Omega Owners Forum
Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: DodgeyDave on 20 September 2010, 20:25:16
-
If you upgrade the camshafts on a 2.6 V6 to the 3.2 camshafts is it just a straight swap or do other bits need changing too?????
I've heard you can gain quite a bit more power doing this but is it as straight forward as it sounds.
-
Cams are a straight swap. Will need new cam cover gaskets while you're at it. Intake divider and manifold can also be changed as they are slightly larger on the 3.2.
Might as well change the cam belt and tensioners while you're there.
I may be wrong but I believe 3.0 cams would do the same job. Might make it easier to find a set?
Kevin
-
Thats great, thanks for your reply, i'm gonna be doing the cam belt and pulleys soon so i think i'll do this at the same time. :y
Any idea what the effect will be on fuel consumption?
-
I know I gained 12 horsepower by putting back 2.6 cams in repacement of the 3.0 cams in mine !
-
I know I gained 12 horsepower by putting back 2.6 cams in repacement of the 3.0 cams in mine !
I might be being a bit thick here, but do you mean you put 3.0 cams in a 2.6 engine and gained HP? :-/
-
I know I gained 12 horsepower by putting back 2.6 cams in repacement of the 3.0 cams in mine !
I might be being a bit thick here, but do you mean you put 3.0 cams in a 2.6 engine and gained HP? :-/
i would think thats whats meant ;)
-
hi all sorry to butt in but can i ask about cams as well i believe i can put in 3.0's in my 2.5 ? and where would be best place to find replacement cams etc many thanks :)
-
I know I gained 12 horsepower by putting back 2.6 cams in repacement of the 3.0 cams in mine !
You must have had some other fault!
-
I've heard you can get up to +25hp by putting 3.2 cams in a 2.6. I'm gonna do my cam belt soon with the help of the forum DVD so i was thinking about doing this at the same time while i have it in bits.
I justy want to know if all i do is take the old cams out and put the 3.0/3.2 ones in?? or if i NEED to change anything else :-/
-
hi all sorry to butt in but can i ask about cams as well i believe i can put in 3.0's in my 2.5 ? and where would be best place to find replacement cams etc many thanks :)
Yes, and try one of the breakers on here. Wise to put on a 3.0l divider plate as well
-
hi all sorry to butt in but can i ask about cams as well i believe i can put in 3.0's in my 2.5 ? and where would be best place to find replacement cams etc many thanks :)
Best place to source the parts from a 3.0 would be to find someone who's breaking one or go down the scrap yard and see what they have. I believe they used the 3.2 litre engines in Isuzu's aswell :y
-
I've heard you can get up to +25hp by putting 3.2 cams in a 2.6. I'm gonna do my cam belt soon with the help of the forum DVD so i was thinking about doing this at the same time while i have it in bits.
I justy want to know if all i do is take the old cams out and put the 3.0/3.2 ones in?? or if i NEED to change anything else :-/
Make sure you have a proper locking kit :y
-
as The Boy says, if fitting 3.0 cams its worth fitting a 3.0 inlet divider too. you could always port the openings on the 2.5 heads too as i found them to be slightly smaller than the 3.0 (pic of my c25xe with 3.0 inlet divider below)
(http://www.mediajustice.co.uk/images/cavwip/31102009630.jpg)
-
thanks for your help and sorry for butting in will speak nicely to members on scottish meet if any of them can help,im a complete numpty when fixing things.
many thanks again :y
-
I bought a 2.6 that already had 3.0 cams in it.
did a before and after dyno check to find that I'd picked up horsepower when I went back to the original cams.
I'm actually planning to test the theory once-and-for-all soon.
-
...and I got talked out of having the cams changed by my indep when I was having my belt done a few weeks ago! "Wast of time"to coin a phrase!
Interesting about the divider. 'scuse my ignorance but is this something that could be easily done on its own by a slightly competent diy'er? Any benefits without the cams?
