Cams For Mi16 And Hydraulic Lifters

[FirSt95 0]

I'm looking for cams for the XU9J4 engine. I want the most powerfull cams using hidraulic lifters and using twin carbs (webber 45 or 48). What cams are better???

 

I've found this models:

 

CatCams 4900528

duration 0.1mm: 282 / 277°

duration 1mm: 248 / 244°

maximum lift: 11.50 / 10.75mm

lift at TDC: 2.70 / 2.40mm

NewmanCams 288/440H

duration: 288º

valve lift: 11.17mm

timing: 36/72/72/36

full lift: 108

 

KentCams 1604

duration: 316º

valve lift: 10.84mm

timing: 52/84/84/52

full lift: 106

lift at TDC: 2.56/2.56mm

 

In PiperCams only have got a simply "fast road" cams, others cams are for solid lifters. I've got this cams in my engine and it's very similar to the standard cams.

Edited May 9, 2010 by FirSt95

[Baz 421]

Out of that list, as a pair the KC PT1604's.

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

I can't offer any comparison, but I was well happy with my Catcam 4900528's in my otherwise-standard mi16. Admittedly it ran on bodies, which may have improved things, but it was a relative flyer. Was never dyno'd but it must have been putting out 190 horses (if not more, depending upon whose arse-dyno you believed). I know a chap who ran a carb'd engine on these cams and reckoned he saw 213bhp on a rolling road, not sure I believe that as a realstic number but either way, they make good power in a standard engine.

 

Mind you, the duration on the Kent one suggests it's a proper screamer cam

[Baz 421]

Yes, Screwloose's car runs the Kents with webers and lots of compression, (Forged Pistons etc) it is a bit of a screamer!

.

[FirSt95 0]

Are there any post with information about the Screwloose's cars????

 

I also think 316º are a lot, at the moment I'll fit with stock internal (not forged pistons), I renew all the engine the last year, with the FastRoads Pipercams, ARP rods and polish-ported head. And I don't want to open the engine another time.

[Baz 421]

Are there any post with information about the Screwloose's cars????

 

No.

 

It'll be going on mappable ignition and being mapped etc soon hopefully, so can give more info then.

[edbar 6]

Wouldn't you need to change the springs for these cams? And solid lifters?

[FirSt95 0]

Wouldn't you need to change the springs for these cams? And solid lifters?

 

No, in CatCamsspecifications of this cams indicates that it's works with OEM parts, the others, I don't konw, but I thinks if it's works with hidraulic lifters also works with oem spring.

 

At this moment I don't want to change lifters or open the head, only put the cams and carbs

Edited May 10, 2010 by FirSt95

[petert 588]

Two things come to mind. First, you're selecting grinds that are bigger than the standard hydraulic can handle. Anything with more than 240°@ 1mm (or worse 0.050") will make power well in excess of 7500, the recognised safe limit for a standard Mi16 lifter/spring/valve. So all you're doing is narrowing your usable power band. If you look through the cam sites carefully, you'll notice the same master grinds are used on other hydraulic bucket type engines. So they're not made specifically for an Mi16. You can use less camshaft, still make power to 7500 and have a broader power band. Secondly, the safe maximum lift for a standard spring is approx. 11.2-11.3mm. So you're on the wrong side of acceptable if choosing the 528 Catcam inlet, risking spring bind. I'm not saying it won't work, because it obviously did for Brumster. You just need to measure to be sure.

 

Neither Newman or Kent have given you a duration at 1mm. So it makes it difficult to compare directly. Here as some Kent numbers however:

 

PT1603 @ 0.010" = 282 and @ 0.040" = 241

PT1604 @ 0.010" = 298 and @ 0.040" = 244

 

Choose wisely.

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Yes, they were timed in on verniers - very carefully standard pistons and a mild skim on the head but otherwise everything was standard. As you probably know, a little bit of grinding is needed to the head around the cam follower appertures to allow the lobes to clear the head casting, but this is perfectly doable DIY and if you're careful (ie. use lots of grease to capture the shavings) I guess you could do it in-situ.

 

I've been known to bounce it off 8k <cough> but such comes from having a website called "giveitdeath", I have a reputation to live up to! One day I'm sure I'll kill it

[petert 588]

That's right, anything with more than approx. 10mm of lift will require modification of the lifter bores. There is another option, taylor-eng.com

[FirSt95 0]

yes, cylinder head MUST be machined at camlobes... The photo is a cylinder head of XU10J4RS with Newman cams 288º.

 

I think it's possible to be machined on the engine.

