In theory yeh, IanBs got more bits on his such as a 2.5" exhaust system, flowed 50mm inlet manifold and a 4 branch and he got 201.7bhp... http://gvk.altrezia.com/page4.html I've got the smaller inlet manifold, 2.25" scorpion cr*p exhaust and stock manifold so can't see me making the same top end power TBH. Hoping for about 190bhp and no loss of torque Edited by: G_V_K
I think you'll do 190BHP easily...although I just swapped from a 2.25" to 2.5" cat-back and it made HEAPS of difference; the new system is better quality though. It seems your car always outdoes the 'usual' figures, so maybe it'll make 220BHP p.s. just don't bother posting the plot for the yanks...because remember, if you get 165BHP at the wheels, that means 165.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000001BHP at the flywheel (and 9 second 1/4 mile)
I've just posted on the 'tex as it happens Usual sarcasm included Pretty sure IanB got 165 atw with his 9A 268/276s etc... Edited by: G_V_K
Gary, Don't be tight You will end up spending more if you end up having to buy a vernier and then having to go back to Vince for another session. Vince never took the cam cover off mine and probably not off Ians either.
Sorted, Louis (mk1 on here) is kindly offered to lend me a vernier pulley so I can see if I need one or not Matt, why did yours need a vernier or should I say, how did the engine run before fitting one ?
youve still go the single cam pulley right ? so youd only technically be able to advance or retard both cams by the same amount as a result. cant play with the overlap. if the above is true, vernier is a bit of a waste.
That's what I've been thinking Darren, as the vernier will only be on the exhaust cam.. Vince did say the ideal way to time cams on our engines is to fit the adjustable chain gears and the vernier belt pulley and set them up on the bench. I've never played about with uprated cams before so it's all a bit new to me Well, except fitting a Kent CVH22 in a mate's XR3 *years* ago
me mate used them adj chain gears on his valver with kent cams and vernier,they were forever coming loose ive heard of a few other people having simular problems,will also be a pain if your on k-jet to set up on the car
ChrisP found one of the bolts for the adjustable gears laying on top of the cam chain when they took the 296 Kents out - ****Warning this Valver will self destruct **** Edited by: G_V_K
I`ve never liked the idea of the adjustable cam chain gears, too much to go wrong . My Kents made a difference to the little 1.8 so you should be in for a suprise Gary!
Hope so Keith I understand the principles of the vernier pulley,but I'm not really sure what gains you'll get from one on a 16v Edited by: G_V_K
They do make a bit of difference...I've not yet fitted bigger cams, though. But even on the standard ABF ones with the wheel fully advanced, it helped quite a bit - probably 5 or 6 peak BHP
Where's Ian when you need him. All I did is follow Graham Scott's advice. He found that the cams gave up to 10bhp more on Ians engine when he fitted the vernier so i did the whole lot at once. I think i'm correct in saying that Ians car has brought this combination to our attention so if he has a vernier pulley then you should too. Mail Ian, he can ask Graham for you to give you an idea on where to start.
Vince was saying the schricks are timed up very well and his experience of them [vernier] hasn't released extra ponies or torque but as always what works in one car isnt always the same in the next... For instance i havent one in mine...
mine only made slight increase 1 deg adv,when he overlapped the power runs after further adj the power tailed quite dramacatly,its getting treated to a set of schricks now just got to decide on 268/276 or straight 276`s what is the marking stamped on the end of the schricks?as ive got a 278 inlet sat here,looks like a GR in a circle? Edited by: mk1.
No idea on the marking Louis As you're on throttle bodies you might not notice ( or it can be mapped out) the loss of low down power and torque that the straight 276s give on some k-jet cars. RobTs plots look nice with 276s,Badger5 ITBs and Lumenition EMS. http://gvk.altrezia.com/page4.html As mine is used on the road I don't want to lose the tractability of the engine,and judging by Ian's and Matt's graphs the 268/276 set matches the low-mid range of mine on the KR cams - Here's hoping,anyway Edited by: G_V_K
That was a truely nasty experience Luckily for me it was on the way to stealth for the cams to come out, and the adjustable chain sprockets went straight in the bin From my perspective (having learned twice!) dont buy from Kent!
IMO the need for a vernier stems from whether the timing belt teeth mesh with the cam pulley at the particular timing you need for your cams (1 tooth equals 8 degrees crank rotation I seem to remember). Because of the block height differences, ABF and KR/9A will be different in this respect. I have a pair of Schrick 276's in mine (9A based) and this was only 1 degree away from stock timing on a std non-adjustable pulley. I have subsequently fitted an adjustable one and found that it was not possible to get any more power by doing timing swings, both advancing and retarding at 1 degree increments, but managed to broaden the peak power by 500rpm - useful. Ignore the 'theory' that says advancing gives more torque / bottom end and retarding gives more top end - depends on the engine spec big time. If anyone needs a pair of schrick 276's, I will have a pair 'spare' from late summer. Cheers Rob Edited by: RobT
