ClioSport.net
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 dobbsport
- Start date
Meg 230 f1
gdi
There is an italian company who makes a few cams profiles for the clios.
They are called Colombo&Bariani www.[B]colombo[/B]-bariani.com
Cams i think are around 600euro from them. many ppl praise them.
Also Shrick cams supposed to be very good but also expensive (800 pounds or so)
They are called Colombo&Bariani www.[B]colombo[/B]-bariani.com
Cams i think are around 600euro from them. many ppl praise them.
Also Shrick cams supposed to be very good but also expensive (800 pounds or so)
Renaultsport 220T
The best cams on the market for 172/182 are the Schrick ones. Combined with a remap from Henk at Fastchip, they will give you the best performance.
Give Andrew a call at Yozzasport. He has already done a 172 with these fitted and mapped, with really good results.
01 Renaultsport Clio 172
what gains should you expect? what do u class as really good results?
there are just as good profiles with CAT cams and they are cheaper.
angel works can just supply the cams of you want. its best to speak to Ben about profiles etc. (and fitting kit needed, end stud, oil caps etc)
www.angel-works.co.uk
angel works can just supply the cams of you want. its best to speak to Ben about profiles etc. (and fitting kit needed, end stud, oil caps etc)
www.angel-works.co.uk
Renaultsport 220T
It depends on what other mods you are running on your car.
Ben, I think you'll find that the profiles for the cat cams are no where near the schrick ones.
The cat cams are good. But he did ask for the best.
It depends on what other mods you are running on your car.
Ben, I think you'll find that the profiles for the cat cams are no where near the schrick ones.
The cat cams are good. But he did ask for the best.
do you have the Data on the shricks, as last time i check the CAT were are par if not better
shrick are sold on the name IMO, if i ever hear "f1 use them" again i'll die LOL
Cat are still a billit and there is WAY more profile choice for f4r!
Renaultsport 220T
It depends on what other mods you are running on your car.
Ben, I think you'll find that the profiles for the cat cams are no where near the schrick ones.
The cat cams are good. But he did ask for the best.
do you have the Data on the shricks, as last time i check the CAT were are par if not better
shrick are sold on the name IMO, if i ever hear "f1 use them" again i'll die LOL
Cat are still a billit and there is WAY more profile choice for f4r!
I am in no way disputing or going to get into an childish argument about what cams are better. There have been far too many of those silly threads on this forum.
Everyone is allowed their opinion, and at the end of the day, I'm not a CS sheep that will follow what people tell them.
Yes, I have the data on schrick cams. I did a hell of a lot of research into what cams to fit in my car. I spoke to Ben, who recommended the mildest of the cat cams the 420, which is the equivalent to the Group N cam that Renaultsport recommend. Catcams themselves recommend the 421 and I know people that have got really good results with them. They said that the 420 wasn't worth spending the money on, as the improvements they gave over the standard cams were minimal.
Personally, I thought that if i'm spending money to put cams in my engine, I'd like the best ones available.
I also spoke to one of the engineers on the R3 rally car test team about what cams they run on their rally cars.
With that information and the recommendation of one of the UK's best motorsport engineers, (Fishy) I decided to purchase the schrick cams.
The specs for the schrick cams are...
Renault 4 Cyl. 4 Valve Roller Cam Follower (2,0L Clio RS)
inlet 288/ /125 19-89 0,57 hydr.
exhaust 280/110 70-30 1,40 hydr.
I think you'll find that they are completely different to the 420, and 421's.
Steve
Renaultsport 220T
Schrick - the only cams that we recommend for the 172 / 182 - good reliable power and torque over the entire rev range - we have a selection of 3 different profiles depending on application (only one that we would recommend for road use however)
Std car should see 153/4 ft/lb up from about 140 ft/lb
and about an extra 10-15 (as much as 20 bhp) depending on other modifications and obviously mapping etc. With 2.5" De-cat/2.5" Exhaust System/Good Induction/Our Schrick Map, you should see around 200bhp & 155-160 ft/lb.
/y0z
Std car should see 153/4 ft/lb up from about 140 ft/lb
and about an extra 10-15 (as much as 20 bhp) depending on other modifications and obviously mapping etc. With 2.5" De-cat/2.5" Exhaust System/Good Induction/Our Schrick Map, you should see around 200bhp & 155-160 ft/lb.
/y0z
Coby.
ClioSport Club Member
XC60-R.......V40-R
Those Combined with a Remap and I already have a ITG Filter and Decat and Cat-Back System should see me at around 200Bhp? Good Rise in Torque aswell??
Edit: Yozza just got in there with Answers
Price on Schrick Cams and your Schrick Map all fitted Yozza??
Edit: Yozza just got in there with Answers
Price on Schrick Cams and your Schrick Map all fitted Yozza??
do you have the Data on the shricks, as last time i check the CAT were are par if not better
shrick are sold on the name IMO, if i ever hear "f1 use them" again i'll die LOL
Cat are still a billit and there is WAY more profile choice for f4r!
