IX cams - Page 3 - Mitsubishi Evolution Forums: Mitsubishi Lancer Forum
Mitsubishi Evo Forum Mitsubishi Evo Forum Header Right
 

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Mitsubishi Evolution Forums: Mitsubishi Lancer Forum > Lancer Evolution Tech Forums > Cylinder Head & Short Block
Register Forum Active Topics (T) Gallery Auto Loans Classifieds Garage Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowInsurance Advertise

Cylinder Head & Short Block Cams, valvetrain, pistons, rods, stroker kits, swaps, etc. Advanced modification discussions only.

EvoTuners.net is the premier Mitsubishi Evolution Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-08-2007, 12:49 PM   #31 (permalink)
 
Warrtalon's Avatar
 
Timeslip: 11.510 @ 115.12
Dynosheet: 367whp/386 lb-ft
Club Region: Rocky Mountain
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,506
Images: 12
Reputation: Warrtalon is an unknown
Send a message via AIM to Warrtalon
The HKS exhaust cam is not for the IX really - it's just that IXs and VIIIs use the same exhaust cam.

Antisocial, Cosworth did have exhaust cam problems at first, but those were resolved.





__________________
[email protected] - PMI
[email protected] - Bandi
Offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-08-2007, 02:05 PM   #32 (permalink)
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: antisocial is an unknown
I'm aware of their early problem.
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2007, 02:43 PM   #33 (permalink)
 
Warrtalon's Avatar
 
Timeslip: 11.510 @ 115.12
Dynosheet: 367whp/386 lb-ft
Club Region: Rocky Mountain
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,506
Images: 12
Reputation: Warrtalon is an unknown
Send a message via AIM to Warrtalon
You said you hadn't heard of one failure on a IX, which is why I mentioned it. There were several early failures, but it no longer seems to be a problem.





__________________
[email protected] - PMI
[email protected] - Bandi
Offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 05-08-2007, 03:18 PM   #34 (permalink)
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 442
Images: 2
Reputation: JustDSM is an unknown
I'd hardly call it a "failure". It wasn't a material breakdown or something of that nature that the early (DSM) Web Cams had with the lobes wearing. Even some Crowers have been noted to have a material "failure" in which the lobes wore prematurely. In Cosworth's case it was a simple machining process that did not allow the CAS trigger wheel to seat properly in the cam. It was, as you said corrected very early on. I would hardly base an assumption that these cams are "faulty" based on that alone.
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 06:43 PM   #35 (permalink)
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 9
Reputation: Boostoff is an unknown
Make sure that your cam is made for the stock valves and valvesprings if you are not upgrading too. Some cams can damage those parts if they are too agressive or manuf. to be coupled with aftermarket sets.
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 08:13 AM   #36 (permalink)
EVOtuners Member
 
Car: 06 EVO
Club Region: Tri State
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 34
Images: 17
Reputation: EVOBR350 is an unknown
Send a message via AIM to EVOBR350
Just to add, I just had the Cosworths installed, with other upgrades such as a gt35r, but I love the cams. Even Buschur recommends the Cosworths over the gsc's anyday. They said they've had better tunes and overall performance with the cosworths. I see both cams putting up good numbers, but like you said if your looking for overall rpm gains then go with the Cosies!
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 11:30 AM   #37 (permalink)
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: antisocial is an unknown
Mine are funny, my whp is low but my torque is great. Go figure.

BTW, my torque was 30 higher than my whp.
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 04:01 PM   #38 (permalink)
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 22
Reputation: kreionic is an unknown
Heres my before and after graph. Same dyno, same mods, same boost. This dyno pull was about 15* warmer than me previous run. The only thing that changed is the cams and retune. They are the gsc S1

Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 05:24 PM   #39 (permalink)
 
Warrtalon's Avatar
 
Timeslip: 11.510 @ 115.12
Dynosheet: 367whp/386 lb-ft
Club Region: Rocky Mountain
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,506
Images: 12
Reputation: Warrtalon is an unknown
Send a message via AIM to Warrtalon
Kreionic, we need to know the CF for each run, too. Did you confirm the boost was the same using a MAP sensor? 24.77psi is awfully high for 93oct.





