fp cams

[Spoolzer]

I want to do cams but I am not sure if i should go with fp1's or 2's Im am running an evo3 at 24psi with water injection with fmic on a stock 6bolt with stock head. I have heard alot of people
"running out of air with 16g's" when trying to run fp2's on a stock 2.0. so basically Im wondering are the fp1's worth the trouble and are the fp2's too much for my setup? also how is the idle and how does it change your powerband? thanks.

 

[brute]

If you are doing cams, a FPcam1/FPcam1 setup would NOT be worth the money. Either go 1/2 setup or 2/2.

 

[ChvyKc]

If you are doing cams, a FPcam1/FPcam1 setup would NOT be worth the money. Either go 1/2 setup or 2/2.

I agree, you won't be happy with FP1/FP1 combo. I am going with DKS 2 cams and I am running the same set-up as you except I have a supra SMIC. You shouldn't "run out of air" up top. My turbo came off a buddies car with Crower cams and he was able to pull all the way to 7000 without chocking the motor due to lack of air. I think that you would be happy with FP2's on both sides.

You will generally loose a little torque but gain tons of top end when you go with a more aggressive cam. Idle is probably going to be a little rough compared to stock. Most of the cars that I have seen on here are pretty lumpy at idle with 272's or FP2's in them.

 

[Slippi84]

Don't mix Fp1 and FP2 like the 264/272 combo just go stright FP2 you will be good and if you ever upgrade turbos you will still be ok.

 

[dsm-onster]

FP2s will net you significantly more horsepower. FP1s are for guys who wine about lag and motormount inserts .

You probably will run out of boost if you try to run more than 22 psi or so. That is because you've allowed you your engine to flow enough air to suck the EVO3 16g down. But who cares. Flow makes horsepower not boost. We raise the boost to generate more flow.

 

[Slippi84]

dsm-onster it seems like we always post in the same place you following me

 

[dsm-onster]

dsm-onster it seems like we always post in the same place you following me

Hey! yea I'm looking in your window right now

 

[andymoraitis]

FP2's or their equivalents are a better choice for an EVO III. As mentioned above, it's about creating flow. Don't be surprised however if the VE of the motor rises so much that you simply can't hold over 20-22 psi. This is my current issue at the moment, but horsepower is made throughout the powerband and not only on the low end.

The beauty of a slightly larger cam is that it will also allow you to step into a larger turbo without having to upgrade again.

Hope that helps,

Andy

 

[Spoolzer]

Sounds like im going with FP2's. Another question is about tuning. I am currently using a tmo chip and afc for tuning and I must admit my car runs very well with this setup. I will eventually go to dsmlink but do you guys think I will have alot more trouble tuning if I install the cams first? and what problems arise after installing them?

 

[dsm-onster]

Sounds like im going with FP2's. Another question is about tuning. I am currently using a tmo chip and afc for tuning and I must admit my car runs very well with this setup. I will eventually go to dsmlink but do you guys think I will have alot more trouble tuning if I install the cams first? and what problems arise after installing them?

I have a set of FP2Xs and they idle great. It is possible that they may idle a little better than FP2s because of the higher ramp rate (even though they have the same duration, the valve opens wider earlier in the duration). . . But I doubt it makes that much of a difference at idle. Besides other have reported how smooth their idle is w/ FP2s. You have enough injector and you ahve a chip burned for their dead time. You should be good to go. In fact, '90 bog rod, better head bolts: I believe you could upgrade to a 50 trim as you ahve enough fuel. You could get away with a higher than stock rev limit then and won't run out of steam too much up top even w/ the stock 1G intake (the 1g intake and head is said to flow more than people think up top), You FP2s and a 50trim or 60trim will give you what you need to make you want to do that. So like Andy said, this is a good upgrade that will grow with you.

 

[Gamble97]

i called fp and spoke with one of the guys about my setup. I'm looking to run a evo 3 16g as well and he said i should go w/ a fp1 intake and a fp2 exhaust cam this way you get the best of both worlds, mid and top end, and you won't loose any power down low

 

[dsm-onster]

Yea. I didn't quite know where mixing FP1 and 2 cams came from. But it's good to hear it straight from Forced Performance.

The only thing. You'll get a little of everything. You'll save some down low where the engine is not revving high and not consuming its volume (2.0) in air as many times per minute than up high. But you're taking away the volumetric efficiency up high where the engine is consuming its volume in air many more times per minute. It's your call of course. Just don't forget that many guys who run the set of FP2s report little to no loss down low compared to stock cams.

