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.

 

[ChvyKc]

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.

That is a very interesting point. I am working on getting some cams and I didn't know if I should go with 264/272 or just straight 272's. A buddy of mine was running Comp 101200's and made 330 whp and 345 wtrq on the stock 2G smic at 19 pounds on the turbo that is on my car now (ported/clipped B16G). I was planning on going with the same set-up but if I can make more power in the power band and only sacrafice 1 peak horsepower then I will definately go that route.

 

[Slippi84]

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.

It's not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing with you but for you to put your opinion out there and say that FP2's only made one more peak hp than FP1's without showing proof but yet saying you won't argue it and the only way someone else can discredit you is with proof is hypocrytical. On a side note the benefit of cams is not always in power increase but in power band increase. In a nut shell put up some dyno proof or don't get mad when people try and put holes in your opinion.

 

[dsm-onster]

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.

I'm not disputing you. But I would like to see how much more the 264s offered under the curve than 272s... Can you post your dyno results?

The reason why I ask is that I've never even ran 264s/FP1s. I went straight to FP2Xs and lost nothing anywhere in the revrange. I gained from 3000 on. This is of course butt dyno.

The reason why I am confused here is because didn't Shape run 264s and then a 264/272 combo? and there was little to no difference at the track where it really counts. So if this were the case, then obviously there wasn't that much more usible power that the 264s offered over the 264/272 combo. And I'd gather that there may not be that much more than a straight 272 set with the revlimit set to stock... Of course, I'd like to believe the evo3 is not that good up top, but we are always suprised by this little b!tch. It would be nice if he'd stop in and drop a line. . .

Of course none of this has any baring on a bigger turbo w/ a higher revlimit. I am curious for those who want a 20g/50-trim setup but would rather not rev beyond 7500 rpms.

 

[Caithness]

It's not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing with you but for you to put your opinion out there and say that FP2's only made one more peak hp than FP1's without showing proof but yet saying you won't argue it and the only way someone else can discredit you is with proof is hypocrytical. On a side note the benefit of cams is not always in power increase but in power band increase. In a nut shell put up some dyno proof or don't get mad when people try and put holes in your opinion.

READ his post. He didn't say that FP2s made anything more or less than FP1s on a dyno, he said that 272s made 1 hp more than 264s with 10-15 lb/ft loss of torque across the powerband. This is not something he tested, but something (I think it was) AMS tested a long time ago on a 16g car. Search for their cam test and you'll have your dyno proof.

He's applying the results of that test to similar cams with a bit more spunk, the FP1 and FP2, to speculate that the FP1s make more torque through the range and are better suited to the 16g than the FP2s. If you look at his dyno sheet, he's putting out as much power in a very similar curve as Slowboy just did in their MHI evo 16g test, without the fancy tubular manifold that gave them another 15hp over the cast manifold. If anything, they're at least as good as the FP2s for a 16g, if not better.

If you know you're going bigger and you don't care to maximize the 16g, going bigger could make sense. If you want to max the 16g, getting the smaller cams might give better results. I'm not saying they will give better results, I'm saying they might, and there seems to be a lot of evidence to back that statement up between the AMS test and Tom's dyno vs. Slowboy's.

 

[Tom N]

READ his post. He didn't say that FP2s made anything more or less than FP1s on a dyno, he said that 272s made 1 hp more than 264s with 10-15 lb/ft loss of torque across the powerband. This is not something he tested, but something (I think it was) AMS tested a long time ago on a 16g car. Search for their cam test and you'll have your dyno proof.

He's applying the results of that test to similar cams with a bit more spunk, the FP1 and FP2, to speculate that the FP1s make more torque through the range and are better suited to the 16g than the FP2s. If you look at his dyno sheet, he's putting out as much power in a very similar curve as Slowboy just did in their MHI evo 16g test, without the fancy tubular manifold that gave them another 15hp over the cast manifold. If anything, they're at least as good as the FP2s for a 16g, if not better.

