FP2 vs Fp3: Back to back

[swordfish]

As you can see it really starts to fall off around 8k due to the stock 1G intake manifold so normally I dont take it past 8000-8500, but the engine has seen 10k on a 1-2 shift. I used to have a log of it. It's still somewhere but I'm lazy.

jeff

 

[2gredspyder]

As you can see it really starts to fall off around 8k due to the stock 1G intake manifold so normally I dont take it past 8000-8500, but the engine has seen 10k on a 1-2 shift. I used to have a log of it. It's still somewhere but I'm lazy.

jeff

Some people will tell you that its not a good idea to rev a 2.4 too high. I dont know how much truth is into that. I'd like to build a 2.4 later down the road.

 

[swordfish]

They can tell me that all they want. And if they are telling me that then it probably means that they know about 1/3 of f-u-c-k-all.

jeff

 

[sunflashx]

I have a motor to swordfishs 2.4, and for better or worse I've regularly revved it to 9000 rpm and it still appears to be running strong.

 

[anconover]

i would strongly suggest not putting fp3's on a 2.0.. Shit my fp2's make a decent amount of power LESS than my old 272's did down low. Up top they are better, but im not sure its a good combination when im only revving to 7500 rpm's.

 

[MNGSX]

With top quality forged components they can live when reved that high periodically..

Sustained high rpm runs like circle track would kill it sooner.. Dipping that high will shorten the life but not catastrophically...

I just question why rev to 9k when looking at the dyno it is about 2000rpm beyond the engines power peak... Its definately not going to be faster down the track than shifting say at 7500rpm.. At 9k you are making much less power than you would be at a lower rpm in the next gear so why not shift sooner, run faster and reduce wear on the reciprocating assembly and the now heavily stressed valvetrain.

All things being equal (intake and cam matched to strokes) at higher rpm the stroker will tail off power wise sooner just as a function of the time to fill a cylinder vs lenght of the stroke(cyl volume).

Either engine can be a powerhouse. Everyone has their own opinions. There are various stages inbetween mild to wild cars... but IMHO 2.4's are great street and strip motors. With a 2.0 laying down the world record AWD ET the all out race 2.0 theory is more than backed up..

On a 2.0 I believe that more power will be made on FP2's vs the FP3's as the 3's are tailored to the 2.4's increased piston speed..

 

[talont3t4]

Anyone have any comparisons from switching from HKS 272's to FP3's? Soild number on a 2.3L stroker?

 

[MNGSX]

1. the FP2's stomped the 272's on a 2.0
2. comp/fp's colaboration was to make a stroker specific cam for the FP3&4

Therefore

I am willing to bet some money that on a dyno the FP3 and up will stomp the 272's on a stroker.

 

[talont3t4]

I was hoping for some soild numbers from a T4 based car.

 

[swordfish]

We should have numbers from FP3 vs 272 on out T66 based 2.3L car next month. I hope. We are just waiting for FP to give us the go ahead to make the trip back to TX with the other car. I'll post results when we have some.

jeff

 

[talont3t4]

For me that would be perfect I'm also runnig a GT66 DD turbo on a 2.3l.

 

[spshocker61]

The FP Prototype double springs are 100lbs @ 1.540 and 250 @ 1.110. In comparison, the Ferrea's which I "was" going to use are 90 @ 1.540 and 210 @ 1.110. I didnt use the Ferrea's because they need to be put on when the head is off the car. The springs were WAY to close for comfort to the cam towers. Plus the FP springs cost less.

jeff

Any idea when these springs will be available to us?

 

[Lunch_Box]

Any idea when these springs will be available to us?

If you looked on the FP website you would see that they have them up.

 

[spshocker61]

If you looked on the FP website you would see that they have them up.

Thank you and sorry....I should of thought to look myself,

 

[DSM mechanix]

i would strongly suggest not putting fp3's on a 2.0.. Shit my fp2's make a decent amount of power LESS than my old 272's did down low. Up top they are better, but im not sure its a good combination when im only revving to 7500 rpm's.

I noticed very little difference in low end power between the FP3's and stock cams.

 

[DJpHGotBanned]

With these cams, are valve springs required considering you dont really need to rev over stock? I'm sure this will elicit some who MUST do everything, but I'm sure there are people who have and I'd like to here from THEM.

 

[DSM mechanix]

Its not about excessesive revs, its the high ramp rates of the cams that make the valve springs a requirement.

 

[dsm-onster]

I noticed very little difference in low end power between the FP3's and stock cams.

I have a similar experience w/ my FP2Xs. I swapped them with stock cams and did not notice barely any loss in torque down low at all. I never ran a set of 272s, but if one lost alot of torque down low swapping from 272s to FP2s then, then wouldn't it be safe to assume that 272s are better than stock cams down low? I thought that would not be the case. Maybe the 2X characteristics (higher ramp rate; more lift) broadens the power band enough for me not to notice the difference.

So does the FP3s have that same characteristic? All this is bench racing, but most pick a cam primarily based on duration and lift. Increasing duration increases VE at higher rpms. If the duration of the FP2s is similar to the FP3s. A low volume, low compression engine needs VE lower (relative to a stroked version) to idle and respond well to off idle. What is the duration of the FP3s? What is the lift? What is the ramp rate? You can get away with a higher duration where you have a wide lobe (the valve opens quick and stays at a high lift throughout the open duration = more air at the first half of lift and end of lift and broadens power band) and where you have a higher lift (more flow = more air).

Also, does FP assume that you're not going to rev a stroker? I doubt it. I think, if you're running stock 2.0L displacement, the FP3X would be better than the FP3 for daily driving. But unless we know the cam specs or collect real world results, o one can say the 3s are not good for the 2.0 engine. What are the cam specs on the 3s?

 

[TSi999]

1. the FP2's stomped the 272's on a 2.0
.

Woohoo nice.

Yeah the CompCams 101200/FP2's are very nice. My buddies who threw them in for me were very impressed also how they came degreed at 0 and are pre tapped for the 1G CAS. That saved time & money.

 

[project_tsi]

This thread is a year old. Any updates by anyone?

 

[nanokpsi]

This thread is a year old. Any updates by anyone?

My longblock should be returning shortly but I am running the fp4s (101400s). I should have some preliminary numbers some time in September. I am also running a 2.4, and a Polk head that has a little more work in it than Jeff's. It will also have a SMIM though. I can't wait

 

[project_tsi]

So would the FP3's be comparable, if not close to the same of the Comp 101300's?

 

[nanokpsi]

So would the FP3's be comparable, if not close to the same of the Comp 101300's?

They used to be the same grinds but on different indexes, but I was informed by Robert at FP that comp switched to their indexes. Now they are the exact same.