2012+ WR450F Camshaft Upgrade Info.



187 replies to this topic
  • cracker please

Posted August 25, 2014 - 12:21 PM

#21

I looked up the link in source 1 of your chart.  He said he measured those cams at .050" lift.

I think in source 3 or 4 on your chart they measured YZ cams at .040" lift.

I can't find the specs on 07 YZ cams.  I think they say they are a little more top end oriented than the 06 but not as much as the 08-09.  I'd like to install some YZ cams, maybe this winter, not sure what ones to go with.



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted August 25, 2014 - 01:04 PM

#22

I looked up the link in source 1 of your chart.  He said he measured those cams at .050" lift.

I think in source 3 or 4 on your chart they measured YZ cams at .040" lift.

 

Uggh... missed that.  Now that you bring it up, I remember it, but somehow when compiling all this information I lost that detail.  I'll check into this at some point and update the table.

 

I can't find the specs on 07 YZ cams.  I think they say they are a little more top end oriented than the 06 but not as much as the 08-09.  I'd like to install some YZ cams, maybe this winter, not sure what ones to go with.

 

 

So here is the thing... if you dive really deep into the threads about putting various YZ cams into various bikes, you run into the fact that the cams weren't the only things that changed year to year.  So when people say the 06 cams were this and the 03 cams were that, its not just because of the cams, the rest of the engine setup matters too.   Apparently there were big changes in ignition systems and timing over these years and then of course the exhaust systems change too.  That is what got me started in compiling actual numbers for the various cam profiles.

 

I'm going with the 08 cams simply because mbirt and mixxer have discussed them several times and recommended them for "woods use".  They did so in the context of the YFZ quads with the EFI engine, not any particular WR bike.  I can provide a quote if people want to see it. 

 

And, of course, their recommendation applied to the YFZ porting, whatever that might be, not the high volume 2012+ WR450F porting.  However, mbirt did dyno an 08 YZ camset in a stock 2012 engine.  He didn't dyno it stock, however, and the data collection started at 5,000 RPM, so I can't say, good or bad, how the 08 cams look in the bottom end.   They were quite strong from 5,000 RPM up.  I can provide that soruce too.

 

I'm at the point where I've put more time into this thread and figuring out what I wanted to do and why than it would have taken just to put a set of cams in my WR.   And, in the end, all that matters is how they run in my bike.  So I'll be doing that and reporting back.   In spite of that, this thread isn't a waste as I hope the community will update it with data and observations from various cam tests until we have a comprehensive set of data from which to make cam choices, particularly for the 2012+ bikes.

 

I agree that this is a convoluted thread.  But its wayyy better than Googling trying to put this information together.   Hopefully we'll refine it and maybe at some point someone can rewrite it into a cleaner thread.


Edited by MidlifeCrisisGuy, August 25, 2014 - 01:04 PM.


  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted August 25, 2014 - 09:34 PM

#23

Here is the spec for the cams in our 2012+ WR

 

Stock 07-11 WR450f--Exhaust retarded 1 tooth
Intake Lift (mm): 7.7
Exhaust Lift (mm): 7.7
Intake Lobe Center (degrees): 107
Exhaust Lobe Center (degrees): 91 (stock 113.5)
Intake Duration (degrees at .040"): 236
Exhaust Duration (degrees at .040"): 236
Intake Open / Close: 11 btc/45 abc
Exhaust Open / Close: 29 bbc/27 atc (stock 51.5/4.5)
Lobe Separation Angle: 99 (stock 110.25)
Overlap: 38 (stock 15.5)

 

Source: http://www.yfzcentra...chniques-3.html  Post #58  Author: mbirt.

 

Retarding the exhaust cam (ie YZ mod) and doing nothing else on a stock pre 2012 engine took peak HP from 39 to 48 HP.  The torque curve is very flat.  FWIW, porting this head brought peak power to nearly 60HP, but didn't change the torque at 4,000 RPM any.   These engines have a ton of potential even with the stock cams.  Best part about it is that changing only the exhaust cam timing minimizes messing up the intake flow as a high lift cam might.  

 

FYI, the source thread is a rambling, detailed treatise on porting, by mixxer.  Its pretty interesting though it degrades rapidly after the first few pages.


Edited by MidlifeCrisisGuy, August 25, 2014 - 09:56 PM.


