Ams Evo Cam Test
Evolving Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
From: McKinney TX
Cores for EVO9 cams have been hard to find consistent supplies, next batch of 9 cams is ~60 days out. Hopefully the core supply issue is being resolved.
For example, on a stock head, the BC Stage 2's might be great, but on Martin's modified head, the BC's obviously do not complement the work done to it like some of the other cams in the test do.
Just the same, the GSC S2's were awesome on Martin's car, but on a stock head, they might be just ok.
The stage 3 seemed to perform quite comparably with the HKS 272 (at least on Martin's car) and you can get the BC for a lot less money. That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me, even if you have to buy cam gears, they're still cheaper.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 491
Likes: 1
From: Redmond Washington
This is from the July issue:
Last edited by Talonboost; Aug 9, 2008 at 09:06 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 491
Likes: 1
From: Redmond Washington
Looks like the BC3's were almost identical to the HKS272's all through the rev range. The FP4's were about 10 hp stonger from 5000 rpm all the way to red line, and were a little weaker below 5000 rpm.
I think I know why you were expecting more from the FP4's - it's the way FP wrote the web page for the EVO 8 4R and 5R - "were designed to the outer limits of the valvetrain geometry" and so forth makes it sound like they must be on a whole other level from the previous cams like the 270plus and the 280plus. Well maybe they are but it's not clear to me. And the HKS272's are just drop-in. I do think the FP4's look good though. On the BC3 Martin had to fiddle with the indexing. Had to retard intake 3 deg and advance the exhaust 2 deg.
Gary
I think I know why you were expecting more from the FP4's - it's the way FP wrote the web page for the EVO 8 4R and 5R - "were designed to the outer limits of the valvetrain geometry" and so forth makes it sound like they must be on a whole other level from the previous cams like the 270plus and the 280plus. Well maybe they are but it's not clear to me. And the HKS272's are just drop-in. I do think the FP4's look good though. On the BC3 Martin had to fiddle with the indexing. Had to retard intake 3 deg and advance the exhaust 2 deg.
Gary
Thread Starter
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Mount Prospect, IL
Looks like the BC3's were almost identical to the HKS272's all through the rev range. The FP4's were about 10 hp stonger from 5000 rpm all the way to red line, and were a little weaker below 5000 rpm.
I think I know why you were expecting more from the FP4's - it's the way FP wrote the web page for the EVO 8 4R and 5R - "were designed to the outer limits of the valvetrain geometry" and so forth makes it sound like they must be on a whole other level from the previous cams like the 270plus and the 280plus. Well maybe they are but it's not clear to me. And the HKS272's are just drop-in. I do think the FP4's look good though. On the BC3 Martin had to fiddle with the indexing. Had to retard intake 3 deg and advance the exhaust 2 deg.
Gary
I think I know why you were expecting more from the FP4's - it's the way FP wrote the web page for the EVO 8 4R and 5R - "were designed to the outer limits of the valvetrain geometry" and so forth makes it sound like they must be on a whole other level from the previous cams like the 270plus and the 280plus. Well maybe they are but it's not clear to me. And the HKS272's are just drop-in. I do think the FP4's look good though. On the BC3 Martin had to fiddle with the indexing. Had to retard intake 3 deg and advance the exhaust 2 deg.
Gary