Originally Posted by Classy

I guess we can all be nit picky about brand name, but in the end, there will be a VERY minimal difference between off brand and name brand, seriously, $330 shipped for OBX/Megan headers, or $2k+ for SG's and maybe gain a few HP, I will keep my money. Everything I have read on this site says that unless you are FI or running an EXTREMELY aggressive NA setup, a good old spacer and some porting will do the job right (which I have). Yes the test car has a 90mm TB, but I would seriously doubt that my car would make less than 15 RWHP from that cam with my current setup. I am only 3 hp behind that test car after all!

Originally Posted by Zazz93

A little off subject but related, some of you may have never seen this (though I'm sure some of you have). I thought it was a cool thing to see how Nismo's aggressive long duration cams have fairly good idle characteristics when compared to other milder cams. It seemed pretty accurate from what I've seen.

Tomei Cam Overlap and Idle Spreadsheet

Originally Posted by Z1 Performance

NISMO R series don't really need a ton of cam angle changes vs a stock non revup from what I've seen (again, it will always vary based on the rest of the setup). NISMO's Spec series cams don't idle well at all (they are really setup for higher rpm use) unless cam timing is manipulated, and even then, they suggest using their VTC sprockets which allow for more advance vs stock.

Originally Posted by lemmiwinkz

if someone can give me the center-line or overlap of the cams that i am missing i can add them and update the picture.

Originally Posted by se-r altima dri

I have a Altima Ser with Nismo cams installed in April of 2008. I have not been that impressed with the performance of these cams.
I don't have headers and maybe that is what's missing to really help increase power and get the most from these cams.
Considering installing headers or the HFC made by Racingline to help increase the exhaust side. (Just don't want the dreaded PO codes/ SES light)
Also thinking about getting the SFR intake to increase on the front side the incoming air.



On to the questions. (Nice article) Thanks!
What was the acceptable A/F ratio level they used? - 0.90 lambda (13.2:1)
How did they adjust the intake cam timing to find the maximum power? Motec M800 with the stock Nissan cam control

It says, "After tuning some fuel and cam phasing to try and optimize the power."
What is cam phasing? Can this be done using a UTEC? How can/do you cam phase? - same as cam timing

And if someone can be more discriptive about this statement in the responses:
"Tune it with an ecu that doesn't allow cam timing changes (old school, but a UTEC for example), or even do it on a non-revup, and depending on the cam, you may see the results change even more (I am assuming they manipulated cam timing on a per cam basis to show each in their most positive light, which is the way it should be done IMHO).

Please explain what you are saying above. (with a UTEC.) I have a UTEC and don't believe you can change the cam timing. Correct?
I understand you cannot adjust the cam timing on our motors with the stock ECU and the utec.
How did they manipulate the cam timing? It is different than the TDC motor timing right? Advancing the timing is different than the cam timing?

UpRev can adjust cam timing on the RWD VQs, I'm not sure about your Altima. It sounds like it would be worth ditching your UTEC and just finding an experienced UpRev tuner that could optimize the fueling, ignition and cam timing. Cam timing makes a huge difference, and if I remember correctly we needed to change the values from stock quite a bit for the Nismo cams. I could be mistaken though - the test was a while ago!

Thanks for your Answers on the above. Anyone care to comment on the below statements?

"NISMO's Spec series cams don't idle well at all (they are really setup for higher rpm use) unless cam timing is manipulated, and even then, they suggest using their VTC sprockets which allow for more advance vs stock." (Agree the idle moves 50rpm or more for me)
What are the VTC sprockets?
Can't you just advance the timing in the utec map and it does the same thing?

You're confusing cam timing with ignition timing. Read up on it a bit more and you'll see what the differences are. The Nismo VTC sprockets allow 40-50degrees (iirc) of intake cam timing adjustment (measured at the crank, so it's really half that travel at the cam), versus the 30 degrees of the stock sprocket.

From this article here is what I found.
It looks like the Nismo cams added 7 ft-lbs of torque and 17 WHP.
From the Nismo cams box I have the stickers says:
The valve lash on the nismo cams 13020-RNZ35 lists the cold lash as .010" to .013"
262 Degree Duration/ .426" lift (10.82mm)

Thanks again for your input.
My specs are below if anyone cares. Any suggestions?
Nismo cams, CAI, NWP Spacers, NWP Block off plate, SSIM, unorthodox racing lightened pulley, Utec with Tuner, Ypipe, Nismo catback and exhaust, Technosquare ECU flashed and dynoed at technosquare, 7120 redline, 75 shot.
Dynoed 238 tq and 240 HP SAE corrected. N/A still rich A/F
On the juice 75 shot and 100 shot fuel for safety untuned and rich as hell 295HP/309TQ
Going to Turboxs for Tuning soon. woot

