Head and Cams Tech Thread

Oh really? When Aeroforce did a comparison, they were within 50 degrees of one another.

And I have the aeroforce set to an analog probe, and when I read it from the OBDII they're almost spot on.

What else are you misinformed about?

 

I'm still waiting on your proof behind your numbers. Don't go outside the box. Putting your butt dyno to the test. Get some real dyno numbers to your sorted numbers via tuning.

I never mentioned lope or anything of that sort for that matter.

I want to see where these 2.0l's made such a difference with your car as you claim. Where's the proof?

 

I still see no "facts" here.

 

I see your numbers as just that... "numbers".

Just like I can say I made 385hp/390 tq with such and such bolt-ons.

Just like I can say I ran an 11.7 at the track.

It's he said... she said.

Where's your proof? Still waiting...

I called you out and now your trying a reversal game. I didn't post numbers nor claims. YOU did sir, so now I want to see proof and evidence to your numbers you so claim.

 

Nah, what you did was tell me "let me go get Tex and people from SRTForums" because you've yet to form your own factual statement surrounding these cams.

Then you give wrong info about the Aeroforce scan gauge.

When you get something right here, then I'll scan and upload the dyno sheets; until then, you haven't really given me anything to worry too much about in the sense that I have to prove you wrong about anything.

 

Guess you think I'm some Aeroforce Scangauge noob :whistle:

It hasn't been determined where and how the pcm calculates EGT.

50 trim + its 100 degrees off. Which 100 degrees is not by any means accurate. Nor is it the 50 degrees you so claim that Aeroforce tested. I've read the thread...

 

"I don't know" would have been completely sufficient post as opposed to pretending you know what you're talking about.

Now quick, direct me to someone on SRTForums that actually knows a thing or two about this topic!

 

No what I'm telling you at this point is your full of crap. I ask for proof behind your findings. Such proof being dyno sheets. In which you persist to ignore that post and continue off the main subject at hand.

I want to see your proof behind your finding PERIOD. You have no proof then post when you do. I don't want to read BUTT DYNO numbers. As, I, myself, can bolt-on a wga and set it to certain psi spike and "claim" I gained 10 more hp. Without proof its useless.

You show no proof, in which I'm waiting for. Your just spewing make believe numbers at this time so it seems. Since you persist to argue on the matter and "beating around the bush".

Is it so hard to post some sort of proof... like dyno sheets to stand behind your post? If not your posts render no factual information to this thread nor discussion.

I believe I don't have to repeat myself, as I am tired of doing so with someone who is just cutting around the matter at hand.

 

Matter a fact... "I do know". Hence why every single post including your Aeroforce remark about it being only 50 degrees off is false. You once again are spewing numbers. I read the thread and its 100 degrees off. That's about 50 more then what you claim Aeroforce the company who made the gauge posted.

 

You made your request and I made mine; you were the first to give these "facts" before I said anything about being able to provide dyno numbers. Until I see these "facts" out of you, I see no reason for me to waste time in sifting through dyno sheets, scanning them, uploading them and posting them, only to read your rebuttal that would revolve around something like "those aren't accurate because you probably upped the boost or did something else" and then demand videos.

I see you're into DSMs...it's all falling into place now, heh...

 

Is this really your argument? OK 100 degrees off. But remember, you can't trust an OBDII gauge, right? So you don't know.

Probe vs. OBDII via the Aeroforce has just about been spot on. Take it from someone who has the probe and the Aeroforce, instead of giving information from behind your computer monitor.

On that note, I have some business to attend to, so I'll be back later. During the time I'm off, go read up about cams, 2.0l "first impression" specs and the like so you have a clue when I get back.

 

I'm not here to argue as I already once stated and maybe you overlooked that.

What I ask is that you post proof behind your findings. Any other member will and can do the same. Instead of arguing, just post your proof.

You post some information and a member finds it to be false. It happens, its life. People rely on proof before trying something out. Curious people want to know why. That is just how life goes. If you can't handle life matters then I don't know what to tell you. But from adult to adult I ask that you don't go a throw "low blows" by redirecting to other personal matters such as being an ex DSM owner based upon my username. Stick to the matter at hand and if you truly are right then it shouldn't be so hard for you to post factual information and the proof.

From this point forward I will be waiting for dyno sheets of your findings.

 

Sorry for getting that guy started Jesus, I was just letting him know that he shouldn't f with the 2.0 cams, because they're really not gonna be helpful with his mods. Simply stating, that "I" wouldn't go thru the time and trouble over "minimal results" that he yielded. (no need to post dyno numbers, I've been doing this shit too long, go run game on someone else). Otherwise, I'm done with this post. GL with beating on a dead horse Jesus.

