Camshaft specs

Yamaha Raptor 350 & Warrior Forum

Help Support Yamaha Raptor 350 & Warrior Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I ran the Powroll full race cam and the valve's def had a slight bit interference with the piston. The piston would then have to be flycut to provide the proper piston to valve clearence, so I went back to the Megacycle 252X1 cam. On a stroker that big (446cc) the 252X1 is more like a midrange cam compared to the short stroke 350cc motor which is more topend.
 
Hi all!

Just wanted to say I have the .050 specs for the x1 and x2 cams and the seat-to-seat (.010) specs. It took me 2 days of calling megacycle to get them because she said he said he didn't want to just hand the competition the specs on a platter. I think the fact that the quad is so old is the only reason I got them. He's mighty proud of his ramp-rate design in regards to wear vs performance. Anyway, I don't know if there is an ethical reason I can't post them here or not... What do you guys think? If nothing else, at least you know the info is possibly only a few phone calls away.

As soon as I get the rod unwedged from the case of this engine I have in the garage, I'll profile the stock cam and post the specs. That's about the only reliable way to compare stock cams in simulation. I've seen too many errors published.
 
justrandy said:
Hi all!

Just wanted to say I have the .050 specs for the x1 and x2 cams and the seat-to-seat (.010) specs. It took me 2 days of calling megacycle to get them because she said he said he didn't want to just hand the competition the specs on a platter. I think the fact that the quad is so old is the only reason I got them. He's mighty proud of his ramp-rate design in regards to wear vs performance. Anyway, I don't know if there is an ethical reason I can't post them here or not... What do you guys think? If nothing else, at least you know the info is possibly only a few phone calls away.

As soon as I get the rod unwedged from the case of this engine I have in the garage, I'll profile the stock cam and post the specs. That's about the only reliable way to compare stock cams in simulation. I've seen too many errors published.
Well I'd appreciate it if you would PM me and give me the specs, I'd like to know myself as I run 2 of those cams. :cool:
 
Does anyone have a real-world comparison with the webcams 390 and the x2? Which is better? I can make a simulation say 10 different things, lol.

Its always kinda bothered me that webcams grinds the exhaust and the intake lobes the same on every cam.
 
justrandy said:
Does anyone have a real-world comparison with the webcams 390 and the x2? Which is better? I can make a simulation say 10 different things, lol.

Its always kinda bothered me that webcams grinds the exhaust and the intake lobes the same on every cam.

engine simulators as long as the info you have is correct and put in correctly to the simulator it comes out with in 10 percent of what you would achive real world testing. Also most if not all will allow for use of .050" to .040" camshaft spec and will be acurate telling you how large the camshaft is and how it will perform.
Megacycle has one cam with more lift on one lobe the other larger one and both of Webs are the same. Now if you looked at the head design and how it flows you will find that .010" more of lift isn't going to do a whole lot as the head flow is basically peaked (stock) around .400" of lift. Overlap is a huge factor along with intake valve closing, more so then lift.
 
Does anyone have any flow numbers for the stock head? I'm using dyno2003 and it only does .050 and seat-to-seat. It calculates the ramp rate based on the seat-to-seat and .050 specs. I feel I could compare cams pretty well if I had better flow data.

I've been thinking about the monster lifts megacycle has for a good while now... As about all megacycle cams have huge lifts. What I've come up with is that the peak lift is unimportant, as you pointed out, but what comes along with high peak lift is also higher lift earlier and later in the cycle. Ideally, we'd want full lift as soon as the valve is called to open, but that's not possible. So, my best guess as to why the designer of megacycle's cams always has huge lifts is 1) To get more lift all thru the duration. 2) Not have a flat top on the cam for the follower to "fly" above the lobe and crash back down (ie wear). Since, on the phone, she said his ramp rates were "secret" and developed to give high lift with little wear. I put 2 n 2 together.....

Anyway, that's my guess.... How does that sound?

