|
| mrnasty |
|
|||
|
Quote: ha, yeah ok
i don't spose you researched that hard then. both the 1004 and 1521a have both been proven to be good cams. i don't know where you pull this s**t from but my god you can't have researched that hard. Agreed. I've seen many wade1004 equipped cars, auto and manual, rip anywhere up to 146rwkw with a suitable exhaust and extractors. They are proven. Im sure their are plenty of members on here that will vouch for the wade cams. I myself will vouch for the 1004, i have one in my car. Great cam, im just after something a bit more now, thats why i have gone the DEV5a package. P.S So nobody knows just the lift of the jmm dev5a cam? bugger.
_________________ Cougar Zero makes my pants fit nice. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
i've used the 1004, was a big waste of money.
and the power they can produce, the average person may be happy with that. but it's a hell of alot less then what i want. there is more to cams then simple timing, lift, duration and LSA you can have your opinion of me it doesn't bother me in the least. it only your opinion. just like its my opinion about wadecams. the only difference is my opinion is one of some one who does this stuff for a living. and have many contacts who have been doing it for longer then you have been alive. They share my opinion. but befor you go bagging out how people do things give them a chance to prove it first. they did it well with the stg1 cam 14.7 on a falcon with only a cat back. love to see a 1004 do that. 
time will prove the stg3 to a very impressive cam |
||
| Top | |
||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
tickford_6 wrote: but befor you go bagging out how people do things give them a chance to prove it first. they did it well with the stg1 cam 14.7 on a falcon with only a cat back. love to see a 1004 do that.
time will prove the stg3 to a very impressive cam Quickcorty ran a 14.6 with a 1004 in a EA 5 speed with cat back years ago IIRC And how many people only care abot peak power and 1/4 mile times. Anyone who is camming up a daily driver should be just as concerned with the shape and low down power - which is something you cant measure with a dyno or track run. I have previously used a 1004 and found it to be very impressive low down and would use it again for a daily driver.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
stockstandard wrote: tickford_6 wrote: but befor you go bagging out how people do things give them a chance to prove it first. they did it well with the stg1 cam 14.7 on a falcon with only a cat back. love to see a 1004 do that. time will prove the stg3 to a very impressive cam Quickcorty ran a 14.6 with a 1004 in a EA 5 speed with cat back years ago IIRC And how many people only care abot peak power and 1/4 mile times. Anyone who is camming up a daily driver should be just as concerned with the shape and low down power - which is something you cant measure with a dyno or track run. I have previously used a 1004 and found it to be very impressive low down and would use it again for a daily driver. yeah and IIRC that car was completely gutted. |
||
| Top | |
||
| Disco Frank |
|
|||
|
comon guys calm down
for the dev5a specs.. get a dev5a cam and bring it into a cam shop and ask em to measure it for u there is a place here in WA that will do it for around $40
_________________ RIP SCOTT |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Jaysen |
|
|||
|
mrnasty wrote: just off hand does anyone know specs for the JMM DEV5a cam? I rang and asked him but he tried to tell me that the way the falcon cams lift they dont bother to give out lift specs cause they are completely different. I personally dont beleive him. I would have thought it would be a decent amount of lift anyhow
JMM arnt leading you up the garden path on that one, hence the reason why the stg 2 is taking me so bloody long to release. To find the correct lobe shape along with the right lift and duration is a VERY time consuming task. BTW, if you limit yourself to the thinking of over 0.500" is going to be a waste of time, then feel free to contact me and Ill explain why its not 
_________________ Dima, Mitch & Jay's RPD |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| voxace |
|
|||
|
The 1004 isn't too bad, however for the type of idle it produces you'd think it would make more power.
The ALTED Stage 1 has more go all over the rev range and idles as well as stock. If by using a larger lift, and modifying other features of the cam you are able to create a cam with equal (or better) power but a more useable power-band and better idle - then why not! |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| EFFalcon |
|
|||
|
tickford_6 wrote: yeah and IIRC that car was completely gutted.
Care to tell me where you heard that? Matt's car was actually pretty much in full street trim, hardly gutted. but ofcourse, anything to support your arguement, even if you're pullin s**t out your a***.
_________________ FALCN6 - EF GLi Turbo, 20" Rims, Air Bag Suspension, Straight LPG, 225rwkw |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| EFFalcon |
|
|||
|
voxace wrote: The 1004 isn't too bad, however for the type of idle it produces you'd think it would make more power.
