Slippin' a WC-1 Cam Into an NE Engine:

Hey Quenton:

I don't doubt anything you say about any part of the Whizzer...its history, its stock performance, its performance gains as a result of modifications, or any other facts. You're the Professor!

It's just that upon careful eyeball scrutiny and measurements with my dial calipers, the only difference I can see and measure between the NE cam and the WC-1 cam is the height of the lobes! My calipers show a diameter of 0.560" across the non-lifting diameter of all 4 cam lobes, and I can't discern any difference in the profiles other than the lobe height differences.

I know if you say there are differences I won't dispute it, it's just that I can't SEE them!

HAL
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1231.JPG
    IMG_1231.JPG
    94.5 KB · Views: 194
Last edited:
Thanks, Bavarian!

It was a nice gesture in your trying to help me, but I've known how camshafts work since before 1952, when I bought my first car...57 years ago!

Since then I've owned 24 automobiles, 7 motorcycles, and now a Whizzer!

Just for fun, I tore down the engine in my 1952 Olds 88 and replaced the hydraulic lifters with solids and adjustable pushrods.

It's just that I don't SEE any differences in profile or lobe orientations between the 2 cams in my photo, only their different lobe heights. But as long as Quenton says there ARE differences, then I must take him at his word.

If I install that WC-1 cam and find no improvement in low-end torque, then I'll put the high-lift NE cam back in and maybe have Quenton mill my head to give me some extra low-rpm "grunt" .

Cheers...
Old Man Hal (73 this summer)
 
Last edited:
Hi Hal & Oscar,

If I find a couple of spare moments I will run the info on my special camshaft setup.
I have lots of information on the NE early, & the NE late that I could give you average Information. I will try to arrive at numbers on the average WC-1 camshaft. I know there is a lot of difference in overlap, and major differences in duration, but I will post the info when I can find time to setup up my equipment.

Have fun,
 
Whizzer Cams for Torque

Thanks for the pictures, but its still difficult to see the lobe shape on the NE 5 for comparison to the WC-1. The NE5 lobe is obscured, due to the picture angle, but from what I can see it looks like it might be a little fatter on the flank than the WC-1, but again the picture and angle make it just about impossible to comment.

If you want to compare your WC-1 cam to the vintage cams, they had lift of ~ 0.150” (as Quenton noted), a lobe separation angle (LSA) of ~ 96 camshaft degrees and had duration of ~ 205 degrees at 0.050” lift. They were timed such that the IN/EX crossover occurred at TDC.

Shorter duration cams like this produce power in the lower RPM range. The short duration results in earlier IN closing (~ 40 ABDC) thus improving the compression of the engine, which in turn improves torque. Longer duration cams operate at higher RPM, but sacrifice bottom end performance to produce top end power. A longer duration cam, with later intake closing, results in reduced compression, all other things being equal. Installation of the high compression head would certainly help you develop compression, and in turn torque.

Lobe separation angle determines where peak torque will occur within the engine’s power range. Tight lobe separations cause the torque to build early in the RPM range, i.e., the torque will build quickly, be concentrated, and peak out. Broader lobe separation allows the torque to be spread over a broader portion of the basic RPM range resulting in improved power through the upper RPM range. Short duration cams with wide lobe separation usually yield much flatter torque curves.

Although the short duration and LSA of 96 deg result in good torque, this combination was quite limiting in terms of top end potential, e.g., the HP on all the vintage models peaked between 3500 rpm (H model, low compression, small valves and ports) and 4000 rpm (model 300 and later, high compression, large valves and ports). Advancing the cam from the std installation position will shift the useful rpm range to lower rpm. Retarding the cam from the std installation position will move the useful rpm range to higher rpm.

Maybe you could throw a degree wheel on it when you’re tinkering and let us know how your two cams compare to the vintage cam. I suspect Quenton already has this so maybe he’ll share.
 
Last edited:
Lobes Obscured By Camera Parallax

WZ507

Although I positioned both camshafts vertically with an attempt to show the different profiles on the exhaust cam lobes, the parallax resulting from the close-up camera position caused them to appear to "lean" outward.

I had no control over this, which is why a more accurate comparison could not be made unless I photographed each one seperately from a "dead-on" position.

Since I have the NE cam removed and am waiting on further commentary before installing the WC-1 cam, maybe I'll just go ahead and install it and see what Oscar feels like with his new "pacemaker"!

Thanks for the discussion...
HAL
 
Hi Hal & Oscar,

It isn't possible to take a photo and compare the camshafts.
Here is some information on one version of the NE camshaft and a stock WC-1.
NE.............................. WC-1
IO 38 BTDC................. 24 BTDC
IC 73 ABDC................. 48 ABDC
EO 50 BBDC................. 32 BBDC
EC 60 ATDC................. 31 ATDC
I Dur 291.................... I Dur 252
E Dur 290.................... E Dur 243
Lift .178"..................... Lift .150"

As you can see the duration, lobe centers, lift, and profile are different.

As W507 posted milling the head would add more compression and add more bottom end torque. He also commented about the HP peaking at lower RPMs on the vintage motors and is 100% correct.

Have fun,
 

Attachments

  • Mvc-910f.jpg
    Mvc-910f.jpg
    125.8 KB · Views: 197
Last edited:
Thanks, Quenton!

It looks like, according to your charted figures, the NE cam has not only a higher lift, but a longer "open valve" duration.

This would appear to be the formula for better "breathing", which influences the High End of the RPM range.

I'll install the WC-1 soon and let you know if there's any "seat of the pants" difference!

I have a test I've been using for all my mods to date: It's the speed I attain while cresting a short, steep hill in my neigborhood. (Wadena Hill)

Before doing anything to Oscar. my speed at the crest was 21-22 MPH.
Earlier this week, (before removing the NE cam) I crested Wadena Hill at 28 MPH!

HAL
 
Verdict On The Wc-1 Cam:

I installed the WC-1 Cam in Oscar's boiler room today, advancing the gear one tooth, setting the clearance for both valves at precisely 0.010", then filled him with fresh oil and took him on a 10-mile evaluation ride.

A disappointment all around!

After a good warmup. I took him on my "acid test"...the run up Wadena Hill.

Earlier this week, with the NE cam, I crested the short, steep hill at 28 MPH. Today's run with the WC-1 cam gave me only 23 MPH, a 5 MPH loss.

The low-RPM acceleration felt no different, and the exhaust note sounded anemic compared to the hearty sound with the NE cam.

Needless to say, I'm re-installing that NE cam right away!

Quenton...will you credit what I paid for the WC-1 cam toward your charge for milling my head? I want a conservative shaving job...say .050".

Thanks...
HAL
 
Last edited:
Back
Top