KR cam again

[coullstar 0]

I know the KR inlet cam gives you more power in a 9A but does it change the power delivery?

 

I like the mid range of the 2l compared to the 1.8 and I dont want to compromise this. Does the power band move further up the rev range?

[h100vw 0]

I fitted an exhaust cam as an inlet in my 1800 and IMO it started making power earlier not later. This was certainly evident on the motorway when overtaking, you didn't need to drop a gear at 70 to get a move on. I would suspect the KR inlet cam would have a similar but smaller improvement.

 

Gavin

[corradophil 3]

Yes, but its not too bigger difference, made my car feel more lively, at 4500rpm it really picks up. 8)

[davidwort 0]

I know the KR inlet cam gives you more power in a 9A but does it change the power delivery?

 

I like the mid range of the 2l compared to the 1.8 and I dont want to compromise this. Does the power band move further up the rev range?

 

less low end and mid range torque and more top end than a 9A cam, kr inlet is a good compromise though for a 2L engine. The 9A gives a very flat torque curve (which is good) it's just that it tails off just as you'd expect a valver to be coming on song.

 

the plot attached shows a bog standard healthy 2.0 16v plotted against my 2.0 with a flowed KR head and KR inlet cam.

The torque graph is a bit difficult to read but basically my curve only overtakes the standard 9A at 4500 revs, quite a bit of the peak at high revs (probably over 10bhp) and some of the drop at lower revs may be due to the flowed head but it gives you an idea. At about 3500 revs there is 8 or so lb/ft more torque from the standard 9a but by 6000 revs the 9A is past it's best and the KR 2.0 has 25 bhp more, also feels strong to the redline which means it's also well on cam when you swap to the next gear :-)

 

David.

[coullstar 0]

Thanks for the replys. Its kinda what I was expecting. I noticed the 2l does tail off a bit compared to my old 1.8 but 90% of the time I drive the car normally so its ok. I suppose its that last 10% where I am having fun that the extra top end is useful.

 

What about fuel consumption etc? Any others changes?

 

Got one sitting in the garage so it may be a good excuse to get away from the chrimbo TV and fit the bugger.

[corradophil 3]

I didn't notice any change in fuel consumption. If you happy to do the work yourself therefore it won't cost you anything, give it a go. You can always change it back if you really don't like it, but I'm sure you will keep it.

[davidwort 0]

Thanks for the replys. Its kinda what I was expecting. I noticed the 2l does tail off a bit compared to my old 1.8 but 90% of the time I drive the car normally so its ok. I suppose its that last 10% where I am having fun that the extra top end is useful.

 

What about fuel consumption etc? Any others changes?

 

Got one sitting in the garage so it may be a good excuse to get away from the chrimbo TV and fit the bugger.

 

I suppose in theory if you have less torque at the same revs on the same engine then you will end up using more fuel, don't think it will be noticable though. What you won't be able to tell easily without rolling roading it, is if you have lost much bottom end, problem is the extra oomph at the top end and the delayed torque peak make it feel quicker but some of that may be down to the contrast between low/mid and high revs rather than overall improvement. A good idea would be to do back to back tests in gear on the same bit of road. You could try 50-80mph acceleration in a range of gears and try to get a stable figure/good average before and after doing the swap. My guess is you will in most driving conditions lose out, as you will rarely benefit from the improved high rev power. Having said that, IMO I would rather not have flat cams in a 16v though, otherwise what's the point in having all that extra valve area over an 8v!

 

David.