I ran into this problem on the old 230 quadsports.... They don't flow any better after .280 lift, yet megacycle has a .400 and .430 lift cam for them.
 
justrandy said:
Does anyone have any flow numbers for the stock head? I'm using dyno2003 and it only does .050 and seat-to-seat. It calculates the ramp rate based on the seat-to-seat and .050 specs. I feel I could compare cams pretty well if I had better flow data.

I've been thinking about the monster lifts megacycle has for a good while now... As about all megacycle cams have huge lifts. What I've come up with is that the peak lift is unimportant, as you pointed out, but what comes along with high peak lift is also higher lift earlier and later in the cycle. Ideally, we'd want full lift as soon as the valve is called to open, but that's not possible. So, my best guess as to why the designer of megacycle's cams always has huge lifts is 1) To get more lift all thru the duration. 2) Not have a flat top on the cam for the follower to "fly" above the lobe and crash back down (ie wear). Since, on the phone, she said his ramp rates were "secret" and developed to give high lift with little wear. I put 2 n 2 together.....

Anyway, that's my guess.... How does that sound?

I ran into this problem on the old 230 quadsports.... They don't flow any better after .280 lift, yet megacycle has a .400 and .430 lift cam for them.

the link to the head flow is in this thread. http://www.geocities.com/kiwi_craig/GRAPH.htm
basically, if you lift the valve more and basically past .400" your not doing anything but wasting motion (which is also wasted HP)and causing valve train wear on stock flowing head. You don't really gain anything honestly. We can talk about ramp angles but honestly there both very close from both manufactures what I remember and are limited by the valve drive train itself so can only be so steep.
The x2 cam has more lift then the .390 by web but has alot less overlap. So way more torque and low end power. But you will give up mid range power that the .390 will excel at and make more power at that point. So again it is not all about how much valve lift the cam has.
Personally the best all around cam from both trying it and testing it on a engine simulator is the Web .390 by a long shot. Just makes more average hp/torque everywhere.
 
BTW: the only time the follower will fly over the lobe is when you have a soft/weak valve spring on a performance camshaft and reving it hard.
 
Personally the best all around cam from both trying it and testing it on a engine simulator is the Web .390 by a long shot. Just makes more average hp/torque everywhere.

That's what I've been coming up with too. But I've been doing it with incomplete info, so I wasn't sure.
 
So, are the guys at megacycle just dumb? Why do they always have such high lifts when it almost never pays off?
 
justrandy said:
So, are the guys at megacycle just dumb? Why do they always have such high lifts when it almost never pays off?

Not even close to being dumb. See the problem is that people that are miss informed believe that lift plays the biggest roll and if say Megacycles cams have more then Web they must be the "better" camshaft. Really, they both make awesome cams and will do what you want if you are willing to read and understand what these 4 cams are made for and how they will effect your power band.
Remember to that Megacycle uses a little more lash then Web but web uses a little less lift. So really if you just want to compare the two in thoses areas I would say there isn't a whole lot of difference as far as how much on cam will lift to the other, I mean theres what maybe .020" difference. Which is like a piece of paper folded in two, and at that lift it's not going to make a bit of difference on a stock flowing head.
Duration, overlap and intake valve closing are much more bigger things to worry about and will tell you more info when picking a cam, they all have enough lift to flow the air on this engine.
 
Does anyone have an estimated power gain for the Web .390 cam....
Stock head....pipe...K&N....jetted?

Peace,
Jebby
 
Does anyone have specs/experience with the .415 & .450 grinds from CWR? I doubt those specs are just handed out but maybe there's a cam card lying around or possibly someone has profiled the cams. Greg advertises the best cams you can buy, somebody has had to try one right??? Right?
 
New cam to add to the mix:

956 Grind from WebCam.
.413/.413 lift,
232°/232° @ .050",
Valve lash set to .004I/.005E.
Lobe center is 102°/106° - 104° overall

Intake Opens
14°BTDC

Exhaust Opens
42°BBDC

Intake Closes
38°ABDC

Exhaust Closes
10°ATDC
 

Latest posts

Back
Top