Who wants cam gears?
03-04-2011, 08:05 PM
#83
sounds good for that part
but know how sometimes when you unbolt a wheel, it will sometimes stick on the hub, cause of the close tolerances there (you basically have to hit it or so, for it to flop loose)
i want a fit like that, so the bolts do not have to carry any side loads, they are just under tension as they are designed to be
03-07-2011, 02:52 PM
#85
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok guys; we've run into our first design criteria conflict. The 04+ J's use a thinner timing belt. I haven't had a chance to put a caliper to the 04+ gear I picked up this morning, but I assume it will necessitate some design changes.
One option would be to require changing over to the new thinner timing belt when putting the gears on pre-04 motors. The belts are the same length. I wouldn't expect this to pose any problems. There would be the benefit of less parasitic loss through the timing belt; obviously the reason for the change, probably to improve fuel economy.
The newer cam pulleys are only $9 each from Honda and the old ones are $30+ each. I thought we would just use all new ones, but discovered this issue when I picked up a pair of newer cam pulleys this morning.
Whether or not this poses design challenges will be seen late this evening when I get home from work and am able to take measurements. Worst case scenario is having to modify the hub for one or the other application.
My thought is, if you are going to have to spend an extra $40 on the wider pulley anyway, why not just spend the money on a fresh belt?
Input appreciated.
One option would be to require changing over to the new thinner timing belt when putting the gears on pre-04 motors. The belts are the same length. I wouldn't expect this to pose any problems. There would be the benefit of less parasitic loss through the timing belt; obviously the reason for the change, probably to improve fuel economy.
The newer cam pulleys are only $9 each from Honda and the old ones are $30+ each. I thought we would just use all new ones, but discovered this issue when I picked up a pair of newer cam pulleys this morning.
Whether or not this poses design challenges will be seen late this evening when I get home from work and am able to take measurements. Worst case scenario is having to modify the hub for one or the other application.
My thought is, if you are going to have to spend an extra $40 on the wider pulley anyway, why not just spend the money on a fresh belt?
Input appreciated.
03-07-2011, 06:14 PM
#86
Ok guys; we've run into our first design criteria conflict. The 04+ J's use a thinner timing belt. I haven't had a chance to put a caliper to the 04+ gear I picked up this morning, but I assume it will necessitate some design changes.
One option would be to require changing over to the new thinner timing belt when putting the gears on pre-04 motors. The belts are the same length. I wouldn't expect this to pose any problems. There would be the benefit of less parasitic loss through the timing belt; obviously the reason for the change, probably to improve fuel economy.
The newer cam pulleys are only $9 each from Honda and the old ones are $30+ each. I thought we would just use all new ones, but discovered this issue when I picked up a pair of newer cam pulleys this morning.
Whether or not this poses design challenges will be seen late this evening when I get home from work and am able to take measurements. Worst case scenario is having to modify the hub for one or the other application.
My thought is, if you are going to have to spend an extra $40 on the wider pulley anyway, why not just spend the money on a fresh belt?
Input appreciated.
One option would be to require changing over to the new thinner timing belt when putting the gears on pre-04 motors. The belts are the same length. I wouldn't expect this to pose any problems. There would be the benefit of less parasitic loss through the timing belt; obviously the reason for the change, probably to improve fuel economy.
The newer cam pulleys are only $9 each from Honda and the old ones are $30+ each. I thought we would just use all new ones, but discovered this issue when I picked up a pair of newer cam pulleys this morning.
Whether or not this poses design challenges will be seen late this evening when I get home from work and am able to take measurements. Worst case scenario is having to modify the hub for one or the other application.
My thought is, if you are going to have to spend an extra $40 on the wider pulley anyway, why not just spend the money on a fresh belt?