The ALTED Stage 1 has more go all over the rev range and idles as well as stock. If by using a larger lift, and modifying other features of the cam you are able to create a cam with equal (or better) power but a more useable power-band and better idle - then why not! in saying that though, with the support of an aftermarket ECU, i'd be inclined to suggest that the wade may pickup more power from a tune, then the Alted stage 1 would. its like the JMM cams, they're designed to work with the stock ECU, to gain as much as possible and thus don't gain *a lot* with a full tune in comparison. They're designed with different setups in mind, its as simple as that. The ALTED cams have deffinately proved themselves (more 400m times would be nice though, i wanna see what the stg 3 is like  )
but i guess some people would prefer to spend $120 while others would prefer to spend $300.
_________________ FALCN6 - EF GLi Turbo, 20" Rims, Air Bag Suspension, Straight LPG, 225rwkw |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| 4.9 EF Futura |
|
|||
|
OK guys, time to settle down - already far too many personal insults so far.
This is a fascinating discussion and would be great to see it continue on its technical merits. But if there's any more abuse, posts will be removed and warnings will be issued.
_________________ I promise..... I will never die. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| mrnasty |
|
|||
|
Anyone know if the wade boys will measure the cam up for me?
As far as i know they are the closest cam grinders to me. Would any old machining shop measure the cam up or would i be best to stick to automotive machine shops? Once i get the specs ill post em up (if thats legal  ) so everyone has a good idea of the big and small cams around.
All the specs for the wade cams are on their site www.wadecams.com
_________________ Cougar Zero makes my pants fit nice. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
voxace wrote: The 1004 isn't too bad, however for the type of idle it produces you'd think it would make more power. The ALTED Stage 1 has more go all over the rev range and idles as well as stock. EFFalcon wrote: its like the JMM cams, they're designed to work with the stock ECU, to gain as much as possible and thus don't gain *a lot* with a full tune in comparison.
I think this is what it comes down to. Lots of the new cams are designed specifically to keep the ECU happy while others are not. When comparing cams, people seem to forget that both cars need to be tuned for a fair comparison to be made, otherwise you just comparing which cam confuses the ECU least. Comparing cams on a stock ECU is still valid because thats how many people will run them, but if your not using the cam as the designer intended (tune, headwork etc) then your not doing the profile justice. Its something that needs to be kept in mind. Take my 1521a for example. It sounded so lumpy at idle you would think should ready for a 13s pass. Now I have the MS2 in and spent some time getting the idle tune right, it idles like stock at 700rpm. The poor idle was not a characteristic of the cam profile, just a by product caused by a confused EEC.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| EFFalcon |
|
|||
|
mrnasty wrote: Anyone know if the wade boys will measure the cam up for me?
As far as i know they are the closest cam grinders to me. Would any old machining shop measure the cam up or would i be best to stick to automotive machine shops? Once i get the specs ill post em up (if thats legal ) so everyone has a good idea of the big and small cams around.All the specs for the wade cams are on their site www.wadecams.com I'm not sure if Wade will tell you, they grind the JMM cams as it is so they'd know the specifications. so for that reason they may not allow it.
_________________ FALCN6 - EF GLi Turbo, 20" Rims, Air Bag Suspension, Straight LPG, 225rwkw |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| mrnasty |
|
|||
|
Quote: I'm not sure if Wade will tell you, they grind the JMM cams as it is so they'd know the specifications.
so for that reason they may not allow it. good point, i may take the cam to frankston engine centre, im sure they can at least point me in the right direction. Or i may just give up, put the cam in then decide weather its good or not 
_________________ Cougar Zero makes my pants fit nice. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| yobboford |
|
|||
|
at the end of the day you can only be the judge of what you want, if you are planning to keep the stock ecu and not do any head work then listen to people running the same, there is a heap of alted happy customers so that must say something, there is heap of happy wade customers too, and jmm have the runs on the board with proven reliable performance aswell, for me i am running a CMS stg2 on a stock ecu and a stock head and i couldnt be happier, dropped my wagon from 15.7 to a 14.9 at the drags, thats in a eb with no braodband manifold, 300,000k's, std ecu (not even an xr6 one), stock head (again not xr6 even), 3.27 gears, a wagon is around 100kilo's havier then a sedan too. on the same dyno i went from 120 pre cam to 148 rwkw after cam (after tuning the ignition advance to suit the new cam).
but if you plan on doing lots of head work and after market ecu then you have to again look to peoples opinions who actually have them in there cars, i havent been down this path so i cant offer any advice.
_________________ Thanks to Crescent Motors, Liverpool. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 81 guests |
