Comp Cams Camquest

[73pony]

Just curious how accurate this utility really is? I realize they use this to sell products so some inflation should be expected. I entered my planned information in and it came up with what I would consider to be some crazy numbers.

540 HP at 6000

508.9 ftlb at 4500

According to the builder who assembled my Aussie 2V heads I should be looking at around 425 HP at 5800 and 410 ftlb at 4000 for peak numbers. This is a significant difference.

Any thoughts?

 

[Don C]

Here's what Hot Rod magazine found:

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-1106-camquest-online-cam-selector/

 

[Robsweden]

Hi

I tested it along with Dekstop dyno. and Ive got nearly the same results. Il probably dyno my Engine this summer so Il see how accurate the software is. With camquest your stuck with compcams camshafts, with desktop dyno you could punsch in what you want.

Regards Rob

 

[barnett468]

their free program is virtually useless . it is grossly inaccurate and it only gives peak numbers . nobody drives their car on the street at max rpm all the time . it is best to use the advice of your builder if he is experienced with these engines.

 

[Mikes73]

Agreed, the numbers seem highly exaggerated. On that note it is still fun to play with to get a very rough idea of peak power.

 

[Mister 4x4]

I used it, and I don't have any reason to doubt the results. I didn't know squat about cams, and I found the utility quite helpful in explaining things while I was using it. I saw the results with the same cam and engine set-up in another forum member's car (73VertProject - Doc) and what can I say... I liked what I saw ( http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-celebrating-the-new-73vertproject ) - there's something about 0-100 in 13 seconds (backed by an FMX and 3.50 gears) that's hard to argue with.

It's a tool to help people make decisions about car parts, and certainly not the end-all/be-all of cam information.

Conversely, I don't know anybody who has actually used CamQuest and followed up with a dyno run - it would be interesting to know just how close they got it. I'm sure, however, that CompCams wouldn't have gone to the trouble and paid the software developer ridiculous amounts of money to merely crap out a sales tool that is nowhere close to being realistic - they'd be opening themselves up to all sorts of lost revenue/customers and potential lawsuits, were the utility not somewhat close to the over/under error margins.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend anybody base anything serious on the output of a free utility found on the internet. As I've said in the past (gist), "Ball park figures only to help select a cam to fit your needs."

BTW - regarding reporting peak horsepower numbers: what do you expect? Nobody sells performance parts by saying, "62 hp/49 ft-lbs at idle." :whistling: :slap:

 

[Mikes73]

Very true Eric.

 

[c9zx]

Those numbers seem way high to me. I think your engine guy is pretty close.

Chuck

 

[4Vforever]

Those numbers seem way high to me. I think your engine guy is pretty close.

Chuck

Totally agree and even then the builders numbers maybe a little off too. 2V with 4V valves aren't a great combination to start (in fact people with those heads on my builds I tell them to sell them and get standard heads) let alone the other inherent problems with the 2V CC heads with valve shrouding and their ports are are different around the pushrod area and go very turbulent around the .450-.500" lift mark and even the best head porters with many years of experience on these heads still can't get them totally right and still charge 1000's of dollars just in port work. In saying that though the 2V can still make great power, 600+ HP running 9 sec quarters in 3500lb cars is still pretty stout for the lowly heads. I've done heaps of 2V Clevelands over the years, from stock to 10 second street cars, to know what's achievable with them and as has been said, a free calculator will only tell "maybe" peak results, maybe being that everything is optimal for your combination. Also remember people will tell customers numbers to sell products, so take whatever they say with a grain of salt. I've not long spent hundreds of dollars on the latest engine software and if these free calculators were accurate (I don't know what other info they tell as I've never used them) then nobody would be buying these programs.

Anyway good luck with the build and just enjoy it as it's going to be better than a stock Cleveland anyway. It may even be one of those builds that defy everything and goes like a cut snake. Good luck with it all and let us know how it all goes.

Cheers Jason

 

[barnett468]

Conversely, I don't know anybody who has actually used CamQuest and followed up with a dyno run - it would be interesting to know just how close they got it.

Well I am an engine builder and have built countless engines using comp cams and had many dynoed then checked cam quest just to see how far off they were and they were always much higher which is why I said it was useless.

 

[clevelandcoupe]

Another reason this forum is great, the input from all and especially the professionals !!!

 

[Mister 4x4]

Conversely, I don't know anybody who has actually used CamQuest and followed up with a dyno run - it would be interesting to know just how close they got it.

Well I am an engine builder and have built countless engines using comp cams and had many dynoed then checked cam quest just to see how far off they were and they were always much higher which is why I said it was useless.

As a professional engine builder, I wouldn't expect you to be using an online utility to help pick out a cam.

But for the Average Joe however, it's not 'useless' as you say - believe it or not, those of us who don't know squat about cams and how they go together with other performance engine parts can use the information from many different resources to get what we're looking for. A guy on a forum telling us what we have or the products we're considering is crap isn't always as helpful is it might seem.

 

[73pony]

Those numbers seem way high to me. I think your engine guy is pretty close.

