• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Is the "K" cam a good idead??

A

Anonymous

Guest
i was wondering if the k cam was a good idea in a b23 ft.
Ive heard of the k cam cause real poor idle and possiable running problems.
And if you were going to ask emmisions is not a concern for me.
THANKS
 
The K is a original volvo cam, that came in GLT's and some GL's (B23e) in Canada in the early 80's. They were sold as-is in dealerships. So there's not real idle issue. Will it wokr well in a B23ft? I'm betting it will. i'll let uou know next week some time hopefully! :D
 
Kenny probably knows more about B23F's with K cams since he's a moderator now, but I'll weigh in on this anyway.

My daily driver 245DL with B23F engine had a K cam in it for 2 1/2 years. I took it out about 2 months ago when I wanted to test it against the B cam, and have yet to put it back in due to the results of the test.

About the K's performance in my car: I have a stickshift, so it is much better suited to my car than it would be to an automatic. Idle is not affected at all. Gas mileage goes down maybe .5 mpg. Powerband when timed straight up is 3,000-6,000rpm. Below that, it's pretty weak, but still driveable if you don't mind leisurely acceleration. If you advance the camshaft 6 degrees like I did, driveability drastically improves. Powerband starts just above 2,000 rpm, and continues until 6,000 rpm. It's a nice cam, and is well suited to the application if you must have high rev power, and have no other choice in camshafts.

I did have a choice, so 2 months ago I tested out a B camshaft to see how differently it performed compared to a K. The B is much more streetable. It performed 10% better in low and low/mid power, and was only about a tenth of a percent behind in high rev power. When timed straight up it has a 2,000-6,000 rpm power band. It pulls much better between 1,000-2,000 revs, which contributes to it's streetability.

I would suggest the B over the K cam, but if you plan on heavily modifying the engine, i.e. head work, better intake, headers, 2.25" exhaust, etc, then the K may end up being better. My car, when I tested the cam, had these mods already: Electric fan conversion, 2.25" exhaust, slightly modified intake, and advanced ignition timing, plus more powerful ignition coil.

I'm sticking with the B cam, and am very happy with it. In my opinion, the K cam overcams a stock or mildly modified B21F, B23F, or B230F.
 
Unfortunately my guest status prevented me from appending my message with info about B23FT stuff so I'll throw it in here.

The B cam came stock in B23ET engines. Those engines had better flowing heads and higher compression than the B23FT engine's we got on this side of the pond. If Volvo ordained them to be good enough for Euro engines, then that's saying something about the cam's abilities.

The K will naturally sacrifice a lot of low end torque compared to the stock T cam you have now. How you'll deal with it is really subjective. I think that since the K would drop NA torque down low as well as delaying the onset of boost, it'd be pretty annoying.

I'd try out the B cam first. You can get them for practically nothing if you know where to look because they were also used in American B21F's. If you don't like the slightly limited high rev power it gives, then you can try the K out.

The stuff about B23F's I wrote is fact. This is opinion based on fact. Do with it what you wish. Good luck.
 
Well it's all a tradeoff, Isaac is right. You won't have much bottom end. But if you're driving a 2.3L with 8.7:1 compression and you care about bottom end, you're driving the wrong car imo. Bottom end will make your car "feel" fast. But this is a small displacement turbo car. Real power is going to be bigher in the rev range anyone looking to both go fast and have much bottom end is unfortuntely kidding themself unless they have lots of money to spend. But he's right, wethe ror not it's a good idea depends on your goals for the car.

Ask yourself if you really need power from 1000-2000rpm? below 3000rpm is just trickling along. You can either set up your car so that you can floor it at 2000rpm and it takes of ok, or you can set it up so you drop a gear, take off at 3000rpm, and REALLY take off.

Just a personal preference. But at least with the K if you can a cam gear you can keep it advanced and then pull it back when you go to the track.
 
What about putting a K cam in a stock 93 NA 940 with a AW71L? I won't mind using the kickdown cable to pass but using it just to go forwards in NYC traffic might be a little irritating.

I know it's a slow car, but I got it to try and get better mileage. I understand I have to wind it up to get the HP, but is it practical in an auto, with a much heavier car than it came from?

OTOH, when you want to get up a hill...extra HP will trump low end torque.
 
Captain Bondo said:
Well it's all a tradeoff, Isaac is right. You won't have much bottom end.
Actually, I'm looking at my dyno sheets for my B23+0+E+T with K-cam, and there's a distinct lack of top-end. I'm half wondering if I'm getting reversion at higher revs; if there's too much overlap for a turbo engine?
 
Back
Top