# Aftermarket Camshaft Discussion



## MahTrek=] (Nov 6, 2008)

Thought this might be a fun/informative thread for us to discuss different cams we have ran/are running. Could be helpful to those who are interested in upgrading. First timers and experiences aba guys alike. Sort a place to consolidate all the information. Just an idea, if it gets no use, no biggie. 

I'll start, I run an Autotech 270*. Great cam for the money, excellent starting point for those who don't want to run a huge choppy cam. I didn't notice any low end loss and it pulls hard to 6500+ with my other mods. Small lope at idle, but nothing crazy. Really woke my car up. Recommended to run aftermarket dual valve springs. 

Any others want to chime in? :thumbup:


----------



## Tjjoel (Jun 9, 2014)

*mk4 2.0 Cams*

what cam would you recommend to make a daily driver 8 valve a little faster? don't need crazy power just want to make it a little more fun to drive


----------



## My Big (Dec 26, 2010)

Had a TT266* (AKA 270*) before I sold engine. Stock OBD2 valve train. Mk4 intake mani swap with custom hot-ish air intake, 2.25" exhaust by tt tuning with muffler delete, BFI chip. Ran the cam for 25k+ miles total, no problems. Engine is still running to this day lol, getting beat on like it owes money to driver every day!!
Great power over stock cam.. Really woke up after 5k. Pulled HARD to redline easily.. ran it to the rev limiter multiple times, which was 7.2k RPM i believe) in 3rd and 4th gears. Idle was lopey until I got a cam chip, and then it was pretty smooth. still shook the car at stop lights tho. but no stalling. 135 dollars is a good deal for it IMHO! Worth every penny in a little 8v.


----------



## MahTrek=] (Nov 6, 2008)

Thanks for your input My Big :thumbup:

And Tjjoel, both cams listed (Autotech 270*/Techtonics Tuning 266*) are very mild cams that perform well. I highly recommend both of them!


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Techtonics/Autotech/Neuspeed: 256*, 260*/256* or 260*: Never ran any of these, but big waste of money. 

Eurospec Sport 264*: Loved this little cam. LOTS of overlap, good mid-range.

Techtonics 266* / Autotech 270*: Different valve timing, different lifts, different overlap, different centerlines, but close enough to produce identical power gains. 

Techtonics 268*/260*: Realistically a FI cam profile. Low end feels like a 270*, but with less power up top.

Techtonics 268: I did NOT like this cam. At all. Had it in for a day and took it back out. 

Techtonics 276*: The ONLY cam you should upgrade to. Perfect in all aspects. 

Neuspeed 276*: See above. 

Techtonics 288*: No power, no power, no power, POWER!! Cam takes a bit to come on, but when it does! NEEDS supporting mods and a MKII trans in the heavy MKIII chassis.


----------



## therealvrt (Jul 21, 2004)

911_fan said:


> Techtonics/Autotech/Neuspeed: 256*, 260*/256* or 260*: Never ran any of these, but big waste of money.
> 
> Eurospec Sport 264*: Loved this little cam. LOTS of overlap, good mid-range.
> 
> ...


Another informative post. Props to you and helpfulness.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Well, Ive run the gambit of cam profiles. Some I liked, some not so much. 

But I will stand behind this; The TT276* is THE best street cam. And if you're upgrading the valvetrain for a higher lift cam, why would you just settle for an AT270 (.449" lift) when you can throw in a TT276* (.450" lift) and immediately get 8 more hp?


----------



## My Big (Dec 26, 2010)

911_fan said:


> Well, Ive run the gambit of cam profiles. Some I liked, some not so much.
> 
> But I will stand behind this; The TT276* is THE best street cam. And if you're upgrading the valvetrain for a higher lift cam, why would you just settle for an AT270 (.449" lift) when you can throw in a TT276* (.450" lift) and immediately get 8 more hp?


is a TT276 .450" lift or .448? TT tuning says both .448" and .449" in their different areas of website. NGP has one with .453 of lift!!

on a second note does anyone know if cams from the euro 8v will work in a na 8v? cus they have profiles that are pretty awesome, kent or some other company i cant really remember makes 272* duration with only .432" of lift so "safe" on stock springs


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Both my TT276* cams were .450", and the Neuspeed I had was a hair over .451".

