shaving the head

fattycrack · Post by **fattycrack** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:19 pm

ok soo i can have my head shaved down to up the compression for basically free, i was wondering is anybody has done this to thier neons and what kind of gains i would get from it

Passt · Post by **Passt** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:21 pm

What kind of neon do you have? It is stock? Etc etc ...

fattycrack · Post by **fattycrack** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:55 pm

i have a sxt my motor is stock 2.0 that will soon be stage 2 cammed

excon · Post by **excon** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:09 pm

NGC + low compression = fail.

If you're trying to go all motor, you'll be spending a lot of money with no noticeable gains. To my knowledge no one has achieved 200 hp from a N/A 2.0 neon.

fattycrack · Post by **fattycrack** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:29 pm

im not spending money tho im just wondering what gains i would get from shaving down the head to up the compression

Post by **occasional demons** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:43 pm

For the amount needed to mill the head, you will need an adjustable cam gear to put the cam back to where it needs to be.

http://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=349002

From: viewtopic.php?t=44908

Swordfish2Cowboy · Post by **Swordfish2Cowboy** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:46 pm

What's a stage 2 2.0?

ZeroChad · Post by **ZeroChad** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:52 pm

excon wrote:NGC + low compression = fail.

If you're trying to go all motor, you'll be spending a lot of money with no noticeable gains. To my knowledge no one has achieved 200 hp from a N/A 2.0 neon.

Check on the other org man.

n20sxt · Post by **n20sxt** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:56 pm

Swordfish2Cowboy wrote:What's a stage 2 2.0?

i was wondering the same thing....

ZeroChad · Post by **ZeroChad** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:17 pm

DOHC crower stage 2 cams?

c987long · Post by **c987long** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:05 pm

i think your would get more bang for the buck by doing a swap

fattycrack · Post by **fattycrack** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:04 pm

i kno i would get more bang for the buck with the swap but i would be getting it done for free im only wondering if it will make any difference at all

Post by **occasional demons** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:25 pm

Provided you correct the cam timing, yes it should. Even with the stock cam.
NGC makes the same base hp with the same cam/IM/TB and .5 less C.R. than the 2002-older engines. So by rights, it should do something. Will it pull timing? Probably, only because it won't need as much timing. Put better fuel in, it will prolly give it more timing.

Being that it is only costing you the parts/your time, if it only nets 5 hp it's worth it. You will prolly pick up a small amount of fuel mileage in normal driving conditions. The biggest expense would be the cam gear.

Of course you still haven't answered the Stage 2 question...

OB · Post by OB » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:07 am

^Pretty sure he was referring to the cam when he said Stage 2, not the engine. What cam, I don't know.

Either way, without changing fuel and timing settings, you will probably not see significant results, NGC or otherwise. In theory, an NGC computer actually has a better chance of adapting to modifications. The issue is, it will adapt from an emissions/efficiency standpoint; power gains are not part of an OEM computers programming. Fuel trimming was designed to make an engine run more consistently and with less fuel leftover/wasted. Without standalone control of the engine, this practice will still be implemented no matter what you bolt on.

BTW excon, the SXT trim started in 02, so his car may not be NGC.

esteinmaier · Post by **esteinmaier** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:07 am

If I remember right, milling the head retards cam timing. That will bias power higher. If I were you and just doing a bolt-on SOHC, I would leave it retarded a little bit. It will be stronger on the top end.

Swordfish2Cowboy · Post by **Swordfish2Cowboy** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:52 am

esteinmaier wrote:If I remember right, milling the head retards cam timing. That will bias power higher. If I were you and just doing a bolt-on SOHC, I would leave it retarded a little bit. It will be stronger on the top end.

I think all our engines are retarded.

OB · Post by OB » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:19 pm

esteinmaier wrote:If I remember right, milling the head retards cam timing. That will bias power higher. If I were you and just doing a bolt-on SOHC, I would leave it retarded a little bit. It will be stronger on the top end.