If you know you're going bigger and you don't care to maximize the 16g, going bigger could make sense. If you want to max the 16g, getting the smaller cams might give better results. I'm not saying they will give better results, I'm saying they might, and there seems to be a lot of evidence to back that statement up between the AMS test and Tom's dyno vs. Slowboy's.

That is correct.

 

[Slippi84]

READ his post. He didn't say that FP2s made anything more or less than FP1s on a dyno, he said that 272s made 1 hp more than 264s with 10-15 lb/ft loss of torque across the powerband. This is not something he tested, but something (I think it was) AMS tested a long time ago on a 16g car. Search for their cam test and you'll have your dyno proof.

He's applying the results of that test to similar cams with a bit more spunk, the FP1 and FP2, to speculate that the FP1s make more torque through the range and are better suited to the 16g than the FP2s. If you look at his dyno sheet, he's putting out as much power in a very similar curve as Slowboy just did in their MHI evo 16g test, without the fancy tubular manifold that gave them another 15hp over the cast manifold. If anything, they're at least as good as the FP2s for a 16g, if not better.

If you know you're going bigger and you don't care to maximize the 16g, going bigger could make sense. If you want to max the 16g, getting the smaller cams might give better results. I'm not saying they will give better results, I'm saying they might, and there seems to be a lot of evidence to back that statement up between the AMS test and Tom's dyno vs. Slowboy's.

Come on lets' not dance around words. He is talkin about fp1(264) being better for a 16g then fp2(272) I knew what he was saying I read he post just fine thanks

 

[dsm-onster]

READ his post. He didn't say that FP2s made anything more or less than FP1s on a dyno, he said that 272s made 1 hp more than 264s with 10-15 lb/ft loss of torque across the powerband. This is not something he tested, but something (I think it was) AMS tested a long time ago on a 16g car. Search for their cam test and you'll have your dyno proof.

Now we're just getting down to preference. I'd rather make up that 15 ft/lbs by finding a way to run 1 lb or 2 of more boost and/or squeeze a degree or two of timing to have an cam set that will be there when I need it once I upgrade. Which In my case I already have .

 

[92lzerNA]

I just want to know with the fp2's do you have to upgrade the springs or the retainers. If so i will go fp1 if not i might go fp2's. I dont want to have to go into the motor at all, unless it blows up.

 

[Slippi84]

NO you can go straight FP2 and not touch the rest of your motor and be ok reving to MAX 8k.

 

[Caithness]

FP used to list 8500 rpm as the limit on stock springs and retainers with the FP2s. It's up to you whether you want to push it that far or not. I probably would, but that's a personal decision on how far you want to push old stock parts. And you never know, there may have been a reason why they took that information off their site, heh.

 

[Mitchel63]

What about the FP1x's? A friend of mine is running the 1x's with an EVO3 and Crower valvetrain. The springrates of Crower valvetrain is BARELY better than stock. So I have this theory that the FP1x cam would be just fine on stock valvetrain if kept under the stock rev limiter. I run an EVO3 as well and revving higher than 7500 would be retarded anyway. I am looking into this setup....I emailed FP for their opinion on it but haven't heard back yet.

 

[ChvyKc]

What about the FP1x's? A friend of mine is running the 1x's with an EVO3 and Crower valvetrain. The springrates of Crower valvetrain is BARELY better than stock. So I have this theory that the FP1x cam would be just fine on stock valvetrain if kept under the stock rev limiter. I run an EVO3 as well and revving higher than 7500 would be retarded anyway. I am looking into this setup....I emailed FP for their opinion on it but haven't heard back yet.

Let us know what they say. I think that you should be able to run FP1x's on the stock valve springs but I would like to know FP's opinion on that. I agree with you that over 7500 would just be retarded on a 16G. I am still on stock cams and the car just runs out of steam around 6200. My car could definately benefit from a good set of cams.

 

[ShapeGSX]

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.

Yes, a larger turbo would have changed the results of my test for sure.

