Forced Performance Cams

[Spartan302]

I was on the phone with them this past friday and they said ugpraded springs ARE needed for the fp3's. I can't speak for other cams out there. This was straight from fp.

 

[nanokpsi]

forces i get what you are saying and I'm not knocking you at all. I'm just trying to figure out if aftermarket springs are a must with these cams. i just have not seen the evidence to prove their need. these are not the first or the wildest set of aftermarket cams made for the 4g63 since 1990. valve float was never was a problem in our 4 valve head for 15 years. I'm just not 100 percent convinced it is a problem now. sorry guys for not capitalizing but my shift key is on its last legs.

Take a look at the pic I posted of My comp 101400s. Thes cams have a much higher ramp rate than any cam I have seen.
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190489
How quickly the valve goes to full open and how quickly it closes afterwards is why you need the springs/retainers. The fact that Fp says the crower stuff (at the standard install height) aren't stiff enough leads me to believe only a fool would install them on the stock springs. If you want I can throw these in on my stock seven bolt if you want to send me a check to get it running again when the valves meet the pistons.

This is for the FP3 and 4 cams (or comp 300 and 400s). It has been said repeatedly that the 1s and 2s don't need upgraded springs.

 

[TSIfreek]

tsi i think your missing my point. i agree that aftermarket springs are great. that point is not being debated by me. I'm just looking to separate fact from fiction. if the motor is truly in need of higher spring rates with the comp/fp1234 can a inexpensive shimming of a new factory valve spring get the job done. is there anyone on the board in the know on this matter.

I'm not trying to argue with you at all so don't feel that way I just like to tease thats all. OK you said aftermarket springs are great (for what purpose?) (why are they available if they're are not needed??) then what is the purpose of the stock springs??? The more aggressive the cam profile the more spring pressure is needed theres no way out of it period
These are new very aggressive cams and all precautions should be thought out and taken care of. I really don't understand you would buy new factory springs in the first place? Or you got them with your new head what ever. I remember back when the FP2 cams were starting to come out everyone was freaking out about valve float at high rpms with them using the stock springs. I guess maybe if you only want to turn the motor to 7k and have the limiter set there then you may not have a problem, but if your going to do that may as well be driving an escort.
Maybe call comp cams and discuss this with them, but I can bet they are going to say the exact same things that have been said.

 

[highbooster]

thanks for the great comments supara/spart/nano/tsi/forces thats what its all about. your points are all well taken. the comp-fp3/4 must be hell on earth. how are the 3's working for you forces. would you have gone with 4's

 

[Forces32psi]

they work great.. but i didnt just switch from my old web street grinds to these. i went from a 2.0 to a 2.3 stroker. il tell you this much, w/ my boost controller OFF, my turbo puts out 14psi, the turbo isnt laggy at all on this stroker, its about the same as my old fp RED on a 2.0 and it pulls hard as hell all the way to 6k. i havent taken the motor to 8k or 8500 yet, but im sure i will be in the next 2weeks, and from the way that car runs only on 14psi, im sure it will be VERY nasty on 35-40 psi. good thing i got a built trans and spool center diff and lsd in the front diff now !!!

 

[v8s_are_slow]

i'm curious as to why someone would choose a FP4 over a FP3 or vice versa. i mean the 1 and 2's are simple. some people want top end. some people want the bottom end...or not a lot of cam lope. but the 3's and 4's might be a whole new ball game. i've got the FP2's of course but building a 2.3L stroker and wondering why i should choose one over the other. hmmm....

 

[Lunch_Box]

I talked to Rob and he said that they aren't makng an FP4 cam, but they are doing a revision to the FP3 cam.

 

[XtReMeToYz]

I talked to Rob and he said that they aren't makng an FP4 cam, but they are doing a revision to the FP3 cam.

The revision's of the 3's are supposed to be about what the 4's were. I guess they're revising all 3 series of the cams and labeling them FP#X's...

 

[v8s_are_slow]

I talked to Rob and he said that they aren't makng an FP4 cam, but they are doing a revision to the FP3 cam.

did he say why? wasn't any problems with the 3's they were selling were there?

 

[Lunch_Box]

No I just think istead of having 2 cams very similar he just decided to go with one. And seeing how the FP3 already needed upgraded spirngs why not keep making the cam that will yield more HP and still require the same head set up.

 

[nanokpsi]

No I just think istead of having 2 cams very similar he just decided to go with one. And seeing how the FP3 already needed upgraded spirngs why not keep making the cam that will yield more HP and still require the same head set up.

This seems logical. I hope its not the fact the the 101400 grind is too hard on springs, since that is the grind I have. I am willing to bet that the idle/drivabilty was coparable, to there would be nothing gained by running the smaller Fp3. Maybe Fp will shed some light on things for us.

 

[v8s_are_slow]

i have the FP2 cams but building a stroker and i'm wondering if it'd be worth the $439 or whatever to upgrade to the FP3's or if my 2's would do pretty good. wondering how much of a difference there is. i wish there was some sort of dyno charts or something showing the difference in each cam on a stroker motor to show just how much of a difference it'd make. the cam choice is totally effecting my choice of how i wanna build my head. either a stage 3.5 or stage 4 from ffwd. the price difference is about $625 for the upgraded springs plus the coost of new cams. that's $1064 extra just so i can swap to a bigger cam. or save that money for other parts and get the stage 3.5 and stay with FP2's. hmmm....

