Upgrade camshafts
 

After the years i have been on here it seams no one uses cat cams... Intergal was one of the only affordable cams out there for the 1.8l but now there gone from what i can find. kelford makes 1.6 but no 1.8 stuff just like HKS. Cat cams out in the UK has a lot of cams to choose from and they are 675 shipped from the uk also.

Fast Road, Rally, Race & Turbo Camshafts for Mazda MX5 1800 16v Engines.

Nice! Looks like they offer some reasonably aggressive setups! Plus they have a cat logo lol. Thank you for sharing.

Any time, me and another guy from my work are planning on building a turbo NB and a NA setup.

A lot of guys on here need cams, but most of them dont even know it.
Glad to see some more options out there.

At what point do cams really start to help peak power/torque?

No US distributor yet?

Stock.

I never even heard of this company. I will have to check them out.

Props for sharing this info

Interesting, really wish I could remember camshaft stuff. I've got family in England if anyone wants help shipping though.

Anyone have a link to "everything you wanted to know about cams for those with reading comprehension and technical knowledge of an invertebrate"?

^ id appreciate the same info.

I prefer my cam-less koenigsegg setup.

I was going to neg you for that but the avatar saved you. :party:

Cam Spec Terms - Lunati Power

Not bad either.
Cam - Camshaft Specifications

It takes many, many clicks to find International Dealers and some scrolling to find
www.qedpower.com
VAC Motorsports | Your BMW Performance Authority
Sure, they focus on VW and BMW, but they might be able to help with Catcams if ordering from overseas yourself is too scary.

It would be interesting to know the specs for the engine they have designed the "full race" version to. Almost 2mm "overlift" considering the size of the valves possible.

Some turbo camshaft selection info: Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution - Turbo Magazine

General cam technical info: Cam Basics



For the lazy and illiterate, we have talking pictures:

i knew as soon as i posted this i would get that response. oh well, adding cams to my wish list.

They will ship them to you, i have contacted them by EMAIL and they told me $675 for a set of cams shipped to my door in the USA.



They are big in the BMW world.

They will ship to the USA, and its cheap.


No need to buy from a dealer they will sell them to you right from the UK.

Cams for the Highschool or above reader

Cams for all levels of reader

Honestly though. You're much better off paying that same money or a bit more, handing them the flow bench chart from you head, and saying I wanna make big powa wit mah turbo.

No bp4w or vvt options?

I like that they don't have extremely high durations like some of the jdm brands have. I never understood whose miata needed 300*+, seems silly. ~11mm lift with ~260* yes please!

I had no idea the hydraulic lifters could support some of the lift numbers listed on these cams, but they are listed hydro? Anyone know the limits before we start killing lifters?

It's the nose (or ramp) that makes things tough for hydraulic lifters. The solid lifters have the ability to tolerate a more aggressive ramp rate thus giving you more average lift for a given duration.

I was surprised to find there are very few cam options for the miata. There is a potential for very good gains in this area. Local miata motor builder Dave Robello has had great results with his own custom grinds. I am leaning towards trying a set on my next motor.

That is not necessarily true. There is a good article from Engine Labs stating,

"Some racers discovered that a flat-tappet hydraulic can out-power a comparable solid-lifter cam, if the spring pressure is correct and the hydraulic lifter is adjusted one-quarter turn down from zero lash. This is partly because the hydraulic stick is effectively a bigger cam because it doesn’t require valve lash and clearance ramps. This can hold true up to about 6,500 rpm where the lighter solid lifter gains the advantage — provided that the inlet and exhaust components support the higher engine speeds."

"With hydraulic cams, the duration shrinks with more rpm due to both lifter compression of the air bubbles in the high-pressure side"

Engine Tech: Flat-tappet Lifters Still Viable in Performance Engines - EngineLabs

The only advantage with solid lifters in my opinion is the weight loss, and unless you plan on spinning the engine higher they are just a pain in the ass.

It was my understanding the ramp compressed the hydraulic lifter if the acceleration rates were too great just like the effects of high RPM. The solid lifter is better able to transmit the ramp into valve action than the hydraulic.