Yes, US-spec and Euro-spec cams are interchangeable. Kent cams are good, but very expensive to purchase in the US. Eurosport Acc, is a US distributor, but really not worth the money for the same performance you could get buying more easily accessible cams here for half the price. $280 for a 260* or a 266*? You would get the same power out of a TT260* or TT266* for $100 less. 

Piper cams are another UK-based resource thats hard to find here in the US, but produces great cam profiles.


----------



## My Big (Dec 26, 2010)

911_fan said:


> Both my TT276* cams were .450", and the Neuspeed I had was a hair over .451".
> 
> Yes, US-spec and Euro-spec cams are interchangeable. Kent cams are good, but very expensive to purchase in the US. Eurosport Acc, is a US distributor, but really not worth the money for the same performance you could get buying more easily accessible cams here for half the price. $280 for a 260* or a 266*? You would get the same power out of a TT260* or TT266* for $100 less.
> Piper cams are another UK-based resource thats hard to find here in the US, but produces great cam profiles.


So TT is wrong? 
I mean the non-crossflow head 8vs that we didnt get. any difference in the valve traine?
It's not piper, cus they only have a 256*/264 on their website. i can't remember, but there's a 272 with .433" of lift and a optional 110* or 116* lobe center somewhere...
I have had good results with Delta cams in the past in but never with any VWs so idk, but I bet having a custom cam built would be worth it if you didnt want to upgrade valve springs to heavy duty and be "safe" (i still think my techtonics 266* is/was safe).. something like 270* or more duration with just .432" of lift and a wide lobe center for some good low end punch amirite? Delta is cheap too, regrind is like $100 iirc
I had a 268/260 in my old golf and "upgraded" to HD springs and autotech 270 and regretted it, wish i followed ur advice the first time and went with 276. 8v just isn't the way to go unless you have deep pockets i think.

on to the cam reviews - 268/260 - way better than stock, revs higher, willing to rev high, low end power good, nice idle.
when I "upgraded" to AT 270* it seemed like I lost all low end tq/hp and it didnt want to rev as high. Idk. Intakes manifolds were also switched around that time so i can't remember if that had anything to do with it.. sorry.


----------



## MahTrek=] (Nov 6, 2008)

Good stuff in here guys. Glad you chimed in 911_fan


----------



## rommeldawg (May 25, 2009)

i am running the tt276 with the big valve kit on a p&p'd head everything port matched including aeg manifold and tt downpipe with high flow cat to magnaflow catback. i think the tt dp and cat are magnaflow too (warranty was through them). i have the stuff to go turbo but i really like the way the car drives and its stupid reliable as it is. so as travis stated dont waste time with anything less then 276. i put three cams in this engine and i should have started with this one, by far the best bang for the money.


----------



## MahTrek=] (Nov 6, 2008)

Did you run the 276* before porting the head and going big valves? If so, how did it feel before/after? I've wanted to do a big valve head for some time now but I haven't heard too much from people who have run them. :beer:


----------



## My Big (Dec 26, 2010)

MahTrek=] said:


> Did you run the 276* before porting the head and going big valves? If so, how did it feel before/after? I've wanted to do a big valve head for some time now but I haven't heard too much from people who have run them. :beer:


interested to know as well.. i just dont see spending 400-600 dollars on a 8v head unless youre going boost though


----------



## rommeldawg (May 25, 2009)

no unfortunately i didnt do it as incrementally as i would have liked. it would have been interesting to see the effect of each change though, all in all i would do it again. very different car then stock 2.0l which i have also


----------



## MahTrek=] (Nov 6, 2008)

I can agree with that! I drive a friend of mines car every once in a while. Her car is a bone stock aba Jetta. So slow compared to mine. Feels like it anyways.