I am in no way disputing or going to get into an childish argument about what cams are better. There have been far too many of those silly threads on this forum.
Everyone is allowed their opinion, and at the end of the day, I'm not a CS sheep that will follow what people tell them.
Yes, I have the data on schrick cams. I did a hell of a lot of research into what cams to fit in my car. I spoke to Ben, who recommended the mildest of the cat cams the 420, which is the equivalent to the Group N cam that Renaultsport recommend. Catcams themselves recommend the 421 and I know people that have got really good results with them. They said that the 420 wasn't worth spending the money on, as the improvements they gave over the standard cams were minimal.
Personally, I thought that if i'm spending money to put cams in my engine, I'd like the best ones available.
I also spoke to one of the engineers on the R3 rally car test team about what cams they run on their rally cars.
With that information and the recommendation of one of the UK's best motorsport engineers, (Fishy) I decided to purchase the schrick cams.
The specs for the schrick cams are...
Renault 4 Cyl. 4 Valve Roller Cam Follower (2,0L Clio RS)
inlet 288/ /125 19-89 0,57 hydr.
exhaust 280/110 70-30 1,40 hydr.
I think you'll find that they are completely different to the 420, and 421's.
Steve
you cant run 421s on FBW only on a psh1
because, FTW fluctuates on idle, you have no controll over its operation.
psh1 has a mech body so you can set the idle speed.
it would be good to do some RR before and after! i dont mind paying for two sets, and fitting them to the same engine on a dyno!
I trust BenR more than anyone else, il have a fire side with him later!
i don't think Schrick are crap! i just thing pound for pound CAT seem the best VFM.
I trust BenR more than anyone else, il have a fire side with him later!
i don't think Schrick are crap! i just thing pound for pound CAT seem the best VFM.
I am in no way disputing or going to get into an childish argument about what cams are better. There have been far too many of those silly threads on this forum.
Everyone is allowed their opinion, and at the end of the day, I'm not a CS sheep that will follow what people tell them.
Yes, I have the data on schrick cams. I did a hell of a lot of research into what cams to fit in my car. I spoke to Ben, who recommended the mildest of the cat cams the 420, which is the equivalent to the Group N cam that Renaultsport recommend. Catcams themselves recommend the 421 and I know people that have got really good results with them. They said that the 420 wasn't worth spending the money on, as the improvements they gave over the standard cams were minimal.
Personally, I thought that if i'm spending money to put cams in my engine, I'd like the best ones available.
I also spoke to one of the engineers on the R3 rally car test team about what cams they run on their rally cars.
With that information and the recommendation of one of the UK's best motorsport engineers, (Fishy) I decided to purchase the schrick cams.
The specs for the schrick cams are...
Renault 4 Cyl. 4 Valve Roller Cam Follower (2,0L Clio RS)
inlet 288/ /125 19-89 0,57 hydr.
exhaust 280/110 70-30 1,40 hydr.
I think you'll find that they are completely different to the 420, and 421's.
Steve
What about the catcams 428's? Do you know if these are worth tha cash? I like all said about scricks but they are almost as twice as expensive. What would be, if not the best, the most balanced setup cost - benefit wise?
kind of, lol. Lets agree to disagree. different profiles suit different engines in various tuned states.
saying Schrick is the best is not necessary true, nor is stating CAT are, they suit different applications.
I had the choice of Schrick and we decided that there profile was not suitable for the spec of the charger engine.
schrick
maupineda...
428's are good cam, and you will get good results with them.
yes there great with the right spec of engine. nice and dull on a stock one before 4k.
£510 plus VAT matey.
M
mini-valver
I'd of had Shrick if they made a suitable profile for my engine as Cat seemed to take forever to deliver my cams.
Ben, my car has inlets matched, and a BMC CDA kit, also it is mapped but obviously it will need to be mapped again, My exhasut line has been uprated to a 2.5" setup but kept the original cat and back boxes, I know this make no difference at all, but would 428's be OK for my car? I won't go any further modifying it. I like this cams for being rated good plus they are cheaper, look like good VFM. Hope you can comment on this
M
mini-valver
You will have no torque low down the rev range but as standard the 1*2's are like that anyway. Depends what characteristics you are looking for in your car and the way it delivers power. Peak BHP isn't the be all end all.....
TBH you would be better chatting to BenR, but as i understand it, the 428s are very peaky! the 420s give a nice hike in power though the whole rev range. I.e not sat there waiting for the v-tech to kick in yo!
The specs for the schrick cams are...
Renault 4 Cyl. 4 Valve Roller Cam Follower (2,0L Clio RS)
inlet 288/ /125 19-89 0,57 hydr.
exhaust 280/110 70-30 1,40 hydr.
I think you'll find that they are completely different to the 420, and 421's.
Steve
I apologise in advance, and I certainly do not mean to belittle anybody, but this is precisely the problem with advice and internet based knowledge.