You mention optimum spring pressure. I am sure that is partially accounting for the differences. I don't discount what your saying to be true but all of my past experiences say otherwise. I gained 20+ WHP when I converted the lifters on my 993 from hydraulic to solid. No other changes were made. On air cooled Harley Evo motors we would limit the hydraulic lifters range and gain torque across the entire RPM band. This tells me the lifters are collapsing some. I am sure lifter design and oil pressure plays a big role.

I've personally weighed our stock hydraulic and stock shim over bucket lifters. The hydraulic lifters are around 4 grams LIGHTER than shim over buckets. There may be a 1 or 2 gram variance depending on shim thickness and how much oil is pumped into the hydraulic lifters.

But the hydraulic lifters are actually lighter. So people who think going shim over bucket is lighter, they're more than likely mistaken.

so my integrals are the equivalent of their full race cams, its good to know that there are more options out there now that integral is gone

^ For sure. I'm weary of changing out my CAMs until the rest of the car runs fine though, don't need to add more problems to the pile.

For boost applications we want more lift and very little change to duration, no? I'd love to see more low end torque, counter the loss up top with an IM and get an adjustable intake CAM gear and tweak for maximum power.

for boost, you also want less overlap, depending on your model year, oem has between 20 deg and 17 deg of overlap not including vvt, which is wanted for na applications, not so much for boost.

So for boost on a 99 head I'd want low overlap, high lift same duration CAM. Good information to know. I gotta find a few before/after dyno charts with a CAM like this..

whats the difference between CAM gears and cam gears?

not entirely sure....

CAM gear:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364596814

Cam gear:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364596814

Sounds ridiculous based on the 6500 rpm figure in your article, when the miata already goes to 6900/7200 rpms stock. Plus across the water, stock NBs readline at 7500 rpms with identical internals (well they had the MSM cam).

Just sayin, you are already spinning the engine higher and getting 8k out of the BP isn't "unheard" of.

Re-read the article I quoted. The information in it is not specific to Miata engines...

I realize that, but you are posting on a miata forum. So your original statement:
seems a little out of place.

Thats the same reason I stopped reading. If the stock redline is already higher than what you're quoting then... :jerkit:

Track,

My post was in response to the statement by k24madness that, “The solid lifters have the ability to tolerate a more aggressive ramp rate thus giving you more average lift for a given duration.” (Which is correct in most cases)

What I posted clearly says, "Some racers discovered that a flat-tappet hydraulic can out-power a comparable solid-lifter cam, partly because the hydraulic stick is effectively a bigger cam because it doesn’t require valve lash and clearance ramps.”

You keep insisting that I have made the statement that our engines can only redline at 6500rpm. Neither I, nor the article made any such statement.

What the article does state is that above 6500rpm a solid lifter has an advantage due to its lighter mass, and that, “With hydraulic cams, the duration shrinks with more rpm due to lifter compression of the air bubbles in the high-pressure side”. Track, How do you know that the Mazda HLA’s don’t lose a significant amount of duration and lift above 6500rpm? Do you have valvetrain simulation software or a Spintron?

Furturemore, solid lifters are generally lighter than hydraulic lifters which allows for higher rpms before valve float. So going back to my statement,” The only advantage with solid lifters in my opinion is the weight loss, and unless you plan on spinning the engine higher they are just a pain in the ass.” And yes, solids are a pain in the ass…

Once again, I never stated anywhere that our engines redline at 6500rpm. You have missed the point of the information I have posted.


This is the last time I am going to try and clarify my post. I could have better spent my time posting relevant information about cam specs I have used for turbo engines. I thought I could add something useful to this thread since have a Superflow dyno and a friend who grinds cams 10min away. But I have wasted too much time today, I need to get some real work done.



Chilicharger665,

LMP engines spin lower rpms and Formula 1 spin higher rpms than the BP engines. Therefore, by your logic their engine technology is irrelevant to us?

Reading comprehension failure? I only mentioned 6500 once and I never implied that your or the article stated "...our engines can only redline at 6500rpm".

I only said your comment doesn't follow logic because the BP has "eclipsed" the cross-over point which is the basis for your claim that solid lifters are more trouble than they are worth. (You will be hard pressed arguing that miata HLAs are less trouble than the miata solid lifters btw).

I am going to try to explain my thinking here, so you don't think I am just being an internet dick. It just doesn't make sense, when you say:
"...unless you plan on spinning the engine higher they are just a pain in the ass."

