Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

a 272 is one of them poxy ass hks cams though...youd want something like a 270 from tomei :laugh:

me personally i wouldnt go any lower than 270 10.25, i've be more inclined to go with the 10.8, depends on the rev limit too though

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220927-cams/#findComment-3895690
Share on other sites

Mine has Jun 272 / 10.5 inlet and 280 / 10.8 exhaust. I didn't fit larger exhaust valves to this head and the longer exhaust duration and higher lift is there in an attempt to compensate for the standard mismatch in valve sizes.

Cheers

Gary

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220927-cams/#findComment-3898037
Share on other sites

so going the larger lift is fine?

Why do you think it might not be fine?

Plenty of clearance to the piston crowns, if that's the question.

i thought it might get to crazy

Too crazy for what?

The extra 20% capacity of the 3 litre makes smooth what feels like lumpy cams in a 2.6.

im happy to go larger if need be

More lift won't hurt, but I wouldn't be going for more than 272/280 duration, the RB30 doesn't need the rpm range that longer duration would provide.

is it worth mixing up the overlap?

An often argued question, for which I don't believe there is one correct answer. I only went for the longer duration so that I could get the higher lift on the exhaust cam as I know the exhaust valves are too small in proportion to the inlet valves. For the RB25.5 I used larger exhaust valves with the same lift and duration cams on both inlet and exhaust.

Cheers

Gary

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220927-cams/#findComment-3898561
Share on other sites

sounds like 270 10.8 lift both sides

ill be upgrading valves all round

head guy said 10.2 lift is easy and when you go 10.8 it gets alot tighter( eg more bucks! mainly due to more work and more expensive springs becasue of potential bind and rates)

anyway bigger is better and faster

hopeully all teh head work will fully utalise the gtrs's

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220927-cams/#findComment-3901159
Share on other sites

What is the limiting factor stopping you going bigger?

other then having no lift available bigger then poncams 260 for NEO i was also told by spool who is using same head. Cant exactly remember how he explained but its the way the Head is design. You think they are too small?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220927-cams/#findComment-3907189
Share on other sites

other then having no lift available bigger then poncams 260 for NEO i was also told by spool who is using same head. Cant exactly remember how he explained but its the way the Head is design. You think they are too small?

No, its just that im about to fit larger lift cams to a neo head(already dummy fitted them) from an rb26

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220927-cams/#findComment-3907238
Share on other sites

No, its just that im about to fit larger lift cams to a neo head(already dummy fitted them) from an rb26

thats interesting. what lift are your cams? As a matter of fact mine are GTR cams aswell. NEO head has similar solid lifter design to rb26. Cams are fully bolted in and head assembled with no problems. Apparently any lift bigger then 9.3 ish exposes the oil something or rather. Anyone know what kind of power levels the poncam can or have supported?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/220927-cams/#findComment-3909786
Share on other sites

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

    • Well.... it's not just "de-oxygenating". If you do that you just have, most likely, ethane. So you still need to do a synthesis step to combine a number of ethanes/ethanols to make circa-8-chain hydrocarbons. And of course you don't want straight chain HCs, because n-octane actually has a negative octane rating (ie, it's worse even than the n-heptane which sets the zero on the octane scale!), so you have to do some tricky catalytic chemistry to synthesise branched HCs. That's all doable - but it doesn't come for free. And.... it starts with ethanol, which is an agricultural product, and there will almost certainly never be enough of that as a base stock to replace the liquid fuels that are in use. You really wouldn't want to be planning to be using any more ethanol for fuels than is currently already used (in E10, E85s, etc). And ideally you'd be looking to reduce such usage, as it is largely wasteful, particularly in the stupid-ole'US-of-A where the corn lobby has organised it so that it's actually primary production corn that is used to make a lot of the ethanol, not by-products and waste, like it is (mostly) elsewhere. So, what I said about needing free-ish energy probably still applies. True synth fuels would be made from H2 and CO2, in a near reversal of the combustion process. In fact, given that the H2 would be split from water first, it actually is a complete reversal of the combustion process. But...energy intensive. The human race burns something like 1 cubic MILE of crude oil, after it has been made into various fuels. Every year. That's a simply stupendous amount of energy. Just assume that the density is 900 kg/m3, and that the calorific value is 45 MJ/kg, then that is 165.9 x10^12 MJ of energy. Or more than 10^19 Joules. You get a maximum of 1 kJ/s per square meter solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, and so if you halve that for daylight, and halve it again for average weather (highly optimistic) and then take ~25% for the very best efficiency of solar panels, then you need about 85.7 billion square metres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to replace that liquid fuel energy consumption. Each panel is about 1m2. That's a rather large number of panels. We also burn about a cubic mile of coal. We also use hydroelectric power. We also use nuclear. We also use a number of other sources, both "renewable" and not. You can kind of ignore the renewable ones (except for hydro, because it will all end up getting subsumed into pumped hydro for storing other renewables, and so it won't be the standalone renewable that it originally was), so we end up needing a multiple of the ground area number that I just arrived at.
    • Corvette thread then? Don't say I didn't predict the future again. "I love the little MX5, I do, but I just want something a little easier to get in/out of, a little more cushy and some power would be nice - I miss the V8 Rumble... I found this clean red C5 for sale recently and..." I'll do you a great deal on the next step, which is one of those but you can fit people in it, too.
    • What about renewable diesel and/or gasoline? I see some projects spinning up like de-oxygenating ethanol to make drop-in compatible bio-gasoline especially in CA. I still think the future is EVs and we should've all gone full throttle on nuclear power after the 1973 oil crisis like France. Despite 15 years of work in CA to reduce the CO2 intensity of generation with renewables our electric grid is still far worse than even "low carbon" nuclear power. ICE is pretty cool when you aren't depending on the stupid thing to be practical and reliable and cheap as possible to get you to work every day. It's kind of like mechanical watches or vacuum tube amps.
    • I just rolled over "my" first 10k km in the MX5 Every time I go anywhere it always ends up in a adventure to look at houses and find some random country roads I've been on leave since early November but unfortunately need to go back to work on 19 January Luckily though I still have a fair chunk of leave left to burn until.... Not that I'm counting 馃榿
    • These look like S13 wheels.  And Welcome! 
  • Create New...