But, ive been searching all day long, trying to find out what cams are better for the VE.... I know allll about the fcams, and n1 cams being way better then regs, but are the 16v better???.... Is there a benifit from having 16v cams???


I know everything on the engines is the exact same, except for the cams.... and the 20ve is more powerful then the 16ve, so what gives? Does it rev faster? Why are they better, if they even are better? I just want to start modding the engine, w/o losing my lunch money.

Thanks guys, and Im reading, and searching this engine up, and still dont know much about them. So take it easy on the flames :biggthump

If you have a sr20ve, then with bolt ons you can get into the 190whp range. with sr16ve cams i have seen some people nudge 200whp. anything bigger than 16ve cams and you will want springs. get all the major bolt ons then think about cams.

Its all in the VE FAQ Section..

SR20VE
Intake cam
Low lobe: 8.4mm lift @ 220 duration
Low lobe center angle: 110deg
High lobe:10.7mm lift @ 264 duration
High lobe center angle: 104deg

Exhaust cam
Low lobe: 6.6 mm lift @ 244 duration
Low lobe center angle: 122deg
High lobe:10.34 mm lift @ 268 duration
High lobe center angle: 114 deg

SR16VE
Intake cam
Low Intake Duration: 200
Low Intake Lift: 7.1
Low Intake Center Angle: 100

Low Lobe Center Angle: 111
Low Overlap: 0

High Intake Duration: 280
High Intake Lift: 11.1
High Intake Center Angle: 100

High Lobe Center Angle: 105
High Overlap: 70

Exhaust cam
Low Exhaust Duration: 244
Low Exhaust Lift: 7.95
Low Exhaust Center Angle:122

High Exhaust Duration: 280
High Exhaust Lift: 11.1
High Exhaust Center Angle:110

SR16VE N1
Intake cam
Low Intake Duration: 220
Low Intake Lift: 8.4
Low Intake Center Angle: 110

Low Lobe Center Angle: 116
Low Overlap: 0

High Intake Duration: 288
High Intake Lift: 12.0
High Intake Center Angle: 104

Exhaust cam
Low Exhaust Duration: 244
Low Exhaust Lift: 7.95
Low Exhaust Center Angle:122

High Exhaust Duration: 288
High Exhaust Lift: 11.9
High Exhaust Center Angle:110

SR20VE (20V)
Intake cam
Low duration: 228deg
Low lift 10.10mm
Low center angle: 114deg

High duration: 278deg
High lift: 12.00 mm
High center angle: 114deg

Exhaust cam
Low duration: 244deg
Low lift: 8.30mm
Low center angle: 106deg

High duration: 280deg
High lift: 11.15mm
High center angle: 108deg

Other cam info
Timing Events:
All of the above (except lifts ofcourse) can be calculated from teh timing events.

SR16VE

Intake Low: Opens at 0deg before TDC, Closes at 20deg After BDC
Intake High: Opens at 40deg before TDC, Closes at 60deg After BDC
Exhaust Low: Opens at 64deg before BDC, Closes at 0deg After TDC
Exhaust High: Opens at 70deg before BDC, Closes at 30deg After TDC

SR16VE-N1

Intake Low: Opens at 0deg before TDC, Closes at 40deg After BDC
Intake High: Opens at 40deg before TDC, Closes at 68deg After BDC
Exhaust Low: Opens at 64deg before BDC, Closes at 0deg After TDC
Exhaust High: Opens at 74deg before BDC, Closes at 34deg After TDC


Thanks to FastNX (http://www.sr20forum.com/member.php?u=1580) ,92nx2k (http://www.sr20forum.com/member.php?u=1083) and hpro123 (http://www.sr20forum.com/member.php?u=711) for the information


If you look at the duration, and lift of both 20ve and 16ve cams, you'll see the 16ve cams are bigger/better.

awsome thanks.... why are they bigger though??

