Kelford IX Cams
May 30, 2007, 10:31 PM
#5
Evolving Member
I have their Evo8 cams and they are very well made and make great power.
Their 9 cams should be great and as far as Im aware they make E9 cams for some US companies.
Their 9 cams should be great and as far as Im aware they make E9 cams for some US companies.
May 31, 2007, 05:55 AM
#7
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: milfburn
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think kelford makes the cams for GSC according to GSC specs.
The stock ix cams are pretty good for the stock turbo BUT if you want more midrange tq. and 15whp then swap them out, don't expect gains huge gains like the evo 8 b/c its not going to happen.
The stock ix cams are pretty good for the stock turbo BUT if you want more midrange tq. and 15whp then swap them out, don't expect gains huge gains like the evo 8 b/c its not going to happen.
Trending Topics
Jun 21, 2007, 01:02 AM
#8
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have various different dyno graphs from customers. the smallest cams are +30kw bolt in no mods on a stock engine that allready had a reasonable exhaust and the power comes in better. have seen over 60kw gain on 272's with turbo's up around 35r sizing, we are almost up to 1000 sets sold..
Jun 26, 2008, 06:43 AM
#10
The 272's from Kelford, GSC and FP are nearly IDENTICAL on the intakes. The Exhausts are only slightly different. If you do some research, you'll find that this is true. Regardless of recent dyno tests, the specs prove this out. There's very, very little difference between the 3 cam sets. I've also had the FP 4Rs and my JUN 272's compared. The 4's are nearly identical to the JUN's profile, with exception of the lift. The 4's have more lift and of course duration at higher lifts. Certainly a lot more from .300" of lift. I wouldn't rely on a single dyno test. Different setups will yield dramatically different results.
Jun 26, 2008, 06:56 AM
#11
I was comparing the manufacturer posted specs on the FP 4R's and the Kelford 272's earlier this morning and you are right, they are nearly identical on the intake side with the Kelfords being slightly more aggressive on the exhaust side. Since the 4R's can run stock valve springs does that mean the Kelford 272's can too?
Jun 26, 2008, 07:37 AM
#12
I'm not too sure about Kelfords recommendations, but I've studied the FP cams and comparisons enough to know that the FP4Rs give slightly better 'ramp up' on the intakes, which gives a little longer duration at same lift over the Kelfords. They FP's also should be easier on the valves on closing, due to the closing speed. The valves should close in a more 'gentle' fashion. I would imagine that the Kelford's would work with stock valvetrain, since the FP's certainly will and they're very similar profiles.
Jun 26, 2008, 09:11 AM
#14
MY OPINION is not based on any results I've seen, since I'm just now in the process of changing my cams from the JUN272's to the FP's. But, my opinion is: if it's a daily driver, I would look at ease on the valvetrain first, provided the cams considered were of reasonably equal performance. I spent time with FP's engineer and can assure you that the FP was designed for being easy on the valves. Statistics and graphs that I myself have reviewed shows that the goal of closing the valves in a softer manner, while at the same time slightly beating the rampup on the intake cam, were met by FP. By no means, am I saying that there is significant differences in the 3 cams, Kelford, GSC, FP. My point is that none of these cams are significantly better than the others. My choice (admittedly maybe biased due to my sponsorship) would be to go with the FP4R's for daily driving. The unquestionable ease on the valve train at closing would be the deciding factor. The difference in the exhaust cams MAY give slightly better exhaust characteristics on the GSC/KELFORD's, but that too is an unknown, since even those cams are very close to each other. I have no obligation whatsoever to run FP cams. That's totally my choice. It's just that when I make a decision, I like to do it with facts. I've studied the facts and what I've stated above was based on my own study. Hope this helps. None of the choices above are bad. With that in mind, it just comes down to what you individually are comfortable with using. If you want to use stock valvetrain, I would do all I could to operate within the stock valvetrain's limitations.