----------



## manchvegasmk11 (Mar 19, 2006)

I put a 2.0 liter crossflow in my rabbit and im wondering what a good cam for it would be without doing a big valve kit but still give me a little more power


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

288*


----------



## manchvegasmk11 (Mar 19, 2006)

911_fan said:


> 288*


Is that in response to my question?


----------



## MahTrek=] (Nov 6, 2008)

I respect 911_fans opinion, but his choice on this one confuses me. I don't know why anyone would pick a 288* over a 298* ever. You don't _need_ a big valve head for any cam. But if you're only looking for a little more power I would read through this whole thread, it's not very long and it has all the info you're looking for. 260*, 268*, 270*, 276* etc etc.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

First off, I would never recommend a 298* for street use to the all but full-on N/A weirdos, like myself. Also, a 298* requires your lifter buckets to me hogged out in order for the lobes to pass. 

A 288*, on the other hand, _just_ fits with no head modifications and plays nice with standard dual valve spring upgrades. Its got way more power over a 276*, and with a MKII trans + light MKI chassis, you will suffer none of the low end lag a MKIII chassis / CHE 020 trans does. 

So, 288*. 

Any other questions?


----------



## MahTrek=] (Nov 6, 2008)

Well, I guess that's all cleared up then...

I'm gonna go ice my ego now


----------



## mfredrick (Oct 19, 2012)

911_fan said:


> Well, Ive run the gambit of cam profiles. Some I liked, some not so much.
> 
> But I will stand behind this; The TT276* is THE best street cam. And if you're upgrading the valvetrain for a higher lift cam, why would you just settle for an AT270 (.449" lift) when you can throw in a TT276* (.450" lift) and immediately get 8 more hp?


This just convinced me to swap my cam when I do my AEG intake mani. 

I currentley have the TT260*, very little gains. Hardly noticibale at idle. Can feel a slight increase in power around 3K. I was on a tight budget at the time. Should of left it stock and waited. Lesson learned. So any one selling a 276* let me know.

I also ran the TT268/260* in my old Jetta. I loved this cam. Good power throughout. Reved high and fast. Had a decent lope at idle that I liked. It was chipped but not with a cam profile. Just standard TT chip.


----------



## My Big (Dec 26, 2010)

mfredrick said:


> This just convinced me to swap my cam when I do my AEG intake mani.
> 
> I currentley have the TT260*, very little gains. Hardly noticibale at idle. Can feel a slight increase in power around 3K. I was on a tight budget at the time. Should of left it stock and waited. Lesson learned. So any one selling a 276* let me know.
> 
> I also ran the TT268/260* in my old Jetta. I loved this cam. Good power throughout. Reved high and fast. Had a decent lope at idle that I liked. It was chipped but not with a cam profile. Just standard TT chip.


Shoulda went 266*! 
I had the same 268/260 and I have the same opinions on it. high revving, lots of power over stock, awesome lope at idle


----------



## rodperformance (Oct 9, 2010)

Newman cams has 272* cam,schrick makes a 268/276 cam that I would love to run,also TT 276 114LCA cam looks tempting!! Hi 911 long time no see bro!!


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

rodperformance said:


> Hi 911 long time no see bro!!


:wave:


----------



## mfredrick (Oct 19, 2012)

My Big said:


> Shoulda went 266*!
> I had the same 268/260 and I have the same opinions on it. high revving, lots of power over stock, awesome lope at idle


I miss that cam. Wanted to try something different. Hence the 260*. Thinking another 268/260* may be the way I go. 276* will just be to much $ once its all said and done. HD springs, retainers, seals and lifters, plus the cam itself ~$500-600


----------



## VTEC_EATER_16V (Apr 3, 2003)

I've got a MK1 Scirocco with an OBDII ABA in it at the moment. MK4 exhaust manifold, TT Racing downpipe, TT 2.25" Exhaust w/borla, Giac chip, short runner intake manifold, lightened flywheel, etc.