  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted August 26, 2014 - 10:13 AM

#24

Just look at that Dirt Rider (or Dirt Bike?) article where they did just that, and it made the 2012 WR *worse*, not better. So just be careful what you ask for....

 

I happen to have the July 2013 Issue of Dirt Bike magazine.   In the article (pages 32 to 38, Battle of the Ages) they compare a fully reconditioned 2003 WR450F with a fully prepared 2013 WR450F.

 

In order to put the two bikes on a more level paying field, they have Race Tech redo the suspension on *both* bikes as well as put Hot Cams Stage 1 cams in both bikes.   Among other enhancements. 

 

Here is what they say about the 2013's engine with the cams.

 

First of all, the 2013 model is much more powerful and has a sharp, low end hit.  It snaps to attention as soon as you give the command and revs out to a fairly high peak.

 

a) So much for worrying about losing bottom end when installing high lift cams in the 2012+ WR engine.  Apparently this set of cams gives the 2012+ WR too much bottom end.

 

B) The Stage 1 Hot Cams most closely resemble the 06 YZ cams, which were known for the low end hit.  Go figure that the Hot Cams had a similar hit.

 

c) The article mentions the Power Progammer for the 2013 WR, but doesn't state that they used it in any way to tailor the power curve to their liking.  They state that they could change the power curve to be like the [2003] model, but they never did.

 

So I'm not really seeing where Dirt Bike said the power band on the 2012+ WR got worse with the cam swap.  It had a low end hit that they didn't like, especially compared to an old style thumper powerband on the 2003, but they aren't complaining about lack of torque or throttle response or anything really.  They probably wouldn't have liked the low end on a 2006 YZ450F either.

 

The good news here is that the cams worked in the 2012+ engine without losing low end power.



  • vlxjim

Posted August 26, 2014 - 12:11 PM

#25

Sorry for this I'm not trying to bash you. But if you have not mapped your bike you should. Now I do know that when you tore down the bike that you lost the ability the connect with the ECU. If this is still the case you are going to need to adjust the ECU for the new cam anyway. Look this bike can go from mid to wild with the mapping. Your WR the way its setup should handle any thing that you can throw at it with the right mapping.

I see the forums and threads that your reading. There the wrong place for your info. If you still care about reliability. Most of those guys are duners all they care about is straight flat out speed and they don't care about reliability. I know I have one.

And the guy with the college Formula One car is constantly turning down that motor and has much better cooling so what does he care.

I ride with guys that all have CRF's unfortunately no YZ's and they ride my bike and love the bike and they can't believe the power that it has so close to stock form. Some of them are saving there pennies to get one so that there green sticker as well.

Get a map first and keep it reliable. Then turn it into a grenade if you need to.

 

Oh and Yamaha cut the lift but added more flow to these new FI bikes part of this was to get the mid power back that is lost when going to FI. 



  • cracker please

Posted August 26, 2014 - 01:48 PM

#26

I don't think YZ cams would make it any less reliable than a YZ.



  • Krannie McKranface

Posted August 26, 2014 - 03:11 PM

#27

I don't think YZ cams would make it any less reliable than a YZ.

 

The cams don't do it. It's your right hand, and your loss of vision from smiling



  • cracker please

Posted August 26, 2014 - 03:17 PM

#28

Oh and Yamaha cut the lift but added more flow to these new FI bikes part of this was to get the mid power back that is lost when going to FI. 

 

I think I read that's why they added the powerbomb.  All aluminum frame WRs have low lift cams.



  • GP1K

Posted August 26, 2014 - 03:20 PM

#29

I happen to have the July 2013 Issue of Dirt Bike magazine.   In the article (pages 32 to 38, Battle of the Ages) they compare a fully reconditioned 2003 WR450F with a fully prepared 2013 WR450F.

 

In order to put the two bikes on a more level paying field, they have Race Tech redo the suspension on *both* bikes as well as put Hot Cams Stage 1 cams in both bikes.   Among other enhancements. 

 

Here is what they say about the 2013's engine with the cams.

 

 

 

 

a) So much for worrying about losing bottom end when installing high lift cams in the 2012+ WR engine.  Apparently this set of cams gives the 2012+ WR too much bottom end.

 

B) The Stage 1 Hot Cams most closely resemble the 06 YZ cams, which were known for the low end hit.  Go figure that the Hot Cams had a similar hit.