However, Serb, I'd guess given Nissan's care in design, the 1.6 cams were designed for the lower volume of the 1.6 liter motor - witness the shorter lift and duration on the low 1.6 intake cam - which, I'm guessing, will translate into lower hp (and MAYBE a tad more peak but less broad torque??) when in the 2.0ve. A bit more hp on the top than the VE cams, but not as streetable. Not very excited about the specs on the four Franklin cams FOR MY USE; and JWT may never put a cam out here for us. I agree with Serb on the stickons - Lucindo, Miko says the best header FOR VEs is the Fujitsubo - the others haven't been properly designed to handle the very high overlap of the high cams. Serban and Miko have found that the thermoblok spacers actually reduce hp a bit (so far I've left mine on, but I haven't dynoed a/b). If you can stand the racket, 3" exhaust all the way back, altho the Fuji dumps at 2.5". Either from vrs fit like a glove, altho some folks have noted they should supply stainless fittings and don't. All the more complicated stuff I'll defer to the experts here

Jerry,

AFAIK, the 16ve cams are universally praised as a good upgrade for 20ve engines, and I've never heard of any complaints running them.

Compared to the stock 20ve camsn, the 16ve's lift and duration numbers are bigger everywhere except on the low intake cam.

C

J
Compared to the stock 20ve camsn, the 16ve's lift and duration numbers are bigger everywhere except on the low intake cam.

C

Which apparently can be a bonus, as I've heard when cruising you can get slightly better mpg w/ the 16VE's. :tongue:

http://www.sr20forum.com/showthread.php?t=51384 search FTW!!! ;)

Yow. Steve's torque numbers thru the low and midrange - if I read this right, he got what should be a seat of the pants noticeable lower end push with the 16 over the 20ve cams virtually throughout the low cam range. Didn't get anything worth worrying about at the top. I did a quick spreadsheet comparison; IF Steve meant that the posted data were cat in place both cam sets, same everything both times, then (a) it's no wonder people like the cams, and (b) why the heck didn't Nissan use the 16 cams in the 20 in the first place??? The numbers below are the DIFFERENCE in hp and tq thru the range.

rpm hp tq
2800 4.5 8.4
2900 6.2 11.2
3000 6.8 11.8
3100 8.6 14.6
3200 9.6 15.7
3300 9.1 14.4
3400 8.0 12.4
3500 7.5 11.2
3600 8.0 11.6
3700 8.4 12.1
3800 8.7 12.0
3900 9.5 12.8
4000 10.0 13.0
4100 8.6 11.0
4200 9.6 12.0
4300 9.3 11.4
4400 9.9 11.2
4500 9.1 10.7
4600 8.6 9.8
4700 5.1 5.5
4800 7.3 7.9
4900 7.6 8.2
5000 7.3 7.7
5100 6.8 7.0
5200 5.9 5.9
5300 5.7 5.6
5400 6.1 5.9
5500 6.4 6.1
5600 5.0 4.7
5700 4.2 3.9
5800 2.6 2.3
5900 1.2 1.1
6000 1.3 1.1
6100 2.1 1.7
6200 3.9 3.3
6300 4.6 3.9
6400 5.4 4.4
6500 6.2 4.9
6600 5.6 4.5
6700 6.6 5.2
6800 6.7 5.1
6900 6.5 5.0
7000 5.5 4.1
7100 2.6 1.9
7200 -0.3 -0.2
7300 0.0 0.0
7400 1.1 0.8
7500 0.3 0.3
7600 0.0 0.1
7700 0.2 0.2

BUT in my case, if I were to put the sr16ve cams in my 20ve engine with me already using the sr16ve ecu, the power would continue to climb to 8200, making more peak hp. As where the 20ve cams fall off around 7200rpm. People with lower redlines wouldn't be able to get the full potential of the 16ve cams. I may be wrong but this is the impression I was getting.

Keep in mind that in steves comparison data he is running a test pipe with the 16ve cams and a cat with the 20ve. The test pipe opened up alot of midrange for him.

so i guess ill be loking for some 16ve cams.... but why are they so expensive... there isnt even a lot of people who want them, so like 400 plus my old cams??? doesnt seem worth it to me. Id pay 400 and keep my old cams... I guess its cause theyre hard to find??? Id like some 16ve N1 cams... where can i get these heheh

so i guess ill be loking for some 16ve cams.... but why are they so expensive... there isnt even a lot of people who want them, so like 400 plus my old cams??? doesnt seem worth it to me. Id pay 400 and keep my old cams... I guess its cause theyre hard to find??? Id like some 16ve N1 cams... where can i get these heheh

Yeah, I don't get it either. Maybe before the fcams were out I can see them being expensive, but if your going to spend 400 for sr16 cams you might as well spend a little bit more for fcams.

