CAT camshafts with ported N54 head dyno results

[JD75]

Hey guys,

for anyone interested in what the CAT cams are capable of over the stockies in conjunction with an upgraded cylinder head, here are 2 dyno graphs with the first being at a boost target of 20psi and the second 25psi.

The previous best result at 20psi on the stock cams was a solid 400rwkW, so we picked up a nice 24rwkW at the same boost target. The 457rwkW result was at 25psi, so the engine produced slightly more power but with 3psi less boost pressure being required.

On another note with the addition of the CAT cams power at low boost is still climbing at 7,200rpm and even at 25psi the power curve is still being held strongly to redline.

Cheers,

Justin.

[Deen@streetkingimports]

These results are with a ported head so it is not a direct comparison, I'd be interested the gains with a stock head with these cams.

[Sticky]

The previous best result at 20psi on the stock cams was a solid 400rwkW, so we picked up a nice 24rwkW at the same boost target. The 457rwkW result was at 25psi, so the engine produced slightly more power but with 3psi less boost pressure being required.

Do you have the baseline graph before the cams?

[iminhell1]

Graphs don't have the same crossover point (5,252 rpm), so any data is viewed this way (wheel speed) is unreliable.


And a 44 peak hp gain with spending $3,000+, absolutely pathetic.

[langsbr]

Graphs don't have the same crossover point (5,252 rpm), so any data is viewed this way (wheel speed) is unreliable.


And a 44 peak hp gain with spending $3,000+, absolutely pathetic.

Of course the graphs don't cross at 5252 rpm because RPM isn't even displayed. Why would you say speed is unreliable?

[135iTX]

Cause he's just talking $#@!. Good to see more options popping up

[Sticky2]

Graphs don't have the same crossover point (5,252 rpm), so any data is viewed this way (wheel speed) is unreliable.


And a 44 peak hp gain with spending $3,000+, absolutely pathetic.

I can’t tell if you’re serious as why in the hell would a graph that isn’t in hp and lb-ft crossover at 5252 rpm?

[Tony@VargasTurboTech]

People that say cams are a bad investment are crazy. One of the best bang for your buck upgrades on the N54 currently after turbos.

[iminhell1]

Of course the graphs don't cross at 5252 rpm because RPM isn't even displayed. Why would you say speed is unreliable?

I can’t tell if you’re serious as why in the hell would a graph that isn’t in hp and lb-ft crossover at 5252 rpm?

MPH and RPM are linked.

1st graph could be 4th gear while 2nd is 5th. That would explain why the crossover moves ... but I haven't gone over the math.

[mikeseli]

People that say cams are a bad investment are crazy. One of the best bang for your buck upgrades on the N54 currently after turbos.

I have to agree here with Tony.
The stock exhaust ports are terrible on the N54 head. The additional duration and lift on the exhaust cam profile help with reducing pump loss.

[93siro]

People that say cams are a bad investment are crazy. One of the best bang for your buck upgrades on the N54 currently after turbos.

Yo Tony the high lift cams you have were supposed to be mine, Mo sent you those and the stock lifts to me.

Just wanted to bitch about this lol

[JD75]

These results are with a ported head so it is not a direct comparison, I'd be interested the gains with a stock head with these cams.

Sorry I don't have that data as the engine was built with a VAC Stage 3 head, the CAT cams were added at a later date whilst we were playing with two different types of upgraded twins.

[JD75]

Do you have the baseline graph before the cams?

Hey Sticky,

here is the best result pre CAT cams at 28psi on the Stage 3.0 BB turbos.

For what it's worth I suspect these Rally/Race cams need a higher comp' engine to really shine, as I mentioned in the other thread pertaining to PPM 9.5:1 compression pistons the duration of the CAT cams exceeds the cam timing adjustment available within the DME Vanos tables, these cams are not 100% dialled in.

However if I recall correctly the difference between a 24psi target and 25psi target post cams was 17rwkW which was a pleasant surprise. We stopped at 25psi because on the day the engine developed a cylinder #1 misfire.

[JD75]

MPH and RPM are linked.

1st graph could be 4th gear while 2nd is 5th. That would explain why the crossover moves ... but I haven't gone over the math.

No ALL runs on this 1M are in 4th gear, they should also be at a consistent ramp rate value of 200.

[Tony@VargasTurboTech]

Yo Tony the high lift cams you have were supposed to be mine, Mo sent you those and the stock lifts to me.

Just wanted to bitch about this lol

We ordered 3 sets of high lifts and a set of the low lifts. So he must have really messed up the order then.

[Tony@VargasTurboTech]

Wait, did I miss that. The first graphs are with an unported head, then the comparison graphs, are with a ported head, and cams? If so you can throw these results as a comparison out the window, but they can be a representative of what a ported head and cams would do, not cams alone.

[JD75]

Wait, did I miss that. The first graphs are with an unported head, then the comparison graphs, are with a ported head, and cams? If so you can throw these results as a comparison out the window, but they can be a representative of what a ported head and cams would do, not cams alone.

Hey Tony,

the first 2 graphs are with a ported head AND the CAT cams, graph #1 was at 20psi and graph #2 was at 25psi. The 3rd graph I just posted up is with NO cams, just the ported Stage 3 VAC Motorsports head at 28psi.

So basically with the addition of the CAT cams the engine makes slightly more power and holds power more strongly to 7,200rpm but with 3psi less boost pressure required from the turbos.

Thanks,

JD.

[tisdrew2]

So basically with the addition of the CAT cams the engine makes slightly more power and holds power more strongly to 7,200rpm but with 3psi less boost pressure required from the turbos.

Thanks,

JD.

"to 7,200 rpm" meaning that's your redline?

I'm a noob though -- just want to understand why you wouldn't be revving to 8k?

[CobraMarty]

So basically with the addition of the CAT cams the engine makes slightly more power and holds power more strongly to 7,200rpm but with 3psi less boost pressure required from the turbos.

That's about the same results that I have found with an upgraded cam or higher ratio roller rockers.
They make slightly more power at 2-3psi less. Turn the boost back up to where it was pre-cam and you will make even more power.

More power at less boost, Even more power at same boost. Cam = 2-3psi worth of power.

[iminhell1]

Wait, did I miss that. The first graphs are with an unported head, then the comparison graphs, are with a ported head, and cams? If so you can throw these results as a comparison out the window, but they can be a representative of what a ported head and cams would do, not cams alone.

For some reason I read this as a stock head vs ported/cammed head.
Now that you mention this and I go back to re-re-read I see I was wrong.

Hey Tony,

the first 2 graphs are with a ported head AND the CAT cams, graph #1 was at 20psi and graph #2 was at 25psi. The 3rd graph I just posted up is with NO cams, just the ported Stage 3 VAC Motorsports head at 28psi.

So basically with the addition of the CAT cams the engine makes slightly more power and holds power more strongly to 7,200rpm but with 3psi less boost pressure required from the turbos.

Thanks,

JD.

[mikeseli]

JD, which CAT cams did you test? There are 3 to chose from.

[Terry@BMS]

It's hard to get "clean" before and after data on cams as normally people change more than just the cams. While I'm not sold on the huge gains at some point you run out of stuff to change. And they definitely seem to open up top end power. So I guess why not.

[Sticky]

JD, which CAT cams did you test? There are 3 to chose from.

What are the specs on these and how do they compare to Schrick?

[Ericbh77]

http://www.catcams.com/engines/camshaft-setup.aspx

[Sticky]

http://www.catcams.com/engines/camshaft-setup.aspx