# best cam for Neuspeed Supercharger w/ 2.4" pulley



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

I plan on going with a NS SC with 2.4" pulley (which puts the psi around 13psi if I am correct?) I currently have a TT 260 cam with AEG lifters in my ABA

is it really worth it to upgrade my valvetrain and go with the AT 270 cam?

would just like to know your thoughts...

I also have an OBX header and hi flo 42DD cat installed with a TT exhaust. 

:beer:


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Long answer: yes
Short answer: yes

lol...just kidding. Well, not really.

Think of it in terms of an N/A motor. Do you get more top end power out of a 270 than a 260? Yes, about 8whp on a dyno. Not to mention a whole lot more torque under the curve. Not much, but its NA, and thats on a stock head. But add boost....Booya. 

Which 260, btw? The asymmetrical 260/256 or the symmetrical 260? The symmetrical 260 has the same 0* overlap @ 50thou valve lift as the 270.


----------



## ELiT3 (May 18, 2011)

Idk much about cams, but TT has the 268/260 made for cars with FI.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

Good cam, but expensive new, and rare used. You will have the same results with the 270. And those are a dime a dozen used...and cheap!


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

911_fan said:


> Long answer: yes
> Short answer: yes
> 
> lol...just kidding. Well, not really.
> ...


i have the symmetrical TT 260 cam


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

vacuumnoise said:


> i have the symmetrical TT 260 cam


Personally, I'd go with the 268/260 TT cam. I ran one in an old supercharged mk2 of mine, and the powerband was great, no loss of tq, etc. They cost 30 bucks more than an AutoTech 270*, though. I think the Autotech might make a few more ponies. Not sure, never dyno'd a FI car with different cam's back to back. I have had the Autotech 270 in N/A cars, and I like them alot. Good powerband, good idle, etc. But the 268/260 is fine, too. It's really up to you.


----------



## Fast VW (Sep 24, 2002)

I have:

Neuspeed supercharger w 2.4" pulley
Snow Performance stage 3 MAX-MPG W/M injection
C2 30# tune and injectors
Autotech SS catback exhaust
AT270 cam

I highly recommend the AT270 cam.


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

Hurt said:


> Personally, I'd go with the 268/260 TT cam. I ran one in an old supercharged mk2 of mine, and the powerband was great, no loss of tq, etc. They cost 30 bucks more than an AutoTech 270*, though. I think the Autotech might make a few more ponies. Not sure, never dyno'd a FI car with different cam's back to back. I have had the Autotech 270 in N/A cars, and I like them alot. Good powerband, good idle, etc. But the 268/260 is fine, too. It's really up to you.


hmm yeah, its just if I was going to run the 270 cam and change the valvetrain I think I might just rebuild a seperate head, port etc. And just swap it out one whole day... 

my goal is 150whp, if I can make that supercharged with the 260 cam I would probobaly just keep it in there...


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

vacuumnoise said:


> hmm yeah, its just if I was going to run the 270 cam and change the valvetrain I think I might just rebuild a seperate head, port etc. And just swap it out one whole day...
> 
> my goal is 150whp, if I can make that supercharged with the 260 cam I would probobaly just keep it in there...


Neuspeed S/C kit completely stock pushes 135whp. The smaller pulley is good for about 1.5 extra PSI. You have exhaust, and a header, too.. So I'd say you're at about 145whp or so. Add a 268/260* cam (You don't have to change the valve springs with this cam, because the lift is only .432"! *max lift on obd2 springs is .433"*). Add a cold air intake and you should see 150whp with the 268/260. :thumbup:


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

Hurt said:


> max lift on obd2 springs is .433"


Never seen anyone claim _that_ before. :sly:


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

yeh i know people have ran the 268 cam on stock springs, but i just dont trust it...


----------



## JBETZ (Feb 17, 2000)

268/260 we developed this grind back in the mid 90's for the supercharged 8v's, you cant beat it!


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

Can you elaborate on that? Explain where you came up with the profile choice?


----------



## JBETZ (Feb 17, 2000)

911_fan said:


> Can you elaborate on that? Explain where you came up with the profile choice?


