438 idle is better than standard
ClioSport.net
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Cams
- Thread starter JohnnyE
- Start date
438 idle is better than standard
Chris205
ClioSport Club Member
Many Things
How do they vary with the GT cams though, what are the gains and downfalls? I like the ammount of torque the Gt cams create lower down and apparently the dip through the mid range is normal for a cammed car? Just from what Fred told me ofcourse, I've never looked to much into the N/A side of these engines
that's the thing, there's no downside IMO, they're just a bit more on top everywhere. Yes you'll pretty much always have a bit of a dip, 182 manifold smooths it out to some degree
£1329 from me, or £1499 with matched inlets at the same time
Chris205
ClioSport Club Member
Many Things
Its a 182 anyway mate, although I do have another 182 manifold I was holding back for my 172 if any of the 172 cammed boys fancy it
also got the cat if you fancy making yourself an MOT friendly exhaustyou think? I thought your car was blinding for that considering it's not ITB'd. I think you might be remembering the trumpets too well
Turbo LY R27
Ok cheers mate , what bhp do these give? do these give a good gain low down+mid over standard? Or would you recommend a different cam?
If you do price and spec of cam?
Cheers mate.
172
Just go for the 438's mate.. for that little bit extra theyv made better figures than the GT cams which are just basically 428's i know where my money would be going and hopefully will be when i get the engine sorted and belts changed
Im getting 438s fitted in 2 weeks, will let you know how I get on. Im running ITBs so should see an improvement.
192bhp and 166lb are though
Does yours have PAS or AC delete out of interest?
Cub.
ClioSport Moderator
To confirm a few things on the 438's (and reinforce what Danny has said). My car is a 172 with PAS, AC, exhaust and the prototype K-Tec induction kit;
Idle - not a problem, very smooth, almost the same as standard. I use the car as a daily and it's perfectly happy sat in the commute.
Performance - I gained 22 bhp and 8lb ft
'Feel' - under 4k a slight difference, with a bit of induction noise. As you go past 4k and into the 5's the car just starts pulling like a train, and the noise is epic, right upto the limiter.
This makes the car very drivable, as if you want to potter along in traffic and save mpg just change up at 3k, if you want to fly around like a bat out of hell or for track work just work the box and your changes differently to hover at 4.5k.
The link to my project thread and graphs is here if people haven't seen it;
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?612638-Cub-172-s-Flamer-Project
Comparable results that I know of, all with 438's;
Laine 16v - 192 bhp
me - 197 bhp
tank - 203 bhp
Looking at Sams results I think both 438's and Gt cams will give a good result if fitted and mapped correctly.
If anyone is unsure on the 438's and is near Reading then pm me and I'm more than happy to show them / take them out in the flamer for them to see first hand.
Idle - not a problem, very smooth, almost the same as standard. I use the car as a daily and it's perfectly happy sat in the commute.
Performance - I gained 22 bhp and 8lb ft
'Feel' - under 4k a slight difference, with a bit of induction noise. As you go past 4k and into the 5's the car just starts pulling like a train, and the noise is epic, right upto the limiter.
This makes the car very drivable, as if you want to potter along in traffic and save mpg just change up at 3k, if you want to fly around like a bat out of hell or for track work just work the box and your changes differently to hover at 4.5k.
The link to my project thread and graphs is here if people haven't seen it;
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?612638-Cub-172-s-Flamer-Project
Comparable results that I know of, all with 438's;
Laine 16v - 192 bhp
me - 197 bhp
tank - 203 bhp
Looking at Sams results I think both 438's and Gt cams will give a good result if fitted and mapped correctly.
If anyone is unsure on the 438's and is near Reading then pm me and I'm more than happy to show them / take them out in the flamer for them to see first hand.
Last edited:
Interesting, although you netted 5 more horses compared to mine i just nudged past your peak torque (166.9), engines are strange creatures.
I've just rebuilt my engine and matched my inlets so will be getting back to the RR when i can to see how things have changed, ktec RR day anyone?
I've just rebuilt my engine and matched my inlets so will be getting back to the RR when i can to see how things have changed, ktec RR day anyone?
Cub.
ClioSport Moderator
Strange creatures indeed mate, look at Tanks - lol!
Mine is at K-Tec at the moment, replacement gearbox with a Gripper Diff going in it. Timing couldn't be worse from a cost perspective as I've just proposed to the other half and raiding my savings for the car has not gone down well, as that was 'wedding fund' - or so I am told!
When its all fixed up, i'll be up for another RR day. Be interested to see what yours makes after the rebuild and the matched inlets, drop me a pm when you know. Be good if it goes over 200+ like Tanks.
Out of interest Cub 172 do you know the powers of the 3 cars listed before cams?
Ive just had 438's put in my 172 with matched inlets decat and a 4-2-1 exhaust manifold and a k & n apollo ram air kit and the garage started it yesterday on the standard ecu and it ticks over rock steady at 750 rpm im just waiting for them to fit a unichip and get it on the dyno and give it a tweak results will be up soon.
