Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Cam-2/110 Vs. U-4/vp

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    down south
    Posts
    529

    Cam-2/110 Vs. U-4/vp

    i tested these two fuels and heres the results
    471 stomper

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    down south
    Posts
    529

    Re: Cam-2/110 Vs. U-4/vp

    Originally posted by buck naked-r
    i tested these two fuels and heres the results
    heres a better look
    Attached Images Attached Images
    471 stomper

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    596
    Any way you can scan that one on a scanner so we can actually see it. Thanks for the info
    '06 trx450r

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cave Creek, AZ
    Posts
    398
    this is better, but the jetting is pretty far off for a good comparison
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Chuck
    '06 Venom Performance Modified TRX511ER
    61.57 hp and 37.96 tq

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    down south
    Posts
    529
    Originally posted by sandmanblue
    this is better, but the jetting is pretty far off for a good comparison
    thats not far off at all only where the dip is and both have it...........you can bet on the u-4 making more power
    471 stomper

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Thurmont Maryland
    Posts
    420
    It looks like the U4 leaned out the rich jetting with the Cam 2.
    U4 used a 182 main?
    Cam 2 used ?
    Brian Sutphin
    --------------------------
    **WppRacing 2004 TRX450R **
    **59.18hp/ 36.83tq**
    Stock Bore - Stock Carb

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    down south
    Posts
    529
    Originally posted by wppracing
    It looks like the U4 leaned out the rich jetting with the Cam 2.
    U4 used a 182 main?
    Cam 2 used ?
    cam-2 had a 190main because it was in before i blocked off the airjet.
    but with the air jet blocked i think i need a 175main with cam-2
    471 stomper

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cave Creek, AZ
    Posts
    398
    I don't know. It looks fat to me all across the board except for the last rise. I would think that having the ratio between 12:1 and 13:1 for the majority of your run would be too fat, right? I don't inderstand the last little flick where it shoots to 14:1 though.

    I totally agree that U4 would make more power, but until I see a good comparison where the afr is stabile for both runs, it would be hard to really tell how much gain there really is. VP says that it should be as much as 6%, which translates to about 3 hp on a 50 hp machine. You got about 1/2 of that.

    Thie is actually something that I want to look into on the dyno in the near future. I would like to run pump, U4, and MR9 and see the results... Maybe in a month or so...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    7
    i would like to know also:
    1)pump
    2)pump + octane booster
    3) U4

    just let us know what comp the piston is also - this would be super info. I am running 12.5 to 1 and i know running straight U4 is the way to go but it is expensive, and maybe not needed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •