CAMS!!! Best for 14B/E3 B16G?

MustGoFaster · 02-28-2005

Well with my WTB thread posted and all the controversy, it look like this is necessary. Here is the basics on what I have and what I want.
Car: 1992 Galant VR4
Rebuilt stock motor, pulled 160-160-160-157 for compression #’s with my old head
DSM SMIC
More fuel than I will EVER need
I use an EEPROM burner to tune, no AFC
Currently has a 14B, ported EX side with a 34MM flapper
2.5 O2 elim, 3" the rest of the way
4 Bolt, Excedy 1900 clutch
Wet 75 shot, NX
PLX wideband
Standard gauges (boost, EGT, OIL pres, oil temp)

Will be getting:
Ported 2G head, with a modded 1G intake mani
Cams
EVO 3 16G when the 14B falls apart.

Goals:
While it is fast, and I want it to be a bit faster, but IT IS NOT MY RACE CAR. I drive it every day in the summer. I am staying with a small turbo because I don't want to deal with getting a bigger IC (even though I should when I go to the 16G) and it is also nice to have power from down low for merging, with out going down to 2nd gear. (around 3K)

I have driven a car with 272’s and a laggy turbo. John’s car, back with the 60 trim. Did I mind it, no. Just not what I am going for. I don’t think I need them.

Idle quality isn't a huge issue, 272's are fine, but will they put the power were I want it?

My reasoning:
Since I am going to have a small turbo, I might as well have cams that don’t move the power band to somewhere the turbo isn’t going to make power. With a 16G you get all of 1HP more, with significant losses in the low end (see above) if you go for 272’s or the like. A bit more many be possible with the EVO 16G, but who knows. Idle quality isn't a huge issue, 272's are fine, but will they put the power were I want it?

So what should I get AND WHY?

unreal808 · 02-28-2005

Stock cams work good.

**scheides** · 02-28-2005

Sorry to sway from the topic at hand, but if you want the spool characteristics of a evo16g and more high end power, there are bigger turbos that fit that bill too, ya know. A perfect example is the gt3251e. 42lbs/min, and spool characteristics would be almost identical to a 16g w/272's (i.e. full spool around 3500 rpms). Prolly save ya a few hundred bucks, too!

otherwise, I vote for the 272's for overall power, quality control, and resale value.

-scheides

MustGoFaster · 02-28-2005

4 words: Isn't 100% bolt on. (the 16G is)

Back on topic! This is about cams. Mods, delete any other off topic posts after this please.

Alpine TSi · 02-28-2005

I am rocking a set of stock MT cams out of a '93, according to what I have seen these are the best of the stock cams. I would say your and my goals are very inline, and the setups will be very similar. Maybe down the road I will upgrade cams, but I have a list of other things to do first. If I did do cams I would probably do 264's, just because of the fact that I won't be revving to the moon anytime soon with a 16G.

MustGoFaster · 02-28-2005

That's what I used to have.

**JET** · 02-28-2005

How about a sleeper 16g? True bolt on and good power.

Where did you get the info about getting 1hp more with 272's and losing a lot of midrange? I am guessing it was the AMS test page. One thing to remember, they maxed out the 16g because they were running higher boost than you could run on pump gas. They probably would have seen a bigger difference on the top end if they did all the testing at 18 psi so that the turbo wasn't maxed out.

niterydr · 03-01-2005

Wow nothing like a moderator taking the post off topic.
I think the milder cam profile should fit the bill quiet nicely. I would check out some spool up testing (if any is available) and research how fast the lift comes on, and if degreeing the cams changes that point drasticly. From what I recall, the 264's were a bit short on the lift and duration, but offered a 'fatter' cam profile, similar to the factory 93 cams. I'll do some digging around and see what I can find.

Speedfreak · 03-01-2005

Some of us already stated our opinions on this topic in the original thread... Again, people are overstating how "lumpy" the idle is, and how wild the profiles are. The 272's are not overkill for any turbo. The info from years ago does not apply to today... that was the stoneages... I had the 272's with my 16g and loved it. The 1hp comment is crazy... One thing I would also suggest is a FMIC... You are going to need it...

TheBlizzard · 03-01-2005

Come on, MO is right on the money. Saying that 272s are going to be overkill is like saying a 20G turbo is unstreetable, because when the 272s came out a damn 50 trim would be almost unheard of on a 4 cylinder car.

On topic:

Ryan if you are worried about a little loss in mid range power and don't think you are going to see much up top with the 272s then I would just suggest saving your money and staying with stock cams. Getting a FMIC instead would benefit your setup a lot more than cams in my opinion.

So my suggestion would be to stay with stock cams and use the money somewhere else just as Alpine Tsi stated in an above post.

