Catcams Versus Piper Cams

[Gtiracer 0]

In the new year i had planned to do the well proven catcam inlet mod but thanks to my current job i can obtain piper cams at trade price and need to know which would be the better route and if piper cams on an Mi16 are as effective as the catcam one, obviously the prices are tempting but if they prove next to no use theres no point in buying them, im hoping someone on here has tried and tested both options for comparison but if not it would be good still to hear both sides of the story.

 

Thanks in advance

Edited December 16, 2006 by Gtiracer

[maxi 36 1 Cars]

From a man that has PERSONALLY tried both brands, CATCAMS everytime!

 

Very cheap too, im afraid the other company dosent cut the mustard anymore in profiles and budget.

 

Maxi

[Miles 331 1 Cars]

just look at the background of piper, piper 2000, piper performace to name a few, I wouldn't touch them, I only use Kent or Cat and have never had a single problem with either

[Henry 1.9GTi 36]

if your goning to get piper 270's which in their catalouge is the only one they recomend retaining hydrualic lifters, the lift is around 9.9mm and 1.27mm at TDC with 264 degrees duration. Looking at the wildest catcam u can use on hydraulics its around 285 degrees and 11.5mm lift 3mm at TDC. So perhaps you could use the piper 285, not sure on figures for that cam but their catalouge has all the info. Depends what characteristics u want really. good luck

[Super Josh 4]

if your goning to get piper 270's which in their catalouge is the only one they recomend retaining hydrualic lifters, the lift is around 9.9mm and 1.27mm at TDC with 264 degrees duration. Looking at the wildest catcam u can use on hydraulics its around 285 degrees and 11.5mm lift 3mm at TDC. So perhaps you could use the piper 285, not sure on figures for that cam but their catalouge has all the info. Depends what characteristics u want really. good luck

 

 

But the ramp angles are completely different between Hydraulic and solid lifter profiles. I'd go with Catcam.

 

 

 

Josh

[PumaRacing 2]

In the new year i had planned to do the well proven catcam inlet mod but thanks to my current job i can obtain piper cams at trade price and need to know which would be the better route and if piper cams on an Mi16 are as effective as the catcam one, obviously the prices are tempting but if they prove next to no use theres no point in buying them, im hoping someone on here has tried and tested both options for comparison but if not it would be good still to hear both sides of the story.

 

Thanks in advance

 

You can't really categorise any of the cam companies as good, bad or indifferent based on just one or some of their profiles. Every single company has good profiles for some engines and bad profiles for some engines. I distribute Catcams for a number of reasons. They have a decent range of profiles and will also do specials to my design if there isn't anything in stock to suit. They also offer a good enough discount to make it worth my while dealing with them. Kent and Piper have such weird discount policies it just isn't worth getting involved with them. You can buy at retail from the big mail order places cheaper than the official dealer price. Finally Catcams publish lift and timing data good enough to actually evaluate a cam properly from their specs. Kent and Piper list seat to seat timing figures which are meaningless and in many cases the lift and timing I've measured bears no relation to the claims made in the catalogues. They also sell cams which are almost identical to standard but with ridiculous power claims and that pisses me off no end. They maybe call it marketing. I call it fraud.

 

I'm somewhat hopeful that Catcams will shake up the market to such an extent that Kent and Piper will finally have to get their clueless acts together. I'm not holding my breath though. You also want to keep an eye on Newman Cams. The guy running it knows his stuff but they have a very limited range as yet.

[TB_205GTI 1]

Kent and Piper list seat to seat timing figures which are meaningless and in many cases the lift and timing I've measured bears no relation to the claims made in the catalogues. T

 

Have you measured the durarion to be from seat to seat? Their catalogue states that the duration is from 0.1mm (as far as I remember)

[petert 600]

Or, you could buy one of mine.

[Gtiracer 0]

Do you offer re-grinds of originals or brand new ones?

Has anybody else on this forum had some of your work that they can give a recommendation of it?

What sort of profile are we talking about?

-in which case where will the main power band be?

and how much for?

[petert 600]

They're regrinds at AUS$220 exchange. They're a lot different to a Piper or Kent regrind however. They're a fast opening design and have a lot more area under the curve. I'm not sure if anyone on here has one, but I've sold them to UK, Europe, Canada etc. Ask on the 405 forum.

 

Standard - 214 deg. @ 0.050" lift.