Input appreciated.
i would say what about the pickups, but that does not matter though
as far as what width, i would say i still want the old wider one, and that is because i want as much strength in it as possible, so that one when i do run aggressive cams,it still holds up to them (look at the K-series motors, with their tensioner for the chain, it gets destroyed with aggressive cams)
another to look at is the tooth profile of the belt, some are square cut, others are rounded (idk what they are, i can't recall
) and if indeed they are different that throughs it out the door, because you may be changing the cam gears, but you still have to think about the crank pulley, which would have to be modified possibly, because of the newer J's have hall effect sensors instead of magnetic pickup onesand lets say you can use the crank gear, again you get into the belt possibly walking, maybe not completely off, but back and forth instead
and again if you change out that gear, will the crank snout be too long now for when you put on the pulley/harmonic balancer, and not allow it to be properly tightened down
so basically i vote for keeping our current belt, and making the hub to fit multiple applications
03-07-2011, 07:56 PM
#87
also to expand on that belt strength, i am not so worried about the belt snapping or any thing, but more if the teeth on the belt can handle the necessary forces (i have seen a few belts with stripped teeth before too, maybe not on a j, but on multiple car brands
also think about the narrow belt in this way also, will it throw off the loading on the bearings, not allowing them to take the forces needed, were they where originally designed to take the forces (i am thinking mainly idler, tensioner bearings, along with the water pump too, and shortening their life too much
just look up "wheel offset effects on bearings", same idea but different application though
edit: and in all reality those bearings do not really need to be design for any excessive side loading either (like wheel bearings do such as when turning), so the t/belt always runs in the same spot, so really all it has to deal with is radial loading
also think about the narrow belt in this way also, will it throw off the loading on the bearings, not allowing them to take the forces needed, were they where originally designed to take the forces (i am thinking mainly idler, tensioner bearings, along with the water pump too, and shortening their life too much
just look up "wheel offset effects on bearings", same idea but different application though
edit: and in all reality those bearings do not really need to be design for any excessive side loading either (like wheel bearings do such as when turning), so the t/belt always runs in the same spot, so really all it has to deal with is radial loading
Last edited by friesm2000; 03-07-2011 at 08:10 PM.
03-07-2011, 11:14 PM
#88
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The newer belts are more expensive. The older belts do not list the manufacturer, but the newer ones do, and they are manufactured by UNITTA, which merged with Gates a while back. I don't think Honda would have compromised on the strength of their belts on a newer more powerful engine update and would guess that the newer belt is at least as strong as the older version if not stronger.
The spoke offset on the post 04 pulleys is +1.3mm more than the older version, and the overall width is 24.5mm compared to 30.35mm. Everything else is the same; diameter, tooth count, tooth shape, keyway orientation, spoke thickness, and spoke width.
I think it makes the most sense to just supply .048" thick washers (standard size, .002" smaller than perfect) which run about $1.25 each for the post-04 motors. That's good news.
There is one thing right now that is causing problems that I really need to figure out. The keyway on the J series pulleys are part of the pulley itself. I tried picking up a B series keyway hoping that the fit on the cam side would be ok, and then just machine the new center for it, but it is not the same shape. So I'm going to order some keyways that look like they can be modified to fit. Not going to be fun, I'm sure.
I've also decided to go ahead and do functional prototypes before I ask anyone to come forward with funds for the small batch production. I'm confident it will work the first time, but I'd rather take that risk on my own dime.
The spoke offset on the post 04 pulleys is +1.3mm more than the older version, and the overall width is 24.5mm compared to 30.35mm. Everything else is the same; diameter, tooth count, tooth shape, keyway orientation, spoke thickness, and spoke width.
I think it makes the most sense to just supply .048" thick washers (standard size, .002" smaller than perfect) which run about $1.25 each for the post-04 motors. That's good news.
There is one thing right now that is causing problems that I really need to figure out. The keyway on the J series pulleys are part of the pulley itself. I tried picking up a B series keyway hoping that the fit on the cam side would be ok, and then just machine the new center for it, but it is not the same shape. So I'm going to order some keyways that look like they can be modified to fit. Not going to be fun, I'm sure.
I've also decided to go ahead and do functional prototypes before I ask anyone to come forward with funds for the small batch production. I'm confident it will work the first time, but I'd rather take that risk on my own dime.
