque at lower RPM and extend the RPM range of this engine only slightly, from about 6500 on the low end to about 7000 on the higher end. The interesting thing to note is the peak torque and the time (over an RPM range) at peak. Numbers 3 and 4 have a very short period at peak before torque drops off significantly, while #2 and #1 have a relatively much broader RPM range at their peaks, however, in each case, the highest peak torque value is about 35-40 foot pounds higher in the more "peaky" torque cam, which is #4. Looking at the back side of the torque curve, one can easily see that all of the cams start to give it up at 6000 RPM as they seem to all intersect at that point. What that tells us is that our cylinder heads (as a function of flow) aren't helping us any beyond 6000 RPM, at least with these kinds of camshaft.

While the numbers do kind of make it a bit difficult to tell which line is which, I hope that most of you can make it out okay. I think that we can easily see that this particular combination won't rev it out to much beyond 7000-7500, quite likely due to the carburetion and the flat versus roller cams, but also because head flow isn't very good at those RPMs, either.

Another interesting point is that none of the cams makes a lot more HP peak than any of the others. Note how around 6000 RPM they all intersect again? Note also that the primary difference between #1 and #4 is that #1 carries its peak HP to about 6500 RPM while at that RPM, #4 is significantly falling off of the peak.

The principal differences between the two camshafts for this given engine combination is that #1 sacrifices lower end torque peak for broader mid-range torque available to the driver while extending the HP through a slightly longer and higher RPM range. #4 sacrifices top end performance for a much higher low RPM torque, but peaks quickly at reasonable "street/strip" RPMs for the combination.

We can surmise that the intended usage of the two cams is as their respective manufacturer's state. The Crower cam does in fact look like a good short oval cam where one would need a broader upper mid-RPM torque range to pull out of tight corners on a short track. The slightly extended HP range of the say, up to 7000 RPM of that cam would do well in the short straight aways, too.

The Lunati cam is billed as a good streetable camshaft for 9.5:1 compression on PULP...at least of the quality one obtains in the USA. The lower RPM grunt of this cam will do well with an automatic with a mild performance converter. It will also be "all in" by 6500 RPM, which makes it a reasonably good choice for stock/reconditioned factory parts.

Of perhaps the most interest is the comparison between #2 and #3. #2 leans more toward #1 while #3 leans more toward #4. They both represent good compromises between both ranges.

I wouldn't think that anyone using camshaft #1 or #2 would be very happy with it on the street without a lot more converter and rear gear ratio than a typical streeter's set up, while those with more gear and converter would probably prefer more cam than #3 and #4 offer.

The major difference between all of them (at least 3 of them) is the total peak torque. I'm sure that I've told forum members here before that I build for total torque, not for HP. #4 represents a very strong, peaky torque cam with #3 as its very nearly identical twin for any practical purposes (except cost!). #1 and #2 do extend the RPM range where power is being made to perhaps a maximum reasonable of 7000-7500 RPM.

The typical street machine won't need a "pulls hard on the top end" cam as much as a "pulls hard on the bottom end" cam...with the possible exception of overpowering the tires on the street at any RPM! A harder bottom puller will do better with "freeway flyer" rear gear ratio, which will save fuel costs while still performing well out of the hole.

But, it should be plain to see that no cam is ideal for multiple duties. Each cam is a compromise that is centrism for its intended usage.

:davis:
davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 13:41   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
northiam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Victoria. Australia
Posts: 381
Re: Anyone running a Crower 15380/288FDP

Thanks for the comparison; I take it this table comes from a desktop program?
The F246 does seem to be the cam of choice for this forum, according to your data it may not be the best choice for those of us chasing street/strip performance
I’m looking to improve my combo currently running a crow 61626 solid (very similar to F238) will be going the alloy head route in future so I’m selecting a cam with that in mind.
The below cam seems a bit more street able than the 15380 and F246.
Making a comparison between the F246 the 15389 runs less overlap wider LSA and lower lift as most heads don’t flow much over .550 lift anyway.
Does anyone know what the LSA and ILC are on the F238 and F246?

Davis would you mind including the 15389 in the table?
Thanks


Part Number/Work Order Number 15389
Engine Application 351C-400M FORD
Grind Number 292FDP
PRO-STREET / PERFORMANCE LEVEL 4 - High revving with superior
mid-range and top end power.
RPM Power Range: 2500 to 6000 / Redline: 6250 plus.
ADVERTISED CAMSHAFT SPECIFICATIONS:
Lift: 0.54
Lift: 0.547
Correct only at .050" tappet lift.
INTAKE Opens: 15.0 BTDC
Closes: 51.0 ABDC
EXHAUST Opens: 61.0 BBDC
Closes: 9.0 ATDC

LOBE SEPARATION 112º
Duration at .050" Intake: 246
Exhaust: 250
LOBE LIFT Intake: 0.312
Exhaust: 0.316
northiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > The Garage - Tech Forums > Engine Specific Tech > Cleveland Tech



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running problems with 95 Bird 4.6L... 85vdub Ford Thunderbird Forum 0 09-12-2004 20:28
Car running rough monroeh General Tech 1 08-06-2004 04:41
Festiva running rough monroeh Ford Festiva | Mazda 121 0 08-04-2004 17:16
I give up =/ Walgettion The Pub 11 10-10-2003 02:18

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.