Thread: VET Cams

Has anyone measured the exhaust high lobe on VET cams - and is willing to share the info?

The only info I could find here is incorrect, as it describes the high lobe as the same as the low lobe. If you have a look at the pic I took below you will see that they are obviously different.




On that note - Coheed, this could explain why you've had such good results with the VET cams, even though the intake's nothing flash. Have you tried VE in & VET ex? After trying VE cams then VET cams, I found this gave the best results - based solely on fuelling adjustments on my MAP-sensored VET, I don't have any dyno results as yet. However, the stock turbo is a huge restriction so I would really like to see what happens on a more free-flowing setup.

The VET ex cam high lobe is not designed to be used.

Coheed does not trigger the exhaust cam

Can you elaborate on the "not designed to be used"?

Granted, the exhaust rockers are missing the high lobe follower in the VET - but is the profile unsuitable?

the VET has no valvetrain gear to enable engagement of a high RPM lobe, eg, no VVL, so I guess they didnt put much thought into the high lobe.

That's right... here's a pic of one of the exhaust rockers:



Surely if Nissan were going to make the manufacture of the cams as cheap as possible, then they would have machined both high & low lobes the same?

I've replaced the above exhaust rockers with some out of a VE, so the exhaust high lobe now actives. Hence the question in the original post

i concur, you'd think they wouldnt have a middle lobe at all...

I once pulled apart one of these engine 2-3 years ago.

The Exhaust does have a seperate cam profile, and from day one it baffle me why nissan didnt bother putting any high lobe rocker on the exhaust!

I still have not figured out why, the oil galleires are there, the solenoid sends oil right through there i sjust no EX side rockers.

The camshaft itself is hardened on the highlobe, so from my inspection if you hooked up the high lobe rocker it would work fine.

very interesting

now hypothetically if they where to make it as cheap as possible they would use the 20v high cam profile as that was the only other cam in production. I have always thought that the 20vet cams use the 20v high lobe, but have no solid proof as i have never measured them. Anyway if this is the case then a 20v intake cam and 20vet ex cam might give some good results with some cam gears as the timing would need to be slightly change for optimum benefit, however the 20ve in and vet duel lobe would also be a good match.

anyway my question for you is...how does it feel on change over?

my guess is because the turbo used standard is too small to make use of the high ex profile, and the power the x trail made already was at the max cap of 206kws anyway, so why put heat stress on parts when it doesnt need to be there

Indeed it does.




So smooth it's difficult to tell from inside the car. Whereas the VE cams and the VET cams had the change point at 4000 (which was definitely noticeable), the VE in / VET ex combo created a dip in the fuel map between 4500 & 5300, so I shifted the switch point up to 5500. This may indicate that there's some useful gains to be had from dialling-in the cams, but I don't want to go down that path just yet as that will involve butchering my cam gears or pulling the front cover off to fit the "normal" gears & chain - and the car gets used every day anyway.

Unfortunately cos I'm still running the standard VET turbo, that's a major choke point and torque drops off rapidly over 6500. Thus I'd really like to see someone with a better-flowing setup try this cam combination. It's probably gonna be a year before I can afford to upgrade the turbo - as you can imagine, these engines aren't cheap!