Isky cam specs

Wow my wd pulled more than 158 feet in 4000 and it was pure stock engine and mismatched rear tires

ooops sorry about that Pank, I was going from memory. I dont misslead like some do,,,

Ken I hate to do this to ya buddy but I have to jump to Pank's defense a little bit. There was some evidence posted a few years back when he was pulling the modified tarbil engine. Ya dang near got that Farmal H Pank, maybe next time.

You aren't good with basic math are you?  can you read?  Read it again, it's basic math. 1, the TN SCUD, and buchards tractor with the fuel injection.  That is 2 tractors, is that not clear to you?

In case you missed the regulations, you have to place above half the class.  If I dumb this down for you.  You must move the weight transfer sled further than half or 50% of the competitors.  You pull the valve cover and allow me to show you how to properly degree a camshaft and we'll map out the specs..... they have to be as eronious as the ones you have been posting.

wi50 wrote: mgburchard wrote: nope tn stud is running well in Yankee doodle land

That's good to hear.  I hope you can check out the National Gathering Of the Orange with it.  It's literally a few miles from me, really just a few 5 or 6 miles.

So I'll make a deal with you.  Bring the TN Scud, and that abomination of a fuel injection system on mightbearetard or mgbutard, buchard or whatever the name's tractor and take a trip.  I'll pay your expenses in green cash with these terms.  First off you have to do well at the pull with these two tractors, meaning you get in the top half of the class with them, that's right you'll have to beat some stock tractors with mis matched tires and a drawbar hanging at 16" (you're allowed 20").  You take the valve cover off and I throw a degree wheel on and check things out and verify those eronius cam specs you are posting, if the cams are of that spec.....

Rember to keep your reciepts for fuel, mileage, meals and lodging.  I'd be willing to bet that you can live better than you do in trailerhood, and you just may be able to do it on my dime if you're as smart as you think you are. 
[/QUOTE] So your willing to pay the expense of three peoples to Wisconsin's including Pankeys some be hauling further than me and pank

Ken(MI) wrote: Coulda woulda and shoulda, maybe he's right, but while I've been making a living in the performance world for over 30 years with a known reputation for building quality parts that perform, he's been carrying a dinner pail into the nuke plant. nuff said.

all that time spent and no one knows your name ? What a shame

Ya I remember that motor. Isn't that the winning engine you purchased and tried to improve it after which it made 5 middle of pack runs at brush pulls and then Ka-Boom!!!? Then there was the Tennesee Scud that mysteriously dissappeared, did it blow up when test fired? And nothing since except Internet blow.

Oh Pank says that if any remember mike tarbills natpa winning 403 cube tractor .it had a comp cams grind at 290 advertised duration . remember it wouldn't lug it just ran and died but when it died it was past all others to win points championship .Ken pank says you should have worked with Harold brookshire he worked with grumpy Jenkins back when he was with general kinetics and had curtis Harris 396 turning 10200 plon a solid flat tappet b cam

Edited by mgburchard - 13 May 2015 at 3:30pm

Back in 1983 I spent a considerable amount of time on improving small block Chevy valve train geometry working with a guy named Joe Lunati some of the time, and the only thing that really comes back to me about what he had to say was that there was only so much you can do with a cam, and most everything had been tried. Hence the reason for double cam setups with variable timing and variable ratio rockers and a few other things we now take for granted. Meanwhile Pank is still trying to sling BS and impress us with his knowledge of cams and induction systems with fuel injection. BTW, I would love to see a side view of that fuel injection system Mitch. And while the camera is out, grab a shot of the Gleason for us.

Pankey traded a cam he doesn't like for a cam that Larry didn't like even trade both traded for something in hopes of liking .Larry provided no specs to Pankey . Pankey told Larry it was a can for small cubic inches. As for Pankeys grind its been around since 1960 and is very common but not assymetrical . No where near like the one cranky posted picture of however the one Larry got its lobe looks a lot like the image cranky provided in the 175 specs. Butch look at it if you can't understand up lash ramp down in valley and back up hill .

mgburchard wrote: mgburchard wrote: I've never spec a can .Pankey and can grinder does that nelson I thought you don't like overlap being from duration now your asking why a can would have less than 21 degrees . So your in a agreement that they need more than 21 degrees of overlap from a tighter LSA

You seam to invent more things I said as you go.  Read page 1 again and see if you can grasp more than half of what I said, and don't make up your own version....use your best 5th grade reading comprehension skills.

What I'm curious on here are the conflicting stories of pank.  He designed the cam, then he got the cam from Barney who got it from Richardson.  Then the cam is junk and has 21 degrees less overlap than a bone stock cam does, and it only has .230 lift.  So let me lay it out like this,

1. You lie and don't even know what you lie about. (proven)

2. Pank can't measure, doesn't know what the numbers mean, or didn't know what the specs were. (highly likely)

3. Pank knew the specs and would willingly pass off bad parts on to someone unsuspecting (I have no doubt pank would do that, but I doubt he knew the specs, if he were smart and/or honest he would have scrapped it)

4. JT and Barney didn't know what they were doing and made junk.  (2 well respected people on these engines passed off junk (not likely at all).  If the cam was the specs pank listed here, Larry's engine would make about 15 hp on a good day, and it runs better than that.

Now lets get back to this fuel injection.  Or is pank to busy at his MUFON convention reporting UFO sightings to cover more on mechanical fuel injection?

Huh how long does it take to grind a can? days? Or does it depend on what kind of pop it was

I've never spec a can .Pankey and can grinder does that

mgburchard wrote: Larry the cam you have has less than 230 lift .You can see this right awayif you look at the heel then rotate the cam you will see where the lifter rises up the lash ramp then drops off in a valley where lash opens back up then starts closing and rising looks a lot like the ramp cranky shows in the 175 can specs topic. If you believe a engine and a air compressor are the same you will love that cam it has -5 overlap . Pankey said he hated it worse can he ever had cause he builds engine not air compressors

You stated in a different thread that you (pank) specked out the cam he gave Larry. Now you state low lift (.230) and -5* of overlap.

Well a bone stock cam has 16 degrees of overlap. Dr's specs say 3* btdc intake opening to 13* Atdc e haist closing.    

To get less overlap, you would have to grind lesser duration, and/or change the lobe separation angles dramatically. Why on earth would you do that?

How and why would you ground a cam with 21 degrees less overlap......then in this thread you say it's something Richardson did for Taylor. 2 well respected people in these engines. Your story is conflicting, your math is wrong. Or you've lied so many times, you forgot what you were lying about.    

Now a long dwell creates a small combustion chamber? REALLY? So by changing the length of the rod, you can change the size of the combustion chamber? Please expound on this, I can't wait to see how this latest twist develops into another case of Pankeys foot in mouth disease. Geometry is geometry and dimensions are dimensions, and how long it takes for the piston to accelerate and decelerate has absolutely no bearing on where it stops at TDC.