The reason for it running rich is because you pulled timing out . Leave the timing in and run it on e 85 . Give it a try ,it works good . Love your channel !!!
On small shots like that, I have seen NA cams beat Nitrous cams, but on 250+ shots a I have seen Nitrous cams make a pretty big difference over NA cams.
I would figure the lift and duration on a nitrous cam is aiming to optimize power at the peak of the motors RPM range since, unlike a supercharger/turbo, the nitrous does not taper off or need the engines power to engage. I have read a tighter LSA is better for power at higher RPM and the wider LSA produces more consistent flow characteristics. I know nitrous cars see more problems from backfiring so maybe the LSA makes a nitrous engine safer at the cost of a little power?
That's very good thinking. I always thought a nitrous cam was about helping stop backfires as well, or helping keep things "safer" under nitrous conditions.
I’ve used nitrous a lot over the years it seems to me I like using a custom bullet motor cam and add anything up to 250 shot but that’s my street car Then I’ve had to drag cars where my engine builder said we had to have a nos cam but we where two stages of 400 he told me we had to have it to keep the motor together Now I don’t know how true that is but his done nothing but great work for me so I trust him
Did you try running a smaller fuel jet on the plate? I'm curious whether a nitrous cam will put up with a larger shot of nitrous without backfiring etc. Of course, bottom end has to be strong enough.
Would the nitrous cam selection become more important/effective for a higher compression engine? Many years ago, we ran a 350 sbc with flat top pistons and a 292 comp magnum with AFR 190 on the street. The engine loved a 180 shot and we put many 10# bottles through it without any problems. When we raised the compression only with pop up pistons the engine just didnt seem to hit as hard on the same 180 shot. Always wondered why.
Nitrous cams tend to have large durations for a relatively tight LSA commonly resulting in excess of 70 degrees of overlap thus lowering dynamic compression and sending more out the pipe..more out is more in and so on.
Curious if the atomization of the fuel from the plate is as good as what the carb delivers, thus looking richer as rpms increase. Also, if you add a spacer, N2O plate go on top or bottom. Personally on top for the same reason I use a spacer, Revision. Getting rid of a flat bottomed intake works better.
Hello Richard. Please assist if you can, sir. I have LS1 Camaro with a mild cam. Supporting mods and fuel have been addressed. Car was dyno tuned and makes mid 400s. Can I add 75 shot of NO2 WITHOUT having to retune again? Basically just install the kit and go to track. Any help would be appreciated.
yes you can run a small shot of nitrous without a tune. The typical wet fogger nitrous kits adds both fuel and nitrous. The concerns is timing, as dropping timing with nitrous is preferred (4 degrees per 100 hp)
@@richardholdener1727 thank you for taking the time. I think The Tuner did mess with timing back when cam was installed. Not sure how many degrees was changed. I know AFR is 12.4 at wot. Gonna install wet kit this week and take it to the track. I appreciate your knowledge.
Question could you do one testing lobe separation? Like same lift same duration just testing like 106LSA Vs 110LSA vs 112LSA all motor and nitrous maybe? Just curious! Great video as always!
Nitrous specific built motors can take more nitrous and see results. A NA motor will only make more power from nitrous at lower hp jetting levels such as 100-200. As soon as you start going big with N2O 300+ NA only motors don’t respond as well as the nitrous specific built motors. I had a NA motor that responded well from 100-250, quicker et but as soon as I went to the 300-350 jetting I didn’t go any quicker
That's weird. Just theory alone suggest that shouldn't have happened because nitrous just adds oxygen so you could burn more fuel. Was it running out of fuel? Was the AF off?
The Nitrous cam will keep picking up with larger kits due to the LSA. I've personally seen a cam with 108LSA stop picking up after a 150 shot and above, whereas a cam with 112 LSA kept picking up.
Sorry Scott, I'm not buying it. Tuned on a dynojet 248 for years and years. Having no gains above a 150 shot while blaming that 108lsa is wrong, spreading BS, and most likely user error.
@@kylemilligan752 really depends on the size of the camshaft and what engine with what exhaust bias ... It's not really about lobe center but about the opening point of the exhaust valve and cylinder blow down ...and I'm not talking about a 150 shot or even 200 but as you go up and heading towards 300 to 400 shot you can really start to see it
First off... Thank You R.H. for your help experience and passion for hot rods and race engines! ????? LSA ?????? Could anyone please help me... I'm considering using a 110 lobe separation with around .565 lift with an added 175-225 shot of nitrous (the 110 lobe separation will work better on motor.) Or should I go with the 112-114 lobe separation same lift with the nitrous? Everyone's comments, opinions and experience is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
250 to 260 is a pretty big step in cams. I really don't think nitrous cares about the cam, which is pretty much what you showed here. The cubic dollar where the nitrous does care is outside the reach of most people.