In a post about 6.5k as the point where Solid lifters have an advantage over HLAs, and in reference to an engine which readlines higher (and can be easily modified to higher RPMs than that).

I apologize about the now-turned-thread crapping, we can continue to have meaningful discussion about HLA/Solid lifters and the what nots (or camshafts since this is the original post).

"I could have better spent my time posting relevant information about cam specs I have used for turbo engines. I thought I could add something useful to this thread since have a Superflow dyno and a friend who grinds cams 10min away."

Hi Matt, I'm sure most of us would like to know more about lift and duration specs that have worked for your turbo builds. From what I've been trying to piece together a turbo motor would rather more lift and not a lot of duration (@258?) and no overlap. I've been trying to get through David Vizard's book but he doesen't talk too much about 4-valve heads.

Did you weigh the hydraulics when they were full of oil?

I have never heard of hydraulic lifters bleeding down at higher RPMs. I'm not saying it doesn't occur, but that I have never heard of it. I have heard of hydraulic lifters pumping up at higher RPMs and causing valve float.

I have also personally used special hydraulic lifters that bleed down more quickly. For a very large camshaft, they will bleed down at lower RPMs and give the effect of a shorter duration, lower lift camshaft to give better low and mid RPM torque. At higher RPMs, they do not bleed out enough oil to shorten the duration or decrease lift and therefore give full lift and duration. It is a clever but somewhat crude attempt to give the customer the best of both worlds. The only real downside is a bit of lifter chatter noise at idle and just above idle. See "Rhoads Lifters".

Supposedly the 1.6 lifters collapse at ~8400 rpm and give you reverse vtech, as per a local STS racer who forgot to turn his rev limiter down from 15,000 during ecu setup.

Yes.

They were actually over full and were compressed some before installed so they could re expand to the correct length.

HLA's will pump up if the valves float. Will collapse if there is air suspended in the oil, too much internal leakage or a lack of oil flow to the head. If you hear the infamous tick tick tick, than the plunger in the lifter is bottoming out. I've measured the plunger stroke at .150, if you have .311 of lift at the cam and .150 of plunger compression in the lifter you end up with .161 of valve lift which is a 48% loss.

That being said, I have never had a problem with Kia HLA's.

slmhofy is correct about the lifter weights.


OEM shim-over bucket = 44.7grams

[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364970803[/IMG]

OEM Mazda HLA = 50grams

[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364970803[/IMG]

OEM Kia HLA = 41.2grams

[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364970803[/IMG]

Just for reference a shimless Toyota 1zz-fe = 29.2grams

[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364970803[/IMG]



The Kia lifter is lighter than the Mazda because the plunger assembly is smaller. It also means their is less oil leakage and less capacity for aerated oil, therefore less collapse.


[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364970803[/IMG]


I have contemplated tig welding the plunger assembly together and grinding them to the necessary length to create solid lifter with no shims to fly out (like shim-over buckets) during those accidental mechanical over-revs. But welding and grinding 16 lifters would be a pain in the ass to do correctly, and i'm just not that cheap.

This summer I am gonna order some of these cams and am planning to pursue the zetec shimless lifters.

Hey Matt,

Thanks for verifying. And for reference, I am using the KIA HLAs ordered from partsdinosaur.com.

You seem pretty smart. I've got a question for you if you're interested in trying to figure it out. How did putting HLAs in my head with solid lifter cams change the cam specs. I've got a MSM with the BP5 intake cam and whatever exhaust cam they come with. I know the solid lifter cams have ramps to smooth the lash.

approx.
.007-.008 intake
.009-.011 exhaust

After rebuilding the engine/head with the HLAs, I have noticeably lower idle vacuum (used to be around 18 and now is about 12 in/hg @ 900rpm) and where it used to idle just fine at 14.7, it now very much more likes 14.0. Obviously there's more duration, overlap and a little lift, I'm just not exactly sure how much.

Zetec lifter
 

For weight comparison, here is my contribution to the lifters.
Ford Zetec lifter with 17.325 mm height weighs 32.6 grams, while the stock 2001 lifter weighed 47.1 grams with 3.24 mm shim giving total height of lifter 17.03 mm.

Thanks for the info!

Are you going to be doing some sort of write up on what's involved with someone going to these lifters? I don't think I've ran across anything yet of the forum.

Sorry guys, I can't really find spot on answer searching around. How do I fit 94-98 cam into 2000 miata? Or are they totally different and I am asking stupid questions?