Chuck

Totally agree and even then the builders numbers maybe a little off too. 2V with 4V valves aren't a great combination to start (in fact people with those heads on my builds I tell them to sell them and get standard heads) let alone the other inherent problems with the 2V CC heads with valve shrouding and their ports are are different around the pushrod area and go very turbulent around the .450-.500" lift mark and even the best head porters with many years of experience on these heads still can't get them totally right and still charge 1000's of dollars just in port work. In saying that though the 2V can still make great power, 600+ HP running 9 sec quarters in 3500lb cars is still pretty stout for the lowly heads. I've done heaps of 2V Clevelands over the years, from stock to 10 second street cars, to know what's achievable with them and as has been said, a free calculator will only tell "maybe" peak results, maybe being that everything is optimal for your combination. Also remember people will tell customers numbers to sell products, so take whatever they say with a grain of salt. I've not long spent hundreds of dollars on the latest engine software and if these free calculators were accurate (I don't know what other info they tell as I've never used them) then nobody would be buying these programs.

Anyway good luck with the build and just enjoy it as it's going to be better than a stock Cleveland anyway. It may even be one of those builds that defy everything and goes like a cut snake. Good luck with it all and let us know how it all goes.

Cheers Jason

Thanks. When I saw those number I thought they were crazy and by no means was I hoping or thinking I would get to numbers like that. Hence why I asked. I will be happy with a decent increase over stock and no more lifter noise.

 

[barnett468]

As a professional engine builder, I wouldn't expect you to be using an online utility to help pick out a cam.

But for the Average Joe however, it's not 'useless' as you say - believe it or not, those of us who don't know squat about cams and how they go together with other performance engine parts can use the information from many different resources to get what we're looking for. A guy on a forum telling us what we have or the products we're considering is crap isn't always as helpful is it might seem.

As an engine builder i know that it is a bad product because i know engines and dyno programs and how the work . it can, and has, caused many, many people to make horrible choices for their engines because they don't understand it so i will not ever recommend it to anyone . it is mainly a sales tool they made to try and entice people into buying their cams.

many people also rely solely on its results and build an engine based on what they think the program is suggesting and it ends up having 30% less power when they dyno it and end up being very dissapointed . i hardly see how this is helpful.

 

[Mister 4x4]

I chalk it up to the same way most people feel about Microsoft Publisher or its predecessor, Front Page. Anybody who can code their way out of a wet paper bag absolutely hates the applications because of all the extra bloat the apps install when using the 'Normal' mode to build web pages... but to the Average Joe who just wants a web page without having to actually learn how to write the code, they're great - because they don't know any better and they get what they want in the end. This is literally no different.

Well, we're just going to have to just disagree then. All I know is that I used the tool to not only pick the cam, but also to pick some of the things I did to my engine when I rebuilt it (kind of used the program to help virtually build the engine AND choose the cam), and couldn't be happier with the results... because I built it myself, nobody else wrote the checks, and it runs like a scalded dog. I'd call that a 'win' any day.

Based on my own experiences, I'd recommend someone else use it as well and to expect 'ball park' numbers, as I have all along.

 

[barnett468]

BTW - regarding reporting peak horsepower numbers: what do you expect? Nobody sells performance parts by saying, "62 hp/49 ft-lbs at idle." :whistling: :slap:

That is incorrect . As an engine builder, I build/sell engines based on the customers desires . I ask them several questions and often take them for a ride in a car if I have one around at the time and the majority of the time they say that they don't want an engine with that much power at which time i tell them that it has far less power than they were asking for . I NEVER listen to them when they tell me they want an engine with a certain horsepower number because as an engine builder, I know that peak hp numbers are totally useless in street cars, plus hp numbers can vary greatly between different types of dynos and even between different dyno operators . What is important is the power level in the rpm range the car is driven in most, or the most average power, and every single knowledgeable engine builder and cam designer will say the exact same thing . You can't drive a dyno.

You can in fact get a cam from camquest that has higher power numbers than another but if the cam with the lower numbers has more average power, it can make more "useful" power in an engine and that engine can in fact smoke the one that used the cam that made higher peak power numbers in a drag race if all else remained equal.

Just because your car runs good and you are happy with it, the fact is that you may have been even happier if you used a different cam . That is impossible to know unless you do try one but it is certainly a possibility which is part of my point . If someone compares a lexus to a volkswagen for performance, they will likely think the lexus is better, but if they never compared a ferrari to a lexus, they will never know that there is something out there that is far better than the lexus and this is the same for engines.

If camquest was all that great, there would be no need for people to make suggestions for engine builds . All they would have to do is simply tell people to use camquest.

 

[Don C]

What is important is the power level in the rpm range the car is driven in most, or the most average power, and every single knowledgeable engine builder and cam designer will say the exact same thing . You can't drive a dyno.

That hit the nail squarely on the head.

If you have a cam that has peak torque at 4,000 RPM and your cruising RPM is 2,200 you may not be able maintain speed the first time you drive up a steep hill, without downshifting, with an engine that has 550 horsepower at 7,000 RPM.

