# 288 vs 272 cam for racing



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

I was browsing a german vw site. All the members were using 288 cam and their engine output was around 160 hp for 1.8 or 2.0 8v. 
When I spoke to TT guys, they told me anything above 268 will slow me down. 
I decided to go for 272 cam and I produced more power than TT suggested. 
I have a feeling 288 will boost my hp power and torque above 3000 rpm. Does any one have a dyno graph for 288 cam?


----------



## A1Rocco (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

We're taking hydro cams here, right?


----------



## gearhead455 (Oct 30, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

Depends if the rest of the engine can benifit. If the head/intake/exhaust can't flow the air or have low compression, a big cam will hurt you.


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (gearhead455)*

yes It is a hydro cam, I have mild ported head with both intake and exhaust ports matched to the gasket. I am also running 11:1 comp, brospeed header, 2.25" piping,


----------



## gearhead455 (Oct 30, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

quote:[HR][/HR]yes It is a hydro cam, I have mild ported head with both intake and exhaust ports matched to the gasket. I am also running 11:1 comp, brospeed header, 2.25" piping,
[HR][/HR]​288 sounds fine to me. Power will not "turn on" untill well above 3000 RPM though.



[Modified by gearhead455, 7:47 PM 12-10-2002]


----------



## Andrew Stauffer (Oct 2, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (gearhead455)*

With that head/header/ex combo, I'd think 288 is a decent choice. Might want to thing about that intake manifold a little, open it up as well, they're suprisingly restrictive after about 145hp....


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (Andrew Stauffer)*

I thought A2 intakes are big enough? 
By the I have access to a used Audi 5000 turbo intake. does it fit a A2 head? (I know I have to cut a runner) 
Some one mentioned about specific models that fits a 8v head!!!


----------



## DST VR6 (Sep 27, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

will the 288 cam actually let the car idle? or will he need to raise idle speed to around 1000-1100 rpm?


----------



## citat3962 (Oct 15, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (vwgroundzero)*

Wheres your Idle speed?
I have a 272 and I'm willing to lose the gas milage at idle by turning the idle up to 1000 ather than listen to it go wah wah wah wah wah wah wah.
instead it has a mean, low, idle.
I'm constantly kicking myself for not buying the 276.
but I think I'd just be kicking myself anyway.
who makes 288 cams? TT??


----------



## DST VR6 (Sep 27, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (citat3962)*

i idle right around 900-950 rpm, sometimes a little higher...but thats the usual. im looking into getting the 276 cam sometime this week or next week, but may opt for the 288. im not too worried about idle, just wondering where it sits at.. i just looked into a book i have. schrick offers 2 versions of the 276 and 288 cam. 
276: 11.3mm lobe lift i/e
276: 11.5mm lobe lift i/e
288: both 11.7mm lobe lift i/e
BUT: one 288: 288/288/108, the other: 288/288/110 = duration *crankshaft for i/e
i got more info in this book, but its kind of long to type out. its in the tuning zubehor catalog...



[Modified by vwgroundzero, 10:04 PM 12-10-2002]


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (vwgroundzero)*

what is the difference between these 2 288 cams?
288: 288/288/108, the other: 288/288/110


----------



## DST VR6 (Sep 27, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

from the book:
duration
*crankshaft
for I/E
*=degree
thats all it says at the top...wish i had a scanner...easier to explain. just makes me wonder which is better. the one with the 108 at the end is 350 bucks, the other 300...go figure


[Modified by vwgroundzero, 12:15 AM 12-11-2002]


----------



## A1Rocco (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (vwgroundzero)*

Guys, when reading those cam specs make sure you check whether it's a hydo or solid lifter cam your reading, I have the Schrick catalog and it sound slike you are getting them mixed together. Just a thought.
When using a cam as big as a 288 you will need a lot of head work to get the flow it will create at top end. A stock intake is size is marginal and after that it really depends on well the port is done, there are a number of things involved to get optimal port flow. Remember that 288 with 11:1 compression could make 160hp with the right stuff.
Ultimately I would suggest an Audi 5000 non-Turbo intake, they are by far the best for flow and air speed and proper shape. The Turbo version is larger at the the port entrance then any other point in the system which is the oppisite of a venturi which is the opposite of what you want. I've seen and done a lot of these. Sorry can't tell you what year intake that is. Still trying to find that out.


----------



## DST VR6 (Sep 27, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (A1Rocco)*

yeah, i understand the theory of the hydro and solid lifter cam. im just quoting right whats out of the book, and it says nothing of what one goes with what head. just figured id mention it.