Hypothetically, you can approach two limits: A) your fuel/air mixture miraculously fills the cylinder in an instant B) your exhaust is so great in volume that it is impossible to evacuate given the combination of valve timing, valve size, port size, cylinder size, and RPM. With supercharging or nitrous oxide, you push intake parameter ever closer to A). Simultaneously with supercharging or nitrous oxide, you are pushing ever more air into the cylinder, which the same valve/port/time combination has to evacuate, thus pushing the exhaust closer to B). Thus, For maximum power when using supercharging and/or nitrous oxide, your balance of exhaust versus intake port/valve/timing changes. If you had complete cylinder fill as listed in A) then you don't even NEED an intake valve, so the more you increase the density of the intake charge, the closer you approach A) If you have ULTIMATE cylinder fill (just short of fluid lock) then you need more exhaust evacuation. Thus, as you approach those two limits, your ratio of intake capability to exhaust capability changes, thus requiring you to make up for that fact by doing, for example, as they did at Dodge when they added more duration to the Hellcat's exhaust than the 392 naturally aspirated engine had. IN other words, as the intake approaches infinite and the exhaust remains finite, you realize less and less need for intake flow capacity and more and more need for exhaust flow capacity. Result? For these two styles of forced induction, you need to change the ratio of intake overall capacity to exhaust overall capacity in favor of the exhaust. My point? Very, very little has been studied or done in this regard, as it is considered SACRELIGE to even CONSIDER reducing intake capability, even when you are overstuffing the exhaust due to the great deal of volume of which it needs to dispose. One way to verify this is one of the simplest methods you can imagine: Grind the cam so the intake valves are now used for exhaust, and the exhaust valves are now used for intake. Use a "Hot V" engine layout, which works fine with fuel injection, and exhaust towards the center. It makes for some oddball headers, for certain, but it would cheaply prove the value of the concept. Now, for a turbocharged engine, you are not going to need this approach because there is not such a gigantic imbalance between intake capability per unit of volume/duration/size as there is in supercharged and nitrous oxide injected engines. There is only so much you can gain from more exhaust duration. Eventually, to make the engine behave in a sane manner while still changing the "balance of flow" between the intake and exhaust, you just have to use larger exhaust valves and ports, and the easiest and cheapest way to do that is just grind the cam so it uses the former intake valves for exhaust and the former exhaust valves for intake. You could direct-inject fuel and nitrous oxide into the cylinder ALONE, obviating all need for ANY intake valve, and use both valves just for exhaust, as do Detroit Diesel two-stroke motors. (they have four-exhaust-valve heads.) One way or another, using supercharging or nitrous oxide for ultimate power production needs a change in the balance of intake to exhaust capability. Whether this is by a bigger exhaust valve than intake valve, more exhaust duration than is traditional, bigger exhaust ports, etc., whatever, it still needs to happen. Eventually, given enough supercharger boost pressure and/or enough nitrous oxide injection, you are going to need more exhaust capability than you have to force the much-larger exhaust volume to GET OUT OF THE WAY of the more-compact-than-is-normal intake charge. If you drop the intake temperature down to minus 60 degrees, it, too, will cause a greater charge density. Anything you do to increase the balance of intake to exhaust will change the parameters involved in designing the two separate systems' capabilities. A turbocharger mounted way down on the end of a long tube header requires different intake/exhaust capability balance than one stuck on a log manifold right by the engine, too, but I am just dealing with supercharging and nitrous oxide, or any other way you can dream up to keep the exhaust relatively the same while exaggerating the capability of the intake. A more-efficient turbocharger changes the balance of what is needed regarding the heads' overall design. I could go on, but these are parameters few have bothered to truly explore. At some point, one valve increasing in size and the other decreasing in size reaches the limit of utility. At some point, duration of one valve versus the other needs to change. I have seen no one do this in all the years I have been into cars, except for the single case of Dodge with the Hellcat motor. There is a large amount of unrealized potential gain here. The "Hot V" engine layout is used by GM/Isuzu for their V8 diesel, as far as I know. It's used by Ferrari for one of their V6's they make right now. It is IDEAL for a turbo motor. It keeps the path from exhaust valve to turbo absolutely minimal, so with very thorough insulation and preferably titanium for an exhaust tract material, much of the discarded heat energy can be guarded to do useful work: at the turbocharger turbine. But I digress. There is more ultimate power from a blower motor by giving the exhaust more capability.
