>Webcams is what people have been using on here for years.

>Webcams is what people have been using on here for years.

>And pressure has the 3sgte. I have a 5sfte. Anyone used them on the 5s application?

>+20whp and 15tq? That may not be enough for me to drop $1000.

>WebCams (sharper increase at 4k) $? possible around 600
&
Colt Cams (smoother power curve starting around 3k) $400

SAFC2 - $100-150

done

>http://www.6gc.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80857
http://www.6gc.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=81235

>now the real info



now my motor has 156K miles on it and my compression was low, but consistant.

here's a comparison was another 5s, 1998 51K miles on it



and some #s info



and the INFO

my 5s topped out at 123whp and 126ft/lbs of torque.

on the 1998 stock 5s (intake) at 4700 RPMs it doesn't make any more power, it drops hp like a rock. My 1995 156K 5s continues to make hp. I peaked out close to redline and CONTINUED TO MAKE POWER until then. So at redline (about 6000 RPMs) I had about 123hp while the stock had The stock 5s 103hp. As for torque, the 98 drops off at 4700 and mine continued hold out longer. I had 110ft/lbs of torque and the stock 98 had 92ft/lbs.

The bottom line is I didn't dyno my car before the cams were installed so I don't know exactly were I'm starting from. From the research I've done they seem to average around 105-110hp to the wheels. If my motor was in peak condition like the 98 then I have gained about 10hp to the wheels. The important thing here is my car now holds the power later in the RPM band and where any other stock 5s drops off, my car continues to make power, right to redline.

now when I turbo...

>i forgot my thumb drive, so ill have to go back to get the runfiles to be able to overlay the runs, but just by the numbers, he made 135whp, uncorrected, and ~ 140ftlbs IIRC. he has some printouts that im sure he'll post later tonight when he gets home.

dustin made ~123whp with the webcams, but the powerband is quite diffrent between the 2. the coltcams are definetly smoother, with more overall gains, where the webcams were much peakier, with all the gains coming above 4K rpm. once i get the runfiles, ill be able to illustrate this much better, with more details.
for now, i will add a pic i took while tuning it at the dyno.
it shows 2 runs.
the blue one is when we first got there, without any tuning, the red one is after a handful of runs of playing with the SAFCII.
blue run = 115.16whp, 131.06ftlbs with STD correction.
red run = 128.61whp and 140.17ftlbs with STD correction.



goes to show its definetly worth it to pick up and dyno tune a SAFC or somthing after mods like this..hell, even stock you can probably gain 10-15whp from an SAFC by leaning the fuel curve some.
enjoy zac!

>Actually crap. I didn't see the difference in the rpm dropoffs till now. I don't know what I'm doing with my life. lol

>>

The webcams is better for the high peak if that's what you're looking for. The normal power curve our 5sfe went from max power at 5300rpm to falling sky rocket. To 5700rpm and steadily falling for another 500 more rpm. This cam "fix" our 5sfe problem better than the colt. The colt still has the top end "lag".

>But the turbo compensates a little at the top end... This is a tough decision. Quick steady power or slower peaking power that puts out more and lasts longer...

Which webcam is that? Does anyone know?

>I have colt cams - P2 posted the dyno on it. They made a noticeable difference for sure but after the tune with the SAFC 2, it was a very nice increase. It still runs very strong (although having a fuel issue right now) and is definitely more fun to drive but don't expect to smoke that many cars.