----------



## boogeyman (Mar 13, 2002)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

I worked on a project with Jack at Eurospeed that used the Schrick 288 solid cam.It was a 83mm bore/ 92.8mm stroke solid 8v,with the 1984 Rabbit intake.We had to use this intake because these were the rules for the series this engine ran in (engine shipped to the Middle East).I ported the head and intake and cc'd the motor.It had 42/35.5mm valves, 12.8:1cr forged JE's,4 into1 Tectonics header, 34 degrees total advance.The engine made [email protected]/160lb/ft. [email protected] From 3000rpm -7000rpm the torque never fell below 150lb/ft. It idled like a stocker on the dyno.Hope this helps you with your cam choice.


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (boogeyman)*

hey Boogeyman, I heard about that engine. Was that engine shipped to Iran?
I thought it was producing 190 hp! Maybe that was at the crank. 
170 whp is crazy. Was it the 12.8:1 CR that made the power or huge valve ports and 288 cam? 
I am running close to 11:1 CR with a mild ported head/272 cam.. I only managed to push 118 WHP and 127 WTQ. 
I may have to call jack and get him to build me a crazy head. How much do you think he charges for a head like that?


----------



## D.A.T. (Mar 29, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

Being "race", I would recommend the Schrick 288, great upper end power!


----------



## boogeyman (Mar 13, 2002)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

Kickster,you are correct that engine was shipped to Iran.It had a few flash readings at 190bhp but that happens on all dynos and that number has to be ignored.The size of the '84 Rabbit intake dictated the conservative port sizing to keep air velocity up,this is why(along with camshaft selection) the BHP numbers arn't that high,but torque numbers were great.Iam not sure what Jack charged the dude for the head but I have another one that has a little more port work, with all new,42/35.5 stainless valves, seats,guides,3angle valve job and surfaced for $1300.00 can.


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (boogeyman)*

how does stainless valves work? Never heard of them? Did you bench flow the head? Is it solid lifter? What about Ti retainers and HD springs? 
If you still have it by summer I will take it out of your hand. I am broke now.


----------



## A1Rocco (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (boogeyman)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I worked on a project with Jack at Eurospeed that used the Schrick 288 solid cam.It was a 83mm bore/ 92.8mm stroke solid 8v,with the 1984 Rabbit intake.We had to use this intake because these were the rules for the series this engine ran in (engine shipped to the Middle East).I ported the head and intake and cc'd the motor.It had 42/35.5mm valves, 12.8:1cr forged JE's,4 into1 Tectonics header, 34 degrees total advance.The engine made [email protected]/160lb/ft. [email protected] From 3000rpm -7000rpm the torque never fell below 150lb/ft. It idled like a stocker on the dyno.Hope this helps you with your cam choice. 







[HR][/HR]​Nice, very niiiccee.








That's what I'd like on the street 'cept a little less compression so the NPG coolant could keep detonation away with 94, say 12:1!


----------



## NYC_GLI (Jul 7, 2002)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

if you are strictly racing... i don't kow why techtonics wouldn't recommend their 302° cam???
is this gonna be a track only car? and, is it hydraulic, or soild lifters?


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (VDub_Lover)*

Weekend racer but still used on street. I dont care for idle. The head is hydro but I am slowly pushed toward a solid head with major port job.


----------



## NYC_GLI (Jul 7, 2002)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

Well,with a weekend racer.. i'd go with a 288° solid cam. I had that TT cam in my rabbit. With high compression, port and polish, and soe *other (







) mods... i made 125 whp. (thats on a 1.8L)


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (VDub_Lover)*

125 with a 1.8 is amazing. what about torque? do you have the dyno?


----------



## Andrew Stauffer (Oct 2, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

I love this thread, real 8v motors with real hp #s. Very cool. FWIW, my #s are in my sig below, these from an ABA with very worked solid lifter had and a Schrick 280. From a driveability perspective, this motor is perfect. Totally streetable. Drives like a mildly hotted Rabbit GTI below 3000rps and then like one with, well, 60% more hp and torque above that. It's driveability suggests that I could use more cam, as I'm willing to tolerate the trade offs for a weekend fun car, but even with the 280, I was running worse ets that I was with last years 274. I decided that my motor was not breathing well enough to make power above ~6500, so I started advancing cam timing to get the majority of the cam's "sweet spot" into the rpm range where breathing was not an issue. +4 deg and she makes ALOT of torque, and decent hp. And was faster than last year at the track.
This is a long winded way of saying that breathing really does need to be optimized to take advantage of what these big cams have to offer. I'm sure we all know that, but I've spent alot of time and $ on getting mine to where it is, and well, even the 280 suggests that there is room for improvements.


----------



## DST VR6 (Sep 27, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (Andrew Stauffer)*

those are real nice numbers for what your running andrew..it seems as if everyone with a solid lifter head makes more power than people with hydro's. maybe its time to switch, or run boost.