Originally Posted by Z1 Performance

The primary length on the Crawford is actually longer (slightly) the SG's IIRC (I remember comparing them earlier this year when deciding my next steps for my car) , though yes, it is designed in a shorty configuration, so it needs a test pipe/cat. Yes, collectors are totally different for sure. Outlet diameters differ between them (SG are bigger), which would help with a car that is built and can really rev (and has the cam to suit such a power band). SG Primary diameters differ too in that they are stepped, I don't 'think' the Crawfords are. Again, this will play nicely with some cams and may not be ideal for others, it really all depends. Collectors will def be different due to the packing requirements of a shorty configuration vs a long configuration. SG has alot more room to work with by making it a true long tube, so it stands to reason their collector placement is better, and also longer, which is a nice touch (and probably necessary with the stepped piping in order to prevent reversion). It's a very nicely spec'd and designed header, but like anything else in the NA world, it will only reward the right complimentary setup. Long tube as a product title does not make it necessarily better than short tube...it just makes it different. Just like equal length is not necessarily better than unequal length. What sets the net results apart is how all the subject parts interact.

Slow down their chief, you're not telling me anything I don't know. Unless you are running a crazy 300+duration cam, I'd imagine that SG's header design would arguably produce the most power under the curve, regardless of the camshaft chosen. If you want a custom designed header, call up Kromer Kraft or Burns and have them make one for you. You're trying to detail for the last 5-8% of horsepower left from changing merge angles and primary tube diameters, which is hardly worth the added expense in a street car.

And for the record, I've seen more low end torque gains with Equal length headers over unequal length, though peak power remains unchanged.

This is a great article since it's nice to see some in depth testing on the platform. That being said, the only conclusion you can draw is that on a car with this exact setup, you know what to expect from each of the cams chosen. It's cool to see, because it's the first, and likely only time, you would ever see such a test done because it's costly and time consuming. But it will not automatically translate to another car with mods that differ (particularly in the throttle body/intake manifold arena), and in fact, may not be indicative at all of what one can/should expect should they get the same cams. So in that regard, the article doesn't reveal anything staggering (but if you know what you're looking at, you shouldn't expect it to).

Actually, it shows quite a bit. For one, people shouldn't be looking at peak gains, but rather how the cam behaves in the rpm range. No amount of tuning in the world is going to allow Tomies inferior cam design to make up the low end torque loss compared to the JWT. I don't care what exhaust manifold or plenum you use. This is as ideal as a test like this can get.

And just to note, I'd imagine there is little to no restriction in the intake manifold, judging by where peak power is made, and how it's carried to redlline. Looks like the head is the restriction, and it could use more cam.

Change the manifold for the more common spacer, eliminate the 90mm throttle body for the more common stock one in the stock location, put back in a MAF like 90% of people run, and you'll see the results change alot IMHO. Tune it with an ecu that doesn't allow cam timing changes (old school, but a UTEC for example), or even do it on a non-revup, and depending on the cam, you may see the results change even more (I am assuming they manipulated cam timing on a per cam basis to show each in their most positive light, which is the way it should be done IMHO).

So your arguing that a less than ideal setup would have different results...? Ok.

A header on a non revup DE without cams is never going to set the world on fire power wise. It never has, and it never will. Makes no difference who makes it. The right headers reward those with the right cams - they significantly affect one another, so they really need to be picked together. Arbitrarily tossing one part in and expecting the world on this platform is unfortunately common

Def look forward to seeing some of the other cams out there tested that we've never seen results of before. Great work Sasha, and thanks for putting it all together

Originally Posted by kacz07

I was talking about the Crawford headers (which is why I listed them separately from long tubes), which are proven to make power past 6k, based on JB's and Z1's build. No manifold mentioned in my posts.

You need a hug?

Originally Posted by SGSash

Cam manufacturers are forced with a decision to make which is a compromise between idle quality and intake cam advance travel (for mid-range power):

One the one hand, you can offer the cam with a late intake opening - and very little overlap, which would result in a stable idle,

On the other hand, you can offer the cam with the intake lobe center a little bit more advanced, set ideally for high rpm / high load, then you will be able to use all of the available travel of the cam to broaden the powerband (unless of course you get to the point of smashing the valves into the pistons). Of course with a larger cam this would result in a fair bit of overlap at idle, and would hurt idle quality.


Whoa whoa whoa...don't you want the cam advanced near idle, and retarded near redline, correct me if I'm wrong. I think you stated it backwards.

Some of the cams I had tuned in the test made peak power at 15 degrees advance, meaning we were actually only able to use 15 degrees of further advance to gain mid-range power, rather than the 30.

This is (in my opinion) what the higher travel sprockets were designed to help with, they can match the best of both worlds, by retarding the cam way out to have a perfect idle, and then advance it like crazy to promote flow at medium engine speed.

The car was making roughly 305-310whp with stock throttle body and just a spacer before.

Originally Posted by KA24DE

Yea..

Originally Posted by SGSash

You won't need an M800 to do your cam timing. The UpRev will get you 99% of the way there of a true standalone. The Motec stuff is real racecar ****. For if you want to remove all of your stock wiring and have a professional harness built, need features like traction control, pit limiter, intensive data logging and communications with a race dash.

Here's the article in an easier to read version:

http://issuu.com/sashaanis/docs/cams