REVIEW:::Crower stage 2 cams

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Dec 13, 2006 | 06:34 AM

#111

c_me_go

Joined: Dec 2003

Posts: 3,330

Likes: 13

From: Under the sun

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scorpion,Dec 13 2006, 09:12 AM

Everyone jumping to conclusions here. How do you know there was no R&D put into the cams? Who's to say that the prototypes didn't dyno well and something happend in the manufacturing process? Maybe a number got read wrong or something. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter, maybe BC did just mill a cam and throw it out, but I just can't see a company doing that.

Dec 13, 2006 | 07:16 AM

#112

fltsfshr

Joined: Jan 2003

Posts: 10,868

Likes: 1,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sideways,Dec 13 2006, 09:56 AM

Note to self: Don't consider aftermarket cams until proven.

Ahhhhh Wisdom

fltsfshr

Dec 13, 2006 | 07:20 AM

#113

Scorpion

Registered User

Joined: Apr 2003

Posts: 1,848

Likes: 1

From: Riverview

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sideways,Dec 13 2006, 09:56 AM

Note to self: Don't consider aftermarket cams until proven.

Well if everyone did that how would they be proven

But I agree with you completely.

Dec 13, 2006 | 05:46 PM

#114

gusrock77

Registered User

Joined: May 2005

Posts: 917

Likes: 0

From: Hawthorne, Ca

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDM S2K,Dec 13 2006, 07:03 AM

wont be out till the middle of the year.

nevermind, i found out that the cams will be for NA

Jun 9, 2010 | 08:23 PM

#115

supaninjaface 12

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2010

Posts: 7

Likes: 0

so u said that u put on the 2.2 L stock cams....ur info says u have a 2003. so did u swap ur 2 .0 l cams out for the 2.2l cams?

Jun 9, 2010 | 08:25 PM

#116

supaninjaface 12

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2010

Posts: 7

Likes: 0

i actually heard that the skunk2 cams were bad and the best cams u could get were the 2.2 l for the ap1 motors so i was wondering if that was what u did

Jun 9, 2010 | 09:22 PM

#117

Ian300D

Joined: Dec 2008

Posts: 1,051

Likes: 43

From: Aurora, CO

Way to bump a 4 year old thread I don't even think he posts here. There is much debate on which cams, from what I see and have tested AP2 exhaust cam and AP1 intake cam. I had no back to back tests as I did it with a new built motor, but it didn't seem to do any bad either.

Jun 10, 2010 | 03:14 AM

#118

lotus7racer

Registered User

Joined: Nov 2003

Posts: 923

Likes: 0

From: New England

The purpose of a tall cam is to inhale/exhale more volumes of air.

High lift and duration will affect the power of the engine (either or). A well engineered combustion (like the S2000) has been maximized for ultimate power. A slight alteration will screw the combustion due to improper (design) lift & duration of the lobe. Honda spent million testing the s2000 engine. Crower working for carbureted muscle cars for years, do not have a slightest idea how modern sportcars works.
High lift & duration cam is good for aspirated.

The bottom line, let the turbo boost do the talking than relying at the camshaft. You are defeating the purpose of the turbo. I will not waste money on the camshaft.