FAO ANYONE WHO WANTS OR IS THINKING OF GETTING CAMS

[J o n]

no mate, you dont get more power from wilder cams you CAN get more power, but it depends on what cams are best for the engine as most are only effective at higher revs, whereas these have increased the midrange... example, 2 lives car still pulling with no rev limit at 8k plus... mine may peak at 7ish with all the power coming in before. they have not made my car less drivable either, it stutters below 2k in higher gears, but i drive it at 2k most of the time and it's fine there.

it may not be a case of better or worse, but what works for what car and in this case these seem to have worked very well. i'm not the only ones that's been impressed by them. you'll see the difference at some stage, you can drive it as I've said compare it against yours if you want too... give me a chance to adjust my rear view mirror

[Fred]

The wilder the cams the more power but less driveability you get. Hence car manufactueres dont stick wild cams in cars to increase power and no ****er would buy them when they stall at every set of lights.


Agreed?


Its the same for every cam maker, hence why companies like Honda and Ferrari spent millions developing variable cams, so they get the driveability at low RPM, but that wild cam kick at high RPM.

Now, your telling me that Ben has secretely found some secret that Ferrari and Honda engineers missed?


No, the fact is that the more power you get (from wilder cams), the crappier drive your car will be, and the harder it will be to drive. So im sure he can get 30 BHP from wild cams, but the engine will be a pig to drive.

not always true

[KingStromba]

Come on then, im educated, give me scientific reasons please, why you feel it is possible, when Ferrari and Honda engineers think it is impossible.

[KingStromba]

he says the cams make 20-30bhp, properly setup i've no reason to see why they wont, Martin and Jons car's both run around 180bhp, which if i'm not mistaken is 30 up on 150...

Lets say jon started with a healthy Williams engine that seem to put out a few horses over 150 as standard:

155

Lets add 5 bhp for a zorst, decat, fancy valves and cotton filter

160

Lets say 5 bhp found from remap

165

So at best Jon has a 15 bhp gain from cams, which i think is about right. Your claiming Ben could add another 15 BHP to that AND keep the engine driveable?


NO CHANCE

[u33db]

TBH i also don't see how kent/piper etc could have missed a trick on this one...i mean they're cams have all been tried and tested and in each case the higher the duration the more power there is available. I'm not an expert by any means but is it not possible that the car in question was a 'good' example already or was perhaps not running to its full potential beforehand anyway?

How many cars have these gone into and has there been any before and afterwards RR graphs done?

[Lunner]

I think what is trying to be pointed out is that tehse cams give more mid range power than top end power.

Same sort of thing comparing my car (1.8 8v) to a valver, drove a valver for the first tiem the other day and it was gutless under 3k revs, where as mine has loads of torque from 2k revs upwards, its only on teh valver when you get to the higher revs that you get theta kick of power....top end. Some people say that the RSi is faster than the vaver because the power comes in earlier, and it more distributed thhroughout the rev range, how often do you always drive on the limiter, certainly round a very tight, twisty track the engine wiht the torque lower down is going to have an advantage.

Same sort of thing, as is happening above

[Mark_Ritchspeed]

I am also running identical cams as Jesus in the rally Clio. They haven't done a great deal of running as yet, but the few 100 miles I have done so far have convinced me they are the right choice for me.

The car is still on standard timing, but this should be resolved before the track day at Anglesey. The mid-range seems vastly improved over what it was running before and should be even better when properly timed. Top-end seems more eager to hit the limiter than before but the real test is when I have been out testing on the mountain roads near me.

The pull is constantly there from around 3k rpm upwards. Once timed properly, obviously the idle will suffer slightly, but that doesnt concern me in the slightest. As long as it pulls cleanly through the range and frees up some extra horses in the mid-top end rpm, thats all thats important. Idle at the moment is only very slightly lumpy, but hardly noticeable.

As for bhp figures, I'm not sure and in all reality I'm not too concerned. I think Edde was quite surprised how quick mine was when he visited us for brake fitment on his car. How well the cams compare to the Kent's is extremely difficult to determine as you can never be sure how strong different bottom ends are and how much the power on 2 standard engines can vary.

The only definitive way to test, would be to test different sets of cams on 1 engine, but then who is going to actually do that?

[2 live]

he says the cams make 20-30bhp, properly setup i've no reason to see why they wont, Martin and Jons car's both run around 180bhp, which if i'm not mistaken is 30 up on 150...

Lets say jon started with a healthy Williams engine that seem to put out a few horses over 150 as standard:

155

Lets add 5 bhp for a zorst, decat, fancy valves and cotton filter

160

Lets say 5 bhp found from remap

165

So at best Jon has a 15 bhp gain from cams, which i think is about right. Your claiming Ben could add another 15 BHP to that AND keep the engine driveable?


NO CHANCE

re-read the 1st post mate.jon isnt claiming anything other than his cars quicker now than it was.............and i agree...personally id say a 15-20 bhp gain for a couple hundred quid is fukkin mint, a 30 bhp gain for a grand...not so mint......

its all horses for courses mate.iv tried summat diffrent to most williams owners and have passed on my experiences, from there ther is 2 ways people can take it..1 they can do exactly the same as u, or 2 they can do something alternative.

as a group the alternative is better cos that way we get a more unbiased review of what products work and what dont. and we can only learn from ours, or other peoples mistakes

fact of the matter is.....cams work.........full stop.


btw the 2.2 12:1 eng.....bit fukkin slow if it is ben

[KingStromba]

I think before people claim cam A is better than cam B, they should provide some data. Put up or shut up.

Anyone can make idle statements based on 'bridge tests' or 'top speeds'. But in my opinion if a tuning company states a particular cam is 'better' than another, they should dyno test them.

Either provide the data, or stop claiming your cams are better.

[Lunner]

Just waiting for Ben to come on here and post loads of technical information, just to confuse the **** outa stromba, he;ll be sat ther on google for 3 hours trying to work out what ti all means