 Sure back in the mid 90's when we developed the Stage III and IV power kits for the 8v G60 we used the 260 for Stage III. A gentleman by the name of Lynn, we called him "auto von farvergnugen" was working on a split pattern cam, the 268/260. lynn is truly an 8v boosted VW pioneer and VW guru. I think he is in his mid 50's now. We had a specialty cam company in Wa do several grinds. Lynn was also the man that invented the ISV re-route for the G60. Neuspeed got a look at one of these at a So Cal car show and put this into production on there power kit. We also started mfg. this part for our pwr. kits and we had the 268/260 put into production. This cam I believe has been in all of the highest hp 8v engines out there. I believe this car in the video below is a world record holder for the fasted 1/4 mile time in the world running a stock G60 engine and management. The car is running our 268/260 cam, stock G60 8v engine, stock engine with stock G60 digifant injection system. The fasted time was 11.7 sec 1/4 mile. I can assure you this is a great cam for the 8v and is totally street-able


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

Thanks for the history lesson, John! I ran this in an NA motor for a while, and it felt great. Can only imagine in a boosted car.


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

and I can run the 268/260 cam with stock springs


----------



## JBETZ (Feb 17, 2000)

vacuumnoise said:


> and I can run the 268/260 cam with stock springs


 yes you can, np. if you run hd springs you will get some more power at peak rpm...


----------



## Fast VW (Sep 24, 2002)

So would you recommend this cam over the AT270? And if so why, specifically?


----------



## JBETZ (Feb 17, 2000)

Fast VW said:


> So would you recommend this cam over the AT270? And if so why, specifically?


 A straight 270 is an NA grind... I would choose this for a street NA engine. The 268/260 is a split pattern cam with a narrow over lap. Takes in a big gulp of air...holds it while it fully boost in the chamber and bang! Basically an NA grind would let the exhaust valves open sooner and let the charge flow right out. A boost cam will hold the exhaust valve closed for a brief moment longer....this will keep the boost sealed in the combustion charge. If you run stock cams with boost the loss usually isn't too bad. You can also run an adjustable cam sprocket and retard the cam timing a bit to keep the boost in the charge. If you run a performance NA cam with boost you can loose some psi and quite a bit of power. I've seen guys loose over 100 hp on turbo 16v's running the wrong cams. Also seen people loose 3-5+ psi from having their cam timing off.


----------



## 02vwgolf (Oct 6, 2009)

Whats everyone's opinion on running the TT276 on a boosted application. I have a new project im building, 83.5mm bore JE pistons, IE rods, etc and then I was just going to put my ported head and TT276 on it. Is there going to be a big enough loss in power from running my cam that I should think about investing in a 268/260?


----------



## JBETZ (Feb 17, 2000)

02vwgolf said:


> Whats everyone's opinion on running the TT276 on a boosted application. I have a new project im building, 83.5mm bore JE pistons, IE rods, etc and then I was just going to put my ported head and TT276 on it. Is there going to be a big enough loss in power from running my cam that I should think about investing in a 268/260?


 That's too much cam for boost... bigger is definitely not better with boost. I'd say the stock cam with and adjustable sprocket would be better. just my two cents


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

Just wanted to comment...

Both the 270 & 268/260 are good for boost. They both have a high LSA, ant both have no overlap at a 50thou valve lift. But following open/close timing, the 268/260 will favor a stronger low end, while the 270 would favor a slightly better top end.

And I sorta disagree about bigger not being better. It's more about the lobe center lines. Schlick has had a beefy 276 FI cam for years. Techtonics recently came out with an FI-friendly 276. But it's important to keep in mind that even though these bigger cams have wide lobe centers, there is still going to be low end blow-by because of valve overlap. These bigger cams are more for race/extreme top end applications. The smaller 260-270 degree cams are more than adequate for the street.


----------



## Fast VW (Sep 24, 2002)

911_fan said:


> They both have a high LSA, ant both have no overlap at a 50thou valve lift. But following open/close timing, the 268/260 will favor a stronger low end, while the 270 would favor a slightly better top end.


 I was just going to say that... just not with those exact measurements.  

Plus wouldn't the higher lift of the AT270 allow for better flow?