CRAIG

MustGoFaster · 03-01-2005

It was 2.1Hp, sorry. And -10 lb/ft of TQ. And remember, I don't have a 16G yet.

Thanks for all the opinions. Any particular reason no one likes the FP (Comp) cams? I know Cher had an issue with his wearing, but I haven't heard of anyone else having issues. They seem pretty good, they are supposedly made on a CNC grinder like HKS’s are.

Also, I am not saying 272’s are overkill. What I am saying is that the 264’s may give me more USABLE power. But, maybe I should just go with something bigger.

Mo, what kind of gas mileage did you get back in the day? Yes, that is a consideration for me.

Josh, it was one line, get off JET’s case.

JET, it’s not my racecar, that’s $400 that could be spent on my racecar. The 16G is plenty for a DD. And I run 20PSI daily.

AMS CAM TEST
Test vehicle:

-1994 Eagle Talon - 5spd

-1991 Motor with roughly 40K miles, stock bottom and top end including head gasket

-Turbo: 16G with ported exhaust housing

-Exhaust Manifold: 2G ported

-Intake Manifold: Stock

-Throttle Body: Stock

-MAF: 1G slightly hacked (screw backed out) with K&N filter & stock turbo intake pipe

-Intercooler: Spearco 2-221 core with custom mandrel bent 2.25" diameter piping.

-Exhaust: HRC O2 eliminator downpipe and 3" exhaust with no cat-conv.

-Injectors & Fuel Control: Walbro 255lph Fuel Pump, 510cc/min injectors & S-AFC

-Boost controller: Ric Gillis Manual boost controller, check ball & spring type.

-Gas: 100 octane unleaded

-Ignition: Stock with NGK BPR7ES plugs, timing set to stock specifications

Cams Tested:

Stock Mitsubishi

Web Cams - Street Grind

HKS 264 intake 264 Exhaust

HKS 264 intake 272 Exhaust

HKS 272 intake 272 Exhaust

Crower - Stage 3 Grind

Jun Stage 3 Grind

Peak Horsepower and Torque Results:

Stock Mitsubishi Camshafts:

Peak HP: 309.5

Peak TRQ: 295.3

Spool up on street: quick, full boost by 3.2K RPM in 3rd gear with good power when off boost and as it's coming onto boost.

Web Cams - Street Grind:

Peak HP: 314.3

Peak TRQ: 295.3

Spool up on street: slower than stock, full boost by 3.4K RPM in 3rd gear with less power off boost than stock cams.

Crower - Stage 3 Grind

Peak HP: 322.6

Peak TRQ: 314.0

Spool up on street: much slower than stock (the worst of all the cams) with full boost hitting by 3.6-3.7K RPM and a definite loss in power off boost compared to stock cams.

Jun Stage 3 Grind

Peak HP: 323.7

Peak TRQ: 323.2

Spool up on street: Car was not driven on the street.

HKS 264 Intake 264 Exhaust

Peak HP: 323.1

Peak TRQ: 333.0

Spool up on street: As good as stock (3.2K RPM), with off boost power the same if not better than stock.

HKS 264 Intake 272 Exhaust

Peak HP: 324.2

Peak TRQ: 333.1

Spool up on street: Slightly slower than stock (3.3K RPM in 3rd gear) and a very slight loss in power in off boost conditions.

HKS 272 Intake 272 Exhaust

Peak HP: 325.2

Peak TRQ: 323.4

Spool up on street: Slower than stock, full boost by 3.4K RPM in 3rd gear with a slight loss in power in off boost conditions.

**JET** · 03-02-2005

I would use the $400 on the race car then and keep the stock cams. My $.02.

**scheides** · 03-02-2005

I'll second JET on that one. stock cams for the DD.

Speedfreak · 03-02-2005

Actually gas milaege was better than stock... when driving casually... of course when I was beating on it... it went down significantly

... but thats also normal...

On the point of the cams, on this car, don't buy them. Not needed for what you are trying to accomplish... A better investment for this car would be a street core FMIC or something similar.

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 03-02-2005

Mo has an AEM EMS, so he is not stuck running 14.7:1 airfuels at cruise like the stock ECU/O2 sensor combo want to for good emissions. You can tune nice and lean for gas mileage with a standalone.

Speedfreak · 03-03-2005

Actually I was talking about when I had the 16g and cams... I just had an afc at that point...

TheBlizzard · 03-04-2005

So since you bought cams, put this thread to rest and post what you bought and why you bought them?

CRAIG

A//// Guy · 03-04-2005

Uh... Craig he did...

TheBlizzard · 03-04-2005

Where? I looked in that forsale thread and he just said he bought some but didn't say what kind or what size unless I missed something.

CRAIG

A//// Guy · 03-04-2005

He was asking if anyone had 272s in his wtb thread at the end... and then he said he purchased some cams... but yea he did not specify.