I have had the cams in for about 1,000 miles and so far they are great....but I am still having boost issues. Now the boost will not go above 15 psi. That being said, I am working out the issues and I am scheduled for a tune with AMS in July. I will have dyno sheets at that time as well.
I can say the idle on the cams is not much different than stock...the new idle is just a hair choppier. I don't have any stalling problems and the power ( Even at the low boost) is impressive.
Well, for what it is worth, I was tuned and dynoed at AMS ( Great Shop, Great people, great service). I ended up with 334 awhp and 312 awtq at 22 psi. You can see on the chart before the tune was 294/ 279. I was happy with the numbers. I asked the tuner about the BC cams compared to the HKS and he told me that they had not tested them, but, in my car's case, it appeared they made a little less peak power than the HKS would have. Not bad for about $250 less.
My mods: Evo IX turbo, 272/272 Brian Crower Cams, ETS 3.5 intercooler, ETS lower intercooler pipe, Ebay O2 housing, Works 2.75 Downpipe, Works Resonated testpipe, Tanabe Med. Cat back, 255 fuel pump, Cone intake filter.
Yeah, that's pretty disappointing with all those mods, but it's hard to say if the cams are holding it back or something else. The IX turbo, ETS FMIC, ETS LICP, SS O2, and FP are all good. The Works exhaust bits aren't the best for power, nor is the Tanabe cat-back, but I don't think they'd make a big difference.
Do you know what your boost was on this 334whp run? With WTQ of only 312, it looks like your peak boost was fairly low (20psi?).
Also, instead of comparing with HKS, it's best to compare with GSC and Comp, because they are both cheaper than HKS by $100 or more but make the same power.
It was at 22 psi. I am not disappointed in the least. This was the power I was looking for. I like the Works stuff for the fit and finish...the Tanabe is so I don't look or feel like a 15 year old driving my car. The droning of most other exhausts gets old very quickly. So I lose some power, the trade off is worth it for me.
On this dyno, another Evo 8 with different mods ( fuel injectors, 272/272 HKS cams, no IX turbo. other stuff basically the same) made 317 awhp and 324 awtq. They told me my car made about what a comparably modded Evo IX would make on this dyno. Comparing dynos in different areas is pointless....I am going to track it in a couple of weeks and I'll see how I improved there.
Yeah, that's the same thing I was saying about the exhaust bits. Not the most powerful, but also far off enough to really be a hindrance. 22psi is very surprising, because with 22psi, your peak torque should be as high or higher than peak whp unless they specifically detuned the peak boost area with low timing.
Comparing different dynos is not pointless when you're already intimately familiar with what cars dyno and trap on many different dynos, including the AMS dyno. I am speaking from tons of experience on seeing what cars dyno and trap at AMS, Buschur, and many other dynos of all types, correction factors, altitudes, etc. I have personally dyno'd on 5-6 different dynos and know how my traps speeds compare to each. Based off all that knowledge, I consider 334whp disappointing for those mods although not terrible by any means. Now, if you trap 115, then I will give a big thumbs up and change my mind, but I expect that you will trap 112-113.
When you hit 12.705 @ 109.32, what mods did you have and what dyno numbers did you have? I was going to assume it was the same setup as the 294whp/279wtq setup (current mods untuned), but that's a big assumption. I checked your timeslip for a date reference, but it shows an old 12.9 @ 105 from late November, hah (just like my timeslip)..
OK. Just going off of what I know, I think the numbers are pretty good..but your idea of good and mine are two separate things. I do not have the dyno time that you have.
The mods I have listed are correct for the time slip that I have. They are also correct for the [email protected] 109.
I never got to run the car with the current setup. I had that boost problem from an e mail flash. I flashed it and the boost was high from the start but the e mail flasher told me my gauge was probably wrong.....so after I nuked my stock turbo because of my "overboosting gauge"..I added the other parts. So I had them tuned before I got to do a before run.
If you could do it all over again would you buy the Crower's? I am in the market and I must admit the price is appealing. I am seriously considering theese cams. But hear nothing but good things about the GSC's.
What would the BC's do with an upgraded turbo? Do you think they would produce good #'s?
I would buy them again. I think for the price, they are not that much different from the HKS's. That being said, I have never had the Hks or any other cams for that matter. I still have not been to the track, but the car is making great power and it idles very close to stock. I got them for half of the price of any of the other cams out there.
I could just speculate about what they might do with an upgraded turbo. My belief is they would do as well as the HKS cams. The GSC's are gaining quite an internet rep, but I don't know anybody personally that is using them.
I might be flipping a coin on this one. All my sensibility says to go w/ the GSC's. I am a firm believer in "getting what you pay for". But I also can't seem to find any good reason not to go w/ the BC's. Crower has always been a good name in Cam's. And you cannot beat the price.
Maybee I'll just run one of each.............................................. ...JK
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.