The Top Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Resource

Join the best E39A 1991-1992 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 community and document your GVR4 journey.

  • Software Upgraded - Reset Your Password to Login
    In order to log in after the forum software change, you need to reset your password. If you don't have access to the email address you used to register your GVR4.org account, you won't be able to reset your password. In that case, follow the instructions here to regain access to the forum.

Choosing Cams --E3 16g setup--

mean_green

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Park City, MT 59063
Having trouble deciding what cams to go with while I have 1632's motor out...

I've been looking hard at the Brian Cower 272s BUT I want whats best for my e3 16g and I have the impression 272s are starting to get towards too much top end power. I'd like to have as much low end/fast spooling power I can have for fun weekend warriorness. Street and autox mostly, few drag passes maybe.

So my next idea is HKS 264s but the price is so hefty Im torn wondering if I should just go with the BC 272s w the budget I am on and hope for awesome power out of those.

Hopefully someone can point out a few things to get my decision making rolling. My plan is to have my turbo running as close to max as possible while staying in safe street applicable ranges of course. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

TIA,
-Al
 

4thStroke

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
1,864
Location
Vancouver, WA
Stay away from the BC stuff.

Ive had good luck with Comp Cams 272s with my E16G setup. I made 350hp/350tq with the 272s in there and about 24psi out of the 16g. Actually, Lucas English said thats the highest HP 16g car hes tuned on gasoline.
 
Last edited:

curtis

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
11,892
Location
Clarksville TN
I had the original crower 272's and loved them. the lope isn't that bad with 272's and you have plenty of vacuum for brakes etc. As long as you have a afc or something to tune with your fine with a 272.
 

onesickcrx

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
1,076
Location
NY
I have BC 272 in one of my cars I will be switching to Kelford 272's all the back to back tests they seem to out perform everything on the market for the most part
 

Polish

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
8,936
Location
NE, IN
My vote is for either Forced Performance FP1 or HKS 264 or GSC S1 cams for an Evo3 16g powered 4g63.
 
Last edited:

BluFalcon

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
1,312
Location
Wichita, KS
I had FP2's on my GVR4 with a EVO 3 16G for awhile but swapped them out for a set of HK$264's that I got a deal on. Much happier with the 264's since I mostly stay under 6K when I drive the car. The 264's are pretty pricey, but the FP1's are very similar, have a better idle and are a damn sight cheaper. Just an idea. If I hadn't found the deal on the 264's, they're what I would have went with.
 

atc250r

Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
13,235
Location
Orange County, NY
With a turbo the size of an E16 I'd probably go with 264's to keep the cams' power range in line with the turbo's.

John
 

mean_green

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Park City, MT 59063
Yeah I plan on staying in the stock RPMs range, just going for as many supporting mods on my turbo w/ Keydivers help and a little freshening of the block.

Does anyone have experience comparing the difference between the HKS 264s and FP FP1s?

Are the HKS worth the extra money or are the FP1s comparable? FP says something about them having "a little more lobe on it" campared to the HKS 264s. John hit it right on the nose saying keeping the cam power range in line with the turbos, I think thats the route Im going to go.

-Al
 

atc250r

Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
13,235
Location
Orange County, NY
I would say that you definitely will notice a big difference in the top end and you'll be revving it higher than you used to but the stock bottom end can handle it. My stock bottom end used to see 8500 (the rev limit in my chip) on the 1-2 shift with a 264/272 combo and a SMIM and it never complained.

John
 

deez

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
1,150
Location
Chico, CA
For what its worth, I am running the same turbo setup with HKS 262/272 cams it they made a noticeable difference in mid range power. They also did not adversely affect the daily driveability of the car.
 

turbofonz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
475
Location
Granby, MA
I have a dynograph of power being flat from 6500-7500 RPM with a big 16g and BC 272's. Boost was falling but power was staying thanks to the cams. Their cheap and work well enough.
 

cheekychimp

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
7,333
Location
East Sussex, U.K.
Quoting mean_green:
John hit it right on the nose saying keeping the cam power range in line with the turbos, I think thats the route Im going to go.

