IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2 - Page 2 - K20A.org .:. The K Series Source . Honda / Acura K20a k24a Engine Forum
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2007, 09:30 PM   #21
chunky`
Lifetime Member
 
chunky`'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,774
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Good stuff. Good engineering = more power than skeptics thought was possible. That's the IPS way it seems.
__________________
Twisted Loop Racing
Always Outnumbered Never Outgunned
chunky` is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-16-2007, 05:10 AM   #22
IPS-DC5
K20a.org Basic User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 324
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9bells
Ok, with all of this under consideration, howmuch effect does the part selection have?
The rpm here is typical of a street set-up like mine on track day.
The cam is not specified. I can only assume that the characteristics of the cam profile will dictate gains as seen here.
Basically, does this mean that the ips-k2's will see more gain now with this material?
It seems from a budget standpoint, that if this is what is being claimed, then the extra hp is a bargain if weighed against the gains given solely by profile change from Honda spec cams.
I look forto more info on this.
It is on the IPS home page. A little less than halfway down.
IPS-DC5 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 05:46 AM   #23
kommon_sense
Lifetime Member
 
kommon_sense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,256
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by is0m0rph
So why is it bullshit? No disrespect to you, however you do not understand material dynamics, otherwise the answer would be clear to you. You think that 13 ft-lbs is an unrealistic gain from a material change, here is why its not. Think of a simply supported shaft with a mass placed at its midpoint. The faster it spins, the larger its deflection. That's with constant velocity.....Introduce a non-linear mass density, non-linear profile, non-steady state velocity, and a material that will yield under much less applied force, and you have a system that can rob any system of efficiency. People think of cams as perfectly straight and stiff objects, but they are not, they are dynamic and move according to the load applied to them. The difference in 8620 & ductile iron is great. Yield strength, fracture toughness, & ductility are each aspects that need to be considered when using a material for cams. In this particular case the use of the 8620 steel allows for much greater efficiency within the system. Parasitic losses are more easily negated by control of unnecessary valve train movement caused by cam movement within the rotating assembly. I don't know if this adds clarity to what you have difficulty accepting, but I hope it does shed some light.

-Chris
Any significant difference in the density/mass/weight of the materials? It would be much easier to wrap my head around the significant jump if we could say that the 5-6% gain was at least partially due to reducing parasitic loss from the weight of the cam.
kommon_sense is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2007, 07:49 AM   #24
AP1
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 43
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by is0m0rph
So why is it bullshit? No disrespect to you, however you do not understand material dynamics, otherwise the answer would be clear to you. You think that 13 ft-lbs is an unrealistic gain from a material change, here is why its not. Think of a simply supported shaft with a mass placed at its midpoint. The faster it spins, the larger its deflection. That's with constant velocity.....Introduce a non-linear mass density, non-linear profile, non-steady state velocity, and a material that will yield under much less applied force, and you have a system that can rob any system of efficiency. People think of cams as perfectly straight and stiff objects, but they are not, they are dynamic and move according to the load applied to them. The difference in 8620 & ductile iron is great. Yield strength, fracture toughness, & ductility are each aspects that need to be considered when using a material for cams. In this particular case the use of the 8620 steel allows for much greater efficiency within the system. Parasitic losses are more easily negated by control of unnecessary valve train movement caused by cam movement within the rotating assembly. I don't know if this adds clarity to what you have difficulty accepting, but I hope it does shed some light.

-Chris
BS in ME
MS in Materials Science

I UNDERSTAND there can be a difference, but 5% plus means there are other things going on here. I simply said, that it can not deflect that much.

If Yield Strength comes into play, then the lobes are permanently deformed.
Fracture toughness? Again, if that figure comes into play, then again the cam surface is permanently deformed.
Ductility? That is how much deformation takes place before cracking or fracture occurs.

Each of the properties involve deformation and if that comes into play, then the cams are permanently deformed and thus the profiles are altered. I do not think that RON or Skunk would sell cams that would permanently deform as it would cause failure pretty quickly. NO legit manufacture would sell parts that operate beyond Yield Strength, Toughness or Ductility parameters.

