Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Im in need of cams, simikiar turbos and goals as above.

Have read thread, am now more confused.

Frok what I understand, it Seems like the main 250 options out there are the mines cams, tomei, and there's a few others around with 256ish degrees. Ramp rates on all are up in the air and possibly not the greatest except maybe the mines?

So, what actual cams I can buy to get...

I don't like my sump getting ripped off so I'll pass on the trust extension.

I suppose keeping stock cams isn't something is considered.

Motor is dead, to be replaced by stroker, head is getting a full redo, valve springs, new valves and the like. Turbos will be gtx2860s, similar to -5s but should like more boost.

Still saying stock cams knowing that?

I don't like my sump getting ripped off so I'll pass on the trust extension.

That's a fairly naive view, the sump sits directly between the two front wheels. Although it's not impossible to hit, you have to be fairly pro to manage it

  • Like 1

Leaning towards type R's at this stage. Extra lift and duration should help a tad. Seems like the mines cams are really the go to option, but a purchase price of 1850 bucks plus postage, import duty etc... not so great.

  • 9 months later...

Ok so a bit of an update. I went to 250 Type-R poncams, lost top end (probably 20-30hp at 700hp) and matched bottom end but the old head did have the intake squish removed so it's not a direct comparison.

Type-R cams are now out Type-B cams are in and should get a retune in next few week, so it'll be a direct back to back...

In the mean time I went a little nuts and figured I may as well build my old head so I now have a Tomei 1.2mm gasket, Supertech valve guides, Kelford 270-274/274 10.8mm split intake cam gears, Tomei cam studs and other stuff. So should be interesting how these split lobe jobbies work

  • Like 3
15 hours ago, SimonR32 said:

Ok so a bit of an update. I went to 250 Type-R poncams, lost top end (probably 20-30hp at 700hp) and matched bottom end but the old head did have the intake squish removed so it's not a direct comparison.

Type-R cams are now out Type-B cams are in and should get a retune in next few week, so it'll be a direct back to back...

In the mean time I went a little nuts and figured I may as well build my old head so I now have a Tomei 1.2mm gasket, Supertech valve guides, Kelford 270-274/274 10.8mm split intake cam gears, Tomei cam studs and other stuff. So should be interesting how these split lobe jobbies work

So interesting result so far, went for a drive with the Type-B's (260) today, getting boost 300rpm earlier in 4th gear to the Type-R (250). Was 3900rpm in 4th to get 1.0bar and now it's 3600rpm with the Type-B. No other changes, same tune and cam gear settings...

Go figure, a lot different to what some would lead you to believe :(

  • Like 3

That matches up more so with what Camtech and Kelford told me. 

Both said that I could maintain/improve response, mid range and top end by using one of their cams - both were in the 260-264 duration range and increased lift over stock.

Yet everyone here says more duration = worse response. 

We've got dyno sheets and compression tests that prove how much they ruin the bottom end but yeah go and buy a set cause the placebo effect of the lumpy idle fixes everything :thumbsup:

You're not convincing me one way or the other, there's far too many conflicting opinions and dyno sheets for there to be a clear answer to this. 

 

Every engine/turbo/cam choice/dyno read out combo seems to say slightly different things - As per the above example (which is the opposite result of many of the other examples we've also seen). 

 

On 10/10/2014 at 8:26 PM, Piggaz said:

They're an Alfa Romeo NA lobe which uses a 32 mm base circle (stock lifters). Camtech grind them up.

I'll get the specs one day and post them up. But what we wanted was short duration and biggish lift with an agro ramp rate. HKS step 2 springs wernt enough to keep the bucket on the lobe with anything more than 19 psi and 5700 rpm iirc.

After spinning up a JUN 264 at 10.5 and Tomei 270 at 10.25, Yavuz located this lobe and used it.

There is another set. 262 at 11.3 iirc, once again with an agro rate.

I'll get the finer details next time I'm out there (if he is ok with making the info public).

A couple years on and I FINALLY got a few finer details. I had these doctored myself. Unfortunately I don't have the digits for the JUN and the Tomei shafts. All I got from Yavuz was they are "quite mild".

The 50 thou duration of the UE "260" is 232.34 degrees. That has 10.85 mm of lift.

The Step 2 V cam "264 @ 8.7 mm" was 222.xx. @ 50 thou

I reground the v cam camshaft and it cam back at 229.xx at 50 thou. That ended up having 10.25 mm of lift.

Doing some sniffing around I came across the Camtech "260 @ 9.15 mm drop in" That also has a 50 thou duration of 232. 

http://www.camtechcams.com.au/niss_6cyl_rb26.html

Funnily enough the "264 and 272" set below the "260" has the duration at 50 thou at 230 and 238.

So, a 260 has a 232, yet a 264 has a 230. WTF?

Look at the differences between the camtech and the HKS shafts. Both "264's" but there is 8 degree's difference at 50 thou. Sorta throws a curve ball into the mix huh.

  • Like 1
6 minutes ago, Piggaz said:

Look at the differences between the camtech and the HKS shafts. Both "264's" but there is 8 degree's difference at 50 thou. Sorta throws a curve ball into the mix huh.

:1312_thumbsup_tone3: Yes!  I remember having an extensive debate on this topic with people from here ages ago, just looking at advertised duration tells so little of the picture - if you're throwing advertised duration with no consideration for lift, the cam profile itself, lobe separation angles, where the valve events occur relative to the piston position, other modifications etc then you're not really commenting on something you know enough about to make an authoritative statement on... ESPECIALLY if questioning someone like Kelford Cams whose cams are sitting in the engines of some of the fastest time attack cars in the world, among other things.

There are always trade offs somewhere, but making a sweeping statement about how a car is going to perform regardless of displacement, stroke, compression, porting, manifolding, turbo choice, cam degreeing etc based off longer or shorter duration >.35mm lift is rather silly.

 

  • Like 1

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

    • 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.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
×
×
  • Create New...