 

wow....ok this got interesting.

first off, MOST people go big turbo, then (if ever) get a ems. while i agree that it should be the other way around, that is simply not the mod path that people take. that being said, i still would say that people should focus on other modifications first before messing with cams (fuel, exhaust, w/i, etc).

it's not unreasonable to ask for proof of your statements. you have stated that you "saw" gains from the 2.0 cams, 16's and 18's. it would be a benefit to everyone if you posted the sheets and people could see what the differences were, not just in hp numbers but in powerband and curves. considering that this is a thread about cams, it would be great to see that info. i too would like to see how these cams effected power.....

 

I have not forgotten about this thread; unfortunately my clutch a week after this decided to take a shit along with a few various other things inside the tranny and I have not been able to get some fully tuned numbers for 2.0l cams in comparison to my old 12s and 16s. Once I have done that, though, everyone will be informed.

 

Proof of 3 cam comparisons will be posted in a separate thread, including the 2.0s, once my clutch and transmission problems have been addressed and fixed. I will be pulling it out after I gather the parts I need to fix the problems right now.

Btw, a recent test on the Aeroforce EGT readings DID conclude a 50 degree difference on each reading. 50-100* in OBD vs. direct probe is not bad, imo.

This is where you're just wrong. I have found any cam, when tuned, will be helpful. Even the 2.4l cams have power to be attained if tuned; and a few prestigious vendors and builders have claimed that the 2.4l cams have tunability that can definitely help powerband depending on how they're tuned. Granted it's limited, ANY cam has the potential of being helpful to a build if they're tuned, period. All cams on a non-ported head yield minimal results. Only when you have a ported head will 100% of any cams' potential be reached, so saying "minimal results" in any context is fairly accurate for non-ported heads. Just because some cams give better results than others doesn't mean they're being maxed out.

2.0l cams have a bigger lift than 2.4l cams but the LSA is wider making them not optimal for a turbo application unless they're tuned. By shortening the LSA on the 2.0s, and retarding the cams, you can switch the powerband higher depending on your turbo needs.

And for someone who has "done this a long time" you should understand that if you can do the work yourself, no test and no effort goes without some beneficial results at the end, even if the hardware breaks. In the end, you learn something. Cam swaps are not hard at all. They can be done in under 3hrs easy with all the tools, even if you're running a big turbo and you have to remove it from the manifold and O2 housing to lift up the motor.

Until you have real experience with these cams, your comments are moot in point. You are simply spouting off because they're not direct SRT replacements offered through vendors, and are more of a black sheep cam amongst the many available for the SRT. They're often overlooked, but do not count them out in regards to helping moderate turbos either spool quicker or have a longer powerband.

On a relatively unrelated note, why you were persistant in following me around on the SRTForums and posting in cam threads with no valid information is beyond me. It's pretty evident that you're a benchracer with that kind of childish bologna going on.

No one is saying other paths shouldn't be met, but cams are not the last resort for a modification. A local actually had fantastic results tuning Crane 12s on a totally stock vehicle at the track, retarding the cams and increasing the powerband for that tiny turbo.

I have a strong belief that OHCs should only be installed on cars with head port work.

And to each his own. And if you want to see some good cams, go ahead and toss in some good grinds made for 2.0l DOHC Neons. Or find yourself some CROWER (not Brian Crower) cams.

 

Trans goes back in tomorrow after a complete self-rebuild

Then comes the few hundred miles of stop 'n go break-in for the new clutch and parts and then I will be spending a weekend swapping and dynoing cams for y'all.

 

Months later and nothing...

Okay, so here's the latest on the cams on my wife's car.

Crane 14's w/Fidanza Cam Gears. They were on a 2/3 setting for awhile (didn't lope) and were that way at the last dyno (372whp/423wtq). Since they have been tuned with the DCR Cam Fixture Tool (now lopes). The car feels more responsive (butt dyno) but results will be seen on a real dyno when we get a chance.

We went with Crane 14's because of the quicker spool up and seemed to be the best for a Stage 3 based SRT-4 (per my personal months of research on cams). Unfortunately Crane shut its doors and there's only been the he/she said that they might re-open. An alternative in the BC Stage 2's (IMO). I wouldn't go BC Stage 3 with a stock turbo/S3 vehicle. Its an overkill.

When I finally get to the point of getting my timing belt replaced I will be more then likely going with a set of cams in which point I will be trying out/running the BC Stage 2's. If I didn't get the Crane 14's for my wife's SRT-4 we would have went with the BC S2 for her car setup. It was between those (2) cams at the time.

Everyone has their take/opinion on cams but per my personal research those are two I favor for the setups on both SRT-4's my wife and I own.

 

S2 came are a waste there the same as 2.0 cams and I don't think S3 is over kill for a S3 turbo you will still see gains

 

A little bit far fetch there buddy. You will see more gains with BC S2's then you would with a set of 2.0 cams. Yes, BC S3 are an overkill for a S3 turbo. I should know, I have (2) S3 SRT-4's. I was told a year ago to go with BC S3 and glad I didn't as no gains were seen on a S3 car no matter how the cams were adjusted/tuned on the dyno. I've done plenty of cam research to know. BC S3 are for fully built SRT-4's. Not for some basic S3 setup. You will lose more then gain, might not gain at all.