Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yes, Scali has retuned mine with bigger injectors. Has made more power but cannot be f**ked updating sig/leaderboard etc.

Back in your box.

lol bit sensitive? Was a question, not a dig.

rb26

260 9.15 tomei

gt35

1.6bar

435kw hd

post-1925-1231577466_thumb.jpg

i think i know.... but im trying to work out what do do cams wise.. regular normal 270~ or really big. but i wont be revving past 8500.

big lift 270's my friend for that rev range...wouldn't go any more deg than that.

Tomei 272 10.8's would be my pick or the JUN 272 11.35's. They are 29mm BC though and need the thicker buckets and id recommend titanium retainers as well.

Im doing a real nice head combo for a fella at the moment that would suit you well.

Edited by DiRTgarage
big lift 270's my friend for that rev range...wouldn't go any more deg than that.

Tomei 272 10.8's would be my pick or the JUN 272 11.35's. They are 29mm BC though and need the thicker buckets and id recommend titanium retainers as well.

Im doing a real nice head combo for a fella at the moment that would suit you well.

The JUN cams are the shit for nicely ported heads. Besides the initial set-up costs like Paul mentioned making it expensive they are worth using.

We settled for a little more lift after alot of flow bench R&D, but I was really happy with the 272/11.35.

I believe Charlie may have another set with springs and retainers Dave same as the ones I got from him??

The JUN cams are the shit for nicely ported heads. Besides the initial set-up costs like Paul mentioned making it expensive they are worth using.

We settled for a little more lift after alot of flow bench R&D, but I was really happy with the 272/11.35.

I believe Charlie may have another set with springs and retainers Dave same as the ones I got from him??

Dave i believe we have a winner. :D

Paul may have different comment but from out my testing with a flow bench we found.

The tomei's outdid the JUN cams when the ports were only slightly opened and the exhaust hump was left in place.

On this same combination the testers opinion was drop in Tomei's would be better again.

With the ports done the way the machinist wanted and obviously the hump removed the JUN cams came back.

We then started with another head, oversized valves and appropriate porting to suit (port design can vary for larger valves)

The JUN cams were marginally better than the Tomei's. So much so that like I mentioned the expense of setting them up with buckets etc is worth while.

We cam doctored both inlet and exhaust cams from both brands, so the actual profiles could be seen easily. I have the results on my laptop which I can post up latter.

Like paul said they are a 29mm base circle so you need to either use a thicker shim or preferably proper buckets.

Head also obviously needs to be relieved and we made up new spring seats to set tension and provide and stronger seat.

We never actually made any real world comparisions as the engine was built with the best tested components and in the end neither the JUN or Tomei's were used we made our own from the testing we did with the others.

Another cam worth looking at is the Apexi Vmax 272/11.3 Again they are a 29mm base circle but I have had these in an engine and they were a really good thing. I still have them here, think they also came from Charlie originally.

Edited by Risking
Paul may have different comment but from out my testing with a flow bench we found.

The tomei's outdid the JUN cams when the ports were only slightly opened and the exhaust hump was left in place.

On this same combination the testers opinion was drop in Tomei's would be better again.

With the ports done the way the machinist wanted and obviously the hump removed the JUN cams came back.

We then started with another head, oversized valves and appropriate porting to suit (port design can vary for larger valves)

The JUN cams were marginally better than the Tomei's. So much so that like I mentioned the expense of setting them up with buckets etc is worth while.

We cam doctored both inlet and exhaust cams from both brands, so the actual profiles could be seen easily. I have the results on my laptop which I can post up latter.

Like paul said they are a 29mm base circle so you need to either use a thicker shim or preferably proper buckets.

Head also obviously needs to be relieved and we made up new spring seats to set tension and provide and stronger seat.

We never actually made any real world comparisions as the engine was built with the best tested components and in the end neither the JUN or Tomei's were used we made our own from the testing we did with the others.

Another cam worth looking at is the Apexi Vmax 272/11.3 Again they are a 29mm base circle but I have had these in an engine and they were a really good thing. I still have them here, think they also came from Charlie originally.

Nah that pretty much sums up what we found also...for example on our stage 2 heads we use Tomei and on our stage 3 big $$ heads we use JUN. We couldn't believe how well the big JUN items woke the engine up and actually had it making more power earlier with the big port head. This is something that totally goes against the theory of what should be occurring, but boosted engines do funny things that are actually the opposite of what you would find it if was an NA.

JUN recommend running a thicker shim but this is something i strongly disagree with, the Tomei buckets are definately the way to go, as the shim should be kept around or under 3mm thickness to be safe.

