Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nacho
What about the fact that the gen 3 head can support more aggressive cams than the gen 2 due to the latter's larger casting for the buckets. All agressive japanese spec cams are made for the gen 3, not the gen 2.
|
First off, the gen 2 head is easily modified to accept the high lift cams you are referring to. Secondly, I only know of less than 10 people in North America with setups that might require a high lift cam, vs. a standard 272/272 or the increasingly popular 272/264 staggered cam setup.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nacho
Or the fact that the gen IIs actually suffer from port jobs? the valve-port ratio is already poor, and the best thing to do is put in LARGER valves. Also shim under bucket > shim OVER bucket.
|
With it's larger ports, using 1mm oversized valves, the ratio is actually better than a gen 3, and the head will flow more CFM than a gen 3 with the same port job. Chris K. has built some of the most powerful 3SGTE's on the continent, and he prefers the Gen 2 head. He's posted flow bench results comparing both heads, and proving the ported Gen 2 flows more. That's good enough for me.
If you are doing cams, you should be doing a shimless bucket conversion at the same time, and shimless > shim under bucket.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nacho
Let alone the intake manifold, turbo, MAF (vs MAP), etc.
|
That's all stuff that gets thrown in the trash once you go past bolt-ons. It's the stuff that you pay extra to get with the Gen 3, and then you wind up having to replace it anyway, once you go for serious power. I don't know about you, but I hate buying the same part twice because I didn't plan well in advance.
Ken