In my experience retarding cam timing rarely results in power gains. It is usually done to prevent catastrophic failure when tuning a high output/turbo engine. An NA engine (or any engine that can handle it) will almost always benefit from advanced valve timing. I like to relate it to higher octane fuel; it is used in high compression applications to prevent detonation, but actually contains less usable energy than regular. Just some common misconceptions.

ragek23 · Post by **ragek23** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:49 pm

if u decide u need a cam gear i have a fidanza i won't be using.

esteinmaier · Post by **esteinmaier** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:47 pm

OB wrote:
esteinmaier wrote:If I remember right, milling the head retards cam timing. That will bias power higher. If I were you and just doing a bolt-on SOHC, I would leave it retarded a little bit. It will be stronger on the top end.
In my experience retarding cam timing rarely results in power gains. It is usually done to prevent catastrophic failure when tuning a high output/turbo engine. An NA engine (or any engine that can handle it) will almost always benefit from advanced valve timing. I like to relate it to higher octane fuel; it is used in high compression applications to prevent detonation, but actually contains less usable energy than regular. Just some common misconceptions.

Not really power gains. Just shifting power around that's already there. I have my intake cam at almost zero, but my exhaust retarded almost 4. That's in an attempt to do just the opposite and further separate the lobe centers for less overlap. Nothing to do with detonation. Just putting the power where I need to run it.

n20sxt · Post by **n20sxt** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:49 pm

Swordfish2Cowboy wrote:
esteinmaier wrote:If I remember right, milling the head retards cam timing. That will bias power higher. If I were you and just doing a bolt-on SOHC, I would leave it retarded a little bit. It will be stronger on the top end.
I think all our engines are retarded.

fattycrack · Post by **fattycrack** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:51 pm

ok sooo i decided no to the cam it was this one Click i decided to save for something better

Post by **occasional demons** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:02 pm

Link doesn't work, but the 200 would be about the same as a Magnum cam. A 400 would be a better choice, and there is one or two in the FS section.

Combined with the milled head, a cam would prolly give a better gain than no milling.

Also what year is your neon? '02, 0r '03-'05?

It helps to put at minimum, the year and transmission type in your sig, so we don't have to guess. That, and you might not get a proper answer.

fattycrack · Post by **fattycrack** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:21 pm

its an 03 mtx im just trying not to spend alot of money right now cuz of a no job situation and with the 400 i would want to upgrade the springs and retainers and i dont have money for that

Post by **occasional demons** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:02 am

The 400 is suitible for stock springs/retainers per Comp Cam's site.
The profile is designed for oem hardware.
But being with out income, I can see the point of not spending, tho a head R & R isn't the cheapest thing either. Not extremely expensive, but $50 or more isn't chump change with no job...

excon · Post by **excon** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:43 am

fattycrack wrote:its an 03 mtx im just trying not to spend alot of money right now cuz of a no job situation and with the 400 i would want to upgrade the springs and retainers and i dont have money for that

told ya

fattycrack · Post by **fattycrack** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:02 pm

soo if i got the 400 i wouldnt need to replace the springs or retainers?

ragek23 · Post by **ragek23** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:36 pm

I would upgrade to magnum springs but its been said quite a bit that you don't need to.

Post by **occasional demons** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:38 pm

Nope. A lot of ppl do upgrade to Magnum springs/retainers (about $90) but it is not absolutly necessary. I think Zex/Comp Cams did that primarily to make their cams a little more atractive than the Crane 14. A fairly decent cost reduction, not having to buy Crane springs/retainers. That and the 400 is a little more street friendly, in that the power made, is within the usable limits of a stock PCM.

ragek23 · Post by **ragek23** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:43 pm

Yes the power gains are nice, my butt dyno was happy with the results

.

2GN.ORG

shaving the head

shaving the head

motor

motor

swap

cam

year

Re: year

head