03-07-2011, 11:37 PM
#89
Gates has a local office here 
as far as strength 6mm narrower is quite a bit personally, and i rather have that; partly because i can't ever recall seeing a broken belt, but i have seen plenty of stripped teeth ones, even on stock motors (normally overdue, but not always though)
and honda willing to compromise on strength... they might have actually reduced the strength because they had collected more data on how the belt was acting under real world conditions, so they are able to run it closer to the threshold of needed strength (maybe not, but very possible though; basically over engineer, then refine as more data is collected)
as far as the washer spacer, whatever works to get it centered for the bearings and such works, but as mentioned before, what about the crank gear bit, with having 3mm of possible movement to each side (again one of those things for me), because the more control you have it under to keep it from walking the less likely it will be to jump off of the other gears/pulleys
keyways? i know the f and h series motors have seperate keys on the crank part, maybe try that
or McMaster Carr
getting one set functional first, i like even though it may be a little more $$$ up front though, but it can save a good chunk of $$$, if something did go wrong
as far as strength 6mm narrower is quite a bit personally, and i rather have that; partly because i can't ever recall seeing a broken belt, but i have seen plenty of stripped teeth ones, even on stock motors (normally overdue, but not always though)
and honda willing to compromise on strength... they might have actually reduced the strength because they had collected more data on how the belt was acting under real world conditions, so they are able to run it closer to the threshold of needed strength (maybe not, but very possible though; basically over engineer, then refine as more data is collected)
as far as the washer spacer, whatever works to get it centered for the bearings and such works, but as mentioned before, what about the crank gear bit, with having 3mm of possible movement to each side (again one of those things for me), because the more control you have it under to keep it from walking the less likely it will be to jump off of the other gears/pulleys
keyways? i know the f and h series motors have seperate keys on the crank part, maybe try that
or McMaster Carr
getting one set functional first
, i like even though it may be a little more $$$ up front though, but it can save a good chunk of $$$, if something did go wrong
03-07-2011, 11:44 PM
#90
getting rid of the excessive give on the front of the crank gear would not be too bad, just hack off 3mm of it, then put another 3mm spacer behind the outer cover guide plate to space the harmonic balancer out
for the inside bit, maybe get another one of those guide plates, and cut the gear up again so you can put it where needed, so basically the belt is told to ride exactly where you want it to always ride
for the inside bit, maybe get another one of those guide plates, and cut the gear up again so you can put it where needed, so basically the belt is told to ride exactly where you want it to always ride
03-07-2011, 11:58 PM
#91
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was on;y referring to the washer for guys who have the 04+ motors, not for a retrofit to the older ones.
The problem with the keyway is that it's metric and flat bottomed instead of full radius; i.e., as far as I have searched so far (which has been a good bit of time) this type of key just isn't a standard commercially available size. It does look like a close imperial unit key might be able to be modified. It will need to be narrowed down by .1mm and then chopped in half to fit properly; and that's assuming the radius fits. If it doesn't, I'm afraid we're going to have a plain square keyway on our hands.
The problem with the keyway is that it's metric and flat bottomed instead of full radius; i.e., as far as I have searched so far (which has been a good bit of time) this type of key just isn't a standard commercially available size. It does look like a close imperial unit key might be able to be modified. It will need to be narrowed down by .1mm and then chopped in half to fit properly; and that's assuming the radius fits. If it doesn't, I'm afraid we're going to have a plain square keyway on our hands.
03-14-2011, 02:40 AM
#92
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick update guys.
These look like they are going to end up weighing between 30% and 40% less than stock cam gears
. Reluctor wheel testing should be done by this weekend. If everything checks out we should be ready to get started on the machine work right away. A finished SolidEdge CAD model of the finished product should be ready by this weekend as well.
$250 is the price for anyone wanting to help fund the first batch. After that they will only be available retail and I can't discuss that in detail here because of the site vendor rules.
$250 gets you:
If you are 100% sure you are in for the first batch and have the funds necessary, reply here or send me a PM. Please include your engine information so we can get a count on the different reluctor wheels.
These look like they are going to end up weighing between 30% and 40% less than stock cam gears
. Reluctor wheel testing should be done by this weekend. If everything checks out we should be ready to get started on the machine work right away. A finished SolidEdge CAD model of the finished product should be ready by this weekend as well.$250 is the price for anyone wanting to help fund the first batch. After that they will only be available retail and I can't discuss that in detail here because of the site vendor rules.
$250 gets you:
- Reluctor Wheel
- 6061 Aluminum Center Hub
- 7075 Aluminum Gear Ring
- Keyways, SS Dowels, Class 12.9 Socket Cap Screws
- Longer Bolts for VR Sensor Mounting, Shims/Standoff
If you are 100% sure you are in for the first batch and have the funds necessary, reply here or send me a PM. Please include your engine information so we can get a count on the different reluctor wheels.