Schrick simply do not advertise enough data, or more importantly, relevant data for anybody to make an 'informed' decision. Its for this reason, and the fact that their range is particuarly poor, that i do not use them. There certainly wont be any issues with quality or performance, but for the money I sure as hell want to know exactly what I would be putting into my or my customers engines. You just cant make an informed decision with the data above, and if anybody says they can, they are deluded.
Are they completely different to 420/428/421's?
Who can tell exactly?
Reading their data i have to make assumptions (and we all know what they mother), since they advertise high duration, small TDC openings, late peak angles and wild opening and closing events. Now we all know there is a limit to the capabilities of the stock FBW ECU in terms of what it can handle with MAP fluctuations due to TDC values, so according to schrick data, they can only be holding the opening really late on a long duration cam or using pretty darn soft ramp sections. But again, I have to assume all this since they do not tell you at what lift they are taking their event data. And there can be as much as 20 degrees lost between geometric data and true lift point data.
Yet with cats i know the duration data at 2 lift points, so I have info on opening flanks and ramp rates. I have data on the split peak angles between lobes and i have timing events using info from when the valves are actually open already. This info is vital when it comes to choosing a camshaft.
Looking at the schrick data, you can broadly compare it to a 421 inlet as it has a peak angle in the dephased state which is 1 deg milder than the cat, the lift at tdc is lower although the total duration and is wilder, this indicates a mild valve acceleration rate. The assumption on the ex cam is that you have to compare it to a 428 exhaust profile, or a 421 profile that has its peak angle set way back to hold the lift at TDC value down.
@ £335 per camshaft, I want to know everything without having to spend my own time and money digitising the cams profile.
And whilst they perform, it gets on my nerves when people run around saying this or that is the best. They are all very similar cams, if your clever you'll know what to do which which cams to achieve the desired effect. You dont HAVE to run the cat cams as matched in and ex sets, but i prefer to have a road car which you dont have to wind up, i'll give up 10 peak bhp anyday, as your just never up there.
Regarding this 420 profile is just like a stock cam.............its about as similar to a stock cam as the 428 is to the 420.
cliosport penny counters buy cat, the rich kids buy schrick (they're used in F1 btw, oh and schrick make most of the Veyron engine
And the rich kids know better?
And they veyron sucks, 8ltrs, W16, 4 turbos and 990bhp....wow. 123bhp/ltr........about the same as an S2000.
The specs for the schrick cams are...
Renault 4 Cyl. 4 Valve Roller Cam Follower (2,0L Clio RS)
inlet 288/ /125 19-89 0,57 hydr.
exhaust 280/110 70-30 1,40 hydr.
I think you'll find that they are completely different to the 420, and 421's.
Steve
I apologise in advance, and I certainly do not mean to belittle anybody, but this is precisely the problem with advice and internet based knowledge.
Schrick simply do not advertise enough data, or more importantly, relevant data for anybody to make an 'informed' decision. Its for this reason, and the fact that their range is particuarly poor, that i do not use them. There certainly wont be any issues with quality or performance, but for the money I sure as hell want to know exactly what I would be putting into my or my customers engines. You just cant make an informed decision with the data above, and if anybody says they can, they are deluded.
Are they completely different to 420/428/421's?
Who can tell exactly?
Reading their data i have to make assumptions (and we all know what they mother), since they advertise high duration, small TDC openings, late peak angles and wild opening and closing events. Now we all know there is a limit to the capabilities of the stock FBW ECU in terms of what it can handle with MAP fluctuations due to TDC values, so according to schrick data, they can only be holding the opening really late on a long duration cam or using pretty darn soft ramp sections. But again, I have to assume all this since they do not tell you at what lift they are taking their event data. And there can be as much as 20 degrees lost between geometric data and true lift point data.
Yet with cats i know the duration data at 2 lift points, so I have info on opening flanks and ramp rates. I have data on the split peak angles between lobes and i have timing events using info from when the valves are actually open already. This info is vital when it comes to choosing a camshaft.
Looking at the schrick data, you can broadly compare it to a 421 inlet as it has a peak angle in the dephased state which is 1 deg milder than the cat, the lift at tdc is lower although the total duration and is wilder, this indicates a mild valve acceleration rate. The assumption on the ex cam is that you have to compare it to a 428 exhaust profile, or a 421 profile that has its peak angle set way back to hold the lift at TDC value down.
@ £335 per camshaft, I want to know everything without having to spend my own time and money digitising the cams profile.
And whilst they perform, it gets on my nerves when people run around saying this or that is the best. They are all very similar cams, if your clever you'll know what to do which which cams to achieve the desired effect. You dont HAVE to run the cat cams as matched in and ex sets, but i prefer to have a road car which you dont have to wind up, i'll give up 10 peak bhp anyday, as your just never up there.
Regarding this 420 profile is just like a stock cam.............its about as similar to a stock cam as the 428 is to the 420.
yer thats what i wanted to say. just couldn't be arsed to type it LOL, ROFL.... i wish
Similar threads
