If you wish to run the BF272's, you really need a built motor.

With that said, let me point out something obvious. The BF272's are in all of the quickest and fastest Evo's David produces.

 

Aftermarket pistons have deeper valve reliefs cut into them than the stockers.... that's the issue here, you might be able to do it but that is really playing with fire IMO.. if they don't recommend it I wouldn't do it, one bad moment and you're rebuilding the whole thing.

 

good point. and i have talked to them and they stand by their recomending not running them on much smaller than a gt35 or whatever. and mike are youy speaking of most-wanted's when he was running the stock 9 turbo? i guess i should have said has anyone done it on a stock bottom end lol. thanks for the input guys.

 

No i wasnt speaking of most wanted as he has an Evo 9.. I was referring to my RS when we 1st started playing with and got it to run 10.9..

Mike

 

Are you referring to the wear on the motor from revving it high, or something else?

 

i was told to many tuners i talked to they all like the Kelfords way better then the BC.. I think there is a reason the Kelfords are twice the price new...

If u have the HKS just stick to them they arnt bad cams.. if u get get different onces go better.. 280ect...

 

I think he meant it will kill the TQ on lower RPM range but makes up for power on higher range. It's fine for a drag car but will suck for small road course.

 

lol def not staying with the hks. and no one said anything about bc cams. truth be told i would have alreay bought the kelfords the only reason im in the dilemma is i cant find any kelfords right now and i found a set of the bf's for a good price.

 

I think you'll see less loses with kelford 272's compared to BF 272's. There isn't any testing comparing those but DB says he has tested them and is the reason he sells them.

I do believe they are making a new custom cam currently. Whether it will be released to be is still unknown.

Again I don't believe the BF's are stock bottom end compatible.

 

I think they would work fine on a small road course, based on how they feel in my car. The BFs aren't that crazy. Everyone seems to think they are like Tomei 280s or something. They have a choppier idle than typical cams, but they otherwise perfectly civilized and have plenty of mid-range power.

 

Were about to see how the kelford 272's compare to the BF 272's on a 2.4 ...

i can tell you the kelfords are giving me HELL... knock troubles and falling power band.

 

Thats what I really wanna see as im on that 4g64 build as well and in the market for some camshafts

 

Everyone should know that cam sets cannot be judged by advertised duration figures (e.g. 272). I have specs for both the Buschur 272 and Kelfords, and here's what I can offer on the subject in a nutshell:

Kelford 272s are best suited for an application that has a ported head, and gives a very efficient balance between spool characteristics and high rpm power. The Kelfords are very forgiving, and trust me when I tell you that many here have street setups that benefit from 'forgiveness'.

Buschur 272s are best suited for an application that has either a factory or ported head, has a larger turbine housing, and exchanges some spool characteristics and street tractability for higher rpm power. They would also a little better suited than the Kelfords for larger displacement, short rod ratio motors (e.g. 2.3 & 2.4L).

I hope this helps.

 

good information but i wouldnt run any serious set of cams on stock block

 

What makes a cam "better suited" for a 2.3/2.4 over a 2.0?

Currently my kelford's just simply die up past 6200 on the 2.4.

How can the BF cams be better suited for a stock port head? I was under the impression they were a very high lift cam/aggressive cam?