03-15-2011, 12:47 AM
#93
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test gear to check functionality of reluctor wheel design in ready to go and will be tested soon.
I'm still waiting for the post-04 head to arrive so I can get the measurements necessary for its reluctor wheel and sensor position. It looks like I am going to go ahead and alter the design of the gear again and make the whole assembly into four main pieces before hardware. You can see in one of the pictures above that there is a clearance issue with the bolt that holds the rear timing cover to the head and this made me think "why not keep the original trigger depth so that the sensors don't have to be moved?" I had only considered the room to backspace the VR sensors when checking for clearance issues previously. We can keep the stock sensor location (assuming both are the same depth, which they probably aren't, but that's OK, we'll just revert to the shimming plan for one series) by having a bushing between the cam nose and trigger wheel.
Basically sandwich the reluctor wheel between these two pieces, align it with the dowel holes, and then secure the bushing to the inner hub with a couple countersunk machine screws:
I think that this trial and error process is coming along very nicely. It's actually sort of fun to run into problems and then try and devise a more elegant way of designing the part.
I'm still waiting for the post-04 head to arrive so I can get the measurements necessary for its reluctor wheel and sensor position. It looks like I am going to go ahead and alter the design of the gear again and make the whole assembly into four main pieces before hardware. You can see in one of the pictures above that there is a clearance issue with the bolt that holds the rear timing cover to the head and this made me think "why not keep the original trigger depth so that the sensors don't have to be moved?" I had only considered the room to backspace the VR sensors when checking for clearance issues previously. We can keep the stock sensor location (assuming both are the same depth, which they probably aren't, but that's OK, we'll just revert to the shimming plan for one series) by having a bushing between the cam nose and trigger wheel.
Basically sandwich the reluctor wheel between these two pieces, align it with the dowel holes, and then secure the bushing to the inner hub with a couple countersunk machine screws:
I think that this trial and error process is coming along very nicely. It's actually sort of fun to run into problems and then try and devise a more elegant way of designing the part.
03-15-2011, 01:00 AM
#94
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
I think since Im pretty much done pouring money into the CL, these may be the last thing I buy for it since Im not dumping over a grand into the EMS.
03-22-2011, 07:05 PM
#96
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once we get them built and dyno them I suppose we will be better equipped to answer that questioning fully. I'm sure that shaving 1/2 the weight off of the pulley is going to yield some gain, how much?... we'll see. Other than that these are for guys who have engine geometry changes or want to slide their curves up or down a bit... or just bling 
Quick update guys;
1. Reluctor wheel is being tested this week.
2. Reluctor positioning in relation to keyway is sorted.
3. Still waiting on engineer to finish gear ring profile.
4. 6061 Outer ring instead of 7071 now; threading strength was the only reason for stronger material; ss hex cap screw, 2024 washer, and ss nut are a better solution.
5. Picked up 6SPD gear from Acura this morning and modeled the trigger design.
6. Trigger depth (+offset from hub nose) is .03" higher on 6SPD, so these will need to be shimmed, current design is setup for no modification to the AUTO motors which have a depth of .27". When the 04+ gear gets in tomorrow, I'll see if it's trigger depth is different also. If so, it's simply a matter of designing for the shallowest depth and shimming the sensor on the other motors.
6. Looks like final weight is going to be less than 8oz each! (more than 50% reduction)
7. Still need to do laser etching layout and get pricing for such.
8. Titanium hardware option will be $40 if we decide to do that as an option. I'll order a single set of ti hardware for my pair and get a weight comparison. If it doesn't shave at least 10 grams I won't bother.
Here's what current rendition looks like; I'm sure it will still be tweaked a bit more.
Quick update guys;
1. Reluctor wheel is being tested this week.
2. Reluctor positioning in relation to keyway is sorted.
3. Still waiting on engineer to finish gear ring profile.
4. 6061 Outer ring instead of 7071 now; threading strength was the only reason for stronger material; ss hex cap screw, 2024 washer, and ss nut are a better solution.
