87 Jetta 16v

For the same reason that all these chip companies make a living - i.e there is more power to be found in the standard mechanical set-up. Perhaps if every single one of these companies is peddling BS then you are right...and all those people will shortly be signing on!! I am not disputing that, what I am saying is there could be more power in the standard set up, so all of the gains quoted cannot be attributed to the cams. No no no no NO. Just because the car in question made a certain number that you would hope for does not mean it is optimised. All it means is that is is working as the manufacturer intended. Optimised. No. Good question, budget restraints? Margin of safety? Longevity? Lack of R&D? I don't know. It's all well and good saying it should be perfect, but the reality is, is that it probably isn't. A lot of people have made a living by tuning ECU's, perhaps they ALL have random number generators attached to their dyno's to massage a few egos and loosen a few wallets?!? Well if you trust one person to map your car AFTER changing the cams, one would assume they are competent enough to re-map it WITH standard cams, or maybe the reputable tuner should find another profession, and the owner of the car find themselves somewhere else to look after their car. By using the same person you will be comparing apples with apples. This has nothing to do with discrediting ANY type of cam, just the methods generally quoted to quantify the "gains". You can do it a right way, or you can do it wrong way. I prefer to trade in facts rather than hearsay. It must be the education.

That is more like it, a cam map. What you need now is a cam map for the 263's overlaid on the same graph so you can get a better idea of what these cams are doing for duration and lift at various points in the valve event. Camshafts, as with many other things are not all about headline figures and an accurate cam map is VERY helpful in determining the power potential of a set of cams.

Just 2 and 5 would suffice. People want an optimised set up (for numerous reasons) regardless of mechanical specification. Have a standard set mapped then dyno'd, then replace and have a replacement set mapped and dyno'd. Simple, comparing optimised set-up with optimised set-up. :D

Agreed. It's like changing your tyres and then reviewing them while they're flat - makes no sense. The two stages (new cams and re-map / new tyres and inflating them!) go hand-in-hand. Getting me some 263's soon and hopefully off up to Stealth to get them fitted (they don't know that mind!) so will try and get the necessary pointless charts then. Also getting some new tyres but on my 17's instead of 15's - not sure if my review would be accurate though as there are two variables in the equation :D I would disagree, what Norman is trying to ask (I think) is, what gains do you get from changing certain components (in this case cams). Yes, you need to re-map to quantify the true impact of these changes, but the whole gain will almost certainly not be due to just the cam change. For example, take any engine that is incorrectly set up and put it on the dyno (baseline figure - say 125 bhp for arguments sake), put some new cams in and set up the fuelling and ignition and you have a new number (modified number - say 175 bhp) did you just get 50bhp from the cams? No you didn't, you got some gains from the cams, and some from the setup. To accurately state an increase from a certain modification you need an optimised baseline figure in the original mechanical state. In this example, the original cams but with the ignition and fuelling correctly calibrated. When you have this, then change the cams and re-optimise the ignition and fuelling and you will get a true gain / loss number for a certain modification. Simple. What Norman is also driving at (I think) is that the original VW mapping is not 100% optimised for a standard setup. I would like to see true gain or loss figures for individual modifications, but as with anything, it costs time and money to quantify accurately.

Is todays car at the top of the forum?

I have just put a 10 lb (4.54kg) Autotech item on my new engine. It all fitted perfectly and (only!!) cost £120. It should be running in a couple of weeks, i'll let you know how I get on...

I had a similar problem with my KR, but this was intermitant bogging on full throttle, this turned out to be the fuel filter that I had neglected to change... :oops:

Does anyone know anything about DBilas valves? They look good on their website, but I guess as we all know, looks can be misleading!!

Hmm, I find that quite hard to believe from a std 1.8 Anyone else seen / heard of that kind of output from a standard KR?

That has sold the set of J.E's to me!! My next boring question is... they make them in a 83mm and an 83.5mm bore. Will the 83.5 be ok considering the reliability I need from this?

I would second what CazzerVR is saying. When the car is moving if you have a cold air feed from the front you get the effect of the car moving forwards pushing air into the engine providing a very gentle 'forced induction' if you like to put it that way. By drilling the airbox you remove the effect of this.

I have had a look and can't see it, any ideas when it was posted? Cheers...

If there is no noise of the pump running on the turn of the key it is unlikely to be strainer clogged or the fuel filter...it doesn't sound good :(

Thanks for that. I am looking to keep the existing block though, so the 9A is out of the question really. Will the diesel crank still fit the KR? Also, which diesel?

Hi all, I'm looking for a bit of advice from some people in the know. I am looking to rebuild my 215k 1.8 valver. Current situation is I rebuilt the top end 65k ago, ported the inlet manifolds and head, added some mild 265 piper cams and put a four branch magnex manifold and supersprint two box system on. This seemed to work pretty well and was putting out 168 bhp on the rollers. That was six years ago and now things are not quite what they were. Rebuild time again. The first thing that I will say is that I want to keep the original engine block with the car, so an engine replacement is out of the question. That leaves me with a KR block and head to work with. At 215k and now a bit loose I am looking at increasing capacity to 2L with a re-bore and new crank, I am however completely in the dark regarding the dimensions for the pistons and if there is a suitable VW crank available. I think a company called BRM sold a 2L modified KR many years ago? I am looking at sourcing some lighter JE Forged pistons and some I-Beam rods, the theory behind this being that lighter weight will equal more revs / power...however, having read the KR FI thread am a bit concerned with gapping, oil burning etc. Regarding the head, I am looking to refine the porting that I did before but replace the stock VW parts with some lighter Schrick valve gear and some 268 cams, as before, theory being light weight for more revs and power. As this will be my everyday car, I need it to be driveable, reliable, and not drink quite as much as Oliver Reed. Regarding fuelling, I was thinking of retaining the K-Jet for the time being with the addition of a 50mm manifold and a K-Star (if I can ever find one!). This time the thinking behind this being reliability and economy. Does anyone have any thoughts on this or am I wasting my effort, time and money? Please let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks, Neal. Great forum BTW.