 

[Spoolzer]

DSM-ONSTER since you have the same setup as me. I was wondering what the seat of your pants improvments were from the cams, or estimated hp gains were up top. I know thats a noob question but I guess im to anxious

 

[Slippi84]

The guys at FP are no doubt ery knowlegable but if you have even the slightest feelin that one day you MIGHT want to go bigger go with FP2 you will not regret it with your 16g and IF you upgrade you will be money. Yeah like dsm-onster said you won't lose much if anything dowlow and you will be smiliin all the way to the stock rev limiter and beyond

 

[dsm-onster]

DSM-ONSTER since you have the same setup as me. I was wondering what the seat of your pants improvments were from the cams, or estimated hp gains were up top. I know thats a noob question but I guess im to anxious

15 psi with my 18G and the FP2Xs felt just like 20 psi with my 18g and stock cams. I hit my 8500 revlimiter more than once relearning to drive her. I shift based on how the car pulls and it pulls so hard to the redline (even with stock valve size, uncut runners, and stock intake mani), that I didn't feall any real loss in power. They blead my 18g down. I have run 28 psi on my 18G and boost would fall off to 24 or so by 8500 rpms.

I now am running a 60-1 though .

 

[Syndicate13]

If you are doing cams, a FPcam1/FPcam1 setup would NOT be worth the money. Either go 1/2 setup or 2/2.

Why is this? Tell Tom N from Tampa that, he laid down 413awhp and 432awtq with FP1's, Evo3 GT and a 2 litre. I think the FP1's are a very good match for a 16g car. I lost no low end on mine but gained 4 lbs min in airflow at the same boost level. I'm currently running a Green and am seeing 40 lbs min at 18psi, not too shabby if you ask me.

 

[dsm-onster]

The guys at FP are no doubt ery knowlegable but if you have even the slightest feelin that one day you MIGHT want to go bigger go with FP2 you will not regret it with your 16g and IF you upgrade you will be money. Yeah like dsm-onster said you won't lose much if anything dowlow and you will be smiliin all the way to the stock rev limiter and beyond

I agree. This is what I wrote a while back to a guy trying to decide on cams. I feel that one really needs to have a little more than general knowledge of cams to make the best decision for their future goals. Copy and paste is better than having to type it all over again...

more lift = more air. peroid.

As for the duration: it changes your power band mostly. higher duration means more power up top less down low...BUT, here's the absolute basics of how it works:

Duration causes the volumetric efficiency to change through out the rpm range. Volumetric efficiency is simply the amount of air that actually enters the cylinder divided by the amount of air that theoretically should go in the cylinder. Theoretically, 2.0 liters of air should enter our 4G63s at one complete crank rotation. However, only 40%, 60%, 90% actually get into the block. As you can see the more air we get in the more power we can make at any give power stroke. Volumetric efficiency is based on lift, number of valves, exhaust, turbine housing/wheel, intake mani, valve size, and on and on. Lower duration gives you high VE (volumetric efficiency) at lower rpms. Higher duration gives you high VE (volumetric efficiency) at higher rpms. The more you rev, the more air your pumping in and out of the engine per unit time. This translates to a pound per minute figure. The more lbs/min you have the more power you create. This is in part why the little 1.3 liter RX8 engine is able to generate over 200 horsepower or 900cc bike engines can create 90-100 horsepower.
So you have more flow from revving and add cam duration that gives you the most VE you can get with your setup, and you have substancially more power without increasing lift or porting or adding more valves or enlarging valves.​

 

[Slippi84]

Fp2's with a 50 trim you would flow more with the fp2's. I will agree if you never upgrade fp1's(264's) are good for a 16g but for a 50 trim that's gonna hold you back when you go to run big boost and rev past 7k if you ever do that is. If your plans are never to rev that high then sure fp1's are cool cause you will never see a rpm where the fp2's would outshine the fp1's

 

[dsm-onster]

Why is this? Tell Tom N from Tampa that, he laid down 413awhp and 432awtq with FP1's, Evo3 GT and a 2 litre. I think the FP1's are a very good match for a 16g car. I lost no low end on mine but gained 4 lbs min in airflow at the same boost level. I'm currently running a Green and am seeing 40 lbs min at 18psi, not too shabby if you ask me.

They are a worthwhile upgrade. But Tom N from Tampa would have made about 10-15 horsepower or more with the FP2s. I say the "more" comment if his revlimit is over stock or could have been raised. I lost no down low grunt that I could notice when going to FP2Xs from stock cams. And these cams are the same price as FP1s.

Don't get me wrong, I think FP1s are a great investment. They are much cheaper than HKS 264s and deliver at least the same results. They are for guys who complain about lag and clutch pedal pressure. They're a little more streetable by many definitions. But, FP2s give you more where you need it. Up high, where a four cylinder needs to be to move enough volume to outflow a beefy V8 .