5. Picked up 6SPD gear from Acura this morning and modeled the trigger design.
6. Trigger depth (+offset from hub nose) is .03" higher on 6SPD, so these will need to be shimmed, current design is setup for no modification to the AUTO motors which have a depth of .27". When the 04+ gear gets in tomorrow, I'll see if it's trigger depth is different also. If so, it's simply a matter of designing for the shallowest depth and shimming the sensor on the other motors.
6. Looks like final weight is going to be less than 8oz each! (more than 50% reduction)
7. Still need to do laser etching layout and get pricing for such.
8. Titanium hardware option will be $40 if we decide to do that as an option. I'll order a single set of ti hardware for my pair and get a weight comparison. If it doesn't shave at least 10 grams I won't bother.
Here's what current rendition looks like; I'm sure it will still be tweaked a bit more.
03-22-2011, 08:58 PM
#98
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be very surprised if the gains from reduced mass alone were less than 5hp. We're talking about dropping a full pound of rotating weight here.
I was planning on starting to collect funds this week. I'll wait till next week though, so I'm already pushing it back a week. I have six firm group-buyers right now, and need four more to get the machine work started.
Four more guys (or gals).... who's in?
03-24-2011, 08:28 AM
#100
I am wanting and needing these.
I'm at a little bump right now. The wife spent all our cash up, 4 beans on clothes and just bought a new gazebo yesterday.
Also my 3.7 parts came boxed incorrectly and the crankshaft was just put into the bottom of the box with no padding between the crank and the bottom of the box.Crank and all rings were hitting the ground,obvious signs of scrapage.2 rods and 1 piston also caught repercussions from the crank.
I need to get my parts problems atleast worked out first.
I will take one some time though.
I'm at a little bump right now. The wife spent all our cash up, 4 beans on clothes and just bought a new gazebo yesterday.
Also my 3.7 parts came boxed incorrectly and the crankshaft was just put into the bottom of the box with no padding between the crank and the bottom of the box.Crank and all rings were hitting the ground,obvious signs of scrapage.2 rods and 1 piston also caught repercussions from the crank.
I need to get my parts problems atleast worked out first.
I will take one some time though.
04-01-2011, 10:03 AM
#103
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After modeling the gear ring I sent the file off to a friend to cut a test piece in MDF; the tooth profile is very close and there seems to have been some minor scaling issue with the file conversion. Otherwise I am quite pleased with the result here; I'll model the gear once more just to be sure it is spot on.
04-02-2011, 12:30 PM
#105
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have a belt sitting around at the moment. I should; I have to do a timing belt job on my RL soon.
I would be very confident running this gear as it is. But, I will redesign it one more time because I want to be sure that it's exactly the same as OE shape.
Still waiting to hear back from the guy testing the reluctor wheel; he's been covered up lately.
I would be very confident running this gear as it is. But, I will redesign it one more time because I want to be sure that it's exactly the same as OE shape.
Still waiting to hear back from the guy testing the reluctor wheel; he's been covered up lately.
04-02-2011, 07:54 PM
#106
I don't have a belt sitting around at the moment. I should; I have to do a timing belt job on my RL soon.
I would be very confident running this gear as it is. But, I will redesign it one more time because I want to be sure that it's exactly the same as OE shape.
Still waiting to hear back from the guy testing the reluctor wheel; he's been covered up lately.
I would be very confident running this gear as it is. But, I will redesign it one more time because I want to be sure that it's exactly the same as OE shape.
Still waiting to hear back from the guy testing the reluctor wheel; he's been covered up lately.
, and yeah even that profile could potentually chew belts, even though it is not that far off
06-20-2011, 06:50 PM
#110
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the delay and lack of updates. The prototype reluctor wheel was sent off for setup on a test rig engine to check the signal and it wasn't within the tolerance I was hoping for. If I am correctly recalling the description the tester gave me, they did install it in a car without any codes being thrown or other issues.
I've been very busy latel, wife and I had our second rug rat week before last. I'll contact the tester on this tomorrow and see where I am going with it from there.
Either the reluctors need to be machined in three dimensions or the width needs to be a median of the width of each tooth at varying depths. According to Delphi (the manufacturer of these sensors) the depth of sensitivity on these VR sensors is very shallow.
I suppose I was just taking a little break from this part of my project as well. The investment of time and money was wearing on me.
I'll get back on this right away.
I've been very busy latel, wife and I had our second rug rat week before last. I'll contact the tester on this tomorrow and see where I am going with it from there.
