anyone got NEWMAN PH3 cam in their vtr

29th August 2010, 10:47

i am inbetween two cams at the minute, dont no whether to go for the kent fast road whiches states a nice 8 bhp gain or the newman ph3 which i gather is probaly more of a gain, want to hear from someone with a newman in their vtr as want to no if they have had to have the limit removed or moved up and whether all the power is right at the top of rev range and if usable, etc etc thanks

29th August 2010, 10:51

They're pretty much the same cam profile are they not?

29th August 2010, 18:51

well the duration on the kent is 266 and on the newman ph3 its 270 so must be a diffrence i would think

29th August 2010, 19:05

ph3s are wilder, i had them in my vtr, nice gain tbh, but in all reality i would just stick a vts engine in, i know it gets said for nearly every answer, but with full straight system, 4-2-1 mani, rallye inlet &tb and green induction with ph3s, i was only satisfied with the gains of the cams for a few weeks, yeah it went alot better then all the vtr's i cam across, its still wasnt worth all the money and effort id put in

30th August 2010, 01:20

kent cam m8 got 1 in my vtr with head work done and good exhaust just as good as a vts.

30th August 2010, 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxic

kent cam m8 got 1 in my vtr with head work done and good exhaust just as good as a vts.

kent cam? whats your profile? youve just reccomended him a brand, and although my vtr unmappped give alot of vts's a good old fright(and showed a fair few up), most had breathing mods and that gave them the edge, as i posted mate, its alot of money for not much power, a simple 16v conversion gives more power for less money

30th August 2010, 16:20

well you see my vtr has been dynod and it was a respectable 114 at fly, when i phoned hi folw heads for advice he said that with newman ph3 a stage 3 head i should be looking at around 135 at the fly plus then need mapping so mybe bit more but he was saying that it is a high revving cam and goes well up to 7500 or so which to me is bit much for a standard bottem end and am wondering if it has to be like that or can i just raise the rev limit a touch to say 6500 or 7000 rather then having no limit. and basicaly forgot to ask about the kent,

30th August 2010, 17:31

Powerband is alot higher on a ph3, with a remap and some headwork and ph3s you could probs get 135bhp, but not without a remap imo, and hi flow are shit beyond belief, you couls get a vts engine with what itll cost you to cam it alone never how much theyd want for a stage 3 head and remap, your looking easy a grand there,
full vts conversion 500 fitted, set of ph3s for vts engine unmapped add another 500 all in part, your looking at 140-150 on the vts or th same money spent on a vtr 135 at a push? And theres alot more scope for more with the vts, get it mapped up you could hit 160

30th August 2010, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackie_2k5

kent cam? whats your profile? youve just reccomended him a brand, and although my vtr unmappped give alot of vts's a good old fright(and showed a fair few up), most had breathing mods and that gave them the edge, as i posted mate, its alot of money for not much power, a simple 16v conversion gives more power for less money

conversion needs lots of bits will cost a bit to, all depends what you wont.

2nd September 2010, 11:38

but i hate 16v cars as they are gutless untill your revving the shit out of them. a tuned 8v will be much better of the lights than a 16v. ive sat side by side what the geza claimed to be a clio 172 tuned to 230bhp, what a pile of shit, also side by side to 60mph a 10 plate audi s3 and they like 260bhp and fwd. so i reakon tuned up vtr will be awsome of the lights with cams and head.

2nd September 2010, 11:42

also way are hi flow shit, the geza has got 160bhp out of his vtr 8v that gota say sumthing.

2nd September 2010, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackie_2k5

Powerband is alot higher on a ph3, with a remap and some headwork and ph3s you could probs get 135bhp, but not without a remap imo, and hi flow are shit beyond belief, you couls get a vts engine with what itll cost you to cam it alone never how much theyd want for a stage 3 head and remap, your looking easy a grand there,
full vts conversion 500 fitted, set of ph3s for vts engine unmapped add another 500 all in part, your looking at 140-150 on the vts or th same money spent on a vtr 135 at a push? And theres alot more scope for more with the vts, get it mapped up you could hit 160

These two figures are a bit ambitious.

2nd September 2010, 12:03

i said could, not so hard on a 16v but quite hard on an 8v

2nd September 2010, 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by henryvtr

but i hate 16v cars as they are gutless untill your revving the shit out of them. a tuned 8v will be much better of the lights than a 16v. ive sat side by side what the geza claimed to be a clio 172 tuned to 230bhp, what a pile of shit, also side by side to 60mph a 10 plate audi s3 and they like 260bhp and fwd. so i reakon tuned up vtr will be awsome of the lights with cams and head.

If the "172" was running 230bhp he would have eaten your car. My mate has one on bodies running 200bhp and is very quick off the line.

And unless you are doing time trials I fail to see the point in being quick off the lights. Pointless racing people from traffic lights.

28th October 2014, 14:28

i would not say shits and gigs are pointless

28th October 2014, 22:34

nice 4 year bump there

1st November 2014, 18:52

Can I just put my nose into this. Firstly we are on about the Citroen Saxo here, sadly overshadowed by Clarksons choice to feature the 106 Gti in one of his video's where he plumped the fact that it was the second best handling car of all time. Both share the same chassis so that can be forgiven but why do you want to sprint faster when you can dance around the bends?

Quoting the tyre manufacturer Continental 'power is nothing without control'. £500 spent on quality handling aftermarket items is better than £500 thrown into making the engine faster.