Donations towards server fund so far this month.

 
£0.00 / £100.00 per month
Page:
Home > Technical Chat > The 500 and 731/800 kent cams

Vegard

User Avatar

7765 Posts
Member #: 74
I pick holes in everything..

Chief ancient post excavator

Norway

7th Jan, 2009 at 10:07:13pm




On 7th Jan, 2009 DD_Racing said:
well with the 266 my car made 107hp on 6 psi on the rolling road with 1.5 roller rockers and 8.2.1 compression and my own ported head!!

i dont know what it made with the mg metro cam though as i never dynod it with that in.


There you go. That might be the reason for it feeling not as good. It wasn't setup *wink*

On 13th Jul, 2012 Ben H said:
Mine gets in the way a bit, but only when it is up. If it is down it does not cause a problem.

matnrach

152 Posts
Member #: 1074
Advanced Member

Northamptonshire

8th Jan, 2009 at 06:37:48pm

Does anybody know the spec of these cams?
http://www.minisport.com/acatalog/info_CAM260M.html

or

http://www.minisport.com/acatalog/info_CAM265M.html


DD_Racing

315 Posts
Member #: 3013
Senior Member

Epsom Surrey

8th Jan, 2009 at 07:04:17pm

well i didnt do any settin up on the dyno that was just quickly put it on and see how much power???

but driving around and everything the mg one felt alot better drivability wise

but obviously felt good under power aswell

i mean if you think about it it doesnt matter what cam makes the (most!) power what matters is how it drives on the road!! if it gives you fat midrange and up the top and drives nice im happy..lol

joeybaby83

User Avatar

6274 Posts
Member #: 509
Post Whore

Isle of Man

8th Jan, 2009 at 08:01:37pm


On 8th Jan, 2009 DD_Racing said:
im happy..lol


well, with no comparitive data, v certainly wont be!

"Turbo's make torque, and torque makes fun"

"did you know you can toast potato waffles?"



DD_Racing

315 Posts
Member #: 3013
Senior Member

Epsom Surrey

8th Jan, 2009 at 09:57:43pm

well i personally prefer the mg metro cam but hey every one has there own opinions and views

alpa

520 Posts
Member #: 2093
Post Whore

Grenoble, France

25th Feb, 2010 at 11:00:38pm

As promised 1 year ago here (attached) is the profile of the 731 camshaft I bought in the US. I show it along with the MD266 and MD256 (both brand new) profiles. I use theoretical rocker ratio 1.25:1 (Kent use 1.28) and the valve clearance of 0.4mm must be deduced to get the advertised lifts.

I'm not sure it's really a 731. It should be, it's a star pump drive and there are 3 rings on the camshaft. But the lift at TDC is much higher than advertised by Kent. Intake and exhaust cams are identical like on 731.
The MD256 looks strange compared to MD266 but I'm pretty sure about the measures I did. I don't have this MD256 any longer.
I was not able to find the advertised timings especially because the take-off/landing areas are very carefully designed and are very smooth, so it's difficult to located the exact 0.4mm lift point that Kent use as reference.

Assuming it's a 731 the main difference is on the intake cam which is shorter on MD266. Exhaust cams are quite similar, the 266 one is a bit shorter. 731 overlap is much bigger (despite the Kent numbers)


Attachments:
Click to Enlarge
21.5kb

Edited by alpa on 25th Feb, 2010.

std 998 A+, g295, MD266, RHF4, 109hp @0.8bar/5400rpm

Vegard

User Avatar

7765 Posts
Member #: 74
I pick holes in everything..

Chief ancient post excavator

Norway

26th Feb, 2010 at 08:37:55am




On 7th Jan, 2009 Sprocket said:


On 7th Jan, 2009 joeybaby83 said:
dont they stretch out by about 3 degrees after a few miles? thats what has been recommended to me anyhow


Chains dont streach, they wear *tongue*


And when they wear, the get shorter.

Crikey, you're worse than me *wink*

On 13th Jul, 2012 Ben H said:
Mine gets in the way a bit, but only when it is up. If it is down it does not cause a problem.
Home > Technical Chat > The 500 and 731/800 kent cams
Users viewing this thread: none. (+ 1 Guests) <- Prev  
To post messages you must be logged in!
Username: Password:
Page: