Cams testing results.

[Bluebeejay28]

Any update ?

Sponsored

 

[Redwing]

Any update ?

 

[Austin@Wunderladen Racing]

Cylinder head is coming back from being ported in about 3 weeks. Will probably be another 2 after that to get the engine all together and in the car.

 

[speedyserg]

This is the difference my "brick for flow" k20c1 made with a simple port job. 50 to 70whp gains plus faster spool everywhere.

Drop in cams for Type Rs have made 40whp+ very easily and on the top end can make an 80 to 100whp difference as rpm climbs past 7300ish where the stock cams fall off a cliff

Waste of money? Lmfao The dynos don't lie

Cams are pretty simple - the stock ECU won't let you overcam the car anyway as it makes tuning a nightmare due to the currently locked VE charts it references for fueling. To run a really race level cam you'll need motec which solves the VE issue immediately. Even on stock ecu tho more duration and lift improves breathing across the board. A little goes a long way so the drop in grinds can make huge gains without much downside.

I would still like to see fuel lobes within 5% of stock so fueling isn't altered too much. Test those against the larger fuel lobe units to see where the chips land. I haven't seen ported L15 results yet or a cammed L15 on a large drop in. Would be interesting to see for sure.

 

[Redwing]

This is the difference my "brick for flow" k20c1 made with a simple port job. 50 to 70whp gains plus faster spool everywhere.

Drop in cams for Type Rs have made 40whp+ very easily and on the top end can make an 80 to 100whp difference as rpm climbs past 7300ish where the stock cams fall off a cliff

Waste of money? Lmfao The dynos don't lie

Cams are pretty simple - the stock ECU won't let you overcam the car anyway as it makes tuning a nightmare due to the currently locked VE charts it references for fueling. To run a really race level cam you'll need motec which solves the VE issue immediately. Even on stock ecu tho more duration and lift improves breathing across the board. A little goes a long way so the drop in grinds can make huge gains without much downside.

I would still like to see fuel lobes within 5% of stock so fueling isn't altered too much. Test those against the larger fuel lobe units to see where the chips land. I haven't seen ported L15 results yet or a cammed L15 on a large drop in. Would be interesting to see for sure.

Many good observations...

I unfortunately do not know the limitations of stock ECU tuning. I know there ARE limitations present regarding the locked Volumetric Efficiency (VE) charts when it comes to camshaft upgrades, but I don't know how big of an actual problem it is. Does anyone have an idea on the challenges faced when tuning around this? I am hoping a simple port job, and a drop in cam won't cause much issue.

At the moment, I don't think the biggest cams currently available off the shelf (like Kelford's 268/272 Stage 2 Turbo Cam) are too large to cause massive VE error. It shouldn't change more than like 15% standard of the VE right? But then again, I don't know what I don't know. And I can't for the life of me find specs on the OEM cam.

While also on the point of fuel lobe sizing, Hondata's Fuel system massively increases the fuel lobe lift and duration. I thought the fuel lobe sizing was a non-issue, is that not the case? Does doing everything at the same time (intake, exhaust, & fuel) make tuning too much of a headache?

Aftermarket solutions like Motec offer a way out of the conundrums but I feel like if I have to switch to a standalone ECU then it's no longer a "road car."

At the end of the day, I'm super excited to have Austin@Wunderladen Racing helping to lead the charge into these waters! Hat's off to you chap!

 

[speedyserg]

Many good observations...

I unfortunately do not know the limitations of stock ECU tuning. I know there ARE limitations present regarding the locked Volumetric Efficiency (VE) charts when it comes to camshaft upgrades, but I don't know how big of an actual problem it is. Does anyone have an idea on the challenges faced when tuning around this? I am hoping a simple port job, and a drop in cam won't cause much issue.

While also on the point of fuel lobe sizing, Hondata's Fuel system massively increases the fuel lobe lift and duration. I thought the fuel lobe sizing was a non-issue, is that not the case? Does doing everything at the same time (intake, exhaust, & fuel) make tuning too much of a headache?

Aftermarket solutions like Motec offer a way out of the conundrums but I feel like if I have to switch to a standalone ECU then it's no longer a "road car."

The Si/Accord and the Type R use different ecu and fueling strategies so it's tough to say how much of an impact the VE tables will be on Si vs R.

As far as the R goes the drop in TR2s are about as far as you want to go - the Tr3s require more fine tuning which is possible but with a few mods to assist - this is where motec is superior to hondata in terms of control. Plenty of guys use motec on the street - just offers more fine tuning and control to make any combo work to its full potential.

Hondata (type r) has been pushed to around 750whp where the torque request limit was found. Past that you'll have no choice but to go motec to make more power.

With TR2s, a ported head and g30-770 we've seen around 716whp on a stock bottom Type R on ethanol. No tuning issues as the cams were not too aggressive but allowed the engine to breathe to 8200rpm.

Again a little goes a long way so while the TR3s would make more power- the TR2s are a better, more responsive street cam. A ported head as seen in my dyno makes power everywhere - the engine is just able to inhale and exhale much easier.

As far as tuning, the ported head is very simple to tune - cams are a touch harder with cam angles etc but again - a small drop in cam upgrade should be fine. Stage 1 testing should show solid gains and change the personality of the engine - higher rpm ceiling etc.