Yeah, I never ran the 272/272 combo. I got tired of swapping cams twice a month only to see zero change.

Luckily AMS did a pretty cool cam swap test that pretty much backed up what I was saying at the time.

In fact, I started doing these tests because for a long time, I ran my best mph (118.02) on the 264/264 combo in October 2003. Then early the next year I swapped to 264I/272E and my mph was down to 116 or 117. So I thought that the cam swap may have been the difference.

But it turns out that the cold weather and dense air in October just made the car rip!

Funny thing was that my previous best mph was only 114mph. I was only running ~24psi before this. The only reason I ran 118mph was because I turned up the boost much higher than I had expected to (~30psi) on the first run of the day. Boy was I ever glad I did, though! Once I tuned out the lean dip I was getting during the boost spike (which I found later by running a wideband), the car started running 117 to 118mph consistently.

 

[GST500]

I have a 60 trim turbo and cams and a SMIM will be my last few mods. i was thinking about the fp1x cams because the car is mainly a daily driver and will not see more than 8k rpms very often. the most power i would want out of the car would be 500whp but i will be running much less than that while it is a daily driver. what kind of suggestions do you guys have about which fp cams i should buy?

thanks

 

[daren_p]

^ For a turbo of that size have you considered the FP2x's? While you will need to upgrade the springs/retainers, these cams add even more lift over the 2's but also have an increased ramp rate. The benefit you see with these cams is both top end power where your turbo makes power but don't lose the bottom end like you would with the reg 2's.

 

[GST500]

Well I already have crower springs and retainers which I know are not that much better than stock, but I can't really afford the extra 365 dollars for the dual spring kit right now. Would I be able to use the crower springs with those cams if I don't rev past 8k? I am stuck right now because I can't afford to lose low end for my daily driving, but I do not want to upgrade cams again... I have been hearing the hks 272's do not sacrifice as much down low as the fp2's and I doubt i would rev high enough to need the extra up top the fp2's have. If i can find hks 272's for around the same price as the fp cams should I just do that instead?

 

[daren_p]

I know FP recently updated their website stateing specific info on how much force is required for the 2x cams & the use of dual springs. Now with that said there are several guys on here that are running single springs with the 2x cams, some I believe have raised the redline as well. As an extra measure you can always shim your crower springs to get abit more pressure. You are correct on the 272's not giving up as much bottom end as the FP2's.

 

[NewTurboTuner]

I'm glad this came up because FP cams are my next upgrade. I hate the stock cams! The power drops like a brick after 5500rpm, and there is NO power after 6000rmp.

I have a EVOIII with a simi-stock rebuild now. Its probably going to be next summer before I get my 500awhp 2.1 set-up built. I was going to go ahead and do FP2x or FP3's so that it'll help me up top now ....and also give me something that'll work in my 2.1 race motor later.


Now with all this talk, I've decided I need to get cams aimed at my EVOIII now, then later get different cams for the race motor later. I think I'm going to order FP2's later tonight. If I don't lose any bottom end over stock, that's cool with me... I just don't want power to fall like a brick after 5500.

The reason I don't care about the lower RPM gain... is because the only real time I see RPM lower than 4000, is when I'm in 1st gear accelerating from a dead stop. After that I shift high, and RPM don't really drop below 4000 ....so that's something to think about. Also I might bump up the rev limit, (just so I don't hit it) but I still don't plan to shift about 7000RPM.

 

[NewTurboTuner]

Why do you some of you think.... That with a EVOIII there would be no differance in power in the upper RPM range between the FP1's, and FP2's?