__________________
[email protected] - PMI
[email protected] - Bandi
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2007, 05:26 PM   #40 (permalink)
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 442
Images: 2
Reputation: JustDSM is an unknown
Regardless of the correction factor, the gains are solid and throughout the powerband. Impressive!
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 02:41 PM   #41 (permalink)
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 22
Reputation: kreionic is an unknown
Warrtalon I am not sure of what Cf Mike uses. I cant say for sure that they have the same map sensor on the dyno they had 3 months ago. I have the jdm map sensor in my boost was identical on both runs. Honestly yes 24.7 psi is high no argument there but. I have done alot of logging and theres no issues at all. During the tuning on the street we were seeing what boost the car could take. I was up to 25-25.5 psi again without issues. After 8 pulls on the road I still only had a few randoms 1 knock counts but they were never is the same spot in the logs. I will gladly post up logs with map and afr readings
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 02:48 PM   #42 (permalink)
 
Warrtalon's Avatar
 
Timeslip: 11.510 @ 115.12
Dynosheet: 367whp/386 lb-ft
Club Region: Rocky Mountain
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,506
Images: 12
Reputation: Warrtalon is an unknown
Send a message via AIM to Warrtalon
Quote:
Originally Posted by kreionic View Post
Warrtalon I am not sure of what Cf Mike uses. I cant say for sure that they have the same map sensor on the dyno they had 3 months ago. I have the jdm map sensor in my boost was identical on both runs. Honestly yes 24.7 psi is high no argument there but. I have done alot of logging and theres no issues at all. During the tuning on the street we were seeing what boost the car could take. I was up to 25-25.5 psi again without issues. After 8 pulls on the road I still only had a few randoms 1 knock counts but they were never is the same spot in the logs. I will gladly post up logs with map and afr readings
If your map sensor showed identical boost as before, then that's all that matters.

It's not really a question of what CF Mike uses - it's a question of what the dyno calcultaed. I doubt they randomly choose their own CF, but I guess it's possible - Dynomites are rare, so I don't know anything about how they operate. I was only asking about the CF to make sure they were the same both times.

As for running high boost, you can run almost any boost you want if you pull back the AFRs and timing enough, so it's not a question of how high can you turn up the boost without knocking. It's a question of how much timing can you get away with for a given boost. Anyway, the power is good, and the gains are great, although they are very atypical. I am wondering what made such a difference on your car.





__________________
[email protected] - PMI
[email protected] - Bandi
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 02:56 PM   #43 (permalink)
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 22
Reputation: kreionic is an unknown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrtalon View Post

As for running high boost, you can run almost any boost you want if you pull back the AFRs and timing enough, so it's not a question of how high can you turn up the boost without knocking. It's a question of how much timing can you get away with for a given boost. Anyway, the power is good, and the gains are great, although they are very atypical. I am wondering what made such a difference on your car.
Your are 100% about the trade off with timing vs. boost My AFRs are about 11.5- to 11.2 at redline. I am running about 4* peak and 13* up top. Mike said they same thing about my car when I was there. Who knows if I have a freak or my tune is just solid either way no complaints here No I was not tund at AMS. I wasn't interested in peak gains at all although it was nice to see it pick up there but my main concern was the powerband and these cams really seemed to shine there with my car.

I am hoping to get back to Summit and VIR soon to see how the cams are on a track in comparison to stock cams.

I wonder since I am running pretty high boost if an upgraded IC would be in order? I have never been a believer about upgrading the IC on the stock turbo but this has me wondering? Whats your take?
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 03:21 PM   #44 (permalink)
 
Warrtalon's Avatar
 
Timeslip: 11.510 @ 115.12
Dynosheet: 367whp/386 lb-ft
Club Region: Rocky Mountain
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,506
Images: 12
Reputation: Warrtalon is an unknown
Send a message via AIM to Warrtalon
Yeah 4-13 is very weak, so that explains why you are able to run so much boost, although it's surprising your peak torque is so low with so much boost. At around 22psi, we usually start seeing more peak tq than peak hp, but it of course depends on the tuning style and other mods.

Anyway, on 93 when I was on stg1 mods at sea level, I would always tune to 19-20* peak timing at 7k or so, and 24* on race gas. However, I ran less boost on race gas than you do on pump.

I don't think you'll notice much difference on track due to cams, because power is a very small part of the equation. Driver mod, suspension, and tires are the most important factors.

Instead of doing a larger FMIC to make up for the high boost, I'd run 22-23psi with nice timing, but there's more than one way to skin that cat. An FMIC may very well be good for you at this mod level. I definitely need to upgrade mine, but that's because I'm pushing the stock turbo to its limit - that limit is much lower at this altitude than where you are.





__________________
[email protected] - PMI
[email protected] - Bandi
Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 03:40 PM   #45 (permalink)
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Posts: 22
Reputation: kreionic is an unknown
Like I told you in a PM but maybe some people will find this useful. I was referring to peak timing being at peak tq. My bad people. At peak timing I am at 13* like warrtalon said its pretty tame timing. I will take his advice and play around with lower boost and raising timing and going back to the same dyno for comparison after the tune is fuinished up again with higher timing less boost
Offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:34 PM.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
© 2007 AutoForums.com - EVOtuners.net - All Rights Reserved.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.