@@richardholdener1727 I know the piston brute-forces the exhaust out of the port. What I am thinking is that since the multibillion-dollar Mopar corp. increased exhaust timing for their supercharged motor relative to the intake timing, there is some science yet unexplored with intake-versus-exhaust capability balance in engines that do not add limitation to the exhaust (like a turbo) while adding more pressure/capability to the intake. My THEORY is that the more you increase the intake mechanical capacity versus the exhaust's mechanical capacity, either by chemical, thermal, or mechanical means, the less need there is, evidently, for such an imbalanced-toward-the-intake valve layout. On an unrelated note, even lower-RPM, relatively-high-backpressure turbodiesel engines use some valve overlap to help evacuate the cylinder of exhaust via scavenging and fill it more maximally. Someone I know has ELIMINATED any overlap in his Hellcat ongoing motor project. I am not sure that that is a good idea. It sure eliminates the likelihood of unburnt fuel exiting during overlap. I wonder what it does to low-RPM power.
David vizard says that for a given 200hp worth of nitrous, the piston loses 100hp pushing the exhaust out, thus making a potential 200shot, 100. Nitrous is basically liquid oxygen. Thus, the intake valve doesn't need to flow as much to because the intake charge is so fuel and oxygen rich. However, the sheer volume of gasses from combustion with additional fuel and nitrous overloads the exhaust valve's flow capability so power is lost from the piston having to fight the exhaust pressure. A good nitrous cam prioritizes exhaust by adding lift and duration, giving the piston less work to evacuate the exhaust gas. A good nitrous cylinder head will also prioritize exhaust, utilizing smaller intake valves and larger exhaust valves and ports. I've never personally built a nitrous motor, so take it for what it's worth.
@@exploranator i know this comment is ancient and i mean no offense by this but say less. you're on the right track but you're just repeating the same thing over and over and over again. yes, with a dense charge such as nitrous, you need to prioritize exhaust. however, you're ignoring the fact that intake velocity plays a HUGE role in atomizing the fuel and mixing with oxygen. nitrous is only 1 part oxygen for 2 parts nitrogen and it needs heat energy to separate. prioritizing exhaust is basic tuning in the nitrous world. aftermarket head gurus commonly keep the intake at 2.02" and increase exhaust valve diameter instead. your theory is for a fantasy world where you can inject pure oxygen that's already mixed at the perfect ratio with fuel. now add in variables such as heat, flame front, burn rate.... etc.. I don't think Richard's test was accurate because it compared a very mild cam to a more aggressive nitrous cam. to be accurate it should've been extremely similar intake lobe designs and both cams matched for engine and power band. Also with a much larger nitrous charge. I've wondered for a while whether nitrous cams make the nitrous more efficient or just safer for the engine. I also spray a minimum of 400hp through a small block and only switched to a nitrous cam at this power level. I can definitely say that my truck is slower on both spray and N/A with the radical nitrous cam than it was with a mediocre blower cam. However they're 2 radically different designs so there's too many variables to make a conclusion.
I want to try taking one of the bad cams I normally throw away and welding up the lobes to make it "high performance" hehe. Just make it smooth again with a grinder and flap disc, rough measure so all the lobe tips are the same height and see what it does in a 4.8!
I think you made a scientific mistake with this test. You should have used an "na" cam and "nitrous"cam that produced similar power (closer to 400) na. Then shown the power gain with a 100 shot and 300 shot on both cams. I say this because the person buying a nitrous specific cam most likely has a built motor and is looking for every tenth at the racetrack. This type of test would show if the cam was fit for purpose.
@@richardholdener1727 what if they both make the same power and you add nitrous? This was my experimental conditions, control being na power, cam shaft being independent variable, mixture and timing being dependant variable and nitrous power being the result. If you don't see how that is different to what you did you shouldn't be running experiments. Also please don't yell it hurts my ears.
@@shitbox82 Been proven many many year's ago THIS perimeter plate has Severe distribution problems... You'll rarely ever see anyone using these. Definitely see none at the dragstrip weekly! NX Gemini Twin Stage 6 plate made this one a laughing stock over a decade ago. There's many video's documenting the ZEX downfalls