Why do you say... You can only take advantage of the FP2's high RPM power, with a bigger turbo & more boost?

~~~~~~~~~~~
~Do you really think the FP2's wont give anymore power increase from 5500-7000rpm, over the FP1's? (That just doesn't sound right to me.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hear you guys saying that the FP2's can suck down the EVOIII's boost, but still more flow is more flow. Boost helps flow, but boost(pressure) is not what matters ...it's the flow that matters.

(Think about this....) You have stock heads/cams, and you are running 20psi, and making 350hp. Then you get your head ported so it will flow better, but you keep the stock cams. When you put the ported head back on, you will still make 350hp, but with less boost. Because boost is created by resistance, and when something flows better than it did before... there is less resistance. So yeah, you will have less boost, but get more flow because the head flows better.

(here is another example...) It takes 10psi to flow 300cmf through a .5 inch hole. It only takes 5psi to flow 300cfm through a 1 inch hole. Yeah you have less boost, but you are still flowing 300cfm. (It the same thing with a head or any other thing you can get to flow more air.)

A camshaft that will allow my engine to flow better. It might suck down the boost levels of my EVOIII turbo ...But that doesn't mean I'm loosing power. All that means is that I'm flowing more air, with less boost.

As long as there is positive pressure in my turbo/intercooler pipes.... that means that my turbo is making more air than my engine can take.


So I ask again.
~Do you really think the FP2's wont give anymore power increase from 5500-7000rpm, over the FP1's?
If the FP2's make an engine flow better than the FP1's ....then why wouldnt a FP2 make more power?

I think some of the crack smokers are making me doubt myself
.....I dont like it

 

[Slippi84]

Why do you some of you think.... That with a EVOIII there would be no differance in power in the upper RPM range between the FP1's, and FP2's?

Why do you say... You can only take advantage of the FP2's high RPM power, with a bigger turbo & more boost?

~~~~~~~~~~~
~Do you really think the FP2's wont give anymore power increase from 5500-7000rpm, over the FP1's? (That just doesn't sound right to me.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hear you guys saying that the FP2's can suck down the EVOIII's boost, but still more flow is more flow. Boost helps flow, but boost(pressure) is not what matters ...it's the flow that matters.

(Think about this....) You have stock heads/cams, and you are running 20psi, and making 350hp. Then you get your head ported so it will flow better, but you keep the stock cams. When you put the ported head back on, you will still make 350hp, but with less boost. Because boost is created by resistance, and when something flows better than it did before... there is less resistance. So yeah, you will have less boost, but get more flow because the head flows better.

(here is another example...) It takes 10psi to flow 300cmf through a .5 inch hole. It only takes 5psi to flow 300cfm through a 1 inch hole. Yeah you have less boost, but you are still flowing 300cfm. (It the same thing with a head or any other thing you can get to flow more air.)

A camshaft that will allow my engine to flow better. It might suck down the boost levels of my EVOIII turbo ...But that doesn't mean I'm loosing power. All that means is that I'm flowing more air, with less boost.

As long as there is positive pressure in my turbo/intercooler pipes.... that means that my turbo is making more air than my engine can take.


So I ask again.
~Do you really think the FP2's wont give anymore power increase from 5500-7000rpm, over the FP1's?
If the FP2's make an engine flow better than the FP1's ....then why wouldnt a FP2 make more power?

I think some of the crack smokers are making me doubt myself
.....I dont like it

Your not running out of engine above 5500rpms your running out of turbo. Now you will make more power below 5500rpms but when you get to where your turbo is starting to choke all fp2s will do is make it even more apparent. Not to mention you won't be ble to run as much boost up top as with either your stock cams or fp1's. I'm not saying I wouldn't get them but if you think they're gonna cure your no top end power problem so much better than a set of fp1's your wrong.


edit: trust me your 16g is not flowin more air then your engine can take. Tell that to the guys with 50 trims on stock engines flowing 45lbs/min and pullin till atleast redline.

 

[NewTurboTuner]

Hey Slippi84.
I don't even really understand what you are saying. Could you please clarify some things for me.

You said:
""Your not running out of engine above 5500rpms your running out of turbo.""
Could you say that differently? ...I'm not quite following you on that.