On the other hand, if the torque peaks at 3K with the same car it may be able to handle increased loads just fine, DEPENDING on the flatness (or steepness) of the torque curve. And that is where CamQuest doesn't provide enough information.

I've played with CamQuest and was surprised at some of the horsepower numbers I was getting for a 351C 4V. If they were true I would have a big smile the first time I "tested" it.

I consider it a useful tool for gathering/researching information, but I wouldn't use it as the only tool. Just like that spreadsheet program I put together, someone should not use it to make their final determination for cam choice, but it gives a starting point and a piece of information that should be combined with other information and research.

 

[Mister 4x4]

BTW - regarding reporting peak horsepower numbers: what do you expect? Nobody sells performance parts by saying, "62 hp/49 ft-lbs at idle." :whistling: :slap:

That is incorrect . As an engine builder, I build/sell engines based on the customers desires . I ask them several questions and often take them for a ride in a car if I have one around at the time and the majority of the time they say that they don't want an engine with that much power at which time i tell them that it has far less power than they were asking for . I NEVER listen to them when they tell me they want an engine with a certain horsepower number because as an engine builder, I know that peak hp numbers are totally useless in street cars, plus hp numbers can vary greatly between different types of dynos and even between different dyno operators . What is important is the power level in the rpm range the car is driven in most, or the most average power, and every single knowledgeable engine builder and cam designer will say the exact same thing . You can't drive a dyno.

You can in fact get a cam from camquest that has higher power numbers than another but if the cam with the lower numbers has more average power, it can make more "useful" power in an engine and that engine can in fact smoke the one that used the cam that made higher peak power numbers in a drag race if all else remained equal.

Just because your car runs good and you are happy with it, the fact is that you may have been even happier if you used a different cam . That is impossible to know unless you do try one but it is certainly a possibility which is part of my point . If someone compares a lexus to a volkswagen for performance, they will likely think the lexus is better, but if they never compared a ferrari to a lexus, they will never know that there is something out there that is far better than the lexus and this is the same for engines.

If camquest was all that great, there would be no need for people to make suggestions for engine builds . All they would have to do is simply tell people to use camquest.

Yawn. A big ol' "Duh" moment here, because you totally took my comment out of the simplest context there could be, "Performance parts are not sold by how much power you'll be getting in 'everyday, mediocre' conditions - they are sold by how much potential power they can help produce." Go look at any performance part out there, and I guarantee you'll see that every vendor/manufacturer/seller out there will be pushing peak numbers on every item they have. So therefore sir, it is in fact not "incorrect," as you say.

If you're going to single out a specific comment, at least address that comment specifically.

What is important is the power level in the rpm range the car is driven in most, or the most average power, and every single knowledgeable engine builder and cam designer will say the exact same thing . You can't drive a dyno.

That hit the nail squarely on the head.

If you have a cam that has peak torque at 4,000 RPM and your cruising RPM is 2,200 you may not be able maintain speed the first time you drive up a steep hill, without downshifting, with an engine that has 550 horsepower at 7,000 RPM.

On the other hand, if the torque peaks at 3K with the same car it may be able to handle increased loads just fine, DEPENDING on the flatness (or steepness) of the torque curve. And that is where CamQuest doesn't provide enough information.

I've played with CamQuest and was surprised at some of the horsepower numbers I was getting for a 351C 4V. If they were true I would have a big smile the first time I "tested" it.

I consider it a useful tool for gathering/researching information, but I wouldn't use it as the only tool. Just like that spreadsheet program I put together, someone should not use it to make their final determination for cam choice, but it gives a starting point and a piece of information that should be combined with other information and research.

I'm not arguing with 'Engine Building 101,' because I know I'm probably out of my league in that regard.

My point all along has been essentially your final thought quoted above, Don.

Look - the whole point of this thread was to ask if CamQuest is a legit utility or not. We've had answers across the board, from those of us who have used it successfully and seem to like it, to people in the publication business who seem to think it's a good product, to others who claim the numbers are fluffed, to some who say it's 'useless.' The whole spectrum is represented here.

To me that says, "your results may vary, depending on your expectations."

I say give it a try and use it to help determine ball-park estimates and maybe even learn a little something along the way, but as always check your work with someone who might be more knowledgeable on the topic and go from there, and maybe even call CompCams themselves for more detailed information on their products if you're interested.

Having said that, might I suggest we take a step back from this to keep the wheels on and rolling in the right direction? I know from past experience that I can let things get under my skin and let the disagreement factor get out of hand, so let's make sure we don't get too far down that path.

 

[73pony]

Geez guys. I didn't want to start something here. Was a simple question. While I did order my cam from Comp it is not an off the shelf cam, it was a custom grind based on a conference call with the guy setting up my heads (very knowledgeable Cleveland guy - his shop is painted ford blue and he has a sign stating he does not carry orange paint so don't ask) and comp cams based on my specific application (IE heads, accessories, gearing, and what I want out of the engine). I saw some references posted on the utility (which I had never head of it) so I thought I would check it out and according to the utility the off the shelf cams suggested were not far off when the three of us came up with as far as specs, just very different HP and Torque numbers.