Either the reluctors need to be machined in three dimensions or the width needs to be a median of the width of each tooth at varying depths. According to Delphi (the manufacturer of these sensors) the depth of sensitivity on these VR sensors is very shallow.
I suppose I was just taking a little break from this part of my project as well. The investment of time and money was wearing on me.
I'll get back on this right away.
06-20-2011, 07:09 PM
#111
My next move will either be getting some over sized valves with no dishes and these if they are working like they should.
I'm getting close on the mechanical parts then to a machine shop/engine builder that can get my heads flowed and all numbers figured with compression.
I want the compression as high as possible on pump gas.
And a friend of mine is trying to talk me into a small race fuel set up So I could switch between the two.pump and race fuel.
Not sure if I need all that though.I laugh about it but he seams serious about it.
I'm getting close on the mechanical parts then to a machine shop/engine builder that can get my heads flowed and all numbers figured with compression.
I want the compression as high as possible on pump gas.
And a friend of mine is trying to talk me into a small race fuel set up So I could switch between the two.pump and race fuel.
Not sure if I need all that though.I laugh about it but he seams serious about it.
06-20-2011, 08:05 PM
#113
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going to install larger valves you will need to enlarge the throat and seat to match, otherwise you're just obstructing the intake charge. Also, with as large as the intake valves already are, do you think that elarging them might increase shrouding at the edge of the bore?
I find it odd that Honda uses the same size seat insert for 35mm and 36mm valves and that the transition into the throat is the same size as well.
I'm dropping a big batch of heads off for flow-benching on July 17th. So far I have J32A2, A3, & J35A4 heads ready to go. One of the A2 heads will be stock and also the A4's. The A3's and one of the A2 will have my seat blending and port finishing done. If you're interested in getting involved with that, let me know. A big portion of the cost of flow benching is tooling setup specifically for the cyl heads in question; might as well share the cost.
I find it odd that Honda uses the same size seat insert for 35mm and 36mm valves and that the transition into the throat is the same size as well.
I'm dropping a big batch of heads off for flow-benching on July 17th. So far I have J32A2, A3, & J35A4 heads ready to go. One of the A2 heads will be stock and also the A4's. The A3's and one of the A2 will have my seat blending and port finishing done. If you're interested in getting involved with that, let me know. A big portion of the cost of flow benching is tooling setup specifically for the cyl heads in question; might as well share the cost.
06-20-2011, 10:05 PM
#114
Their looks to be plenty of room too enlarge throat behind the valves. Far as seats I also think their is some room wether it get into reshaping or not I don't know yet.I do also want to increase the size of the bore/combustion chamber so I get a beter fit with the 90mm bore of the block and gasket.
If I remember correctly the other member who went 3.7 did not resize the bore of his heads and also used a 89mm gasket.
I'm thinking this by it self held him back a few hp.
I have not looked at my heads in months,So I don't know how much larger they can go.
The larger they go the less compression I will have.
This is the figuring best left to a "engine builder" not someone such as myself that can handle a basic rebuild and some porting.
I don't want to mess with the chambers by hand,Besides what I've already did to them,removing the flaws,and polishing them.
You know how much time goes into them.
I don't have any varabile speed air rotary tools so this area is a no no .
If I remember correctly the other member who went 3.7 did not resize the bore of his heads and also used a 89mm gasket.
I'm thinking this by it self held him back a few hp.
I have not looked at my heads in months,So I don't know how much larger they can go.
The larger they go the less compression I will have.
This is the figuring best left to a "engine builder" not someone such as myself that can handle a basic rebuild and some porting.
I don't want to mess with the chambers by hand,Besides what I've already did to them,removing the flaws,and polishing them.
You know how much time goes into them.
I don't have any varabile speed air rotary tools so this area is a no no .
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SidhuSaaB
3G TL Problems & Fixes
18
05-30-2020 12:40 AM
ExcelerateRep
4G TL Performance Parts & Modifications
8
10-14-2015 08:20 AM
joflewbyu2
5G TLX (2015-2020)
139
10-08-2015 11:16 AM
guyvelella
2G TL (1999-2003)
8
09-30-2015 11:02 PM
AcuraKidd
Non-Automotive & Motorcycle Sales
1
09-26-2015 04:10 PM
