Nickctp
|
| posted on 4/3/13 at 09:25 PM |
|
|
Ford crossflow cam - which one??
Hi all,
I'm rebuilding a 1600 crossflow at moment and was wondering about the cam. Which one do u go for? I was looking for a standard one really, but
can't seem to find a new one. What is the best one to go for? How difficult are they to time in (non standard). The engine will be running twin
40s.
Look forward to your responses
Cheers
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Alfa145
|
| posted on 4/3/13 at 09:44 PM |
|
|
I have the BCF2 in mine. Nice power and also nice to drive round town.
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 4/3/13 at 10:06 PM |
|
|
Personley my favorite is the 285, but for normal driving a 270 is pretty good
|
|
|
leon51274
|
| posted on 4/3/13 at 10:51 PM |
|
|
From memory, I believe the bcf2 is as far as you can go without machining pockets in the pistons.
|
|
|
scutter
|
| posted on 4/3/13 at 11:20 PM |
|
|
Either by luck or chance, but we built and run a BCF3 in a 1600 x-flow, I believe kent always play it safe with the cams.
ATB Dan.
The less I worked, the more i liked it.
|
|
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 5/3/13 at 09:15 AM |
|
|
In a 1700 the Kent 234 is a lovely cam. In a lightweight car it pulls form nothing to 7000 rpm with no "bang" as it comes on cam. Being a
high lift/short duration design also means it is very good on emmisions if your car is one that needs testing come MOT time. It does need the piston
pockets machining but since you are building the engine that is not a problem like it would be if you were fitting a cam to a new engine.
Buy the kit with springs and followers, better value. Also be aware that the spring seats in the head may need machining as well.
Its a bit more work than some cams require but well worth it.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 5/3/13 at 10:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by leon51274
From memory, I believe the bcf2 is as far as you can go without machining pockets in the pistons.
All the BCF range will work without machining the pistons. I have a BCF3 in my Striker engine.
|
|
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 5/3/13 at 12:08 PM |
|
|
Its beyond me why anyone would want to fit the older designs like the BCF range when cams like to 234 are available.
The kits costs virtually the same and while the engine is apart getting the pistons pocketed and the valve spring seats machined (if necessary) costs
peanuts.
But performance is vastly different. by Kents own figures a BCF2 on an otherwise standard engine will give 8 bhp, a BCF3 will give 10 bhp and a 234
gives 18 bhp. Add in the usual diet of a decent exhaust and a pair of 40's and a car with a 234 really flies. And all for little extra outlay to
do the necessary machining.
I can just about see the arguement for fitting a BCF cam which requires no mods if you do not intend to touch the engine but on a x-flow that is not
really possible. You cannot really change the cam with the engine in the car for starters, some have tried, most have failed. The engine needs to be
upside down to stop the cam followers dropping out for starters and the followers need replacing while its out. Then timing it up is difficult unless
its on a stand and then you ahve got to replace the front cover, sump etc and hope they don't leak, very difficult with the engine in the car.
|
|
|
Nickctp
|
| posted on 6/3/13 at 08:14 AM |
|
|
Thanks for all info - bit of a mixed batch!! What about timing them in? I dont want to much hassle ...... (he says building a kit car)! 
|
|
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 6/3/13 at 08:42 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nickctp
Thanks for all info - bit of a mixed batch!! What about timing them in? I dont want to much hassle ...... (he says building a kit car)!
There are plenty of guides on-line but this is a pretty good good one
http://www.burtonpower.com/tuning-guides/tuning-guide-pages/camshaft-fitting-timing.html
|
|
|