 

 

 

The stock pistons must be machined???

[petert 588]

I think it's possible to be machined on the engine.

 

The stock pistons must be machined???

 

I don't. Where will the swarf go?

 

There is enough piston-valve clearance to safely allow up to 0.105" lift @ TDC on the inlet. After that.........................bang. My Stage II grind (16H426A) or Stage III (16H419) both fit at the desired centre line of 106°. Anything bigger will require machining of the pistons.

[Dazza 4]

A lot of sensible experience shared here guys,

 

I have the 528's in my 16v and to give my feedback.

 

Iam really pleased with the car on track and its got plenty of power to use, as for roling road results I have had 3 sessions all at different places and we achieves a 219 - 217 and then a latter 195 albeit the comments are the cam timing is out with the latter figure ? .

All these figures were recorded at 7000-7100 rpms not the 8000 specified for the peak power in the spec for the 528's.

Now Iam not saying for a minute any of these are accurate and my setting out figure was to build a 200 horse engine and I think that I have achieved that based on my experience.

 

My mate has the same spec engine in his 205 Mi and on his rolling road his ran at 215 horse.

 

The only negative side is the hydraulics are quite noisy due to these cams, albeit again Iam a fussy sod.

 

On the track there both very quick 205's so I hope weve done something right ....

Edited May 12, 2010 by Dazza

[petert 588]

Mattsav (from QEP) wrote a post about an otherwise standard 1.9L Mi16 he built with 528 cams and 45mm TB's. It made 195hp. Do a search, it's good reading.

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

I'm not saying anyone's lying here, I'm sure everyone gets the figures they've been told, and there's certainly a LOT of people using the CC's who claim upwards of 210bhp seen. For me, I saw an improvement on stage times and that was enough for me, so it never got dyno'd as there was no need. But it certainly felt the lower side of 200 horses, and certainly didn't compare with other similar cars running 210+ in a straight line.

 

I only mention it because I'd hate for you to dismiss other cams thinking the CC's will give you ultimate power, only to be disappointed. This

might give you a feel (albeit on a very short 4.8:1 diff).

[Dazza 4]

I will have a look at that thread Peter when i have time and i trust mattsav will be spot on even before I read it.

 

I would agree with Brumster, on track the car goes like a rocket and in my experience keep with most of the competition out there, cars like the 106 & 306 GTI's are quite easy to leave standing.

 

I use a 4.42 FD so were running out of gears at 125 .

 

One thing that puzzles me is the peak power at 7100 and these are suppposed to peak at 8000 ? is it me.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Dazza

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

No, mine certainly wasn't that peaky, it pulled well through the whole rev-range (didn't seem to come 'on cam' specifically at a given point), and made good power at 7 just as much as 8. Only reason I took them to 7.8 was so the upshift landed you in good power, but they're certainly a very flexible cam.

[Dazza 4]

No, mine certainly wasn't that peaky, it pulled well through the whole rev-range (didn't seem to come 'on cam' specifically at a given point), and made good power at 7 just as much as 8. Only reason I took them to 7.8 was so the upshift landed you in good power, but they're certainly a very flexible cam.

 

 

My exact description of how these cams improve the MI16 Brumster. They are a really good choice ime.

 

One point to make is, mine does seem to really pull hard from 5500rpms to that 8000 when i have raised the Omex limiter the odd time from 7500, albeit as you mention from the off its got plenty of pull unlike the standard Mi16 engine.

The match of 4.42 F/D gearing I suppose has some bearing effect and the 5500-8000 is A rapidly despached delivery of power and I tend to keep hold of the gear-stick as it gets through the gears that quickly.

[Ivanko 0]

Hi.

First- sorry for my English

 

What shaft would you recommend as the best option for my Mi16 which I drive every day and do not want to have losses in low revs ...

For now I turn to this-http://www.taylor-eng.com only for Stage I Intake (regrind, not new)

 

Advertised Duration 260

Duration @ 0.050” 226

Maximum Lift 0.350"

Lift @ TDC 0.065"

Lobe Centre Angle 109

Part Number 16H426B

 

What are your views on this type of shaft, once the shaft has the same lift, there will be any effect from the shaft or not worth the money

Edited February 28, 2012 by Ivanko

[petert 588]

 

What are your views on this type of shaft, once the shaft has the same lift, there will be any effect from the shaft or not worth the money

 

Simply the best hydraulic grind ever invented for an XU9J4/XU10J4. It will add 15hp to a 145hp DFW, or make 240hp from a 2.2L hybrid. However, I may be totally biased.