 

[Lunch_Box]

You mean something like this:

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183700&highlight=swordfish

PS. Try throwing a capital in there some times.

 

[peregrine]

PS. Try throwing a capital in there some times.

you missed the period after your "P" in P.S.

 

[v8s_are_slow]

You mean something like this:

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183700&highlight=swordfish

PS. Try throwing a capital in there some times.

uh yeah, that'd be something close to what i'm talking about but i'm trying to understand it. is that one dyno with 2 different runs on the FP2's? or is that one with the FP2's and another with the FP3's? cause under the dyno sheet he's sayin he made 506 whp.

if the dyno is just the FP2's, then he made a pretty big gain just by swapping cams. almost 50-60 horsepower just from that, and not even turning the boost up.

 

[NOSLO2PT0]

FP2's are big. FP3's are bigger. Bigger = better. That's why you are building a stroker motor right? Buy some Supertech dual spring valvetrain components from AMS, or whoever. Spend about $375 on the springs/retainers/seat locaters. Then go buy a valvespring scompressor tool for about $75-100, and a new set of seals. Spend an afternoon building the new head. Be happy. That's what I did.

 

[Lunch_Box]

Yes one run is the FP2's and the other run is the FP3's.

 

[nanokpsi]

uh yeah, that'd be something close to what i'm talking about but i'm trying to understand it. is that one dyno with 2 different runs on the FP2's? or is that one with the FP2's and another with the FP3's? cause under the dyno sheet he's sayin he made 506 whp.

if the dyno is just the FP2's, then he made a pretty big gain just by swapping cams. almost 50-60 horsepower just from that, and not even turning the boost up.

The pulls are form both cams. Switching cams made 19whp and 30 lb/ft with no other changes at 20 psi. He turned the boost up a little and got 500+ whp. Tat is a good power increse for just a cam swap considering the FP2s are much stronger than stock.

 

[Scrymerr]

One question: Is there any scenario in which it would be beneficial to put FP3s in a 2.0? What is the cam size based on: soley on displacement, or more on airflow or power?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[GPTourer]

It's almost like, if they came out with FP9's and said they were only for guys with 2.7L's, T88's and 1500hp, people would wonder what they would be like on their stock 2.0's.

My guess would be to look at a dyno for the engine they feel it is optimized for and compare it to my own. If I am not at those levels of power, then that is the correct cam to use. Anything bigger is just for ego and a waste IMO.

 

[Scrymerr]

It's almost like, if they came out with FP9's and said they were only for guys with 2.7L's, T88's and 1500hp, people would wonder what they would be like on their stock 2.0's.

My guess would be to look at a dyno for the engine they feel it is optimized for and compare it to my own. If I am not at those levels of power, then that is the correct cam to use. Anything bigger is just for ego and a waste IMO.

Thanks for your smartass reply, you really made me look stupid there! Don't be a Mongoloid and give me a straight answer, unless you don't know. I don't understand what is so hard about answering my straightforward question with a concise answer, that would have been perfect. I will try again: FP calls the FP3 the "stroker cam". However, is the cam grind based solely on displacement, or more so on horsepower. Are there any other factors that are changed that would make one cam more suitable for a larger displacement motor than another? The reason I asked this question is that in the infamous cam comparison which everyone has seen, but I do not remember where it is, an HKS 272 combo was found to make more power than either stock, 264/264, or 264/272 combo on the same car using a B16G. Now if a larger grind than a 272 is making more power than 264s or even 264/272, than at what point would one want to upgrade from 101200s to 101300s on their 2L?

Please, don't waste any more time with some smart remarks. I never said the motor that these cams would hypothetically be going on would even be stock.

Thanks,

Dan

 

[anconover]

Its as simple as this. The 101300's and 101400's were more or less designed for stroker applications. The FP2/101200's offer less low end than 272's, but more top end than the 272's so i highly doubt that like 99% of people will need more than the 101200 series in their 2.0L.

Its amazing how 1-2years ago i remember people debating if 272's were really 'streetable' and now people are trying to put an even more aggressive cam in.

 

[GPTourer]

Please, don't waste any more time with some smart remarks. I never said the motor that these cams would hypothetically be going on would even be stock.

Thanks,

Dan

Hey you're welcome. Actually my comment wasn't meant to single you out, its pretty much been going on for the whole thread, despite advice directly from FP.

If the company that made them says themselves they don't recommend it, or haven't tried it, what more proof or evidence do you need or expect to find here? Just suck it up and spend 880+ on two sets of cams try it yourself, record the results and post them here, or be selfish and keep it a secret.

 

[MNGSX]

Its not even a matter of displacement its a matter of how each stroke lenght changes how the engine breaths and therefore designing a cam around that.

Simply put the FP3's are not designed with a 2.0 stroke in mind.. Why put them on one?

It will make more power on the FP2's because the valve events, open & closing points in degrees and ramp rates have been selected to match what is going on bellow the block deck in the 2.0/2.1

 

[Scrymerr]

No worries GP. I just thought my question was a little more complex than, "I wanna maek lots of horsepowers on my stock GST how much poewrs can i gets with FP4???!!!!1111~~" Just trying to understand exactly what it was about the cam that made it appropriate for stroker use. I think MN covered that. Thank you.

Dan