• 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!

K or VX cam in a NA B230F? (2010 bump)

So, were I to use a T-cam in my non-turbo 940 automatic, would that be best in your opinion, guys? It seems as if the low down torque it would provide would be a good match to it were I to work a few intake tricks and the new exhaust is on the way: freer flowing muffler, no resonator and a fresh cat. I'm sort of a newbie to this and am just a bit unsure of how the install would work with the current engine's timing.
 
Andy82 said:
So, were I to use a T-cam in my non-turbo 940 automatic, would that be best in your opinion, guys? It seems as if the low down torque it would provide would be a good match to it were I to work a few intake tricks and the new exhaust is on the way: freer flowing muffler, no resonator and a fresh cat. I'm sort of a newbie to this and am just a bit unsure of how the install would work with the current engine's timing.
Click to expand...
Any Volvo stock cam would be better than T, If you like revving a bit K- is the preferable it performs best at midrange an high end you loose a bit below 1800 rpm, A or VX performs better in very low end and is "almost" comparable in midrange to K.
 
'T'-cams are garbage in NA motors.... and not really great in a stock turbo motor. I found the 'A' to have a much nicer powerband in both turbo and NA DD's.

-Ryan
 
Ah, I know of the VX cam from IPD. But, how directly does the A cam compare and where do you get a hold of one in the States?
 
I see the cam list here https://turbobricks.com/resources.php?content=camspec says that the KG-Trimning KG004 cam is a substitute for a Volvo K cam.

I emailed KG Trimning and asked them which cam for my automatic naturally aspirated 245 would provide a considerable increase in power down low. They recommended their KG004 cam. Their website http://www.kgtrimning.org/tuning-special/b23b230b234/camshafts/kg004.html says that the cam provides high torque from low revs.

The KG man also told me that their KG004 is very similar to a Volvo K cam. That sounds like what I am looking for (big power down low) but a few K cam descriptions in this thread make it seem like the K cam is slightly worse than a stock cam (M?) down low.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Thanks very much.
 
Fred Gwynne said:
I see the cam list here https://turbobricks.com/resources.php?content=camspec says that the KG-Trimning KG004 cam is a substitute for a Volvo K cam.

I emailed KG Trimning and asked them which cam for my automatic naturally aspirated 245 would provide a considerable increase in power down low. They recommended their KG004 cam. Their website http://www.kgtrimning.org/tuning-special/b23b230b234/camshafts/kg004.html says that the cam provides high torque from low revs.

The KG man also told me that their KG004 is very similar to a Volvo K cam. That sounds like what I am looking for (big power down low) but a few K cam descriptions in this thread make it seem like the K cam is slightly worse than a stock cam (M?) down low.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Thanks very much.
Click to expand...

welcome in a car enthusiast hell, dear fellow!
u prolly never will find out.. unless you try it out?!
(but from browsing the forum for a few years now... i think i have seen ppl post stuff about the 240 using K cam from factory combined with automatic gearboxes and a bit shorter axle ratio.. and drivability was OH kay?!
 
12david34 said:
welcome in a car enthusiast hell, dear fellow!
u prolly never will find out.. unless you try it out?!
Click to expand...

Yeah I took a shot at installing a B cam into my car but I messed it up. It may be a good idea for me to buy the actual Volvo tools needed and take a shot at the KG-004 cam myself.

Heck when I screwed up the B cam I had a local shop install it at a very good price. Thankfully that place is down the hill from me so my car was easily towed behind a Honda Element.

Thanks!
 
Fred Gwynne said:
I see the cam list here https://turbobricks.com/resources.php?content=camspec says that the KG-Trimning KG004 cam is a substitute for a Volvo K cam.

I emailed KG Trimning and asked them which cam for my automatic naturally aspirated 245 would provide a considerable increase in power down low. They recommended their KG004 cam. Their website http://www.kgtrimning.org/tuning-special/b23b230b234/camshafts/kg004.html says that the cam provides high torque from low revs.

The KG man also told me that their KG004 is very similar to a Volvo K cam. That sounds like what I am looking for (big power down low) but a few K cam descriptions in this thread make it seem like the K cam is slightly worse than a stock cam (M?) down low.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Thanks very much.
Click to expand...
For use in an automatic equipped B230, the K cam would benefit from being set up with valve clearances on the looser side of spec(0.018", or even 0.020" if you don't mind some more valvetrain noise), and being advanced 2, 4 or 6? from straight up. The more advanced it is(up until a point where it's just horrible up top), the more torque you'll have at low rpm at the expense of the torque curve falling off at an earlier rpm. I will try to get some dyno charts loaded up when I have a chance later showing this as my previous posts about it don't have working pictures anymore.

If you have control over the ignition timing(Ostrich emulator for LH2.4 or just twisting the distributor on earlier FI systems), that will help the overall torque production as well. Tuning the fuel side of things can also help if running LH2.4, as the stock tuning is junk at high load off idle(super lean). If you stomp on a stock, automatic LH2.4 car from a stop, it usually does a little lean bog first before picking up and going. If you roll into the throttle while brake torquing, it'll stay in closed loop better and maintain at least a stoich mixture.

