# Techtonics Tuning 268/260 cam review



## AEG2.SLOW (Sep 13, 2011)

I recently acquired a Techtonics 268/260 cam for my 2000 Jetta 2.0 AEG automatic and I thought id give my thoughts on it for anyone that is looking for a drop in cam on OBDII springs. 

The cam is technically considered a force induction cam by techtonics, however when I called them they informed me that it is actually based on a NA VR6 cam and that it would work fine NA before I boosted. Interestingly the cam has more overlap than the TT266 cam or the Autotech 270 cam which should in turn aid in higher rpm scavenging. (TT266 is -1 degree, AT270 is 0, TT268/260 is 1.4 degrees) 

Install and break in is simple enough for even a casual DIY'er and if your car has over 100k miles new lifters wouldnt hurt so you would want to replace the cam along with new lifters. My idle is stock at 850rpms or so and the cam does not have a noticeable lope or shake to it so it should not cause misfire dtc's. 

From idle-2000 rpms the cam feels slightly softer than stock but by no means undriveable. Today I drove up a 5% grade at 1800rpms and the car smoothly accelerated without having to downshift. At highway speeds the cam starts to feel stronger around 2800rpms and really comes on strong at about 3800rpms which greatly improves merging power. Power from 5000-redline is very strong and does not feel to drop off much at all. If anything power peak is in the 6-6200 rpm range. 

I also logged fuel economy before and after throughout different driving conditions. In town mileage remains the same or slightly worse (within 1mpg) and highway actually improved 8-10%. This is probably due to the higher final drive of the auto and the fact it spins 3k rpms at 65mph, the increased overlap should aid in scavenging and improve engine efficiency. 

Other mods I have that may affect this are a cut airbox, flow through muffler, and MSD GM DIS style ignition. But since these were all down prior to the cam my fuel economy gains I found were from the cam itself as nothing else was changed at this time. 

So all in all the cam is a cheap alternative to a TT266 as you dont have to change valve springs yet still adds noticeable gains. :thumbup:


----------



## AEG2.SLOW (Sep 13, 2011)

Also here is the cam card: 

Checking height=.050" 

Intake & Exhaust 
Lobe center= 112.5 degrees 
Valve overlap= 1.4 degrees 

Intake 
Valve opening= -.7 degrees BTDC 
Lobe center= 114.5 degrees ATDC 
Valve closure= 45.9 degrees ABDC 
Duration= 225.2 degrees CRANK 
Max lift= .43209" 

Exhaust 
Valve opening= 42.9 degrees BBDC 
Lobe center= 110.5 degrees BTDC 
Valve closure= -.7 degrees ATDC 
Duration= 222.2 degrees 
Max lift= .43315" 

Limit on stock OBDII springs is .432" So this cam will work on stock springs and I have no valve float at redline


----------



## wolfens_golf (Dec 30, 2009)

nice write up man:thumbup: im thinkin about a 288 with port and polished head and hd springs, do you think it would still be a daily?:beer:


----------



## groundupjetta (Feb 1, 2010)

Thanks for the info man

I'm running a AT270 on my aeg turbo and the other day I was looking at this cam on the TT catalog and wondering if it would be any better then what I have now 

But after checking and cross matching specs on them and other cams I think the ideal cam for my application could be something like 276/270 but I don't think there is any off the shelf cam like this


----------



## 02vwgolf (Oct 6, 2009)

Myliljettatoy said:


> Thanks for the info man
> 
> I'm running a AT270 on my aeg turbo and the other day I was looking at this cam on the TT catalog and wondering if it would be any better then what I have now
> 
> But after checking and cross matching specs on them and other cams I think the ideal cam for my application could be something like 276/270 but I don't think there is any off the shelf cam like this


Im running the 276 in my AEG, and the thing pulls hard from 3k-7k and feels like it would just keep pulling if it wasnt hitting rev limiter


----------



## AEG2.SLOW (Sep 13, 2011)

Im by no means a cam expert, maybe Travis will chime in with his testing of cams even though this subject has been tossed around for the past decade. I would think that if the head flow at .432" vs .449" is the same (which is probably true on a stock head as youd hit a flow limit) power output at a higher rpm might be better as the intake duration is actually slightly longer than the AT270 if memory serves correct. And back to the overlap differences it might bolster high rpm breathing. What would have to be calculated is the "area under the curve" of the cam and im not sure if there is a difference in ramp angles of the two cams, I would think the higher lift cam would have a higher ramp angle as it has to hit a higher lift in less degrees of camshaft movement. I dont think there would be enough of a gain to justify swapping cams as they are both well known to make good power on a turbo setup.


----------



## AEG2.SLOW (Sep 13, 2011)

And a 288 as a daily would probably depend on how aggressive the clutch engagement is, static compression of the engine, and what type of intake manifold you have. In a lightweight car with say ITB's and 12:1 compression itd probably be fairly liveable. On a plenum style intake the idle would probably have to be set above 1000rpms to keep the idle a little more civil. If anything error on the small side when choosing a cam, Travis has a dyno chart comparing the TT266 vs 276 vs 288 to show you what to expect. Just keep in mind that was with a Short runner intake with that has much more flow over any OE manifold, ported or not


----------

