Piper 285 Cam

[Guest clem]

Hi i have recently bought a 205 1.6 gti and i am looking at buying a piper 285 cam, i read a post that was put onto the forum a while back and noticed that it said that i may need some more bits to make the cam work more effectively. Is this true and if so what is it that i will actually require? Also without sounding totally ignorant how will the cam run in the 1.6 gti (will it be too lumpy)?

 

many thanks

clem

[MerlinGTI 3]

I had one in my 1.6 with nothing else untill recently, now back on a standard cam (untill new engine is built)

 

Its not too lumpy (They still idle nice) and you dont 'need' anything else. A vernier pully set up right might be a nice addition though. As would a bit of port work.

 

CatCams seem to be more favoured on here than Kent and Piper. PumaRacing even questions if the mild cams from Piper and Kent are any better than the standard item.

Edited June 1, 2010 by MerlinGTI

[Baz 421]

^ That's to do with the really mild ones, 270 or so.

[MerlinGTI 3]

Ah fair play Baz

[Atari Boy 11]

I have a Pipet 270 fitted to my 2.0 XU10 8v (from Baz).

Medium head work and 142bhp.

[Baz 421]

yep, it's unfair to say they make no difference at all!

[Guest clem]

thanks ever so much for the replies, i have so far got a four branch manifold, full exhaust system, induction kit, 1.9 injectors and 1.9 throttle body. I want it to make a difference i just dont want it to have no power at low revs and not even be able to pull the skin off of custard until 6000revs. thanks again for the replies.

[Baz 421]

It will push the power band up higher, and it WILL be lumpy, as it's recommended that a 285 isn't run with the std inlet plenum, although IMO it will, just with a high, lumpy idle.

 

The 1.9 injectors etc will do you no favours at all though for the record, and the TB is no different to the 1.6 one.

[MerlinGTI 3]

1.9 injectors and 1.9 throttle body.

 

TB are the same in 1.6 and 1.9 GTI's (there was a revision in TB design but this was based on age not engine size. I think it was early ones had a black reel and AMF stamped on them whilst later ones had a white reel and no marking. No performance benifit in one over the other)

 

1.9 injectors on a 1.6 is a no no

 

To settle your mind on the 285, it went well in mine. Good idle (as long as your idle is currently ok) and pulled cleanly through the rev's.

 

EDIT: No lumpy idle here Baz, I did have mine a little high tho (900ish).

Edited June 1, 2010 by MerlinGTI

[Guest clem]

thanks for the advice, will definitely take that into consideration.

[Baz 421]

EDIT: No lumpy idle here Baz, I did have mine a little high tho (900ish).

 

That's good to hear, and useful, i always reckoned it'd be fine in with standard injection etc, although of course there'd be a lot better gains to be had with carbs/bodies and management.

 

In fact i still have a 282 cam somewhere i may end up doing something with, one day!

[MerlinGTI 3]

I always reckoned it'd be fine in with standard injection etc, although of course there'd be a lot better gains to be had with carbs/bodies and management.

 

 

Consider your thoughts confirmed

 

Would of been nice to see how it went on carbs or bodies sadly shops want money and I dont have any

[welshpug 1,661]

they work a lot better if the head is skimmed to raise compression and the timing adjusted to suit

[Anthony 1,003]

Judging from a friends 1.9 that used to have one of these cams fitted, it will run on standard management acceptably, but it is very lumpy at idle, and pretty flat below 3k.

 

I'm sure more compression would certainly help as Welshpug says above, but ultimately, that's quite a hot cam for humble Jetronic management to deal with and it would be vastly improved with aftermarket management, or ideally, ITB's of sorts.

[Baz 421]

Judging from a friends 1.9 that used to have one of these cams fitted, it will run on standard management acceptably, but it is very lumpy at idle, and pretty flat below 3k.

 

Ooh yes, i almost forgot about that one!

[welshpug 1,661]

I have run a similar cam on a standard 1.9 with MP3.1 management, and as Anthony said, it was crap under 3k

[Anthony 1,003]

I have run a similar cam on a standard 1.9 with MP3.1 management, and as Anthony said, it was crap under 3k

Going slightly off-topic, how did you find MP3.1 coped with modifications like a cam? Did you ever rolling-road it with a wideband lambda to see how the fuelling looked?

 

I've still got a complete ZX Volcane MP3.1 setup here that's obviously perfect for a standard 1.9 engine, but I've always shyed away from fitting it to a modified engine as I was dubious how well it would cope, being MAP sensor based and with no lambda, knock sensor etc, If it copes OK though, I could be tempted to fit it to my GTi-S

[welshpug 1,661]

I'm afraid I didn't leave it in there long enough to do that Anthony with the idle with the standard compression I would imagine emissions could be a struggle, though it never cut out at all it was pretty lumpy, mine is the ZX ecu as well, no pinking issues anywhere in the rev range though it was pretty grumpy at low revs in traffic.

 

its got a Kent 272 ish cam in there now, but not on the road.

 

your GTI-S has raised compression afaik and idles far better than I remember mine did, also its not too dissimilar to Graham's 205 that is running a remapped MP3.1.

 

I will shortly be fitting a BX MP3.1 to a raised compression 1.9 running a Piper 270, which in reality isn't a massive amount milder than the 285, exactly the same peak lift, but 1.2 mm less lift at tdc and 2 degrees later to hit peak.

Edited June 2, 2010 by welshpug