I think what properties your looking for are Modulus of Elasticity which describes Stiffness. This would help with your deflection argument that you are attempting to make. Either way, the metals wont deflect more than a few percent, which will cause the lobe to shift a few degrees or hundredths of a mm. This will not cause a 5%+ difference in HP.

Parasitic losses would be from rotational weight or friction. If the surface is similarly polished, then the friction difference would be negligible. I dont have a materials book around as I am on travel, but a google search turned out a density of 7.1g/cm^3 for ductile iron and 7.8 for 8620 steel. It does not sound right, but it seems like 8620 is heaver. Someone else can look that up. But if true, 8620 would be at a disadvantage.
AP1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 07:55 AM   #25
signalpuke
K20a.org Master User
 
signalpuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,294,967,295
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

hhmmmmm...I dunno, maybe by making them denser more material can be shaved off elsewhere on the cam..I may be way off, my ideology is based off of forged wheels vs cast. I am not an engineer or anything, just throwing an idea out there
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
New to the K-Series? ☆★☆★ DIY and FAQ ★☆★☆ <------- CLICK THE LINK!
Otatsiihtaissiiststakio piksi makamo ta psswia
signalpuke is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 08:34 AM   #26
nikos
K20a.org Master User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: here
Posts: 15,818
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

I am not a materials expert but according to google :Indy car, Nascar, and even Top Fuel engines use 8620 cams on their motors. Why do you think they do that? It has to be the best possible core they can get their hands on.
nikos is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 08:44 AM   #27
6spd_EK
Lifetime Member
 
6spd_EK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,000
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

pretty sure hytech uses 8620 too lol
__________________
Built k24-Death set on Kill Mode EG
6spd_EK is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 08:46 AM   #28
nikos
K20a.org Master User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: here
Posts: 15,818
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

One more thing because I would hate to see this take a wrong direction. When RBC dynos first started coming out, people were having similar difficulties accepting that a stock OEM manifold can bring an extra 20whp up top.... and then after a 3-4 dynos on different cars proved these results, they took it for granted.

There are going to be more tests on these cams and on different profiles as time goes by.

Think about it.. With the popularity if the IPS k2 and other cams, most CEOs would have sticked with the recent iron cores IPS used to ground.. but he had to make a choice. Make his product even better or become static.

Think about the 8620 as the equivalent of water cooled CPUs.. Only the true geeks appreciate those. lol
nikos is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 09:42 AM   #29
kommon_sense
Lifetime Member
 
kommon_sense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,256
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos
One more thing because I would hate to see this take a wrong direction. When RBC dynos first started coming out, people were having similar difficulties accepting that a stock OEM manifold can bring an extra 20whp up top.... and then after a 3-4 dynos on different cars proved these results, they took it for granted.
I understand what you are getting at. However it is hard to accept that the exact same cam profile would make significantly different power based on what the cam was made out of. There has to be another variable in this equation.

I think that we all accept 8260 as the better material, but unless it is sprinkled with pixie dust, its hard to see why more power was made in this scenario.
kommon_sense is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 11:31 AM   #30
AP1
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 43
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by kommon_sense
I understand what you are getting at. However it is hard to accept that the exact same cam profile would make significantly different power based on what the cam was made out of. There has to be another variable in this equation.

I think that we all accept 8260 as the better material, but unless it is sprinkled with pixie dust, its hard to see why more power was made in this scenario.
COMPLETELY AGREE. Thank you for summing up!!

8620 IS a better material for this situation and realistically could be 0-1% gain. Not 5%. Is that worth an extra 50% cost?

Drag racers, yes?
Street, Maybe?
AP1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 11:37 AM   #31
IPS-DC5
K20a.org Basic User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 324
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Where did you get the extra 50% cost? 8620 cost $1600 and ductile cost $1200, I only see a 33.33% extra cost.
IPS-DC5 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 11:38 AM   #32
Import Builders
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,141
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos
I am not a materials expert but according to google :Indy car, Nascar, and even Top Fuel engines use 8620 cams on their motors. Why do you think they do that? It has to be the best possible core they can get their hands on.
HI Nikos, this is because Steel has a higher tensil strength and they are using springs that have say, 1000 lbs of pressure, and iron will just break. So they use steel because its stronger.

