Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need information about camshafts on 320is?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Need information about camshafts on 320is?

    What tipes of cams was used in S14B20?

    Duration ?
    Max lift ?

    Thanks,
    --
    didzhej |Donatas Jovarauskas

  • #2
    The 2.0L S14 uses the same duration (248) cams as the standard 2.3.

    Other choices include:
    BMW's Evo 2 (264) or Evo 3 (272, 11.1mm) intake cams
    Schrick 276, 284, 292 (12mm), 308, 320

    Then Motorsport and a few independents (Vic Lee, Prodrive) had their own race cams for the 2.0L as well, although I don't know what they are.

    Oh, here’s something I found with a search:

    [snip]

    This is what I just measured. Note, this is for comparisons only.

    [Base circle/lobe/total lift]

    BMW 248 (intake/exhaust)
    33.5/43.68/10.18

    BMW 264 (E2 intake)
    33.44/44/10.56

    Schrick 276
    33.46/44.64/11.18

    Schrick 284
    33.46/44.84/11.38

    I took 2 measurements per cam on both the #4cyl, one for each lobe and then figured the average. I don't know why these measurements do not coincide with what BMW or Schrick advertises but that's definitely what I measured.

    Unfortunately I don't have an E3 intake or exhaust cam to measure.

    Yes, the BMW 248 cam is the same for exhaust or intake.

    Turners 10.7 reference on their web site seems more likely to be the E2 264 intake cam and not the stock 248.

    As you can see the base circle is close, but there is variances and you should always check valve clearances after reassembly of even like parts. I don't know how it does it but you can still see variances after assembly. There are so many factors that can influence these tolerances.

    Sorry for the short answers but I'm running a little late today and I've gotta run so, for now, I hope this helps.

    Take care,
    Jake Larsen

    P.S. Could someone help me out with why my measurements were not all that comparable to the advertised specs? Cheers. Oh yah, I took all my measurements with a professionally calibrated caliper directly on the lobes themselves.

    [snip]

    Hope this helps,
    Jake Larsen

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank You!!
      --
      didzhej |Donatas Jovarauskas

      Comment


      • #4
        If the 2.0 L and the 2.3 L engines put out the same horsepower from different capacities, there must certainly be a difference in cams. Looking at the catalog they both have the #310521 cams though. Hmm...


        [email protected]

        1969 2002 racecar
        1989 M3 racecar
        e39 Touring

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, I expected to find something different as well. Shrug...

          Jake Larsen

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi guys, I have been searching and this thread seems like a good one to revive.

            I was considering putting in some different cams in the 320is, I know that I will probably not get as much power without A/N, 2.3 head etc....but would installing some more agressive (street) cams do anything by themselves?
            I also have a second pair of standard 320is/2.3M3 cams, can these be machined in anyway to produce slightly similar cams to whats on the market or is it not that worth while and potentially dangerous for the cam?
            At the moment the car is great on the street, ideally it would be great to get some more low down grunt but I cant see that happening without changing the crank and rods to that of the 2.3

            Thanks
            Luke

            Comment


            • #7
              the head is also the same between the 320is and the 195/200PS M3.

              You could change the timing. I believe the timing chosen on the 320is is for improved power, not torque. Perhaps by using the cam gears of an early M3 you win some torque but lets see what more knowledgable on cam timing people say.

              regrinding cams is certainly an option, not the least because the quality of the 'raw material' used is so good. wouldt now what profile you'd want though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Jake,

                You are in the Uk if you can source some cams and take a trip to Northampton we could measure them accuratly on one of my machines at work. Then the board can see and understand the exact differances between each type, not just lift and duration. What do you think?
                Matt.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So regrinding cams has been done before? Who would be the best to use?
                  Is it worth it for the money, or would it equate to the same cost for new cams.



                  Luke

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Matt.m3
                    Jake,

                    You are in the Uk if you can source some cams and take a trip to Northampton we could measure them accuratly on one of my machines at work. Then the board can see and understand the exact differances between each type, not just lift and duration. What do you think?

                    Hello Matt. Sorry for the slow reply. I just saw this thread.

                    I have a handful of cams I would be very interested in measuring for comparrison. What type of 'machine' are you referring to? I was going to order a new dial indicator this week to do some testing myself.

                    FWIW, these are the cams I have on hand,

                    - Bucket full of standard 248's
                    - E3 exhaust 248
                    - E2 intake 264
                    - E3 intake 272
                    - Schrick 276
                    - Schrick 284
                    - KK 290

                    Cheers,
                    Jake

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The 320is has the same cams as a standard M3, actually everything is the same apart from a shortened crank. The compression is slighly higher on a 320is, the same as an EVO II. It also has a more agressive ignition map, all this helps up the power to near early M3 power.
                      I have fitted the Alpha-N and CF airbox to mine, after rolling roading it, it shows little increase in peak power and torque but the mid range was totally changed with a flatter torque curve. I've put it against my brothers EVO II and there is nothing in it regarding speed.

                      The easiest step to more power form a 320is is either dropping in a M3 crank or ripping the engine out and putting in an M3 engine.
                      I'm rebuilding my engine over winter so while i'm at it i might swap out the the 2.3 crank and maybe Evo II cams.
                      '88 320is
                      '88 M3 EVO II - gone but not forgotten : (

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Johnny, I did hear that your 320is with carbon box a/n etc... did not make much extra horsepower. Were the torque gains impressive though?

                        I suppose there is the option of replacing the crank for the 2.3, from what I have heard and read though there are also differences between the 320is rods and the 2.3 rods. The 2.3 rods being shorter to make up for the extra throw of the crank, for example if you fitted the bigger 2.3 crank and the 320is rods would you not have piston valve clearing issues due to the extra lenght of the crank.

                        Sorry if I am on completley the wrong page here, just something I am trying to understand.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Jake,

                          We have a couple inspection machines that we check our cams on. The main machine is called an Adcole which we use to check cam profiles, crank pins and journals. Also we can scan the profile on our CMM's.

                          As it happens both my brothers also work in F1, the middle one is the chief inspector at our company so reverse engineering cams is no probs.

                          I also had a chat with our cam designer and cam profile are not just about lift and duration, but also the opening and closing ramps vary to obtain max performance (not just peak power) and minimise valve flutter on closing.

                          I'll Pm you my contact details.
                          Matt.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hiya Mr Italian!

                            There were no perseavable gains in torque or power top end figures but those figures are now produced about 600RPM lower plus that amount of torque is available for alot longer, dont ask me how much as i haven't got my charts on me!
                            This talk of figures is all a bit of pub talk really, the driveability of the car has totally changed, it pulls so much harder lower down, in higher gears too. Putting the M3 and 320 back to back, the 320 pulls harder lower down than the Evo II but the Evo II seems to have it on the top end as it appears to be a bit more frantic above 6.5k.
                            For outright speed theres nothing in it but i havent tried that past 100MPH!
                            A mod i would defo recommend!

                            I've never heard that about the rods although i have thought about it, have to go and check the ETK!
                            '88 320is
                            '88 M3 EVO II - gone but not forgotten : (

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              please leave the exclamation marks out, we hear you...
                              They loose their effect if you use them at the end of every sentence and finishing a sentence with a '.' is less typing too as you dont have to hit the shift key.

                              Apart from that, good info.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X