 

c) The article mentions the Power Progammer for the 2013 WR, but doesn't state that they used it in any way to tailor the power curve to their liking.  They state that they could change the power curve to be like the [2003] model, but they never did.

 

So I'm not really seeing where Dirt Bike said the power band on the 2012+ WR got worse with the cam swap.  It had a low end hit that they didn't like, especially compared to an old style thumper powerband on the 2003, but they aren't complaining about lack of torque or throttle response or anything really.  They probably wouldn't have liked the low end on a 2006 YZ450F either.

 

The good news here is that the cams worked in the 2012+ engine without losing low end power.

 

I don't think you understand the difference between outright power and snap/hit. The new WR has more power across the board than previous versions. And tuning the FI won't change a dyno graph all that much, but it will absolutely change the way the power is *delivered* and feels to the rider. But go and change cams and dyno test it, and you will see a difference in the HP/torque curves. Another example would be a 450F MX bike that has more outright power than a 250 two-stroke MX bike, but that 250 will still have more of a 'hit'. 

 

So back to Dirt Bike.... the cams aren't what gave it too much snap, NOT tuning the FI did, especially after modding the bike. Would anyone in their right mind not re-jet a carb'ed bike after such changes? Of course not. But that's exactly what they did here. Dumb dumb dumb. 

 

They said the new WR would just break loose and spin, from that low end hit. All self-created. My WR hooks up great, and is anything BUT a "nervous Nelly". In fact when I bought the bike I thought it would be a roost/wheelie machine and be harder to manage that power on the trail, but it totally isn't, thanks to FI tuning. They could have saved the money they wasted on the cams and bought the GYTR tuner, and made the new WR tractable and traction-grabbing on the bottom, and still have more pull up top vs the old bike. And they could have just sprung it for the rider's weight and had much better suspension, too.

 

But at this point, I think you just hear what you want to hear, because you've got such a hard-on for swapping cams there's just no reasoning with you.

 

And let's see the dyno graphs before you make claims like that. Snap/hit and power are not the same things.


Edited by GP1K, August 26, 2014 - 03:23 PM.


  • revelc

Posted August 26, 2014 - 04:23 PM

#30

Why is there such a hubbub about cams? They just concentrate power and move it up and down in the RPM range.


A fuel programmer does something similar to altering the power band.


If you want more power why not do a Big Bore Kit for less on/off power engagement and more torque all over?


2014 WRR R.I.Pieces
2012 WR450F ECU, GYTR tuner, Yoshi RS4, MSR rad guards, Cycra Pros, and a growing wish list...

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • cracker please

Posted August 26, 2014 - 04:41 PM

#31

You can add more fuel with a fuel programmer but there has to be enough air to burn it.  I like the idea of using a Yamaha cam for reliability.  There would probably be more vibration with a big bore kit.  I think reliability would suffer.



  • Krannie McKranface

Posted August 26, 2014 - 05:00 PM

#32

Why is there such a hubbub about cams? They just concentrate power and move it up and down in the RPM range.


A fuel programmer does something similar to altering the power band.


If you want more power why not do a Big Bore Kit for less on/off power engagement and more torque all over?


2014 WRR R.I.Pieces
2012 WR450F ECU, GYTR tuner, Yoshi RS4, MSR rad guards, Cycra Pros, and a growing wish list...

 

A big bore kit is a backwards attempt and changing power.

It slows the revs, un-balances the motor, changes the character of the power in a 'high-q' way (very un reactive to other changes).

Adding more mass at the end of the rod is one of the worst things you can do to a motor.

 

The head, and everything in it, IS where the power comes from.

 

You can map how ever you want, you can bore to the moon, but if the head does not have the correct laminar flow, velocity, cam timing and duration, the rest means absolutely nothing.

 

What MCG is trying to do is document what does what, with what, and when, based on cam data, first hand accounts of changes, and personal experience.

 

It's funny when I read someone describing their '06 in comparison to someones question about thier '12.

You guys do know that the motors only LOOK the same on the outside, but are otherwise quite different in a hundred or so ways?.....and that '03-'05, '06, '07, '08-'11 are all different from each other in terms of head details, cams, ignition, and tuning etc?

 

I would like to ride a '12 with a GYTR full kit: The usual ECU , map and exhaust, plus the GYTR cam, GYTR head and all. 



