yaroslav what people are trying to tell you is
hks and jun are the best
works is

 

Someone needs to put a stock evo head on a flow bench so we all know what lift makes sense on these cars. Too much lift, just like too much cam duration, is a bad thing if the rest of the motor, especially the head and turbo, doesn't flow correspondingly well.

 

Actually none of the current cams available for the EVO are billet. They are all cast blanks machined to certian specs... If there is a billet cam available - show me please!

 

Are ANY of the posts here based on actual back to back testing or just repeating hearsay from these forums? The only REAL test was done on a DSM by AMS afaik and the HKSs came out on top. You can't just say "Works are best!" (or any brand) because they happen to be the ones you want/have LOL. Give REAL VALID SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE if you are going to PRODUCTIVE member. over...flame suit on

 

Hear ya' go, some one shoud repeat this for the EVO, (Please) and post dyno graphs not just peak numbers. I'm sure AMS has the charts. Anyone know them well enough to get them to post them?

Test vehicle:

-1994 Eagle Talon - 5spd

-1991 Motor with roughly 40K miles, stock bottom and top end including head gasket

-Turbo: 16G with ported exhaust housing

-Exhaust Manifold: 2G ported

-Intake Manifold: Stock

-Throttle Body: Stock

-MAF: 1G slightly hacked (screw backed out) with K&N filter & stock turbo intake pipe

-Intercooler: Spearco 2-221 core with custom mandrel bent 2.25" diameter piping.

-Exhaust: HRC O2 eliminator downpipe and 3" exhaust with no cat-conv.

-Injectors & Fuel Control: Walbro 255lph Fuel Pump, 510cc/min injectors & S-AFC

-Boost controller: Ric Gillis Manual boost controller, check ball & spring type.

-Gas: 100 octane unleaded

-Ignition: Stock with NGK BPR7ES plugs, timing set to stock specifications





Cams Tested:

Stock Mitsubishi

Web Cams - Street Grind

HKS 264 intake 264 Exhaust

HKS 264 intake 272 Exhaust

HKS 272 intake 272 Exhaust

Crower - Stage 3 Grind

Jun Stage 3 Grind



Peak Horsepower and Torque Results:



Stock Mitsubishi Camshafts:

Peak HP: 309.5

Peak TRQ: 295.3

Spool up on street: quick, full boost by 3.2K RPM in 3rd gear with good power when off boost and as it's coming onto boost.



Web Cams - Street Grind:

Peak HP: 314.3

Peak TRQ: 295.3

Spool up on street: slower than stock, full boost by 3.4K RPM in 3rd gear with less power off boost than stock cams.



Crower - Stage 3 Grind

Peak HP: 322.6

Peak TRQ: 314.0

Spool up on street: much slower than stock (the worst of all the cams) with full boost hitting by 3.6-3.7K RPM and a definite loss in power off boost compared to stock cams.



Jun Stage 3 Grind

Peak HP: 323.7

Peak TRQ: 323.2

Spool up on street: Car was not driven on the street.



HKS 264 Intake 264 Exhaust

Peak HP: 323.1

Peak TRQ: 333.0

Spool up on street: As good as stock (3.2K RPM), with off boost power the same if not better than stock.



HKS 264 Intake 272 Exhaust

Peak HP: 324.2

Peak TRQ: 333.1

Spool up on street: Slightly slower than stock (3.3K RPM in 3rd gear) and a very slight loss in power in off boost conditions.



HKS 272 Intake 272 Exhaust

Peak HP: 325.2

Peak TRQ: 323.4

Spool up on street: Slower than stock, full boost by 3.4K RPM in 3rd gear with a slight loss in power in off boost conditions.



Dyno Graphs:



Stock Vs. Web Cams

Stock Vs. Crower Stage 3

Stock Vs. Jun Stage 3

Stock Vs. HKS 264 In 264 Ex

Stock Vs. HKS 272 In 272 Ex

HKS 264 In 264 Ex Vs. HKS 272 In 272 Ex

HKS 264 In 264 Ex VS. HKS 264 In 272 Ex

HKS 272 In 272 Ex VS. Crower Stage 3

HKS 272 In 272 Ex VS Jun Stage 3

HKS 264's VS HKS 272's VS Crower Stage 3 VS Jun Stage 3



Conclusion:



We reached the limitations of the 16G turbo during this test. The turbo would not make any more power nor would it hold more than 20psi of boost at higher RPM's. When the boost was turned up to 25psi the torque went to 350ft-lbs (HKS 272's) but the boost again would fall to 20psi and only make 327whp. From the dyno graphs it appears that for the best track times the HKS 272's would be the best choice. With a larger turbo choice (T3/T4) I think the difference in high RPM horsepower would be more apparent and would reflect better on the more aggressive camshafts. Time permitting we might run a test between a few of these camshaft on car with a larger turbocharger. In the meantime we'll be installing an FRH intake manifold and less restrictive intake tract on the 16g powered test car to see if we can squeeze a little more airflow out the little guy. For any questions or comments feel free to contact me at the shop (847-709-0530) or email me at martin@automotosports.com

 

Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with them. Care to share your bad experience with Works cams so we can all become a bit wiser and be able to choose new cams a bit more wisely? I love reading owner testimonials.. it really adds to the community overall and thankfully, you're not just going off the commentary from a few people who have never owned the product, tested them or even been in the same zip code with the Works cams.

Thanks for raising the bar. The cream does indeed rise to the top.

 

Just repeating something I read on here, but I was under the impression that the JUN cams weren't designed to work with the stock valvetrain. The HKS and Works cams are designed to work with the stock valvetrain.

If that's true, the extra cost of replacing the valve springs (and retainers?) should be considered along with the JUN cams.

I am running the HKS 264i/272e combination. No numbers or dyno sheets (yet), but the car pulls like a champ all the way to the 7600RPM fuel cutoff.

 

go with works, there cams are well made plus they will give you the most HP to the wheels. Works is an outstanding company.

 

How long has works been making cams and do they make them or does someone make them for works.

 

The works Cams are their own design. Obviously the machining is done out of house, but the design and engineering is WORKS own. I've been driving around for three days now witht he works 269's and ....WOW. The difference and pull up top is dramatic. Amazing, smooth. Idle is a little lumpy, but not bothersome at all, no stalling or even fear of it. Imminently driveable. I'm thrilled with my choice.


Percy Howard

 

i am serious of getting them because I just keep hearing good things about them. i mean they have really good customer service which matter the most to me.

 

We have repaeted a bit of that research on the EVO and I will see about getting some dyno sheets up in the next day or two.

-kris

 

ok i have hks 272, if you wanna hear what hte idle sounds like check here:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...hlight=hks+272

the power of 272's is amazing

 

Who sells the Tomei cams here?

 

Piper Road Rally set was tested back to back on an EVO against HKS 272 and made 30 whp more. The problem is that the EVO valvetrain seems to have been changed for the 8 and therefore cannot sustain as much lift without major failure. Upgrading springs and retainers you can use the 11.5mm lift cams that are out there. Lift gives more mid/top power depending on other variables.

Mark
www.Quantum-Racing.com