The advantages of steel is strength.
The advantages of Chilled Iron is less wear over time.

In this case of Steel showing more HP than iron, there is only 3 possible explanations I believe.

1) less friction
2) less rotational mass
3) more air

Time will deliver us the answers. If the test is valid, then we all owe Ron a great debt of thanks. And if its not valid, everyone knows the consequences of that. I hope its true, it only costs a couple hundred more for Steel, and for $200 bucks, making 10 more HP is a freaking bargain for sure.

I can;t wait to get cam production going whenever that is in full swing this year. Because we can make steel billets only. We can't get iron made. So if the results are true, it will benifit me in the future.

When and if it does, I surely will buy Ron dinner and thank him personally for his efforts.

Jeff
Import Builders is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 11:39 AM   #33
K22A
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 23
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Ooh i havn't studied anything hay Can it be seeing as the VTC constantly varies ur cam timing the more regid cam responds more accurately. Plus add to that geometry changes are limited to the designed parameters means less friction. ie. lobe on rocker. Less varience cylinder to cylinder? Plus u also have to consider the oiling influences of the never cam. Lubricity and rigidness and their inluences on friction. Up top HP i think is what Doug from HOndata said about how the mid range influences ur top end. I'm probably so wrong but don be nasty lol
K22A is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 12:13 PM   #34
AP1
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 43
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by IPS-DC5
Where did you get the extra 50% cost? 8620 cost $1600 and ductile cost $1200, I only see a 33.33% extra cost.
Skunk ductile iron cams $800
IPS 8620 $1200?

But i think I was wrong.
IPS iron $1200 and 8620 $1600 correct?

None the less about $400 more right?
AP1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 12:28 PM   #35
nos51
Lifetime Member
 
nos51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: miami
Posts: 1,673
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

wow great gain from just material change!!why do people STILL doubt ron/ips?i mean haven they done enough already showing that they KNOW how to make power?whatever,us ips equiped guys will just keep pulling away
__________________
Doing it for the bitches [email protected] True Street eg still on stock sleeves
TD Autowerkes K24 powered Outlaw EK Hatch [email protected]
nos51 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 12:32 PM   #36
IPS-DC5
K20a.org Basic User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 324
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by AP1
Skunk ductile iron cams $800
IPS 8620 $1200?

But i think I was wrong.
IPS iron $1200 and 8620 $1600 correct?

None the less about $400 more right?
I was just stating IPS cams.
IPS-DC5 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 12:32 PM   #37
geoscranny84
K20a.org Master User
 
geoscranny84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: under a roof
Posts: 2,103
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by nos51
wow great gain from just material change!!why do people STILL doubt ron/ips?i mean haven they done enough already showing that they KNOW how to make power?whatever,us ips equiped guys will just keep pulling away
i agree!!!
__________________
VOUCHES..Nos51,K20rdc,Ninetails,Onericky,Cstyleaccord,[email protected] ny,Jdm South,Nubs,Tiger..
>> K20/24 EG STREET WHORE <<
11.72 @ 116...NOS51 TUNED( Located in Miami,FL )
geoscranny84 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 12:55 PM   #38
oneIricky
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 524
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoscranny84
i agree!!!
x3 but my ips equipped k20ar teg is up for sale. maybe i should try trading for some ips turbo cams
oneIricky is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 01:27 PM   #39
Vteckidd
K20a.org Advanced User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 712
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

good test, good info to know if it is indeed true
__________________
KIDDRACING
[email protected]
AIM: Vteckidd
Vteckidd is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2007, 08:12 PM   #40
rsxmachine
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 709
Default Re: IPS-K2 8620 vs. ductile iron core K2

Quote:
Originally Posted by AP1
Skunk ductile iron cams $800
IPS 8620 $1200?

But i think I was wrong.
IPS iron $1200 and 8620 $1600 correct?

None the less about $400 more right?
somebody had posted that the new IPS cams *with valvetrain* are now $2K dealer retail?!

and the group buys on the original K2's with valvetrain were going for as low as $1075... so yes they are potentially almost twice as expensive
rsxmachine is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ips, ips k2's

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the K20A.org .:. The K Series Source . Honda / Acura K20a k24a Engine Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.