I think you'd be much better off just takeing it to Ktec for their map, i only say this as they have obviously spent hours and hours on the dyno mapping these cams, you'd see the best results no doubt whatsoever by using that map.
Evo 5 RS
Any graphs with ITBS with these yet?
Cub.
ClioSport Moderator
Hello chap, I do know some of the figures before;
Tank - had an RS2 on it before and was running 187bhp & 154 lb ft, the RS2 came out and he put 438's and the k-tec induction kit in, making 203bhp & 166 lb ft. Thread here mate; http://www.cliosport.net/forum/show...up-RS2-Removal-then-Cams-and-induction-fitted
Laine 16v - I don't know what his was previously, but he will probably reply in a minute. His graph is in this thread though;
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?628615-RR-results-mods-only&p=8498807#post8498807
Me - My before was 174.8bhp and 157.6lb ft and the graphs are in here; http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?612638-Cub-172-s-Flamer-Project
PM Dominator on here, as I know he has had his 182 done with 438's at K-Tec aswell. Don't know what he made though.
Last edited:
Cub.
ClioSport Moderator
I'm hoping to unlock the cash for ITB's to go with the 438's later this year, but I suspect someone else will have put the two together before then. I'll post results when I do get the trumpets on mine though. You'll see mine with just the cams at Llandow mate.
I wouldn't mind having a look at your ITB set up and a general chat about them when we are Llandow if that is ok..
Comparing our cars starting figures to end results both running the ktec induction, our gains arent that different, i know the graphs probably are.
(i know mines not completely accurate as dyno is different)
(i know mines not completely accurate as dyno is different)
Every car's different. I think you're happier than me with it lol. As I said before though, if you're happy nothing else matters as far as this goes
Evo 5 RS
I did think about that although the garage its at are a specialist car tuning garage its all they do ktec are a little bit more money and having spent thousands on it now just want it done and back when ive got a bit more money saved up later in the year i think ill take it to ktec for itbs and let them map it then. Its at a garage calked motorworks in marlow and is being mapped by stephen sadler of fc tuning who gets amazing results on most cars although it will be the first clio hes done
I could have done you a reflash map to suit that would have been better, for a lot less. Clio + piggyback ecu = big no-no
no, but mainly because I'd choose 421s primarily. They'd work just fine though, being that they're very close spec
Whats a reflash map dan theyv not fittin the chip yet how much will this flash map cost and why are piggyback ecu's not good in the clio
reflashing is modifying the map on the ECU.
Piggyback's are no good as the standard ECU learns it's way around the changes. It'll work for a bit, and get gradually worse.
Here's mine
standard inlet, port matched, V6 airbox, 438s and Piper stealth, no RR results yet.....
Doubt I'll bother with ITB's TBH, if I need more I'll change cars. yes 438's are good!
standard inlet, port matched, V6 airbox, 438s and Piper stealth, no RR results yet.....
Doubt I'll bother with ITB's TBH, if I need more I'll change cars. yes 438's are good!
Renault Clio 182
Mine made 194 bhp With 438's needed all the belts changing so figured I would have this done at the same time
Cheers for the advice dan ive been to the garage its at and theyv not put the unichip on yet so gonna whip it up ktec when theyv finished the suspension and get them to map it theyv said same as u its ok to drive but keep it under 4000 on the way up. Cheers for your advice ill let u know the results
I'm not seeing any significant difference in peak power on the std inlet between 428, 438, 421, C&B, shrick (I've not heard anyone get these fitted for years), GT.
If there was a significant difference between even 428 (the mildest) and 438 ktec would have done a direct comparison and shown the graphs - they have the RR, maps, labour, cams and other parts on the shelf.
Next to no cost for a marketing coup, if there was any significant difference...
If there was a significant difference between even 428 (the mildest) and 438 ktec would have done a direct comparison and shown the graphs - they have the RR, maps, labour, cams and other parts on the shelf.
Next to no cost for a marketing coup, if there was any significant difference...
strange post. That's easy to do an overlay of the graphs. I'll mention it. 438s are making 10bhp more than 428s/GT's generally, 421s are almost the same (438s are a mildly modded version to enable running on the standard inlet) C&B's....well I don't think many have really bothered to try them, but the specs put them kind of in the between 428s and 438s area roughly (from memory), and schricks are good but very expensive in comparison to pretty much everything.
None of that in news, all been discussed numerous times in several thread
From the results I've seen posted on here. I think I've seen 2 results for 438s that look higher that typical and they're both in this thread.
The other 438s have been pretty typical for cams around 190.
I've certainly not seen 421s making 10bhp more that 428s on the std inlet, not even on bodies.
I'd be interested to see the overlay but unless it's the same car, cams fitted and mapped, pulled apart and different cams fitted and mapped you can't really compare.
The other 438s have been pretty typical for cams around 190.
I've certainly not seen 421s making 10bhp more that 428s on the std inlet, not even on bodies.
I'd be interested to see the overlay but unless it's the same car, cams fitted and mapped, pulled apart and different cams fitted and mapped you can't really compare.