-
the inlet divider is just a direct replacement for the old metal item, this one is made of plastic and a lot lighter. there are also mild heat transfer benefits. it's an easy enough job, inlet manifold and injector rail off and hey presto, there you are, although im not sure its worth doing the work specifically to replace the divider if you're not doing other related work such as camshaft replacement at the same time.
a competent DIYer with a steady hand and a dremel could port the holes in the head to match the divider. careful not to score where you shouldnt though, or leave any metal filings in the head itself :o
easiest way to see where to enlarge is to use a felt tip or similar and colour in the visible part of the openings in the head through the inlet divider. you can ensure an accurate match then :y
-
can i ask if anyone has any sollid proof that putting 3.0/3.2 cams in a 2.6 adds to bhp/lbs.
really looking into changing the cams myself after reading this :y
-
it absolutely works on the 2.5/3.0 swap so i'm guessing the same can be said of the 2.6/3.2? i'm sure someone will be along to confirm soon enough :y
-
can i ask if anyone has any sollid proof that putting 3.0/3.2 cams in a 2.6 adds to bhp/lbs.
really looking into changing the cams myself after reading this :y
Mike Dundee 195bhp
Mine goes better than standard as well - near 3.0 performance
-
can i ask if anyone has any sollid proof that putting 3.0/3.2 cams in a 2.6 adds to bhp/lbs.
really looking into changing the cams myself after reading this :y
Yes, it really works.
Along with other stuff done at same time,my 2.5 was recorded at 215bhp (Autobahnstormers RR meet Aug '08).
That's at the wheels as it's an auto.
Ask Mike Dundee about our trip on the M11 last year.
Matthew
-
can i ask if anyone has any sollid proof that putting 3.0/3.2 cams in a 2.6 adds to bhp/lbs.
really looking into changing the cams myself after reading this :y
Yes, it really works.
Along with other stuff done at same time,my 2.5 was recorded at 215bhp (Autobahnstormers RR meet Aug '08).
That's at the wheels as it's an auto.
Ask Mike Dundee about our trip on the M11 last year.
Matthew
Woha! Factoring in 20-25% transmission losses you then have somthing like 260+bhp? What else have you done to it? :-?
-
thanks for your replies, it will go on the list...
i need a cam belt change so will kill two birds with one stone once i obtain all the parts.
i am also planning to swap the diff to a 4.22 so that'll aid 0-60 times, seen as though the limit in this country is 70mph (and i wouldn't dream off exceeding it)
cheers guys
-
Well after reading all your replies i think it's worth a try so i'll give it a go and see what happens. :)
-
Anyone had any problems insuring their car after telling them it has a modified engine?
-
Anyone had any problems insuring their car after telling them it has a modified engine?
If you're trying with Direct Line or someone off the high street then you'll almost certainly have problems unless it's very basic mods..
With someone like Adrian Flux, Sky Insurance et al, nope, never had a problem - granted sometimes it cost me a fair packet, but never a problem.
-
Woha! Factoring in 20-25% transmission losses you then have somthing like 260+bhp? What else have you done to it? :-?
More likely the rolling road operator "corrected" the reading to allow for the losses. A 2.5 would need serious work to make 260 BHP.
Kevin
-
Woha! Factoring in 20-25% transmission losses you then have somthing like 260+bhp? What else have you done to it? :-?
More likely the rolling road operator "corrected" the reading to allow for the losses. A 2.5 would need serious work to make 260 BHP.
Kevin
You're missing my original post Kevin - It's 215bhp - I assume i260 is estimating the difference for a manual box (by what method I don't know- you'll have to ask him yourself) ;)
I'm more inclined to think I'd get 220-230 with a manual box and a bit more work(the 'heads I'd have thought?).
I had heard that the holy grail for N/A engines is a ton per litre so perhaps 250 bhp is achievable? :-?
2Woody will be doing the box conversion whenever I have enough beer tokens (not looking likely just yet but I still have the dream!). ::)
Matthew
-
You're missing my original post Kevin - It's 215bhp
Yep. I know. ;) I was just saying that's likely to be a flywheel measurement already, so adding 25% is not required.
Not a bad effort for a 2.5 at all.
Kevin
-
can i ask if anyone has any sollid proof that putting 3.0/3.2 cams in a 2.6 adds to bhp/lbs.
really looking into changing the cams myself after reading this :y
Yes, it really works.
Along with other stuff done at same time,my 2.5 was recorded at 215bhp (Autobahnstormers RR meet Aug '08).
That's at the wheels as it's an auto.
Ask Mike Dundee about our trip on the M11 last year.
Matthew
Is it quicker than Mikes 2.6 then!
-
can i ask if anyone has any sollid proof that putting 3.0/3.2 cams in a 2.6 adds to bhp/lbs.
really looking into changing the cams myself after reading this :y
Yes, it really works.
Along with other stuff done at same time,my 2.5 was recorded at 215bhp (Autobahnstormers RR meet Aug '08).
That's at the wheels as it's an auto.
Ask Mike Dundee about our trip on the M11 last year.