  • vlxjim

Posted August 26, 2014 - 05:46 PM

#33

I think I read that's why they added the powerbomb.  All aluminum frame WRs have low lift cams.

 

That is part of it. But not all aluminum frame WR's have the larger ports.

 

 

I don't think YZ cams would make it any less reliable than a YZ.

 

No but a 60HP WR would be less reliable. The guys with the 60+ HP YFZ's blow motors all the time.



  • Krannie McKranface

Posted August 26, 2014 - 05:54 PM

#34

That is part of it. But not all aluminum frame WR's have the larger ports.

 

 

 

No but a 60HP WR would be less reliable. The guys with the 60+ HP YFZ's blow motors all the time.

Race YFZ's also weigh 100lbs more and don't trail ride



  • vlxjim

Posted August 26, 2014 - 06:05 PM

#35

Race YFZ's also weigh 100lbs more and don't trail ride

I know and most of the 60+ HP quads just drag race at the dunes most of the day. But still a 60hp load on the stock rod, crank, clutch and gears is going to make it less reliable. I don't care what anyone says. 



  • stevethe

Posted August 26, 2014 - 06:25 PM

#36

I personally do not think 60 RWHP is too much out of a WR or YZ 450 same motor. Nor do I think they are unreliable. Depends on who the builder is. They can be very reliable.

 

Unless you think Suzuki 400 DRZ's are more reliable with 60 HP Some built ones have gone 40,000 miles



  • vlxjim

Posted August 26, 2014 - 07:08 PM

#37

If the motor was built for 60hp you know better piston, stronger rod, welded crank and balanced. And to think that a DRZ is going 40K on a 60Hp motor. There riding it like a old lady. Or its had and lot of cash thrown at it.



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted August 26, 2014 - 07:54 PM

#38

I don't understand where all this negativity is coming from, nor 60HP, nor talk of a bit bore kit. 

 

Mbirt has to tune the heck out of a WR450 engine to get 60 HP.   A 2012+ WR450F with cams won't be anywhere near that.

 

A stock 2012 WR450F makes about 41 HP.  http://www.motorcycl...F-Shootout.aspx

 

A stock 2009 YZ450F makes about 48 HP.  http://www.motorcycl...comparison.aspx

 

A 2012 WR450F with exhaust and cam changes is going to make about 46-48 HP.  Source: mbirt, post #52. http://www.yfzcentra...chniques-3.html  The gains will be everywhere, there will be no loss of low end torque.  It may even increase.

 

A 2012 KTM 450 XCW makes 46 HP. http://www.motorcycl...W-Shootout.aspx


Edited by MidlifeCrisisGuy, August 26, 2014 - 07:56 PM.


  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted August 26, 2014 - 08:09 PM

#39

I dare anyone with a 2012+ WR450F with an aftermarket exhaust system to pull their valve cover and retard their exhaust valve 1 tooth and report back.  I'd do it myself but the naysayers wouldn't believe me if I did.

 

I predict

- no loss of low end power

- stronger, but nice, mid and high end power

- a lighter and more revvy feeling engine, but with no loss of low end power

- a much cooler running engine

- reduced engine braking

- no real effect on long term durability

 

This would be the same mod that WR owners have been doing to their bikes since 2003.  The effect is going to be even greater on the low lift engines (2007+) than it was on the early models.   Putting a conservative YZ cam in a 2012+ is going to take this effect a bit further with just a bit more duration and a bit more lift.


Edited by MidlifeCrisisGuy, August 26, 2014 - 08:09 PM.


  • Krannie McKranface

Posted August 26, 2014 - 08:38 PM

#40

I dare anyone with a 2012+ WR450F with an aftermarket exhaust system to pull their valve cover and retard their exhaust valve 1 tooth and report back.  I'd do it myself but the naysayers wouldn't believe me if I did.

 

I predict

- no loss of low end power

- stronger, but nice, mid and high end power

- a lighter and more revvy feeling engine, but with no loss of low end power

- a much cooler running engine

- reduced engine braking

- no real effect on long term durability

 

This would be the same mod that WR owners have been doing to their bikes since 2003.  The effect is going to be even greater on the low lift engines (2007+) than it was on the early models.   Putting a conservative YZ cam in a 2012+ is going to take this effect a bit further with just a bit more duration and a bit more lift.

 

My understanding was that this re-timing of the exahust cam to YZ spec was done from 2007 onward on the stock WR cam.






 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.