WHo is the cam manufacturer? Not aware of anyone making 2.0 262's cam these days.
Also, whats your engine code?
Does it have VVT?
You will need software for a cam.
I'm looking to install a new cam in my mk6 2.0 since i already have it. I don't know much about cam measurements. I just want to make sure I don't loose any tq over stock and gain a bit int the top end
clearance [cl] 0.00mm 0.00mm
duration [0.1mm+cl] 262° 262°
duration [1.0mm+cl] 231° 231°
valve lift [cl=0] 11.20mm 11.20mm
cam lift - -
peak angle 113° 113°
timing [1.0mm+cl] 3/48° 48/ 3°
lift at TDC [cl=0] 1.35mm 1.35mm
These are very new, I haven't seen too many yet, but you're going to need software to take full advantage of any cam. Without it, you're probably more likely to throw a CEL than see a gain with the wideband O2 sensor(s). Does this car have a MAF, or is it a completely wideband controlled mixture?
Me and a friend bought out a vw shops inventory and it was in the mix. So I just sort of ended up with it.
trying to figure it its worth tossing in or not. I thought there were guys running a tt 276 on stock single springs? I know this is dangerously close to coil bind and not a good idea... I thought maybe the 262 would be OK because it has less lift. I think you mentioned a TT260 would be ok?
this version of the 8v does not have a maf it is map and wide band o2 based. I would be surprised if it threw a CEL from the slightly increased airflow. the systems can trim fueling up to 25%( I know it will throw a cel way before it trims 25%) and with this cam you might see and airflow increase of something like 4%. Given that a map based system I think it will be fine because atmospheric pressure changes drastically from day to day as it does elevation. Even if it does throw a CEL it will still trim the fueling to "Idea" AFR's
here are some pics of the cam gear sorry i didn't have time to completely take the cover off
Do we know that the valvesprings on the new 2.0 are the same as the old BEV? They probably are, but can anyone confirm?
That cam gear does look like all the previous 2.0 engines. I'm surprised, considering BBW (with VVT) was a SULEV engine, I figured that's the one they'd go with. I guess they really wanted to keep costs down to unload these things at Hyundai prices. Talk about moving downmarket. Anyway...
I agree that in theory it should not throw a fault code, although the stock software probably won't give you the gain you'll see with aftermarket software as it's optimized for the factory cam. I'd talk to some tuners before proceeding anyway. I don't think many people have put bigger cams in these engines yet, it's pretty much uncharted territory.
On my second thought - MK6 8vs are being modded already?! I just don't see the point. Get maybe a 260* TT cam or a 260/256 autotech cam so you don't have to change your valve springs (max lift is 432" on obd2 springs), If you want a better cam, you'll need to upgrade valve springs.
If I were you, I would get the autotech 270* cam and HD spring kit. It costs 450 dollars on MJM, comes with lifters (~120 dollars), the cam (~150), springs and retainers (~250). With exhaust, a ECU flash, and an intake. You'll see about 120whp, and it'll increase the drive-ability of the car. It's so heavy, that's the real problem with the MK6. It's about 500 pounds heavier than a MK3/MK4
If you want to upgrade the springs, get a 276* cam. More power than the 270* by a lot. Adjustable cam gear to +4 = more low end without loss of top end.
Last edited by Hurt; 05-10-2012 at 09:37 PM.
If you want to make your 2.0 8v faster, read the thread below!
yeah you are right cheaping out never results in anything good.
I know the 8v will never be fast but i would think with a tt270 it would be a decent upgrade.
the mk6 jetta isnt nearly as heavy as the mk5 jetta, it actually weighs less than the mk6 golf by a couple hundred lbs
Lets not turn this into a why didn't you just get the 2.5 thred... someone has to start figuring out what you can and cant do to these engines
I just have to ask why exactly do you need "wiggle" room? all of the valve train components are precise. its not like the lobe on the cam will get magically taller. I am no valve train expert here I just can't understand why it matters as long as the springs don't bind at maximum lift there shouldn't be an issue i would think.
the only possible thing I can think of is if the cam lobe some how flings the lifter down to the point where its not touching the cam and even if that happens the coils binding in the spring shouldn't matter because there is nothing pushing the lifter down so nothing should get damaged as the lifter will probably have almost no inertia....
these are just my thoughts please correct me if i am wrong
No, you misunderstand. There is about .008" left before full coil bind if you ran a .449" lift cam. That is way too close to binding. When you raise the rpms up high, those single springs are not stiff enough to deal with high lift. All that info is in that thread I linked.
I must be missing something here, If the spring doesn't bind, what is the issue? I know its really really close but as far as I can understand it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't bind. is it because the valve may float a tiny bit upon coming back up from maximum lift? The car has a 6500 rpm redline too so you cant actually exceed that rpm aswell
I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be a PITA I just would like to know why you actually need more space between the coils, as long as they aren't touching I don't see the issue unless you are revving over redline
It's just a bad practice man, it's been the norm in the crossflow world forever. It's not something you should dabble in IMO, those newer 8v's might be different one way or the other, but I would stick to doing it the right way.
Secondly, that 0.008" could very well actually be 0.000 or worse due to manufacturing tolerances. They're ONLY thinking about the stock cam and redline at the factory. If you install a cam, chances are the software that goes with it will increase the redline and move the power curve up.