""Now you will make more power below 5500rpms but when you get to where your turbo is starting to choke all fp2s will do is make it even more apparent.""
Could you also explain this in another way too? How is my turbo choking? It holds PSI just fine. I've run as much as 20psi on pump, and the previous owner ran 25psi with the water/meth kit ....it never seemed to choke at all. What do you mean my turbo is choking after 5500RPM?

""you won't be ble to run as much boost up top as with either your stock cams or fp1's.""
Huh? Why wont I be able to run as much boost up top with the FP2's, over the stock and FP1's?? Are you talking about the deal with the boost dropping because of the cam creating so much flow? I just don't understand where you are coming from. (I'm not trying to knock you. I just don't know what you mean) Did you read my post? You don't need boost pressure to flow more.

""if you think they're gonna cure your no top end power problem so much better than a set of fp1's your wrong""
Could you please explain better why I am wrong? More flow equals more power, and cams are not just about making power. In my case I want my power band shifted up into higher RPMs. Why won't a cam that was designed to make more power, up higher into the RPM range ...help me with my higher RPM power loss?

""trust me your 16g is not flowing more air then your engine can take""
Please realize that I come from a Naturally aspirated background. So I just may not know where you are coming from, but this statement is really unclear. ~It sounds like you are saying that my motor will suck in more air than my turbo gives? IF THAT WAS THE CASE then I could take my turbo off... and my engine would suck in more air than it would with my turbo on. It sounds like you are saying my turbo is my weak link? if you are saying that you are crazy.

think about this. A naturally aspirated car.... It sucks in as much air as it can. When you put a turbo on the car... you are cramming in more air into the engine than it would normally suck in by its self. ANY time you see positive +psi ... then that means the turbo is creating more air than the engine can take in by its self. If you are at 0psi then the flow of the turbo and engine are equal. If you are at vacuum (-psi) then a turbo is giving less air than the engine can take in by its self.
So by saying....
""your 16g is not flowin more air then your engine can take""
.....that statement is dead wrong in my eyes.

Please clarify some of this stuff.
Again... I'm new to these engines, so I just might not be seeing where you are coming from, but if you could explain in a different way ....I'd appreciate it.

 

[GST500]

i have read other places about shimming springs and i was wondering if there is more imformation on how you go about doing this out there? i have looked around some, but have yet to find anything that actaully shows me how to go about doing this. if shimming my crower springs would allow me to get away with using fp2x cams and safely running no more than 8k rpms that would be great. i would love to gain low end power while not having to upgrade cams later to keep up with my turbo when i decide to turn up the boost and get down to business.

 

[Slippi84]

Yeah i'll be glad to explain and I understand your not trying to knock just wanting answers. See your 16g can only flow so much at a certain rpm. So while yes a set of fp1's will be a good mod and will alow your engine to breath more it's not makin your turbo flow more it's makin your engine flow more. It's like having a setup then going storker. Your engine will flow more at a lower rpm but your not gonna get loads more top end. Same idea same flow lower rpm. The diffrence and key factor in your case is that your engine will keep suckin and your turbo will go I don't have any more to give. That point will and can easily be reached with fp1's(or HKS 264's) so while the fp2's cost just as much and might gain you a extra 5 hp with a 16g over fp1's(just ball park not saying you won't get more) the top end diffrence with a turbo like that will not be drastic. Buying fp2's with a 16g is kinda like killin a ant with sledge hammer it will get the job done but you could have done it with something smaller. Then again I"m a sledge hammer guy

 

[Slippi84]

i have read other places about shimming springs and i was wondering if there is more imformation on how you go about doing this out there? i have looked around some, but have yet to find anything that actaully shows me how to go about doing this. if shimming my crower springs would allow me to get away with using fp2x cams and safely running no more than 8k rpms that would be great. i would love to gain low end power while not having to upgrade cams later to keep up with my turbo when i decide to turn up the boost and get down to business.

Don't even bother just spend the 125 and get manley springs which have been proven to take what the fp2x's can dish out. As soon as I have the money you bet I'm going with the fp2x's too for the same reason you just said more low end then other cams and more top end it's like hmmm best of both worlds