Ams Evo Cam Test - Page 16

Turbo Kyle · May 16, 2008, 08:44 PM

Just picked up the second edition of TURBO magazine...looks like the Tomei's ar the kings here. Too bad no testing on the IX cams

riceball777 · May 17, 2008, 02:33 AM

after seeing the results i feel much better about the HKS 272's that i have in my car.

GrocMax · May 17, 2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin@AMS

We put in some FP5R's on a evo 9 - 2.3RR build and they worked really nice, picked up a decent amount over the previous cams. Too bad they're on back order, I got a few peep's waiting on them.

OK you tempted me into becoming a typical EvoM thread polluter. No EvoM carbon credits for me.

Cores for EVO9 cams have been hard to find consistent supplies, next batch of 9 cams is ~60 days out. Hopefully the core supply issue is being resolved.

m4tt VIII · May 17, 2008, 08:39 AM

+1 for gsc s2's getting nice

frenchy99 · May 19, 2008, 01:47 PM

Man! I want to see the result on the FP4R because I am torn between those and the cosworth M2. So I want to see the result so I can make my decision

jbrown · May 19, 2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frenchy99

Man! I want to see the result on the FP4R because I am torn between those and the cosworth M2. So I want to see the result so I can make my decision

The Cossies weren't in the test, so how are Martin's results going to help you decide? Unless of course the FR4Rs fail miserably (which they won't) and unless your car is prepared the same as Martin's (which it isn't) this test is only a general reference anyway.

For example, on a stock head, the BC Stage 2's might be great, but on Martin's modified head, the BC's obviously do not complement the work done to it like some of the other cams in the test do.

Just the same, the GSC S2's were awesome on Martin's car, but on a stock head, they might be just ok.

razorlab · May 19, 2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrown

For example, on a stock head, the BC Stage 2's might be great, but on Martin's modified head, the BC's obviously do not complement the work done to it like some of the other cams in the test do.

The BC cams pretty much suck on the stock head too.

Ph3n1x · May 19, 2008, 03:04 PM

What happened to good ole fashion HKS280's

Ludikraut · May 19, 2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phenix@XtremeBoost

What happened to good ole fashion HKS280's

Depending on how you set them, take away maybe 100 RPM spoolup and add about 20 whp.

l8r)

jbrown · May 19, 2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razorlab

The BC cams pretty much suck on the stock head too.

The stage 3 seemed to perform quite comparably with the HKS 272 (at least on Martin's car) and you can get the BC for a lot less money. That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me, even if you have to buy cam gears, they're still cheaper.

Talonboost · May 19, 2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frenchy99

Man! I want to see the result on the FP4R because I am torn between those and the cosworth M2. So I want to see the result so I can make my decision

Pretty sure this issue is still on the stands, but what the heck here's some of it -
This is from the July issue:

frenchy99 · May 19, 2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonboost

Pretty sure this issue is still on the stands, but what the heck here's some of it:

thanks for the info!

turbo271 · May 20, 2008, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonboost

Pretty sure this issue is still on the stands, but what the heck here's some of it:

Man! I think I was expecting more from the FP4R. I don't know why.

Talonboost · May 20, 2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo271

Man! I think I was expecting more from the FP4R. I don't know why.

Looks like the BC3's were almost identical to the HKS272's all through the rev range. The FP4's were about 10 hp stonger from 5000 rpm all the way to red line, and were a little weaker below 5000 rpm.
I think I know why you were expecting more from the FP4's - it's the way FP wrote the web page for the EVO 8 4R and 5R - "were designed to the outer limits of the valvetrain geometry" and so forth makes it sound like they must be on a whole other level from the previous cams like the 270plus and the 280plus. Well maybe they are but it's not clear to me. And the HKS272's are just drop-in. I do think the FP4's look good though. On the BC3 Martin had to fiddle with the indexing. Had to retard intake 3 deg and advance the exhaust 2 deg.

Gary

Martin@AMS · May 20, 2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonboost

Looks like the BC3's were almost identical to the HKS272's all through the rev range. The FP4's were about 10 hp stonger from 5000 rpm all the way to red line, and were a little weaker below 5000 rpm.
I think I know why you were expecting more from the FP4's - it's the way FP wrote the web page for the EVO 8 4R and 5R - "were designed to the outer limits of the valvetrain geometry" and so forth makes it sound like they must be on a whole other level from the previous cams like the 270plus and the 280plus. Well maybe they are but it's not clear to me. And the HKS272's are just drop-in. I do think the FP4's look good though. On the BC3 Martin had to fiddle with the indexing. Had to retard intake 3 deg and advance the exhaust 2 deg.

Gary

The HKS 272 idles way nicer than the BC stage 3's BTW, so do the FP4R's. They're in between the HKS and BC stg 3's. The graph does not tell all!