----------



## 02vwgolf (Oct 6, 2009)

911_fan said:


> Just wanted to comment...
> 
> Both the 270 & 268/260 are good for boost. They both have a high LSA, ant both have no overlap at a 50thou valve lift. But following open/close timing, the 268/260 will favor a stronger low end, while the 270 would favor a slightly better top end.
> 
> And I sorta disagree about bigger not being better. It's more about the lobe center lines. Schlick has had a beefy 276 FI cam for years. Techtonics recently came out with an FI-friendly 276. But it's important to keep in mind that even though these bigger cams have wide lobe centers, there is still going to be low end blow-by because of valve overlap. These bigger cams are more for race/extreme top end applications. The smaller 260-270 degree cams are more than adequate for the street.


 So think I should sell it and go down a size or go for it? rest of the build details are overall 8:5:1 compression, eqaul length ramhorn manifold, 830cc injectors with Uni tune, and an hx35. Im pretty much copying a more famous 8vt members build


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

An NA 276 with a compression that low, plus a BT is going to give zero low end torque. Have fun driving that around town.


----------



## 02vwgolf (Oct 6, 2009)

911_fan said:


> An NA 276 with a compression that low, plus a BT is going to give zero low end torque. Have fun driving that around town.


 Thats why I was asking your opinion 911:wave:... im going to start looking at ordering a 268/260 i guess:thumbup:


----------



## cifdig (Jun 4, 2005)

268/260 is a good cam, I've also had the 270 and it was very similar to the 268/260. The 268/260 gave me great tq from 2500-5500 rpm, the 270 from 3300 to 6000. 
I now have a 272/270 schrick cam that's great the lift is 449 and that's all I can remember lol, but I get power from about 3500 to 6800 and still have that can in. I'm running 17-18 psi daily


----------



## cifdig (Jun 4, 2005)

And btw none of these cams are worth a damn without dual springs


----------



## 02vwgolf (Oct 6, 2009)

cifdig said:


> 268/260 is a good cam, I've also had the 270 and it was very similar to the 268/260. The 268/260 gave me great tq from 2500-5500 rpm, the 270 from 3300 to 6000.
> I now have a 272/270 schrick cam that's great the lift is 449 and that's all I can remember lol, but I get power from about 3500 to 6800 and still have that can in. I'm running 17-18 psi daily





cifdig said:


> And btw none of these cams are worth a damn without dual springs


 Thank you for the advice, think im going to go with the 268/260, and no worries already have the upgraded TT HD valve springs from when I installed the 276 if thats what you mean when you say "dual springs":thumbup:


----------



## VWxghost (Dec 14, 2009)

I dont mean to bump this from the dead but i have an AT260 cam with my neuspeed blower (on a mk4) and its pretty solid. At one point i wanted to upgrade to a TT FI cam but i learned that the TT FI cam and the AT260 are basically the same thing anyway. From what i understand a bigger cam isnt always better for a FI car. You dont want huge overlap losing some of your power from the blower.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Autotech
Advertised duration: 260/256*
Advertised lift: .421"/.409"

Techtonics
Advertised duration: 268*/260*
Advertised lift: .432"/.432"

not the same by a long shot.


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

911_fan said:


> Autotech
> Advertised duration: 260/256*
> Advertised lift: .421"/.409"
> 
> ...


yeh and also I dont really think the 268/260 cam is really _that big _


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

It's a boost cam, doesn't need to be big.


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

exactly


----------



## JBETZ (Feb 17, 2000)

vacuumnoise said:


> exactly


 :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: 
triple that


----------



## rodperformance (Oct 9, 2010)

*276 114lc*

Hi guys! What about the tt 276 widelobe turbo cam? It has 114 lc,still waiting on ajmustdie review on that cam,the idle seems lumpy but ok,Mr Betz,911 any thoughts on that? I mean we have talk about it but for discusion sake!the 114lc should help with idle and minimize the torque loss down low,i suspect,later Roderick


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

That's a if cam for sure. Not only that, I would love to see it in an na motor car too. 114lca would be some meaty-ass low end!