The one burning question is can the L15b7 in stock form support raised rpm window. Given the oil pump and rods might become an issue at say 8000rpm....500rpm higher should be ok - folks might find out the hard way once the motor itself CAN flow to 8000 but the bottom end might not stay together making the power and rpm without some help.

Either way the cams will make power to stock rpm but typically cams allow the rpm range to be pushed up but that's IF the engine can stay together up there. For Type R 8200 is about the edge - of hpfp and bottom end - I just don't know if the rpm has been tested on a stock bottom L15b7 - hopefully we see those numbers soon and then anyone who wants to replicate will know where the safe rev range is. Testing - another reason I share my findings, including the setbacks.

It's just wild when people say stuff like ported heads lose power or cams are a waste of money Makes me laugh

 

[Redwing]

The one burning question is can the L15b7 in stock form support raised rpm window. Given the oil pump and rods might become an issue at say 8000rpm....500rpm higher should be ok - folks might find out the hard way once the motor itself CAN flow to 8000 but the bottom end might not stay together making the power and rpm without some help.

Either way the cams will make power to stock rpm but typically cams allow the rpm range to be pushed up but that's IF the engine can stay together up there. For Type R 8200 is about the edge - of hpfp and bottom end - I just don't know if the rpm has been tested on a stock bottom L15b7 - hopefully we see those numbers soon and then anyone who wants to replicate will know where the safe rev range is. Testing - another reason I share my findings, including the setbacks.

It's just wild when people say stuff like ported heads lose power or cams are a waste of money Makes me laugh

Maybe MAPerformance might be able to shed some light on RPM limits, they are the only ones I can find who are known to have revved their car above 8k. Maybe PRL Motorsports also?

I sent MAP an email asking if they could shed light on the topic.

I actually found the video where they state they "we revved our L15 over 10,000 RPM numerous times." I believe they had custom valves, shims and maybe some other hiding goodies? And it seemed only for a few instances, but still- 10k?! The engine did fail in the end, but think it was on the stock bottom end.

Edit 1: I seem to have some made an error regarding "MAP having tested a stock bottom-end upwards of 10k RPM." I believe I was looking at a video where they do not exceed more than 8.5k RPM.

Edit 2: But I found the original video clip and it's here! (What Breaks when Making 500+hp with a 10th Gen Honda Civic Si? - YouTube) It does say 10K!

 

[optimoprime]

why is everyone just oh so sure that the companies making the cams are providing false information. ~25hp/~30lbft its hard to judge such small amounts of power but it feels acurrate. its honestly more about how the engine responds up top and less about the overall power.

anyone else with cams installed would most likely tell you the same thing. yes its worth the 900 bucks. i would probably say most people would find it easier and be happy with just the stage1 cams that dont need the valve springs changed. you can do the job in an evening if your just dropping the cam in.

 

[ManitobaSI]

I wonder how the kelford fuel lobe shape compares to the hondata fuel lobe shape. I wonder if all the kelford cams also have the same fuel lobe shape also.

 

[Redwing]

I wonder how the kelford fuel lobe shape compares to the hondata fuel lobe shape. I wonder if all the kelford cams also have the same fuel lobe shape also.

I believe at the moment they are running the exact same profile as the SI fuel lobe. As far as I know, the fuel lobe is identical for all of their cams.

I talked with one of their sales reps a while back and they basically said that because they make their cams in house, they actually have the option of changing a profiled grind on a case-by-case basis. So if you really want you could probably convince them to get a more lobey lobe.

Also I just heard back from a guy at MAPerformance. We discussed a whole lot, but the discussion I copy pasted below highlights a good part of it.

Me:
"I’ll run an example of two different builds. Both cars will have FBO and a fueling upgrade on a stock civic si block with something like the w1 or GC turbo and running e30.

1. Runs the car at 30 psi of peak boost and does not have cams or valve upgrades. Makes ~350 WHP at 6000 RPM and ~375 WTQ at 3700 RPM. Usually a car built/tuned like this would have a short life and shoot a rod out the side of it and shred its gears if its left alone.

2. Runs the car at 27 psi of peak boost and has large cams, valve springs, and a ported head. Hopefully it should see around ~350 WHP at 7200 RPM and ~330 WTQ at 4200 RPM. The hope is that this build would be more reliable than the traditional method 1 due to lower required boost pressure and TQ.

Do you think option 2 will actually be more reliable than option 1? Why or why not?"

MAP Rep. Noah:
"In regards to both scenarios of what a car runs, generally speaking, keeping the torque number down and the horsepower up is what's going to be the best ratio to keep the engine safe. Having your maximum torque hit early in the revs compared to late is going to provide a much longer lifespan to the engine. With this said though, there's about a million variables that go into it, such as boost pressure, how fast your turbo spools, turbo size, tune, etc. the list goes on.

With all of this said, I do want to also state that I am by no means an expert on these engines, this is going based off of my general knowledge and experience with these engines, so please take my response with a grain of salt!

Essentially, your logic is correct 100%, I just don't know what could happen if you pushed the stock bottom-end above factory redline by a significant amount, especially without doing anything to the head."

I have attached the full email chain for anyone interested.

Sponsored