currently using a kent 35 cam but it is now worn and needs replacing what is the 285t2 like or should i just stick with what works?its got a 1.9 bottom end stg3 head bigger valves matched ports mf2 5th injector chargecooler 4x4 turbo mongoose exhaust all the usual toys really
cheers kris

 

piper imo

 

100% DEFO NOT KENT.

 

kent, smoother in my opinion

 

any views on either?i run the kent one so i know what its like but what is the piper like or are there any other better options my last rr sesh was 256bhp 287lb/ft so i want something equally as good or better
cheers kris

 

I have no problems with Kents profiles, they have some good cams.

Quality however, thats a completely different ballgame.......

 

anyone else do any good cams?dont run all that great with two lobes missing!
cheers kris

 

How old is your Kent cam??

 

Both the same quality but have different characteristics.


The initial start up and run in period for a cam is so essential.
Most cams fail due to not being correctly run in.

 

I've got a Piper T2 in my Stg 3 head, seems to work well with the 1.9 bottom end.

Just make sure they send you the right one

 

checked the receipt yesterday i bought the cam on the 10th november last year an its done about 6000 miles spoke to burton about warranty as it was fitted with new followers and run in correctly and they said send it to them for testing but my car wont run without a cam so i'll end up having to buy a new one anyway as i need the car everyday
was told the 285 t2 was for high boost is a bar high enough?
cheers kris

 

Don't rely on Burton doing anything once you have sent the cam back to them.
I had one of there ZVH non stretch head bolts fail on me and they said to send it back, they never did anything about it though.

I think the 285 T2 cam will be fine with 1 bar mate.

 

How do you know this??

Why don't you get a Kent Cam and a set of their lifters independantly hardness tested?? I have and the results were, lets say, a little interesting.

I would say 6000 miles for a cam is absolutely shocking. But how would you feel if that were 1000 miles??

 

I know this because i have previuosly had both makes.

They are both made from the same grade metal so the only reason for them to fail is either poor installation by a shonky engine builder or not following the run in instructions.

 

Interesting opinion!!

Lets look at it logically and I am well prepared to stand corrected on this......

2 components that contact each other must have similar level of hardness otherwise one will wear considerably quicker than the other, right?

However, their respective hardness must represent the level of wear that you wish to achieve. Brake discs and pads is probably a fairly good example. Its important to get the right balance of a pad thats hard enough so as to achieve good friction and wear properties, but so that its not so hard that it wears the disc out prematurely.

Taking that logic, I would expect that with the Cam/Followers scenario that the cam must be harder than the lifters, so that the lifters become the replacement part in the same way that a brake pad is.

In the real world, using this logic, I would perhaps expect to see that a Cam would, for arguments sake, have a hardness reading of 60 and that the lifters would read slightly less, perhaps 58 to allow them to wear quicker than the cam.

Am I making sense so far?

I now of a Kent Cam that was independently tested recently and the results were :-

Cam - 40 Rockwell
Lifters - 60 Rockwell

This seems to match up to the fact that 4 out of 4 Kent Cams that we have removed recently have been worn beyond belief and all at a VERY early stage of their life. Only one of these was fitted by us and we certainly followed the correct running in procedure. The other 3 were fitted by 3 different people to 3 different cars. One had done less that 100 miles.

I know that this has taken the post a little off the beaten track, but I feel that its relevant and its about time that some other opinions were gathered as there is no doubt that if what I say is actually true, then there are alot of people with alot of worn metal material floating around in there engines.

I emphasise that this was only 1 cam tested and the test was nothing to do with us, I just happened to find out the results of it. I would be interested in finding out if anyone else has any thoughts on this. Please educate me if I am miles out!!

 

I've got a Kent CVH35 in my RST and have clocked up nearly 12000 miles and so far it has been good as gold. I know of more than 1 person that has had problems with Pipers 285T2 camshaft. Had a Piper cam in the XR2i though and it improved the car a fair bit.

Speak to a few reputable tuners and see what they recomend for the spec of your engine.

 

Christian, not starting an arguement or anything mate, just in my experience (which i'm sure is less that yours, seen as you do this for a living) i've never had or heard of, until now, any problems with either make of cam.


My own experience, however, is that i have used both makes of cam and never had a single problem with either.

I always fit my own cams using Graphogen coated on the cam and followers with the cam lube pored over the top.
Start the engine and hold at 3000rpm for 20 mins then reduce to 1500rpm for 5 mins.

I've never had any problems with cams.

I believe they are a component that can suffer premature failure due to other faults, such as poor quality oil, incorrect grade oil, poor oil circulation, over heating, metal fatigue etc

Matt.

 

I certainly dont profess to know alot about the subject, but once we pulled my cam out after 1000miles and found that at least 2 lobes were practically round we decided to look a little deeper.

Suddenly, once we were aware of this, we noticed a spate of it. I would be interested in those that have Kent cams and that have the ability to check the condition, to have a look and put me in my place!!

 

I have a Kent which will be taken out this weekend.

Its done about 200 miles and 8 hours of running, i know thats not a lot but i will check its condition.