|
| twr7cx |
|
|||
|
Anyone know which is a better grind (I'm waiting on the reply from Wade thought someone here might know though). The new profile 1604 (as seen here http://www.fordmods.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2171) or the 1004 profile?
It's for an automatic EF 4.0L I6 with no other internal engine mods (Cold air intake, extractors and that are done). |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| One Drone |
|
|||
|
1604 is based on 1004. Better idle and more torque for a few more $$. What do you think???
_________________ There are 10 types of people in this world. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| FastFutura |
|
|||
|
ive got the 1004-112, in a manny, its sick.. but idle is a prob.. maybe i might adjust base idle up a bit tomorrow (its at like fkn 300 RPM)
dont know about the new one
_________________ 94 ED Futura, 5spd, RPM clutch,3.27 LSD, PH4480 pacemakers, 2.5'' Supercat, STG 2 Wade1004-112 advanced16degrees, XH intake K&N panel,pedders superlows, Expursuit puter. clearindicators, volvoTT thermofan
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| jonbays |
|
||
|
Always go for the latest development the 1604 for sure
|
||
| Top | |
||
| twr7cx |
|
|||
|
One Drone wrote: 1604 is based on 1004. Better idle and more torque for a few more $$. What do you think???
That's the answer I wanted. ta. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| voxace |
|
|||
|
I think 1604 for autos, and probably 1004 for manuals....
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| twr7cx |
|
|||
|
voxace wrote: I think 1604 for autos, and probably 1004 for manuals....
There was two versions of the 1004, the 112 and 114, one was for autos and one for manuals. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| voxace |
|
|||
|
Hell you could even go for a 110 LSA, same goes with the 1604 probably (different LSA's)
I'm just saying the 'overall' 1604 grind is probably better suited to autos, and 1004 for manuals. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| twr7cx |
|
|||
|
What's LSA?
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| voxace |
|
|||
|
It's the lobe separation angle. I.E. 110, 112, 114 degrees.
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Striker |
|
||
|
As far as LSA )Lobe Separation Angle) is concerned, 114 is better suited to autos.
112 gives a slightly lumpier idle, and I believe 110 lumpier still. The 1004 grind has been around for a long time now, and the 1604 is a fairly successful attempt at refining this camshaft even further. The 1604 gives you plenty more torque, and a little extra topend, and a little smoother idle also. All up, personally I see no remaining reasons to use a 1004. --Striker.
_________________ Vice President, [url]FastFords.org[/url] Car Club. |
||
| Top | |
||
| voxace |
|
|||
|
From what I can tell the cam isn't deisnged to produce more power than a 1004, but rather to be smoother and produce more bottom end.
It has very similar specs on the intake side, but is smaller in regards to lift and duration on the exhaust side. Funnily enough I think the JMM cams work the opposite way??? I still think that if you have a manual a 1004-112 or 110 would be more suitable as far as getting down the 1/4 quicker goes. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| twr7cx |
|
|||
|
Quote: There is a new profile available for the EA / EL series. It is based on the 1004 profile and has been developed for the purpose of improving the idle characteristics and also to produce more torque.
from http://www.fordmods.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2171[/url][/b] |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| voxace |
|
|||
|
More torque where? 2000rpm, 5000rpm, everywhere?? Or by that does he just mean bottom end as most people refer 'torque' to.
We need a dyno graph of a 1004 vs 1604. You don't restrict the exhaust gases flowing and suddenly gain torque everywhere that's for sure. I'm pretty sure JMM cams run monster exhuast lift to produce their characteristics. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| One Drone |
|
|||
|
Mate, for $120 exchange, you really can't go wrong!!
_________________ There are 10 types of people in this world. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests |
