new cam and heads

bigpomps · **new cam and heads**

I just ordered a new set of heads and a new cam from RPM. I was wondering if anybody had these on their 99-04 model mustang and how much hp i would expect to gain. i got the max effort heads with the full package of upgrades and the cam is 209/212 duration and .535/.531 lift with .540 springs. I have an exhaust upgrade to it can breathe easier. just wondering if anybody would know.

RGR · 04-01-2005, 01:00 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by bigpomps I just ordered a new set of heads and a new cam from RPM. I was wondering if anybody had these on their 99-04 model mustang and how much hp i would expect to gain. i got the max effort heads with the full package of upgrades and the cam is 209/212 duration and .535/.531 lift with .540 springs. I have an exhaust upgrade to it can breathe easier. just wondering if anybody would know.

Too bad, I coulda got you my new cam setup for that...
I have not seen the figures for that setup, but IMO 209 is
a bit big for a 3.8 NA setup, there are lower duration lobes
that move more air. But those are my cams.

Mik has probably got stuff for that cam/head pkg to make it work,
he's been doing it for a while so I'm sure it works.

For anyone else reading this, I offer cam/head packages and MIK
@ RPM-Mustangs does a special porting package to my specs,
(I got him started in the porting arts

so He's good enoug for me!)
and you can get an RGR-Spec combo with my cam and special RPM heads.

This would make it the best matched 3.8 street combos available anywhere.

97Stallion · 04-01-2005, 05:51 PM

is it me, or does your spring's rated lift seem rather close to it's peek with that cam???

charkelly9 · 04-01-2005, 09:38 PM

you didnt answer his question; i have the same question... how much power should he expect?

98GreenStallion · 04-02-2005, 05:03 AM

About 200-220rwhp and about 230rwtq

RGR · 04-02-2005, 07:29 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by 97Stallion is it me, or does your spring's rated lift seem rather close to it's peek with that cam???

If it is done right that is no problem. RPM's machine shop errs on the
conservative side, I have never seen the same springs be good for
any less than .560" on any arrangement that I have done, and usually
good up to .580" for all SPI combo's I have done. RPM's machine shop
assembly method would work out to .550" with my IH setup methods,
they are just enlarging the safety margin.

Answering your Q Rob, if it is exactly rated at .540" you can run a cam that
gives exactly .540" at the valve, no problem, if your measurements are correct.
But in the real world, the hydraulic rollers and pushrods geometry actually lose
a few thousandths off of rated lift, some 3 to 8 thou, so if you were to
measure the whole valvetrain assembly on the motor you could theoretically
run a cam with .545" lift on .540" rated springs.

Certain BH springs (high quality aftermarket) like we are using can run
closer to stack height than OEM and cylindrical (straight) springs, allowing
.010 to .025" or more lift than normal ratings call for! You can run it down
to .030" off of stack height in race applications, if you are willing to accept
accelerated spring wear and the attendant "sooner replacement" schedule.
They wear out really fast at those levels, but are good for drag race and
circle track applications.

RGR · 04-02-2005, 07:47 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by charkelly9 you didnt answer his question; i have the same question... how much power should he expect?

Sorry, this is pure speculation, but comparing it to a guy with a similar
combo, smaller cam, and BV heads that actually flow less than the ME heads,
here are some #'s:

Old 207/BV combo: 236 RWHP
New 209/ME combo: 230-245 RWHP (projected)

Like I said in my post above, 209 might be a bit big in duration, as my old
207 cam easily smokes the competition's 210*/.480" SPI cams, and from all
the dyno data compilations I have done, the smaller duration seems to be
more what the SPI arrangement needs for the airflow and intake runners
we are working with in the streetable ranges.

A 209 used the way RPM is using it may be just fine, I have seen a 211* cam
work well but the entire motor was blueprinted and the porting was primo,
but it is true, you will hit a point that (too) high duration is bad for any
motor combo. Pure street (bolton the heads, intakes, and change cam) needs
strict attention paid to the duration or it'll be a big cammed DOG

I've used 208*/.545" successfully, but RPM's spring rating does not allow for
that so Mik chose the 209*/.535" and We'll see how it works! Good Luck
BigPomps!

GT-Eater · 04-02-2005, 09:58 AM

Guess I have a big cam dog ,mines 214/226

RGR · 04-02-2005, 10:06 AM

Heh, good one, but adding an SC changes the cam requirements dramatically.

I've used my old 215/225 cam twice for SPI/SC combos. Mik has used it
before too. I'm speaking of NA use here, but bigger cams can be used
if other parameters are changed like runner length, compression, etc.

I don't know of anyone who would call you a dog GTE

GT-Eater · 04-02-2005, 10:11 AM

Yeah my question is why are people putting big valve heads on N/a cars
this doesn't make since to me unless you are maxing out the airflow ,seems it would hurt rather than help ,seems like you could get the same results
with cam adjustmenta ,Just my 2 cents.

RGR · 04-02-2005, 10:55 AM

Agreed, I understand that you still have stock intake valves, which is a good match.
I cannot think of any existing 3.8 person that would really get the proper benefit from
BV heads, and many 4.2 folks don't need them either. IMO people approaching 300 RWHP
in a stroker need the BV heads, but it is probably possible to hit the 300 w/o BV heads...
I got a guy getting a cam any day now that is shooting for that #!

GT-Eater · 11:02 AM

Well actually I have 1.56 stainless exhaust valves and stock intake valves
I will go to a bigger cam and BV heads later this year.

RGR · 04-02-2005, 11:17 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater Well actually I have 1.56 stainless exhaust valves and stock intake valves I will go to a bigger cam and BV heads later this year.

I knew you had some type of bigger exh, with the stock intake valve.
Sounds like a good combo! 500 RWHP SC/motor only I bet!

GT-Eater · 04-02-2005, 11:27 AM

Well it should be close ,power pipe on the T-trim adds 25 or so and the maf and injectors were close to being Maxed out so there was really more in it
plus P/S delete ,A/C delete (mostly for weight ) and I am using a spec 10.5 inch stage 3+ metallic disc and a stage 5 pressure plate which is 5 lbs lighter
(less rotational mass) .

RGR · 04-02-2005, 11:49 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater Well it should be close ,power pipe on the T-trim adds 25 or so and the maf and injectors were close to being Maxed out so there was really more in it plus P/S delete ,A/C delete (mostly for weight ) and I am using a spec 10.5 inch stage 3+ metallic disc and a stage 5 pressure plate which is 5 lbs lighter (less rotational mass) .

Sweeet!

Intelligent V6 owner + $$$$$ + good parts = GTEating Power!

Much more like this and we'll be changing your name to COBRA8R (past tense)

GT-Eater · 04-02-2005, 01:00 PM

Well someone once told me If you are going to be a bear be a Grizzly Bear

RGR · 04-02-2005, 01:10 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater Well someone once told me If you are going to be a bear be a Grizzly Bear

I like that!

slvr2000stang · 04-02-2005, 03:08 PM

Aw come on Gary, you are a Big Teddy Bear

It will be interesting to see how my new combo stacks up NA.

RGR · 04-02-2005, 03:18 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Aw come on Gary, you are a Big Teddy Bear It will be interesting to see how my new combo stacks up NA.

Did GTE have NA numbers???

slvr2000stang · 04-02-2005, 04:30 PM

I don't know if he did.

Just excited to see how this turns out.

Gotta get with Ole Skillet Head for some info on getting the new headers coated.

GT-Eater · 04-02-2005, 04:38 PM

I never did n/a numbers I have had the blower early on .

slvr2000stang · 04-02-2005, 04:43 PM

That's kinda what I thought.

Well I was not looking to compare to anyone just curious to find out how it does NA.

GT-Eater · 04-02-2005, 08:48 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Aw come on Gary, you are a Big Teddy Bear It will be interesting to see how my new combo stacks up NA.

LOL yeah i was refering to the car Kirk not me LOL

RGR · 04-03-2005, 07:54 AM

I was interested cuz Gary has the "next size" up cam, and NA #'s would be nice
to compare since the rest of the combo is pretty close to what Kirk is getting.
More SSM vs. RGR stuff too, but we are all friends here

Comparative dyno info is useful to me because I can extrapolate and interpolate
new combo data, it has not failed me yet! That is why I am going to the newer
camming strategies, from interpreting dyno graphs, flow data and combos.
TomY is pretty meticulous and the data he displays is quite enlightening.

slvr2000stang · 04-03-2005, 08:21 AM

You can never have enough real data to compare with.

And that leads to improved parts & combo's

RGR · 04-06-2005, 09:27 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang You can never have enough real data to compare with. And that leads to improved parts & combo's

1kwik6 · 04-06-2005, 11:09 AM


Quote: Originally Posted by RGR I got a guy getting a cam any day now that is shooting for that #!

Cam and springs should be in Monday or Tuesday.

mikael · 12:18 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by RGR A 209 used the way RPM is using it may be just fine, I have seen a 211* cam work well but the entire motor was blueprinted and the porting was primo, but it is true, you will hit a point that (too) high duration is bad for any motor combo. Pure street (bolton the heads, intakes, and change cam) needs strict attention paid to the duration or it'll be a big cammed DOG I've used 208/.545" successfully, but RPM's spring rating does not allow for that so Mik chose the 209/.535" and We'll see how it works! Good Luck BigPomps!

I agree on the 208 cam. I really want to use it more but it just doesn't work
with the safety margins that I run. I'm going to be lowering all the spring
prices soon (and this will be effective on your invoice Mark) so people can
upgrade springs easier.

Also the 209/212 camshaft with MXE heads and nothing else (not even a
tune) got 196rwhp, no boltons IIRC. The customer said it felt a little doggy
down low but he had 4.10 gears and had problems with spinning his tires
in low gear otherwise so he was completely happy with the setup.

RGR · 04-06-2005, 01:06 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by mikael I agree on the 208 cam. I really want to use it more but it just doesn't work with the safety margins that I run. I'm going to be lowering all the spring prices soon (and this will be effective on your invoice Mark) so people can upgrade springs easier.

I'll have more 208*/NA data soon, it's even an auto car so that
will really uncover it's strengths and weaknesses, it's an SC grind
run NA until he gets the blower so this will really be good data.
IMO the 208 is in a different class than the 207 and probably the 209 lobes,
it clearly has a better ramp rate from the #'s we have to compare, I'd like
more Data from the grinder.


Quote: Originally Posted by mikael Also the 209/212 camshaft with MXE heads and nothing else (not even a tune) got 196rwhp, no boltons IIRC. The customer said it felt a little doggy down low but he had 4.10 gears and had problems with spinning his tires in low gear otherwise so he was completely happy with the setup.

...but I had a guy use the 207*/.505" intake lobe and make 197 RWHP
with minimal boltons and no tune... no porting at all. That is why I say
you will inevitably hit a Point of Diminishing Returns
(PDR) and reverse the HP and torque trends. This one had a +23
RWHP increase, what was your MXE/209 baseline #'s??? W/o a baseline it
looks so-so but if his gain was ~47 RWHP then it looks pretty good for a
pre-tune figure... At some point higher compression and wilder intake manifold
porting are going to be needed for these bigger cams on the 3.8 NA combos.

What is IIRC? Do you mean IMRC?

1kwik6 · 04-06-2005, 05:00 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by mikael Also the 209/212 camshaft with MXE heads and nothing else (not even a tune) got 196rwhp, no boltons IIRC. The customer said it felt a little doggy down low but he had 4.10 gears and had problems with spinning his tires in low gear otherwise so he was completely happy with the setup.

I managed 199rwhp with the 207, no chip, and the bolt-ons. After the chip was 214. And that was just a mail-order tune.

slvr2000stang · 04-06-2005, 06:50 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by RGR I'll have more 208*/NA data soon, it's even an auto car so that will really uncover it's strengths and weaknesses, it's an SC grind run NA until he gets the blower so this will really be good data.

Ouch.

You will all fear the auto soon.

GT-Eater · 04-06-2005, 06:55 PM

Bring it

slvr2000stang · 04-06-2005, 07:12 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by GT-Eater Bring it

Don't worry I am happy to run anyone.
I live for the race.

RGR · 04-06-2005, 07:44 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Don't worry I am happy to run anyone. I live for the race.

You're not exactly bringing a knife to a gun fight but Gary is
packin' an UZI

If you would get closer to his boost levels I think it would be
good race Kirk

Your intercooler and the auto might be an
advantage if you were running similar boost. I do not know
his level of porting but I know my normal NA porting level
is higher flowing than an NA 3.8 intake a cam customer of mine
bought that was supposed to be an SSM intake... not sure if
it was second hand or what exactly... but Gary probably has
a totally maxed out lower intake like you are getting. Plus the SSX.

slvr2000stang · 04-06-2005, 07:48 PM

All I need is a red light on his side of the tree

I have already beat an 03 Mach1