Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've gone from either 256 or 260 Greddy cams to 250 Tomei Type-R's. We matched the response but lost a few ponies top end (probably 20-30hp on moderate boost and 50-60hp at the higher end). I'm actually a little disappointed but now thinking I'll chuck in a set of Type-B 260's that I have sitting at home to see if they are better suited. It's also not a completely scientific comparison because my old head had the intake squish removed and aftermarket head gasket that would have played with compression but I would have thought that would make it laggier if anything.

  • 1 month later...

What size cam would you guys recommend for a stock rb26, twin scroll gtx3576r on e85

I initially planned on keeping standard cams, after reading they are the best choice for response, but while the arp head studs and cam gears are going in, may as well drop in some cams while i'm there?

 

  • 3 months later...

For everyone one that wants to argue the effect a bigger set of cams will have on an engine this shows perfectly what they do

note the duration increase of 20° which is very close to the same as tomei type Bs into an rb26

 

On 4/3/2017 at 10:13 PM, r32-25t said:

For everyone one that wants to argue the effect a bigger set of cams will have on an engine this shows perfectly what they do

note the duration increase of 20° which is very close to the same as tomei type Bs into an rb26

 

except you have a turbine housing and turbine wheel in the way of the exhaust flow which is the biggest bottleneck in making power..and revs..in a turbocharged motor

and is more often the power/rev  cap ...and not the camshaft, more duration just does nothing in that scenario apart from shorten the powerband..

  • Like 1

I was more showing the way it reduces the bottom end and mid range, but everyone in the thread has tried to say that's not the case. 

Yes you will get no where near the improvement up top that engine did and the bottom end/ mid range torque loss will be considerably worse due to only having 2.6L instead of the 6.2 to help hide the issue 

On 6/12/2016 at 10:07 PM, Darmanin10 said:

What size cam would you guys recommend for a stock rb26, twin scroll gtx3576r on e85

I initially planned on keeping standard cams, after reading they are the best choice for response, but while the arp head studs and cam gears are going in, may as well drop in some cams while i'm there?

 

No that's not a reason to drop in some cams (because you can). You need to have a reason in that you know what effect they will have and that its an effect that you want.

On 4/10/2017 at 6:12 PM, KiwiRS4T said:

No that's not a reason to drop in some cams (because you can). You need to have a reason in that you know what effect they will have and that its an effect that you want.

Was always a toss up, whether i get cams or not. Half the people swear by standard cams, half the people say cam upgrades are must haves.

My tuner strongly recommended I upgrade to Tomei Type b's, while he was putting in the head studs, because I told him i was undecided. I wanted a responsive street package, and paired with a twin scroll gtx35 , it is just that.

Get cams that provide more lift as that will produce power, duration will move the power band to the right. 

So (I know Lithium will have a different view) get cams that provide a little bit more duration so the power doesn't nose over early and find ones that provide the most lift possible with your setup (ie head constraints)

Car blew up on the dyno. 

Nah, Cams turned out to be for R33 CAS (neither seller nor I realised this, woops) it should  arrive at Kelford today/tomorrow for modification then be sent back. Expect results next week :(

 

  • Like 1

I like this thread seem like it's right up my alley. So from what I see here a cam with longer duration kills the bottom end. In short if you were to advance the cam, using a adjustable cam sprocket will help out a little bit. But how does a cam with lots of duration relate to ignition timing.

I must admit that I haven't looked over all the comments as I'm at work now. But I sure will put it on my to do list to night.
Great thread.

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

    • Yup but for me its the HR ! Cut my teeth on the old holden 6s in the day ! And here's me thinking in the day it was also the 300ZX and the Mitsubishi GT3000 ! All, as well had good lines, but always seemed to need finishing off, style wise.
    • A 180SX has a much better look than a FD. The roofline is far superior being a fastback. It's popups look better. In a world where we all subconsciously add a little bit of low, and wheels of our preference, it's just more handsome than the FD is. The FD just looks 'bubbly' in comparison. It can come down to preference, sure. But "The FD is the BEST looking (on appearances alone) 90's JDM car without question?" Nah. Plenty of questions lol. I could think of 8 cars I think look fundamentally better, and probably a handful of ones that look about on par with a FD. (like say a SW20 MR2) I feel people like/overrate the FD because of it's mythicality/rarity, its rotary and it's unpredictable nature. It probably drives great, you can stuff a ton of tyre under there, has a unique sound, light as hell. I feel that people reading this thinking "YOU CANT RATE A 180 ABOVE A FD BECAUSE A 180 IS A CHEAP DRIFT BUCKET" prove the point about bias as to what the car represents, moreso than how it actually looks.. I feel the 80's boxy/squared off look is becoming better looking due to time, and 90's melted soap bar aesthetics have not aged well. (yet?) And this thread is purely about looks :p
    • A red or yellow S15 wins my vote, Ack that it just scraps in with the 90's cars theme, but they are great looking little sports car Next would be a A80 Supra (pre face lift), whilst the A80 has its own issues, I feel is the best looking larger GT car As for the FD, "I" feel that the reason it triggers me in a non-positve way when looking at one, is like looking at a high maintenance pretty girl who you know is mentally unstable and likely to explode for no apparent reason
    • Yes, it's because it has hips and bulges on the top/front surface, a tiny cockpit and roof, and the skin looks like it is stretched over muscle. The proportions are....perfect. Long nose, short rear, short roof. What's not to like? It continues the theme started with the S1, that peaked with the FC, being "looking like a front engined Porsche", while gaining a little more of the 60's Mustang coupe profile and stretching the skin more tightly over the understructure. The FD is definitely colour sensitive though. Like all Mazdas. There are plenty of details on it that changed over the years that were either better or worse, could have been done better the first time and/or never changed for the worse. But...the same can be said for the NSX. In fact, that's probably even more true for the NSX. I've also just worked out that part of the reason I don't like the rear of the NSX is that the integrated wing is too similar to that shitful R33 rear wing.  
    • I wonder if people like the FD because it reminds them of old 60's roadsters and such. It just gives me such a 'roadster/soft cruising' vibe as opposed to anything more hard-edged and purposeful. That, mixed with 90's melted soap bar styling. It's hardly ugly, but it's kinda oddly proportioned to me, relative to about 10 other cars I had a think about based on this thread. 
×
×
  • Create New...