Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Help with Camshaft Choice

Hi Guys n Girls

Ive got a new engine in the build, and my machine shop wants a set of camshafts so they can mock the engine together in the workshop to ensure all the clearances are correct before they hand it all back over. So the decision for a cam, spring, retainer package has become abit important. 

Anyway the setup is as follows, 

Spool 2.8 stoker, 

86.5mm pistons factory comp

1mm oversized tomei Valves 

plan to run a EFR 9180 - 1,0 rear

and all the other bits like ross trigger setup, 6boob twin scroll, twin 3inch exhaust, HKS 100 cooler, E85 blah blah blah. 

The main things are the items listed.

As the car is a street car, and will be driven on the street, i dont really want 280-290 Dur cams with 12mm of lift that makes the car a complete pig, i understand the 9180 is not going to be a v8 when putting around town so we dont need to go there. 

Ive spoke to Camtech and Kelford and they both guide me down the mega cam path, i think to myself surely i can go somthing alil bit lighter on, specially with the 1 mm over sized valves. 

 

Ive looked into the JUN high lift low Dur cam packages, but dont want to use crappy jap springs..

272 dur 11.35mm lift  

The JUN cams call for a 1.5mm offset retainer. 

And also have a 29mm base circle, which im guessing will call for thicker buckets as the factory base circle is 32mm.

 

Anyway, im sure someone out there has gone though the same situation so id like to hear your thoughts and suggestions. 

 

 

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/466942-help-with-camshaft-choice/
Share on other sites

I would not go past ~270°, preferably 260.  And fit as much lift into that duration as possible.  So from Camtech, that would be something like their CTRB26 413B.

Unigroup have a 260° cam with 10.8ish mm lift.

 

You're going to need the very best Ferrea or Supertech springs with the Unigroup cams, because they have a fairly aggressive ramp rate.  Probably still need them with the Camtech cam I listed also.

  • Like 2

Its only a tiny 67mm  turbo..you dont need 272 cams on any rb unless you put a something in the 74mm + size  turbo wise. I still woudnt use them then

unless it was for drag racing..

Something in the 260 to  mid 260;s is going to be nicest choice. Id use 260s, but thats just me..

Rb street cars work best with...small cams..decent size turbo with really good turbine flow. let the turbo make the power..

 

small  Cams will bring it on earlier..high flowing turbine/exhaust housing  will make power hold on up top due to less backpressure..not camshafts

cheers

darren

Edited by jet_r31
  • 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

    • Yeah, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
×
×
  • Create New...