Matthew
Woha! Factoring in 20-25% transmission losses you then have somthing like 260+bhp? What else have you done to it? :-?
As the post says - 215 AT THE WHEELS - implying that this is AT THE WHEELS.
Simple reasoining to think therefore that there woule be more power at the flywheel, no?
How many rolling roads measure from the flywheel anyway - what the sodding difference does it make if it is auto - just more transmission losses but if you are actually saying that the 215 is at the fly and already corrected then little of the original statement makes sense and the fact that it is auto has no bearing on the price of potatoes..
I was refraining from saying that 215 at the wheels from a 2.6 was some pub-talk b*%^%%s for risk of offending but basically without forced induction or undrivable cams that probably don't exist on the ready market this sort of figure would be unachievable.
Regards.
-
How many rolling roads measure from the flywheel anyway - what the sodding difference does it make if it is auto - just more transmission losses but if you are actually saying that the 215 is at the fly and already corrected then little of the original statement makes sense and the fact that it is auto has no bearing on the price of potatoes..
I think the point about auto/manual is that you can get a reasonably accurate measurement of flywheel power from a rolling road from a manual car if the following are true:
1) The dynamometer is calibrated and in good condition in the first place.
2) The operator is honest and knows what he's doing
3) The environmental conditions are measured and compensated for.
4) The car is strapped down evenly and consistently.
5) The power run is made with a consistent gear selected and, when the engine has peaked, the driver declutches and allows the rolling road to record the losses during the coastdown.
6) The power run and coastdown losses are combined to estimate the power at the flywheel.
7) A couple of runs are made to ensure the setup is recording a consistent result.
Rarely will you find a rolling road ticking all the above boxes, though, especially if they have tuned the car and it looks good for them to send you away with an impressive "pub figure".
I have caught operators putting in silly environmental corrections, riding the brake / clutch during the coastdown to increase the apparent losses (or just hurry up the session so the next car can get in) or even just terminating the coastdown early because they can't be bothered to do it properly.
Put an auto box into the equation, on the other hand, and even the best operator can struggle to load the car so that it stays in the required gear and the best you can do for a coastdown is to slip it into neutral. This doesn't account for the considerable losses in the torque converter and most of the gearbox losses.
Before you conclude that "at the wheels" figures are therefore more trustworthy, though, bear in mind that the losses on a rolling road are very different to the situation on a real road. Tyre pressure, performance and size, how hard the car is strapped down, the weight of the car, the speed of acceleration on the rollers, which gear the car is in, diff ratio.. All these factors can radically change the "at the wheels" figures such as to make them meaningless unless compensated by a proper coastdown (even more so when 25% is added ;) ).
Rolling roads are a good tool for tuning a car as they can allow you to operate the engine in parts of its' performance envelope that are difficult / not legal to attain on the road test track, especially with a lap top on your knees. :-X
They are also Ok for "before and after" comparisons of the same car on the same day to show the relative change in power.
I personally don't take much notice of figures from rolling roads unless I have seen them recorded. Ask yourself how the car drives instead. :y
Sorry - I seem to have ended up on my rolling road soapbox. ::)
I was refraining from saying that 215 at the wheels from a 2.6 was some pub-talk b*%^%%s for risk of offending but basically without forced induction or undrivable cams that probably don't exist on the ready market this sort of figure would be unachievable.
Agreed. :y
Kevin
-
Ask Gm about the gains, its the change they made to the Vectra 2.5's to get the ST variants upto 195ps
-
Rolling roads are a good tool for tuning a car as they can allow you to operate the engine in parts of its' performance envelope that are difficult / not legal to attain on the road test track, especially with a lap top on your knees. :-X
It's also pretty hard to see the screen and operate the keyboard when your friend is throwing your freshly built car around roundaboutschicanes like Schumacher ... if anything can induce motion sickness, it's trying to stare at a 10" screen at lateral .8g ;D ;D
-
It's also pretty hard to see the screen and operate the keyboard when your friend is throwing your freshly built car around roundaboutschicanes like Schumacher ... if anything can induce motion sickness, it's trying to stare at a 10" screen at lateral .8g ;D ;D
Sounds like the voice of experience. ;)
A couple of hours with a laptop and about 30 miles driven got my Westfield running better on injection than about 3 years of messing about with different DCOE jets and emulsion tubes though. ;D
Kevin
-
Sky Insurance are good on modifications - although I'm being bias, as I work there.
-
Sky Insurance are good on modifications - although I'm being bias, as I work there.
Welcome to the forum Sky. :y