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (Andrew Stauffer)*

Andrew, Do you use a Eurospec head? If so, did you do any more porting on it? Your numbers are simply amazing, I am 10 hp and 10 torque short of where you are. 
Ps. do you have a dyno graph?


[Modified by kickster, 10:38 AM 12-22-2002]


----------



## Andrew Stauffer (Oct 2, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

I do run a Eurospec head that has been shaved .030 or .040" cant' recall right now. And it has a 5 angle valve job, and the backs of the valves have been cut to let as much air slip into the chamber as possible. 
While the head is a nice off the shelf solution, I believe that any 40/33 solid lifter head could be worked to do the same job. 
I'm a big fan of solid lifter heads, but that's because it's where all my experience is and not much more. Supposedly, there's an rpm point where hydro lifters can't keep up, although I have no idea what these limits actually are, or if that's even true. I suspect it *is* true, but that you'd be at an rpm range that's on a consideation on a true race motor, even a hot street motor probably wouldn't have any issues with a hydraulic head. But again, I dunno where these limits are. 
I do have a dyno graph, although it's not scanned in or posted anywhere. It's real old fashioned paper








The motor is all torque, though. It really suprised me. Torque torque torque. Starting to make me think I could drop my et even more by shifting sooner. 
Likewise, I used to run a match ported dual port ex mani and a TT downpipe. I replaced that with a Brospeed 4-2-1 header. The torque improvements were noticeable. I think the header, in conjunction with the cam timing advance, have really served me in the tq department.


----------



## A1Rocco (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (Andrew Stauffer)*

yes those torque numbers are amazing, you have all the right combination of stuff for nice torque. About all you could do is run an Audi 5000 non Turbo intake and add compression. Whoa!


----------



## Gforced (Mar 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (boogeyman)*

Leave it kickster to start another great thread. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Hey Boogeyman did you work with Joe at GT Performance in markham? 
Any way sounds like you do port and polish work. What are you charging to build a nice streetable hydro head? I need to find a good place for a great port and polish.
I still think the power comes from the head which can then be leveraged with a longer duration cam. 



[Modified by Gforced, 8:41 PM 12-22-2002]


----------



## DST VR6 (Sep 27, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

i just put in a neuspeed 276 cam today. all i can say is its sweet. lumpy idle, sounds more like a muscle car, but definately a nice increase in power. after putting the cam in, i am glad i did not decide to go 288 because of the idle characteristics. if your going to drive it everyday, 276 isnt a bad choice, but imo, 288 may be overkill.


----------



## CdnDub (Dec 3, 2002)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (vwgroundzero)*

vwgroundzero: what compression are you running on the motor you just dropped the cam on and what size engine is it?
I'm still planning on a 288 but with 11.5:1 compression on 94 octane pump gas.. 1.8L bottom end and ported head, intake and TB, and supersprint header.. 
I'm planning for it to be reasonably streetable but i think the increased compression points will help out a lot with low end torque and idle..
Just curious.


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (vwgroundzero)*

What cam did you have before the 276? 
quote:[HR][/HR]i just put in a neuspeed 276 cam today. all i can say is its sweet. lumpy idle, sounds more like a muscle car, but definately a nice increase in power. after putting the cam in, i am glad i did not decide to go 288 because of the idle characteristics. if your going to drive it everyday, 276 isnt a bad choice, but imo, 288 may be overkill. [HR][/HR]​


----------



## DST VR6 (Sep 27, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (kickster)*

CdnDub - shoud be about 10.5:1 cr. its a 2.0/1.8 hybrid. its a stock 1.8 8v head fitted with the cam.
kickster - i had the TT 266 before this cam. i must say i love this cam...but now if i could only get the car to run


----------



## boogeyman (Mar 13, 2002)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (Gforced)*

Yes Gforced,I still work with Joe at GT performance and I do performance engine work for many people.My race Rabbit,sponsored by GT performance in Markham holds the fastest lap time ever turned by an atmospheric VW at Mosport race track(1.35.1).Faster than any of the World Speed Challenge touring cars ran this year,so people have something to compare it with.Gforce,e-mail me and I will help you out.


----------



## Germany_MOM (Aug 3, 2001)

*Re: 288 vs 272 cam for racing (Andrew Stauffer)*

quote:[HR][/HR]With that head/header/ex combo, I'd think 288 is a decent choice...[HR][/HR]​Yes, the 288 is respectable. My friend's ported 1.8 Scirocco runs well with it, but the ass dyno says it doesn't make any more power than the 268 we removed to install it.
Note: I have a web 280 deg cam grind number 253. Its absolute duration is less than the 288, but it is better at check clearance than the 288. Moral: hydraulic lifter cams stink when it comes to real performance specs. I recommend a solid lifter cam and some more port work.


----------