Profiles for HLAs don't have/need intial ramps (to smoothly zero the lash) and don't play nice with solid lifters.
Upgraded Cams for solid lifters would be no different at all between BP and BP4W (the ports flows differently though).

That is not entirely true. Myself as well a many others have converted from HLAs to SUBs using the stock cam.

However, I think it is more or less a longevity issue. For racers it is A OK, not so much for a motor attempting to go 300,000 miles.

There are many things wrong that can "work" for a period of time.
With low loads and rpms the increased wear might not be noticeable during a enthusiast life (lash service time down to a third, maybe), with bigger cams/springs and rpms it might reduce the service life to a couple of hours (down from 10 or so).
The BP is not immune from physics.

It's possible to build race engines with OEM damper and worn OEM pump gears too, but you better keep track of what you could have done better (and don't blame others for your choices).

Running OEM damper and pump is far from an apples to apples comparison with running SUBs on a Stock hydraulic cam. The use of SUBs makes proven power.

I was under the impression that it was pretty common to use SUBs on stock cams in competition use. I was given this advice when I first started to mod my motor internally by Mazda Motorsports. The only way you can do business with them is if you are a racer with a competition license and have proof you are competing in a sanctioned event. I think this is a pretty reliable source as to what is best for race applications.

That was a few years back when I got this advice, but I am still unaware of any valvetrain problems resulting from the use of SUBs with a stock HLA based cam and mild springs, or if they still give this advice. If anyone knows of problems that I am unaware of, please chime in.

You mentioned big cam and springs. The miata cam is really mild, and you do not need big springs if you are running a stock cam with SUBs because you have lightened the valvetrain significantly, and are unlikely to increase rpm range.

Stock cam with free lifters could of course be a sanctioning restriction, and on the limit you will find some power (but you have to take care of your wear, as with everything in competition).
With some freedom (as in the Topic of this tread), I see few reasons for selecting a HLA cam and use it with solid lifters, even with mild springs.

I have noticed some wear on my SUBs, but have not seen any wear to the camshaft. I ran the car for years with an eventual camshaft change during that time. I will need to replace 2 or 3 lifters soon.

I think the mod is usually done in classing that allows only minor mods to valvetrain and must retain the stock cam.

I'm not sure, but I think you could use the 94-98 cam in the 99-00 head as long as you used HLAs.

Like was also mentioned, the HLA cams "supposedly" don't work that well with solid lifters as the ramp rates are faster.

Though they do work fine the other way. HLAs with solid lifter cams. I'm running that setup now.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

I don't have any specs on the BP5 intake cam, but based on your intake manifold vacuum and fuel enrichment I would say the valve overlap and/or the IVC point have been increased.

Increasing valve overlap will increase Internal EGR (especially at idle when manifold vacuum is at its highest). The nonreactive and hot exhaust gases remaining in the cylinder will cause unstable combustion which will lower power output, because idle is the speed where, engine output = friction and pumping losses, it will be necessary to increase idle air and fuel flow to stabilize combustion, which is why bigger cams idle at higher engine speeds.

Does any of that make sense?

My suggestion would be to advance the exhaust cam (rotate it clockwise), this will decrease the valve overlap and begin the exhaust blowdown stage earlier. Early EVO (Exhaust Valve Opening) will put more energy into the turbo and reduce pumping loses.

If you have a CAS and move exhaust cam, don't forget to reset your timing...

You can also retard the intake cam, which will reduce overlap and move the powerband up. The down side to moving intake cam is that, it is much more sensitive to changes than the exhaust cam.

Note: In my experience if you reduce the overlap too much the engine feels lazy.


I'm working on putting together a comprehensive post on cam design and selection but it could take some time.

For those that don't know, CAT Cams is a good cam manufacturer and have a CNC grinder capable of making some amazing inverted radius profiles.

Under most conditions I see no problem with using a hydraulic cam with solid lifters.

The profile properties such as ramp rate (velocity, acceleration, jerk) and the lash ramps (or lack there of) on an OEM hydraulic or solid cam are tame compared to performance profiles found on aftermarket cams.

You may experience accelerated wear when using part combinations that were not engineered together, but that should be expected to some degree.

Just remember Mazda or any OEM company's primary concern is NVH and longevity.