----------



## rodperformance (Oct 9, 2010)

*Schrick assym*

Also it has been mentioned the schrick 268/276 assymetric cam that was used a lot on the top 20 highest whp g60 thread,its sad that people like andrew staff,and pete tong dont come by often like in the early years,but we have 911,JB,b4s and others!.back on topic those two seem like good choices also,the schrick has 112 lc to help cool the exhaust valves with just a little overlap,but i think is a good compromise for midrange to top end! Later guys,Roderick


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

Wow, I haven't heard from Peter in years. Wonder where he went?


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

whats the LC of the TT 268/260 cam?


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

I forget off-hand. Look in my sticky thread under me cam thread, it's in there.


----------



## rodperformance (Oct 9, 2010)

*268/260 cam*

268°/260°	109 073 $200.00	268°/260°	241°/238°	230°/226°	227°/221°	.432"	112.5°	-.1° BTDC	For G60 & turbocharged,there you go mate! Cheers,Roderick


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

268/260 camshaft measured @ .050" 
Advertised Duration: 268*/260* 
Duration @ .050" 227*/221* 
Valve Lift: .432" / .432" 
Lift @ TDC: Unknown 
Centerlines: 113.6* / 111.4* 
Lobe Center: 112.5* 
Valve Timing: -0.1/47.1 - 41.9/-0.9 
Valve Overlap: -1*


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

:thumbup::thumbup: 

I really want to swap in a 268/260 now...


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

vacuumnoise said:


> :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> I really want to swap in a 268/260 now...


 You won't regret it. I had one in a car with a lysolm kit on it. Previously, it had a autotech 260/256. The power gain was very nice, pulled much harder into the red.. :thumbup:


----------



## Fast VW (Sep 24, 2002)

I like my AT270 but if I didn't want to change the springs I would have gone with the TT268/260.


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

yeh I think thats the plan, and new lifters again...


----------



## rodperformance (Oct 9, 2010)

*S/c cam*

Hi there mate! Could you give some insight on that cam when finished? Looking forward to it.i just lost my job and i'm going back on my feet again so it's going to be a few more weeks before i can get my cam and other goodies i'm planing.Right now im keeping my hopes up with the succes builds of other untill i'm able to afford my stuff,wish you luck,Roderick


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

i hav almost 10k miles on the current lifters with the 260 cam...


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

vacuumnoise said:


> i hav almost 10k miles on the current lifters with the 260 cam...


 Always, always, ALWAYS change your lifters when you change a cam! They wear together. :thumbup:


----------



## rodperformance (Oct 9, 2010)

*Schrick assym cam*

Once again i would love to know some facts from tbt syncro or others that might have run the schrick 268/276 cam,i've talk to some folks from UK and it seems like it starts at 2500 rpm and doesn't drop until 6,800 to 7,000 rpm like back in the days 3ag60man did his dyno


----------



## vacuumnoise (Jun 1, 2009)

911_fan said:


> That's a if cam for sure. Not only that, I would love to see it in an na motor car too. 114lca would be some meaty-ass low end!


Im actually thinking about building an NA head with this cam now, just from an experimental perspective...


----------



## OrBy (Jun 4, 2009)

Anyone run the TT 268/260 with the NS SC (2.8" pully) on the stock NS software? I know the stock SW has been claimed to run a bit lean and NS says only their "mild" 256 should be used but wanted to know if anyone has thrown caution to the wind and gave it a shot? CEL's? Knock? Molten piles of 2.0L?


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

AFR readings should be the same with that cam; thats what the MAF is for. More load (g/sec) = more fuel. The fuel table will work to keep the same AFR curve as with the 256* cam. People have been throwing NS's 268* cam in with that charger kit for years and years with no problems.


----------



## OrBy (Jun 4, 2009)

911_fan I assume you meant the TT 268? (I only saw a NS 256) If so that's great news and will be my next upgrade.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

No, I didnt mean the Techtonics 268*. That is NOT an FI cam. 

Neuspeed has/had a 268* cam. It has symmetric LSAs of 113*, so it makes for a very FI-friendly profile. Its very, very similar to the Schrick 268* in terms of duration/lift. I don't even see the 260* OR the 268* on their site anymore. They do pop up on the classifieds every once and a while though...


