Cam gear settings..
Cam gear settings..
May 5, 2005, 08:08 AM
#2
Well first off ditch the +2/+2 combo you have.
I am running -3/-3 on a 264/272 combo. I went in increments of -1 (from 0/0 to -3/-3) and yeilded increases in hp and tq throughout. The afrs got leaner as well, but not too lean, maybe 10.8 to 11.1 at boost tip in.
At -3/-3 I also noticed a slight improvement in idle with this setup. I have read about a -1/-4 or -4/-1 combo, though I don't remember which one. This helped people with a 272/272 idle issue.
Just my .02
I am running -3/-3 on a 264/272 combo. I went in increments of -1 (from 0/0 to -3/-3) and yeilded increases in hp and tq throughout. The afrs got leaner as well, but not too lean, maybe 10.8 to 11.1 at boost tip in.
At -3/-3 I also noticed a slight improvement in idle with this setup. I have read about a -1/-4 or -4/-1 combo, though I don't remember which one. This helped people with a 272/272 idle issue.
Just my .02
May 5, 2005, 09:12 AM
#4
What's applicable to a shorter duration (e.g. 264) cam isn't necessarily directly applicable to a longer duration cam, especially where an intake cam is concerned. A longer duration intake cam can generate the same or better power with a more advanced setting.
On the other hand, I agree that a +2/+2 setting is a bit advanced, although that setting has been demonstrated to deliver a wide powerband with quick spooling characteristics when appropriately tuned.
And where tuning is concerned, niggling over cam settings for a car with all those mods and no tuning seems a bit petty, since a good tuning will drop your E.T. by 1/2 second without any other changes.
On the other hand, I agree that a +2/+2 setting is a bit advanced, although that setting has been demonstrated to deliver a wide powerband with quick spooling characteristics when appropriately tuned.
And where tuning is concerned, niggling over cam settings for a car with all those mods and no tuning seems a bit petty, since a good tuning will drop your E.T. by 1/2 second without any other changes.
May 5, 2005, 10:41 AM
#5
Originally Posted by Jorge T
Hey Jon, what were the hp-tq differences? This was done on SGPs hub dyno?
This was done at SGP. Conditions were the same except the heatsoak was not taken into account. We did the runs pretty much back to back. The break in between runs were only as long as it took to change the gear settings. I don't know if you remember my track runs, but the reason why I was posting 1/10th slower numbers was due to the fact we adjusted the gears to +3/+3
. Not a good combo for this setup. 
I will have to check the numbers when I get home, but each negative degree yielded around ~5 to 6 hp/tq.
Last edited by sgplancer; May 5, 2005 at 10:43 AM.
May 5, 2005, 08:29 PM
#6
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cold, Crappy, Boring NH
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thx, gonna try -3/-3... i'm not worried about power gains right now, just want to get everything set for when i get tuned... thanks for tha help
May 10, 2005, 09:32 AM
#7
Just some fyi... I checked my dyno sheets and this is what I produced on simple cam gear adjustments:
0/0 324.1 tq and 290.7 hp
-3/-3 326.2 tq and 309 hp
-4/-4 332.2 tq and 311.7 hp
I don't have copies of the a/f maps, but if I remember correctly, the afrs were close to what I was producing on 0/0 settings. They may have moved a 1/10th to 3/10ths leaner, but nothing too serious.
I would be interested to know what other people are running on cam gear settings. I would imagine that -5/-5 would produce more power, but how high or low can you go on the cam gear settings?
0/0 324.1 tq and 290.7 hp
-3/-3 326.2 tq and 309 hp
-4/-4 332.2 tq and 311.7 hp
I don't have copies of the a/f maps, but if I remember correctly, the afrs were close to what I was producing on 0/0 settings. They may have moved a 1/10th to 3/10ths leaner, but nothing too serious.
I would be interested to know what other people are running on cam gear settings. I would imagine that -5/-5 would produce more power, but how high or low can you go on the cam gear settings?
Trending Topics
May 10, 2005, 09:45 AM
#9
I've also dynoed cam gear adjustments, but whereas you changed the lobe centers equally, I performed a quick A/B test using both a lobe center and LSA change with a set of HKS 272s:
(Converted to approx. Dynojet numbers)
-3/-3 300tq - 343whp
-4/-1 302tq - 350whp
The difference here is the widened lobe center and retarted setting made a nominal increase in power. However, this came at the expense of almost 200rpm. The -4/-1 setting made the car idle like a stocker, and cleaned up considerably at low rpm.
A fellow member A/B'd a series of adjustments with HKS 280s, but it's embedded in a lengthy thread (somewhere in the archives now).
You can retard the cam gear settings to a point - that being indicated where it runs poorly enough at low speeds as to be unbearable. Check the difference in your spool time as well because there is a tradeoff.
(Converted to approx. Dynojet numbers)
-3/-3 300tq - 343whp
-4/-1 302tq - 350whp
The difference here is the widened lobe center and retarted setting made a nominal increase in power. However, this came at the expense of almost 200rpm. The -4/-1 setting made the car idle like a stocker, and cleaned up considerably at low rpm.
