Yeah except it was only making 315 hp then

 

And Kelford 272 resale value plummets...

Makes me glad I went with the BF 272 cams. I'm surprised that more people don't run them. I think there probably is still a lingering myth that they don't work well on stock ecu.

 

Being a little old school i am always shocked how many people put cams, cam gears and aftermarket belts in and do not degree them.. Honestly i am surprised we don't see problems like this more often.

 

There is no "problem like this", ryno.

Good to finally see someone else out there who's un-impressed John Bradley.

This test was done on an EVO8.

If a cam grinders quality is so poor they can't get the dowel pin where it's suppose to be you should be considering a different cam to begin with. That is not the case in this case though.

 

So has anyone degreed in their Kelford cams to find the pin being off or do the cams make more power when they are advanced or retarded?? Once my 288 cams get it i can degree them and see if they are in spec or not. I can't leave mine installed straight up cause of my fuel but i can measure them and check against the cam card. I must say though your cams are impressive even if the Kelfords were dialed in i seriously doubt they would come close to your cams output.

 

Those BF272's dont seem to be as laggy as some said they would be. I think I'll get these instead of the kelfords then along with your spring/retainer kit.

Good test dave.

 

Interesting.........

 

The BF272's are not laggy, some of the better cams we've tested, I've gone through about 10 sets in my RS, ours keep going back in after testing new ones.

 

good info as usual, dave...

 

Dave, You stated that your cams HAVE to be used with your spring kit. Are you suggesting that they won't work with any other companies springs/retainer combo. Thanks in advance for the knowledge you're kind enough to share with the rest of us.

 

Another thing to consider is increasing displacement from a std 2.0L 4G63 by lengthening the stroke AND shortening the connecting rod increases low speed and midrange cylinder pressure, which makes any given cam behave as if it has shorter duration and less overlap as compared to a 2.0L. This makes the knock threshold comes sooner. If the engine has a high static compression ratio (e.g. 9.5-10:1), the effect is even more pronounced.

Where Kelford cam sets are concerned, the 280s should fare better than the 272s in any 4G63 >2.0L.

 

Um No offense but DUH thats the point of another step up in cam's. 288>280>272>268(4)>Fac 258. The only way this would not be true is if some retard was to put 280's in a bone stock motor obviously. Well at least I hope it's obvious LOL.

 

HKS280s work just fine, the 278/274 S2s worked fine, stock motor or not.

Ted is saying based on the engineering of the cam vs the motor I think.

 

Thank you.

 

I love how people automatically assume "288>280>272>268(4)>Fac 258" when it comes to cams.

Very few actually understand how a cam interacts with the engine displacement, head flow, RPM range, compression ratio, intake manifold, exhuast manifold, turbo selection, etc.

Oh well, lets the guys that do understand it and test it go faster then everybody else.