Schrick cams vs. kleemann cams?

I don't know, but for me, I'll keep my KILLER bottom end TQ and HP please.
Keep in mind ALL cams are a compromise, ie where do you want your power band, 2000-5000, 3000-6000, 4000-7000, etc, etc. For me, its the area under the graph that tells the TRUE story. My 91 Whipple stang, sorry guys a Ford, the stock, YES STOCK cam gave me the BEST power band for my application, which was ROAD RACING. Sure it gave up almost 60 HP at 6000 RPM, however I was already making over 500 HP. What I lost in the 2000-4000 range with a bigger cam was NOT worth it.
I took HP numbers at 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000, 4500, 5000, 5500, and 6000, divided it by 9 to give me an average, and the STOCK cam was good for approximaetly 30 MORE HP than ANY after market cam.
Oh well, sorry for the LONG post, but unless your REALLY into tracking, or spinning it WAY higher than STOCK. You REALLY ARE NOT going to make more USABLE HP.
See yeah

PS: Jerry is the MAN on this subject, so I will GLADLY defer to his wisdom on this issue
i personaly don't think i need it as Touge doesn't get out of 3rd gear at all. If I do, I would probably crash and burn.
See yeah
Trending Topics
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
EDIT: Jerry confirmed what you said, I'll defer to you guys!
Having a higher revving upper power band will allow you go into a turn or corner without having to shift in the next gear. Shifting into gear on the track slows you down. Once you do shift a redline, your still in your powerband after the shift.
Thats why for the hondas for example once you shift at redline and you go into the next gear you continue the car pull because most of the power is in the upper end.
But i agree with most, for daily driving the oem power band is best.
As for the cams, wouldn't there be some benefit for our cars, nudging the powerband upward? Don't S/C engines typically make tons of low-end torque, but run out of "breath" at high rpms? So by going to a hotter cam profile, you may lose a bit of the low-end, but that's where the S/C is helping the most anyway, but at the high-end, when the S/C needs help to make max power, you would have cams better suited to handle that, right?
My guess is that MB/AMG went with the existing cam profiles so the car would have pleasant low-end power and (perhaps most importantly) a smooth idle as befitting a luxury brand. YMMV but I think the youtube video of Jerry's car's idle sounds "purposeful"... and downright mean
Personally, I'd pursue it if money were no object, but I'm not sure I can justify the benefits against the $2,500 (cams + install) cost...
Cams only gave you 13hp

That in itself would be greatly disapointing my friend. Thanks for the info, but sorry to hear it.
See yeah
See yeah
The cams add a nice pull to the mid and upper range. The car just keeps pulling.
No dyno yet. I added the cams as part of a package and am still waiting on the final piece of the puzzle before I go back to the dyno.
I think the cams were a great addition to the car and in no way did they have any kind of negative impact.
The cams add a nice pull to the mid and upper range. The car just keeps pulling.
No dyno yet. I added the cams as part of a package and am still waiting on the final piece of the puzzle before I go back to the dyno.
I think the cams were a great addition to the car and in no way did they have any kind of negative impact.
$1500 (cams) + $500 (labor) + 1000 (ecu tune) = $3000. Not worth it financially either. I spent about $7k trying to get the cams to work properly.
Last edited by jgsx; Mar 13, 2008 at 08:04 AM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7hZg9FMPWY
To a further extend, Jerry has cams on his car and it does not sound like the car is serving to an end.
$1500 (cams) + $500 (labor) + 1000 (ecu tune) = $3000. Not worth it financially either. I spent about $7k trying to get the cams to work properly.
The lumpy idle is a very easy matter to fix. In my car it is esp. pronounced because I have my idle set lower than stock ~500rpm. If you you are bothered by the lumpy idle all you have to do is raise the idle and it will smooth out. I believe RENNtech recommends 750 for the idle with the cams.
jgsx - your dyno was not on a dynojet if I remember correctly. So if you hit a dynojet that number would have been higher. Also if we go with the theory that the cams you recieved were bad then I think it is fairly safe to say that the cams were not producing the power they should have.
With my car the cams were "just dropped in". No fuss, no muss - but a bit of a mess with the oil.
The lumpy idle is a very easy matter to fix. In my car it is esp. pronounced because I have my idle set lower than stock ~500rpm. If you you are bothered by the lumpy idle all you have to do is raise the idle and it will smooth out. I believe RENNtech recommends 750 for the idle with the cams.
jgsx - your dyno was not on a dynojet if I remember correctly. So if you hit a dynojet that number would have been higher. Also if we go with the theory that the cams you recieved were bad then I think it is fairly safe to say that the cams were not producing the power they should have.
With my car the cams were "just dropped in". No fuss, no muss - but a bit of a mess with the oil.
I could have had bad cams. Schrick swears that they inspected them and they were a perfect set. Either the cams suck, or Schrick screwed me.
Both of the above videos show rough lumpy idles.
430 are you going to hit the dyno? I'd like to see a before/after dyno of JUST the cams
Last edited by jgsx; Mar 13, 2008 at 07:03 PM.

I'd hazard a guess that some passengers who heard a high-pitch S/C whine because of modded pullies might also wonder if something was "wrong" with the car - or hear a res-deleted C32 at WOT and ask "is something wrong with the exhaust?"
Frankly, this is what happens when trying to compromise between luxury and performance, which is something that every AMG model does, to one degree or another (special editions like CLK GTR are an exception, of course). To each his/her own, I suppose... which kinda goes with any and every mod.