I did a lot of searching and came to the conclusion that I'd like to put a 288 cam in it(I bought an OBD1 head for this build). I originally was going to do 276, but decided to go 288 since it wasn't a daily driver and I wanted to have as much fun with it as possible and take it down to the drags. My question is, would it be a noticeable difference using the TT +2.5mm/+2mm valve kit instead of the +1.5mm/+1mm valve kit? Right now I'm planning on just doing the +1.5/+1mm kit, but if it's worth upgrading to, I'd like to get the bigger kit. Or is it even worth it to go with bigger valves at all? I will be getting the head P&P'd either way. There's a shop in town that builds race cars and they have a flowbench. I already talked to them on the phone and they said to bring the head by and they could talk pricing. He said it just depends on how much material they take out. I'm not sure exactly how much I should have them take out, but I guess I can address that when the time comes.


----------



## rommeldawg (May 25, 2009)

ok so sounds like a toy so go big or go home


----------



## 1992_mk2gti (Oct 9, 2006)

I ran both the 288 & 298 (with supporting mods). To be honest, jumping from 288 to 298 wont hurt the drivability that much. The 298 was a heck of alot more fun. Like 911 said though you will have to hog out the lifter buckets.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

I like how this thread is bringing out people I havent seen in a looooong time. 

As for the scirocco question....

As far as Im concerned, if you are going to go with such large valves (that I would never do due to such little material left over between the valves = cracked seats), why not just step up to a 16v head? You get a way better port flow design (8v exhaust port is a freaking 90* angle!), more valves (higher rev ceiling), and THEN bigger lump sticks. 

Just stick with a properly gas flowed head with a +1mm on the exhaust side and some crafty bowl work and enjoy whatever large 8v cam you can get your hands on.


----------



## VTEC_EATER_16V (Apr 3, 2003)

911_fan said:


> I like how this thread is bringing out people I havent seen in a looooong time.
> 
> As for the scirocco question....
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response. I actually have a 16v already, but that's for my MK1 Scirocco restoration project(yes, another Scirocco ). I don't want another 16v to suck my wallet dry, one is enough . 

This is a car that's already together and driving. I just wanted to go a little nuts on the OBD1 cylinder head I obtained and have some fun with it. I didn't even think about the seats cracking, I didn't know that could be an issue. With that said, I think I'll stick to the smaller valve upgrade(+1.5mm/+1mm). But now that the 298 cam was brought up, maybe I'll do that instead of the 288.... Is there any downside to clearing the lifter seats for the 298 other than it costing more money for machine work?
EDIT: I've identified my intake manifold. It's an HKK Motorsports short runner intake manifold with the TB on the driver's side.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Ah, you got one of my buddy Greg's old manifolds, huh? Which version, is it? The log welded to an ABA lower manifold? 

As long as the machine shop gas flows the head with the cam profile you go with and with the bigger valves, you should be all set power-wise. Main concern is taking too much out of the ports with the bigger valves + high duration cam which would hurt low rpm response.


----------



## VTEC_EATER_16V (Apr 3, 2003)

911_fan said:


> Ah, you got one of my buddy Greg's old manifolds, huh? Which version, is it? The log welded to an ABA lower manifold?
> 
> As long as the machine shop gas flows the head with the cam profile you go with and with the bigger valves, you should be all set power-wise. Main concern is taking too much out of the ports with the bigger valves + high duration cam which would hurt low rpm response.


Not sure which version, I'll check when I get home.

About the porting, I'm not really sure how much is too much. I'll talk to them about that when I take the cylinder head in.


----------



## redzone98 (Jun 10, 2004)

911_fan said:


> I like how this thread is bringing out people I havent seen in a looooong time.
> 
> .


Hey Trav' i knew you would be chiming in on this thread! and glad you have! 


to add to the comment "276* - the only upgrade you should do" ....

just installed this cam on my ABA OBD1 MK1, and i need to completely agree with this statement. This cam is amazing, good TQ (albeit less than stock under 2500) but when it comes on at 3500, the power just keeps stays ON until the rev-limiter.

almost thinking of putting in a longer Final Drive Trans, because 1st and 2nd are just blinks of an eye.


----------



## Abriter (Dec 11, 2020)

Sweet


----------