But sometimes people who we do them for have their own ideas and we will advise them but at the end of the day its their money and they can spend it the way they choose to.

Risking why do we freely give away info that both you and i know cost us 1000's to discover? :down:

We are either very generous or mad!

Edited by DiRTgarage
The JUN cams are the shit for nicely ported heads. Besides the initial set-up costs like Paul mentioned making it expensive they are worth using.

We settled for a little more lift after alot of flow bench R&D, but I was really happy with the 272/11.35.

I believe Charlie may have another set with springs and retainers Dave same as the ones I got from him??

hahahah yeah you beat me to it, i rang him up and he was "i sold them yesterday.. lol

yeah sweet. already got the buckets. (for labour incured but not paid for....)

yeah. thats the conflicting thing. bigger duration giving more bottom end than a smaller duration...

the head has alll the runners smothed out on the short radius and the bowl has been smothed and the exhaust port has the hump removed aswell as the hump above the guide, would be nice to raise the port but i dont have the time or skill and a suitable welder..

also the squish pads have been removed on both inlet and exhaust. (smothed into the chamber not completly removed)

using standard valves.

my turbo will be "on song" around 5k (35pound) and will be reved to 8500. (want to save the oil pump)

Nah that pretty much sums up what we found also...for example on our stage 2 heads we use Tomei and on our stage 3 big $$ heads we use JUN. We couldn't believe how well the big JUN items woke the engine up and actually had it making more power earlier with the big port head. This is something that totally goes against the theory of what should be occurring, but boosted engines do funny things that are actually the opposite of what you would find it if was an NA.

JUN recommend running a thicker shim but this is something i strongly disagree with, the Tomei buckets are definately the way to go, as the shim should be kept around or under 3mm thickness to be safe.

But sometimes people who we do them for have their own ideas and we will advise them but at the end of the day its their money and they can spend it the way they choose to.

Risking why do we freely give away info that both you and i know cost us 1000's to discover? :cheers:

We are either very generous or mad!

I know what your saying there Paul..

I have lost count of the R&D dollars I've spent. (shudder to think actually). Lattely we've pushed engines to breaking point on the engine dyno just to try something different. Had mixed results but learning what will and wont work along the way.

yeah. thats the conflicting thing. bigger duration giving more bottom end than a smaller duration...

the head has alll the runners smothed out on the short radius and the bowl has been smothed and the exhaust port has the hump removed aswell as the hump above the guide, would be nice to raise the port but i dont have the time or skill and a suitable welder..

also the squish pads have been removed on both inlet and exhaust. (smothed into the chamber not completly removed)

using standard valves.

my turbo will be "on song" around 5k (35pound) and will be reved to 8500. (want to save the oil pump)

We keep squish bands on all heads, They are slightly revised in shape but always remain.

Again alot of flow bench testing and gradual shaping of the bands gave us the best possible results from the cams we used.

Some like to remove them on big boost engines but each to their own I guess.

Are you going to retain the standard valves??

I know what your saying there Paul..

I have lost count of the R&D dollars I've spent. (shudder to think actually). Lattely we've pushed engines to breaking point on the engine dyno just to try something different. Had mixed results but learning what will and wont work along the way.

We keep squish bands on all heads, They are slightly revised in shape but always remain.

Again alot of flow bench testing and gradual shaping of the bands gave us the best possible results from the cams we used.

Some like to remove them on big boost engines but each to their own I guess.

Are you going to retain the standard valves??

We keep the quench areas on the stage 2's but on the stage 3's we remove one side (wont give away which side on here ive said enough) but this is suited to big boost big horsepower set-up's only i.e. drag engines or dyno queens.

The JUN cams are the shit for nicely ported heads. Besides the initial set-up costs like Paul mentioned making it expensive they are worth using.

We settled for a little more lift after alot of flow bench R&D, but I was really happy with the 272/11.35.

I believe Charlie may have another set with springs and retainers Dave same as the ones I got from him??

too bad their springs are shit

too bad their springs are shit

ive seen them go over 10500rpm constantly and never had a problem with them. I personally have ran them over 9500rpm nearly everytime i start my race engine and they free length and compession tested like new items on strip down.

something a bit more enlightening than saying something is shit would be appreciated.

maybe sometimes items are only as good as the way they are set-up/assembled

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I saw you mention this earlier and it raised a red flag, but I couldn't believe it was real. Yes, the vacuum signal should vary. It is the one and only load signal from the engine to the ECU, and it MUST vary. It is either not connected or is badly f**ked up in some way.
    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
×
×
  • Create New...