-Al



I'm no expert, but everything I have researched suggests that if you are not modifying the car quite a bit more a 264/272 combo gives 99.5% of the top end with a much less significant loss of torque lower down. That was the case with HKS cams I'm just not sure how other manufacturer's 272s compare to theirs.

If I recall correctly the 264/272 combo on essentially a stock setup and something like an EVOIII16G netted ONE less horsepower than the 272/272 setup but made something like 10ft/lbs of torque more on the low end. Apparently however all that goes to pot when you start looking at significantly higher horsepower motors because they all make a heap load more torque lower down anyway and simply cannot get enough air with the 264s hence the tried and tested HKS 272/272 combo on many many 500 hp motors/cars.

If you are serious about considering other options though speak to Aaron Rausch. That boy has some funky ideas on cams that got me thinking. I'm already researching a 'ridiculous' lower power high torque engine for when my 2.3 spits a Groden Rod.
 
Last edited:

mean_green

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Park City, MT 59063
The only problem I have w the 264/272 combo or 272/272 is I want to stay in the power range of my e3 16g. My understanding is 272 start making power up top and sacrafice lower end torque, even though its very little torgue if you use the 264 combo I still dont want all my power to be above when my turbo is fully spooled and just helping me finish the gear out ya know. Plus I have a budget Im trying to stay close to and sourcing a cam of each will be spendy for the combo setup. But I would do it if someone can prove this would make a better power range w my setup over just some 264s, FP1s or similiar lower cam.

Id rather have a cam that helps my turbo hit harder down low for autox low end power and street fun.

The AMS cam test doesnt really help me that much, what it comes down to is that 272s are the best combo to go withg for most power and least amount of tq lost it seems and preparing for a different turbo down the road, which I dont plan to do for a LONG time due to my other cars need some attention -lol.
 

Brianawd

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
2,117
Location
Portland OR,
I would say HKS 272/272 or the crower 272/272. The 264/272 is a nice combo but your going to want to upgrade later down the road so just step up now.

Also with the Kelfords. If I remember right there not really a 272. Kelford measures the cams different. I think they are closer to a 280. But I could be wrong.
 

mean_green

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Park City, MT 59063
The thing is I wont want to upgrade for years, I'd rather have a clean, nice reliable (knock on wood) GVR4 that I can drive sporty if I want. Making an all out mean Galant is out of my taste a little, if I wamt something just balls to the wall I'll finish the AWD Colt build I want to undertake before too long or buy an Evo which Ive also been leaning towards.

The info Im looking for now is if the FP1s measure up or are better then HKS 264s since the FPs have more lobe to them, whatever thats suppose to imply. The specs do say the exhaust cam from FP is a little larger opening than the HKS, is that beneficial though?

264s or something close to that size seems that way I want to go since I dont plan to upgrade my turbo until I have a built block and the exterior is immaculate and I want the power range to support the E3 16G spool range etc.

-Al
 

atc250r

Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
13,235
Location
Orange County, NY
Perhaps the best thing about 264's is that they can be found significantly less money than 272's. I have no idea what "more lobe" means either. Are you sure it doesn't say more lope? Maybe more lift?

John
 

mean_green

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Park City, MT 59063
""FPCam1
Compatible with stock springs. Similar to HKS 264 camshaft, but with a little more lobe on it. This camshaft results in very good idle characteristics and is very useful with turbochargers up to 650cfm."" -from click

Im going to try and email them and see what kind of response I get for the explaination of the lobe term and how this is beneficial.

-Al
 

Rausch

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
12,049
Location
Cleveland, OH
^What they are trying to convey is that the lobe design on the FP cam is a bit more aggressive- slightly steeper ramp angle, touch more duration at lift, etc. Same cam lobe design as HKS, but a bit more squared off.


click

Here's all the Kelford info. If it were my car and I was not trying to budget shop cams, I'd go with the 264/260 from Kelford.
 

Dialcaliper

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
1,287
Location
Mountain View, CA
They literally mean "a little more lobe" in all directions (lift, duration at 0.050", ramp rate, etc), but with similar lobe centerlines and overlap.

If you look at FP's website, they have graphs at the bottom showing the actual lobe profile compared to the stock cams
 
Support Vendors who Support the GVR-4 Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Recent Forum Posts

Top