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.

Cam shaft choices.

cheekychimp

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
7,333
Location
East Sussex, U.K.
When I first came on this board, all I ever really heard about was HKS cams. Now it seems there are a lot more choices around but are any of them suited to mildly tuned engines. On a relatively mild tune with an EVO III 16G or Small 16G for a daily putting out say 320-350 horsepower, is it worth messing with the cams?

I'm going to go with a 3.909 ratio transmission in this car so we are talking low end and mid range with faster acceleration and lower top end speeds.

I've read the previous infamous cam test shootout quite a few times and it still seems that the 264/264 or 264/272 is the best option for this level of tune. I appreciate as many have pointed out that as power increases the benefits of the 272/272 combo rapidly comes into play but for this car I really don't think I'm going to make enough power to take advantage of them.

Are the benefits worth it for a 300+ hp car or are stock cams best for taking advantage of quick spool up and midrange?
 
Last edited:

mitsuturbo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
3,551
Location
Near Seattle, Washington
With a low geared transmission like that, i think you'd probably benefit even more from the top end a set of cams could give you.

Best i know of are the Kelford and GSC cams. Of course, i only did my research about 5 months ago, but i went with Kelford. I've yet to actually run them, but numbers looked good. We'll see if they're actually better than the FP2x. I'm betting they are.
 

4thStroke

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
1,864
Location
Vancouver, WA
Primarily, the only thing the larger cams are going to do is move the power up the powerband.

If you want to keep the power as low down as possible, stay with stock cams. 264s will make a little more power and you probably won't lose anything noticeable down low and make a little up top. 272s will broaden the whole power range, with maybe a small amount lost down low which you may not even notice. A 264/272 setup would be a nice medium if you are picky. 272s on both sides will make a few more up top with a small loss down low.

I made 250whp/350wtq with Comp 272s click
That dip was addressed with some timing, BTW. That's the powerband you can expect from a 16G with 272s.

On ethanol, I made 430whp with the Comp 272s. A friend of mine with the same build made 425whp with FP4Rs, obviously too close to even say which cam was superior. while his will probably make more if he the same turbo as me now (3076R), my cams were still small enough to make more power with the same setup for the Evo3 16G.

The GSC S1s have done great for the Evo crowd. A friend of mine is making 365whp/370wtq with his Evo 8 (with Evo 9 hot side) on 92 pump. The Comp 272s do well while not being overly large. FP only offers the larger camshaft now. You might as well rule out BC. The HKS cams do well but may be on the mild side, however, they have still produced great results in many setups, just prepare to pay a premium for the name. I think the Kelfords are supposed to be more aggressive than most, but I have not heard anything negative about them.

Some cams will require cam gears to utilize them to their full potential, which is why I did not recommend BC.

I would invest in cams when you are ready to push the 16G to what it is capable of on pump gas. Otherwise, you could probably find a better place to spend the money.
 
Last edited:

cheekychimp

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
7,333
Location
East Sussex, U.K.
Thanks for the information guys. That was a really useful post Spence and your build thread was a very interesting read too, I hadn't seen that previously.

I've driven a 3.909 transmission before. That was what was on the big build car before it got ripped apart. It was a little whiny on the expressway due to the lower gearing but around town and on hills it was the absolute bollocks, torque everywhere. Ken has this same transmission on his car with an EVO III 16G and it just pulls so hard it is unreal. I stuck with the 3.545 ratio for the big build because that car will have a lot more power and so the whole idea was to give it more speed.

I'm really not looking to make a huge amount of power with this car just hopefully get a good tune so that I can take advantage of the potential of the 16G frame turbos without using massive amounts of boost. If I could make 350 WHP on an EVO III or say 320 on a Small 16G at about 22-23 psi, I would be very happy.

The point about using larger cams to get more top end is interesting. I am hoping to get hold of an AMG cyclone which hopefully will help with that too. But isn't actual speed just a function of engine rpms in any given gear? The 3.909 I had before just doesn't have more than about 120 mph in it (if that). That's the trade off for awesome midrange and I am just not sure that moving the powerband further up the rpm range is going to be beneficial if I am going to run out of gear anyway, although obviously it would affect how quickly I get there which is always a good thing /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif.

I think you are probably right in that everything else should be addressed first (not least of all being getting a really good tune) and if I am lacking power it might be worth looking at whether upgrading cams will address this. I don't have the option to use ethanol here so I am going to be limited to a petrol tune with maybe some injection.
 
Last edited:

KiNgMaRtY

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
838
Location
Corona, CA
I had a 264/264 combo in my HKS 1g GSX with 2g pistons. At fist I had the HKS BB upgrade turbo. Later it died and I replaced it with a PTE BB 50 trim. I loved the power down low! I currently have a Buschur 20g on my 2g GSX with 272 cams and I can tell the power is much more on top and the bottom end is laggier compared to my previous 1g with the 264's.

I am going to get some cams for 802. I'm either going with 264/264 or 264/272 combo
 
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
Top