|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Chknhwk: Yes they are billet. Very nice pieces much stronger then stock.
With your 3.0L and the good flowing heads id put ballpark around 230-250. Depending on how aggresive you get with the cams. Its always a trade. Bigger cams mean less meat below 2500 rpms everything after that is either about even or much better then stock or svt cams. Id say the stage 3 set would give you the biggest gain without any peak losses. Go bigger then this and your peak torque number will probably start dropping. The 3`s might lope a little also, but not as bad as in a 2.5 because youv got alot more displacement. You might even wanna try a stage 4 if your feeling dangerous. With all the lowend grunt you get with the 3.0 liters of fun. If you traded that for topend. It would be a very dangerous machine. Also If you could get me a flow sheet for your ported heads or tell me how aggressive you ported them I might be able to get you an even better cam setup. Dont be surprised if your injectors get angry and you have to upgrade.
Neilscougar: They`ve already started circulating. There are still a couple people on here who im holding places for on the cam list too. Im hoping they will get in contact with me soon about this.
With the 2.5 id say 185-210whp isnt out of reach. Again depending on how aggresive you want to go. With a 2.5 and a manual Id go really aggresive. The engine doesnt need to be torquey.Like a stage 3 or 4 setup lopey and racey yes but the 2.5 is small and the componets are lighter so your looking at a more rev friendly engine. Use it to its strengths. Thats my opinion.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
Have you heard about the intake cam set pricing yet?
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Letme try to get ahold of him again. Im guessing it will be right at half the price. That would make the most sense. Mayby a little more then half because they have to be special ordered. 7-800 is my best guess Ill let you know as soon as I hear back from him.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,517
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,517 |
What are the gains (if any) of running just the intake cams? BTW, if you do one thing then do something else, then it is then. If one thing is bigger than another then it is than. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
Check on custom grind sets if you would, I'm not sure of the existing profiles for my setup/plans
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
A major piece of the power comes from just the intake cams. The big issue is that you can get basically free horsepower for no loss in torque with a correct sized exhaust cam. Over the stage 2 intake though your going to run into a point where its really nessasary to run an exhaust cam. This is a good option for people who want to run a forced induction system. Lets your engine breath without opening up the overlap. But for N/A you get alot more options for upgrades in the header system. If you make your own headers or get a custom set you can power tune them to a certain rpm band because of the larger over lap. This really doesnt work very well on small overlap cams because there isnt enough time when both valves are open. Plus overlap only badly effects the 2000 rpm and lower area. So by popping in a bigger exhaust cam you loose a couple of footpounds below 2000 rpms and everything else gets bigger. There are not very many upgrades that come with a near free compromise for horsepower. But this one doesnt really sacrifice much so most people get both.
The customs are way too expensive. These cams really cover about everything. They are seperated by 8 degree`s all the way up. Anything less the 8 degrees and I dont think you would really feel or see the diffrence. On average each curve minuses or adds about 3-4 percent in torque. So smaller increments would only be worth 3-4 ft lbs of torque in the in between humps. What are you looking for just exactly?
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
I was considering getting a custom grind that might suit my headwork a bit better. The SVT cams have that 8* you're talking about on the intake side and with my valve options.....I personally think it might be benificial to have the secondary ports open a bit longer. That was the only issue I was having with the currant grinds available.
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
I dont think they would offer a primary secondary cam. Without getting into all that. Their cam lathes arnt setup to where that would be easy to do. I know they are 2000 plus. Especially for a custom setup like that.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
Well that is not an option then. PM sent
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,517
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,517 |
Originally posted by Travis: The customs are way too expensive. What are you looking for just exactly?
Actually, I can get the custom cams for the same price. I'm just trying to get your tuning opinions on these cams.
I'm looking for ~240-250 fwhp NA. With as few drivability concerns as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|