So the difference on Steve's runs MAY be just cat vs no cat, and the 1.6 cams made NO difference whatsoever????
Jer

Hey Jer, what's your basis for thinking cams with more lift and duration will make less power?

C

Keep in mind that in steves comparison data he is running a test pipe with the 16ve cams and a cat with the 20ve. The test pipe opened up alot of midrange for him.

The top end would have higher amounts of gas flow, resulting in a higher amount of backpressure due to the cat. So I highly doubt the removal of the cat had alot to do with the midrange gain.

More or less had to do with a superior flow characteristic of the 16VE cams in relation to other flow factors.

Hey Jer, what's your basis for thinking cams with more lift and duration will make less power?

C

He's confused with the addition of the cat as a variable. I'd be willing to bet that the gain is completely as a result of the 16VE cams and not due to the relative small amounts of backpressure that the cat is producing.

No, he hypothesized in post 5 (before the dyno result), that the 16ve cams wouldn't be a good upgrade.

My completely unscientific thought on 16ve cams is that Nissan made them bigger than the 20ve cams because they needed more oomph from the smaller diplacement of the sr16ve engine.

C

Nismo's right, Chris - I was just being feisty, as the conditions weren't held constant - from Steve's data we have no clue how restrictive the cat was in the cat/old cam-no cat/new cam comparison. Those data would never be accepted much less get past first review in one of the refereed journals in my field (and I'm a social, not a 'hard' scientist). Not confused - just being a prudent scientist. My training doesn't let me 'bet' on imperfect data. Do we have better data that show the 16 cam produces greater hp/torque than the 20 cam under otherwise identical conditions (e.g., same header, same exhaust, 333 injectors/ve manifold, ve maf, etc.)? That wouldn't necessarily suggest that the 16 cam would be better with one of these untested flybynight headers people are buying that apparently can't handle the second lobe overlap, or with, let's say, DE injectors/manifold, but it would be a starting point; apparently, as Steve astutely and honestly pointed out in his old post, the two runs are not really comparable.
PS: I am NOT trying to argue that all you guys that bought the 16 cams were wrong; I'm arguing that I just haven't yet seen the data that a good engineer or scientist would accept. Dyno data are not the only evidence - 1/8 and 1/4 mile, track and autox data comparing the cams under controlled conditions (i.e., the cams were the ONLY change) would also lend weight that the 16 cams are better (or not).
ppss: Chris, I agree that it IS a reasonable guess that the 16 cams have to "try harder" to compensate for the lower volume, thus they might produce more torque/hp in the 20, EVEN THOUGH it's really hard to imagine they'd be ideal (the interaction of all the variables is too complex for that to be assumed).

Nismo's right, Chris - I was just being feisty, as the conditions weren't held constant - from Steve's data we have no clue how restrictive the cat was in the cat/old cam-no cat/new cam comparison. Those data would never be accepted much less get past first review in one of the refereed journals in my field (and I'm a social, not a 'hard' scientist). Not confused - just being a prudent scientist. My training doesn't let me 'bet' on imperfect data. Do we have better data that show the 16 cam produces greater hp/torque than the 20 cam under otherwise identical conditions (e.g., same header, same exhaust, 333 injectors/ve manifold, ve maf, etc.)? That wouldn't necessarily suggest that the 16 cam would be better with one of these untested flybynight headers people are buying that apparently can't handle the second lobe overlap, or with, let's say, DE injectors/manifold, but it would be a starting point; apparently, as Steve astutely and honestly pointed out in his old post, the two runs are not really comparable.
PS: I am NOT trying to argue that all you guys that bought the 16 cams were wrong; I'm arguing that I just haven't yet seen the data that a good engineer or scientist would accept. Dyno data are not the only evidence - 1/8 and 1/4 mile, track and autox data comparing the cams under controlled conditions (i.e., the cams were the ONLY change) would also lend weight that the 16 cams are better (or not).
ppss: Chris, I agree that it IS a reasonable guess that the 16 cams have to "try harder" to compensate for the lower volume, thus they might produce more torque/hp in the 20, EVEN THOUGH it's really hard to imagine they'd be ideal (the interaction of all the variables is too complex for that to be assumed).

Actually, I was wrong. It would help if all of us (including me) actually read through that thread. The dyno chart he posted was 20ve with cat versus 16ve without cat. However, the 100 rpm printout that was copied pasted over here is 20ve without cat v 16ve without cat.