Stage I - 226 deg. @ 0.050" lift. Should be used with standard exhaust cam. Works fine with std. ECU.

Stage II - 236 deg @ 0.050" lift. Should be used with standard exhaust cam. Needs after market ECU, bigger injectors and 10.4:1 minimum.

 

Power range depends on how you set them up. But as recommended, the Stage I will make power to approx. 7000 and the Stage II 7400.

 

I also offer bigger grinds in both solid and hydraulic but are more expensive as the lobes have to be built up. The Stage I hydraulic is by far the most popular.

[petert 600]

Has anybody else on this forum had some of your work that they can give a recommendation of it?

 

Nunoserrano has a Stage I and another member is the process of buying one.

[Super Josh 4]

Stage I - 226 deg. @ 0.050" lift. Should be used with standard exhaust cam. Works fine with std. ECU.

 

Peter, Interesting. Do you have any Power and Torque curves for these? To show how the Power and Torque delivery is changed from a standard cam. What sort of compression ratio do you need for this Cam?

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Josh

[petert 600]

The Stage I works fine on the XU9J4Z which has only 9.7:1, but works better with more. The engine in the graphs was fully rebuilt with an OEM piston/liner kit. The two dyno runs were two days apart. The best I've seen with a Stage I (10.8:1) is 101kW on the same dyno.

[gti_al 1]

Nunoserrano has a Stage I and another member is the process of buying one.

 

I've driven a couple of cars with your cams in... they definately feel different. I haven't driven the other cars for long, but they definately felt more frantic up top. The owners are very happy with them anyway...

 

I'll be in touch when i get something worth playing with.

[Baz 421]

Quite a few people on here run CatCam inlet to good results, one being Kate205gti on a std rebuilt Mi with TB's making just short of 200bhp.

[James_R 3]

Quite a few people on here run CatCam inlet to good results, one being Kate205gti on a std rebuilt Mi with TB's making just short of 200bhp.

 

Well closer to 190 BHP, been in kates car a few times now, and it'd certainly rapid when it comes on song at 4k

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Quite a few people on here run CatCam inlet to good results, one being Kate205gti on a std rebuilt Mi with TB's making just short of 200bhp.

 

Headwork & 4-2-1 manifold also.

[Gentrix 2 1 Cars]

Do you need extra shimps under the hydraulictappets, cause they are regrinds, or will they just fit in?

 

 

 

 

andi

[Anthony 1,003]

I've sent you a PM Peter, but given this is probably of interest to more than me, do you have a back-to-back dyno run showing the Stage 2 cam again standard and/or a Stage 1 (which I believe is similar to the Catcam's 4900526 inlet only)?

[petert 600]

Do you need extra shimps under the hydraulictappets, cause they are regrinds, or will they just fit in?

andi

 

No shiming is necessary, as the preload in the lifter takes up any clearance. They bolt straight in.

 

Anthony. I do have some dyno figures for the Stage II cam fitted with a std. inlet manifold, but I'll need to overlay them with the others above.

[petert 600]

There's quite a big difference in power and torque figures, but please take notice that the Stage II cam is fitted to a race prepped engine - 10.4:1, serious BV head, std. exhaust cam, std. exhaust headers, std. inlet, bigger injectors, Haltech ECU. When fitted with 45mm TB's power jumped another 13kW.

 

The Stage I cam is fitted to a bog stock low compression Mi16 engine.

[TB_205GTI 1]

clearly there is something VERY wrong about thoose torque figures..

300Nm on the wheels on a 1.9L engine..

[Rippthrough 98]

clearly there is something VERY wrong about thoose torque figures..

300Nm on the wheels on a 1.9L engine..

 

Could be the actual wheel torque without taking gearing into account?

[petert 600]

clearly there is something VERY wrong about thoose torque figures..

 

"Nm @ wheels" = flywheel torque x gear ratio x FD ratio x wheel diameter x dyno operator fudge factor

[Gtiracer 0]

QUOTE(BazGTMi @ Dec 20 2006, 03:55 AM) *

 

Quite a few people on here run CatCam inlet to good results, one being Kate205gti on a std rebuilt Mi with TB's making just short of 200bhp. smile.gif

 

Well closer to 190 BHP, been in kates car a few times now, and it'd certainly rapid when it comes on song at 4k

 

This option certainly sounds more tempting to be honest seeing as i'm getting throttle bodies come next month

Edited December 21, 2006 by Gtiracer