----------



## OrBy (Jun 4, 2009)

Perhaps I should clarify - I was speaking of the TT 8v Hydraulic Lifter Supercharged G-60 Camshaft (268/260 - Street/Sport) being used with a NS SC (2.8" pulley) and the NS software that comes with said supercharger. If it can be used safely on a MKIV/ODB2/BEV/2.0L without a CEL or other issues I think it would be a good next step for my build.

It looks like NS only seems to carry their own 256 now and I am not that interested in it given their seem to be better options out there.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

OrBy said:


> Perhaps I should clarify - I was speaking of theTT 8v Hydraulic Lifter Supercharged G-60 Camshaft (268/260 - Street/Sport) and the NS software that comes with said supercharger. If it can be used safely on a MKIV/ODB2/BEV/2.0L without a CEL or other issues I think it would be a good next step for my build.


I realize that, re-read my original response...



911_fan said:


> AFR readings should be the same with that cam; thats what the MAF is for. More load (g/sec) = more fuel. The fuel table will work to keep the same AFR curve as with the 256* cam. People have been throwing NS's 268* cam in with that charger kit for years and years with no problems.


To clarify; When Neuspeed sold their 268* cam, people were installing that and the smaller pulley on their kits as a stage-2 upgrade. The AFR on that cam would have been the same as with any other cam, including the TT 268/260. The NS ECU tune has a set fuel table and will keep the same AF ratio regardless of the cam profile (load measured by the MAF).


----------



## veedubbermike (Jun 10, 2012)

*randummmm?*

okay id like to hear a second opinion about titanium retainers... with hd springs and stock keepers they work just fine... when any why would you ever need to spend the extra money on ti retainers? is it to prevent valve float? or what? that is the only thing i could think that it would make a difference on. for lightened components id just get a lightened flywheel to make the biggest difference in rotating mass. lets hear some rocket science behind running titanium retainers? and why it would be worth spending the big bucks on something so small that probably wont make any difference
thanks in adavance rocket scientists


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Titanium retainers removes A LOT of mass from the valve assembly. Less mass equates to higher revving and puts less stress on the valve springs. Titanium retainers are significantly lighter than their steel OEM counterparts. The ones I used were 10 grams a pop. The stock retainers felt like lead weights in comparison. 

That being said....

They are not really necessary in a daily driven 2.0. For 99% of the 'builds' on here, they arent really needed because most dont go beyond 7000rpms. They do wear quicker than the steel ones, so they should be monitored for wear. But hey, I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say they are for -race cars- only, because I ran them and never had an issue. But I only got the set because I found a seller on Ebay.uk selling a set for a 16v ABF engine for $100 shipped. Sold 8 of them,. and came out even. (free mod YAY!)


----------



## veedubbermike (Jun 10, 2012)

*another brain pick 911?*

ok i have a stock 2.0 aba motor with neuspeed supercharger 2.3" pulley & neuspeed tune w/meth injection. even with the 2.6" pulley no meth injection the CEL turned on. obd2 scanner says there is a short to mil b+...? could it be that i have the wrong obd2 chip in my ecu? i was thinking about putting on one of those o2 sensor spacers on the downward o2 sensor.
my car used to get running lean and running rich codes from my scanner. now it just says there is a short to b+. im going to check the o2 sensors and maf sensor or just replace them all. I live in cali so the smog regulations here are the toughest to pass. can a vagcom fix anything with the chip if thats the problem?
Thanks 911!


----------



## veedubbermike (Jun 10, 2012)

veedubbermike said:


> ok i have a stock 2.0 aba motor with neuspeed supercharger 2.3" pulley & neuspeed tune w/meth injection. even with the 2.6" pulley no meth injection the CEL turned on. obd2 scanner says there is a short to mil b+...? could it be that i have the wrong obd2 chip in my ecu? i was thinking about putting on one of those o2 sensor spacers on the downward o2 sensor.
> my car used to get running lean and running rich codes from my scanner. now it just says there is a short to b+. im going to check the o2 sensors and maf sensor or just replace them all. I live in cali so the smog regulations here are the toughest to pass. can a vagcom fix anything with the chip if thats the problem?
> Thanks 911!


Ok I just put everything back to stock for cali smog and no cl light. I used the ecu that I got from a different car. So it was the same problem as all the other mil call short to b+ stories... Stoked I don't need to buy anything :beer:


----------