A fellow member A/B'd a series of adjustments with HKS 280s, but it's embedded in a lengthy thread (somewhere in the archives now).
You can retard the cam gear settings to a point - that being indicated where it runs poorly enough at low speeds as to be unbearable. Check the difference in your spool time as well because there is a tradeoff.
May 10, 2005, 09:53 AM
#10
Originally Posted by sgplancer
Just some fyi... I checked my dyno sheets and this is what I produced on simple cam gear adjustments:
0/0 324.1 tq and 290.7 hp
-3/-3 326.2 tq and 309 hp
-4/-4 332.2 tq and 311.7 hp
I don't have copies of the a/f maps, but if I remember correctly, the afrs were close to what I was producing on 0/0 settings. They may have moved a 1/10th to 3/10ths leaner, but nothing too serious.
I would be interested to know what other people are running on cam gear settings. I would imagine that -5/-5 would produce more power, but how high or low can you go on the cam gear settings?
0/0 324.1 tq and 290.7 hp
-3/-3 326.2 tq and 309 hp
-4/-4 332.2 tq and 311.7 hp
I don't have copies of the a/f maps, but if I remember correctly, the afrs were close to what I was producing on 0/0 settings. They may have moved a 1/10th to 3/10ths leaner, but nothing too serious.
I would be interested to know what other people are running on cam gear settings. I would imagine that -5/-5 would produce more power, but how high or low can you go on the cam gear settings?
May 10, 2005, 10:32 AM
#11
how did it run at -4/-4? was it laggy?
Originally Posted by sgplancer
Just some fyi... I checked my dyno sheets and this is what I produced on simple cam gear adjustments:
0/0 324.1 tq and 290.7 hp
-3/-3 326.2 tq and 309 hp
-4/-4 332.2 tq and 311.7 hp
I don't have copies of the a/f maps, but if I remember correctly, the afrs were close to what I was producing on 0/0 settings. They may have moved a 1/10th to 3/10ths leaner, but nothing too serious.
I would be interested to know what other people are running on cam gear settings. I would imagine that -5/-5 would produce more power, but how high or low can you go on the cam gear settings?
0/0 324.1 tq and 290.7 hp
-3/-3 326.2 tq and 309 hp
-4/-4 332.2 tq and 311.7 hp
I don't have copies of the a/f maps, but if I remember correctly, the afrs were close to what I was producing on 0/0 settings. They may have moved a 1/10th to 3/10ths leaner, but nothing too serious.
I would be interested to know what other people are running on cam gear settings. I would imagine that -5/-5 would produce more power, but how high or low can you go on the cam gear settings?
May 10, 2005, 10:34 AM
#12
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central MA
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sgplancer
Well first off ditch the +2/+2 combo you have.
I am running -3/-3 on a 264/272 combo. I went in increments of -1 (from 0/0 to -3/-3) and yeilded increases in hp and tq throughout. The afrs got leaner as well, but not too lean, maybe 10.8 to 11.1 at boost tip in.
At -3/-3 I also noticed a slight improvement in idle with this setup. I have read about a -1/-4 or -4/-1 combo, though I don't remember which one. This helped people with a 272/272 idle issue.
Just my .02
I am running -3/-3 on a 264/272 combo. I went in increments of -1 (from 0/0 to -3/-3) and yeilded increases in hp and tq throughout. The afrs got leaner as well, but not too lean, maybe 10.8 to 11.1 at boost tip in.
At -3/-3 I also noticed a slight improvement in idle with this setup. I have read about a -1/-4 or -4/-1 combo, though I don't remember which one. This helped people with a 272/272 idle issue.
Just my .02
May 10, 2005, 02:02 PM
#13
Damn I didn't know I was going to open this big a$$ can of worms
All of the tests were done on a dynapak dyno, under same conditions (tuning wise and on a UTEC BTW) only heatsoak would be a factor. The inital run was 0/0 and the idle was somewhat stable. Full tq, which is where full boost comes on, was seen at the following rpms:
0/0 3345rpm
-3/-3 3356 rpm
-4/-4 3364 rpm
The car feeling laggy and what not was not tested as the car was on the dyno. I was running the -3/-3 at that time until I good get in some more dyno time at the shop. They had to boot me off of the dyno for a paying customer, as I wasn't.
All of the tests were done on a dynapak dyno, under same conditions (tuning wise and on a UTEC BTW) only heatsoak would be a factor. The inital run was 0/0 and the idle was somewhat stable. Full tq, which is where full boost comes on, was seen at the following rpms:
0/0 3345rpm
-3/-3 3356 rpm
-4/-4 3364 rpm
The car feeling laggy and what not was not tested as the car was on the dyno. I was running the -3/-3 at that time until I good get in some more dyno time at the shop. They had to boot me off of the dyno for a paying customer, as I wasn't.
Last edited by sgplancer; May 10, 2005 at 02:12 PM.