To me, streetability is, at worst, a downshift away. I'll spend my cars life dropping a gear to get the most out of my setup. The only restriction I'll give myself is that I need to be able to pull into a typical gas station to get my gas. It's just preference. 'tis all.

 

[Caithness]

I think he was probably at or near the limit of how much air could physically fit through the compressor inlet, so I doubt fp2s would have helped. He also made that power at 5xxx rpm. I don't like putting words in peoples' mouths, so I'm going to send him a PM on the local board and see if he wants to come put his two cents in.

ShapeGSX might also have something to say, since he's repeatedly mentioned no real difference in performance between 264's, 264/272, and 272/264 in past threads.

The question I would ask is what setup they envisioned when coming up with the 101100/FP1, if not a 16g street car?

 

[1SloColt]

Sorry if this post is a little off topic but I just gotta get this out there:

All these small cam suggestions are making me sad. I've had the privilege of tuning 16g cars directly before and after 101100 installs and the car definitely seemed not to fall off up top nearly as bad but the cam is just too weak IMO. 101200/FP2 will make great power, though lacking in torque compared to an HKS setup, and they'll idle perfectly fine so why not go with those? I would recommend something much more aggressive like a 2x or FP3 but doubt you want to mess with upgrading valve springs.

I'm a big advocate of trying to figure out exactly why hondas can make so much more power than DSMs with identical setups, and cams play a huge role. Hondas just have better stock cams than most DSM aftermarket cams. GSR cams ramp rates would be comparable to an FP2x at worst. I would actually be very interested in FP3x cams in a 2.0L to see what kinda torque it would output. I know the large crowers, 415s, made plenty of power but the torque was just total shit. Anyone know anybody running FP3x cams in a 2.0?

 

[dsm-onster]

I think he was probably at or near the limit of how much air could physically fit through the compressor inlet, so I doubt fp2s would have helped. He also made that power at 5xxx rpm. I don't like putting words in peoples' mouths, so I'm going to send him a PM on the local board and see if he wants to come put his two cents in.

ShapeGSX might also have something to say, since he's repeatedly mentioned no real difference in performance between 264's, 264/272, and 272/264 in past threads.

The question I would ask is what setup they envisioned when coming up with the 101100/FP1, if not a 16g street car?

I was discussing the advantage of going full out 272 or FP2 or 2X. not the 264/272 combo or less. Unless he puts this upgrade in his car anthing he mentions will be speculation.

I've talked with Shape. Do you know how much boost he was losing by redline? That pore little EVO3 16g was really sucked down. Had he had a bigger turbo he would feel the gains of the bigger cam. He proves that, if you can get the "bigger" cam for the same price, then get it because there will be 'no real difference'. And you'll have the extra flow neccesary for a large turbo upgrade in the future.

 

[dsm-onster]

Sorry if this post is a little off topic but I just gotta get this out there:

All these small cam suggestions are making me sad. I've had the privilege of tuning 16g cars directly before and after 101100 installs and the car definitely seemed not to fall off up top nearly as bad but the cam is just too weak IMO. 101200/FP2 will make great power, though lacking in torque compared to an HKS setup, and they'll idle perfectly fine so why not go with those? I would recommend something much more aggressive like a 2x or FP3 but doubt you want to mess with upgrading valve springs.

I'm a big advocate of trying to figure out exactly why hondas can make so much more power than DSMs with identical setups, and cams play a huge role. Hondas just have better stock cams than most DSM aftermarket cams. GSR cams ramp rates would be comparable to an FP2x at worst. I would actually be very interested in FP3x cams in a 2.0L to see what kinda torque it would output. I know the large crowers, 415s, made plenty of power but the torque was just total shit. Anyone know anybody running FP3x cams in a 2.0?

Thank you, my brutha !

 

[Tom N]

272`s made 1 peak hp more than 264`s with a 16g but the 264`s made more hp under the curve than the 272`s.
I believe the FP1`s complement the 16g better than the fp2`s which were designed to make more power in the upper rpm range. The 16g does not make power above 7000 rpms.
IMO the FP1`s will make more usable power in the rpm range where the 16g shines.
Bigger is not always better.

PS: This is my oppinion and i wont argue it. If you disagree feel free to put your car on a dyno and track and show me.

 

[Syndicate13]

272`s made 1 peak hp more than 264`s with a 16g but the 264`s made more hp under the curve than the 272`s.
I believe the FP1`s complement the 16g better than the fp2`s which were designed to make more power in the upper rpm range. The 16g does not make power above 7000 rpms.
IMO the FP1`s will make more usable power in the rpm range where the 16g shines.
Bigger is not always better.

PS: This is my oppinion and i wont argue it. If you disagree feel free to put your car on a dyno and track and show me.

Thank you Tom.