If you want to take it a step further and have more power than stock everywhere, you'll want to pull the cylinder head and put on a thinner headgasket targeting between .030"-.040" or 0.8-1mm squish/quench clearance between the piston and cylinder head surface, generally speaking(some have gone with even closer clearance, but usually not on something that's revving over 6,000rpm). If you're going to that extent, you might as well have the head checked out, the valve grind redone and while resurfacing, take at least .020" off, if not .030, or potentially even more. Once you raise the compression by installing that thinner headgasket and shaving some off the cylinder head's mating surface, you won't really be able to run anything other than premium fuel with stock ignition advance in most circumstances. If you just do the thinner headgasket and only take a little bit off the head, you might be fine still on regular octane fuel but you will have to try it and find out.

If you do all that, you'll be pretty close to the max preferred operating range of the stock NA injectors and tuning(but people have run them at even higher power levels). The white top, 16V injectors are a good drop in if you start doing much more than that(port work, larger valves, better flowing intake and exhaust).
 
Last edited:
Here's another thread talking about camshaft timing on the dyno. His results didn't show much change in lower rpm torque with the D cam except it's worse when retarding it, which doesn't coincide with what I've experienced with the A cam, B cam, T cam, K cam, H cam and K13 cam where advancing it noticeably helps down low(and reduces power up top).

http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=209648

I need to re-host and post up my images showing the changes it made for me.
 

Thanks very much for your help. My plan is to have the head shaved and the valves worked over by a machine shop which will cost quite a bit so I'm hesitant to drop a few hundred bucks on the wrong cam. Ignition timing adjustment is Greek to me so I'll have to do some research about it. I'm pretty sure that I have the 2.2 system on my '87.
 
Last edited:
You are most welcome! I am all about making these cars faster. :) When you say have the valves worked over, are you hoping to have larger valves installed or just doing a valve grind to make sure they're seating properly with fresh angles?

If you're just shooting for a fun daily driver with more power than stock at low rpm but also a lot more higher up, then having a little taken off the cylinder head with the K cam and a fresh valve grind should wake the car up nicely.

Do you mind using premium fuel all the time?

An '87 does have LH2.2 from the factory and you can adjust the base ignition timing by rotating the distributor. The distributor itself controls the curve of the ignition advance, of which you can't do anything about(easily, or at all? Not 100% certain if they can be modified). At least you have the option of quickly and easily rotating the distributor in case you're experiencing any detonation. Idle speed is easily adjusted on LH2.2 as well with the screw.
 
klr142 said:
Here's another thread talking about camshaft timing on the dyno. His results didn't show much change in lower rpm torque with the D cam except it's worse when retarding it, which doesn't coincide with what I've experienced with the A cam, B cam, T cam, K cam, H cam and K13 cam where advancing it noticeably helps down low(and reduces power up top).

http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=209648

I need to re-host and post up my images showing the changes it made for me.
Click to expand...

Done. I posted two graphs in the above linked thread.
 
Been a long time since I posted this thread. So my Homebuilt Locost 7 has been running a K cam for a good while now. It goes really well for an NA red block( still haven't installed MS&S yet although it is assembled and tested.) Picked up a 1990 240 with an M47. Turns out I have two A cams and 531 heads on the shelf. Will the A cam play well with the LH3.1in the 1990 240? I know a VX will. Kind of sucks to just have those cams sitting on the shelf.
 
Sounds like a fun car!

Any stock LH system will play fine with the A camshaft. It is less aggressive than the K by a good margin.

The 531 heads will work best with a larger camshaft than the 530 head, but if you’re sticking with a smaller camshaft a ported 530 will make more torque and be faster unless it’s always at high rpm.
 
Canada also got cars with K cams and 405 cylinder heads. They got H4 headlights on early 240s as well. I have a set of genuine Volvo Bosch H4 headlights from Canada.

My turbo loves the flowed 405 head I had built for it over ten years ago.
 
klr142 said:
You are most welcome! I am all about making these cars faster. :) When you say have the valves worked over, are you hoping to have larger valves installed or just doing a valve grind to make sure they're seating properly with fresh angles?

If you're just shooting for a fun daily driver with more power than stock at low rpm but also a lot more higher up, then having a little taken off the cylinder head with the K cam and a fresh valve grind should wake the car up nicely.

Do you mind using premium fuel all the time?

An '87 does have LH2.2 from the factory and you can adjust the base ignition timing by rotating the distributor. The distributor itself controls the curve of the ignition advance, of which you can't do anything about(easily, or at all? Not 100% certain if they can be modified). At least you have the option of quickly and easily rotating the distributor in case you're experiencing any detonation. Idle speed is easily adjusted on LH2.2 as well with the screw.
Click to expand...


My plan now is for just a valve grind in addition to the head being shaved down and the larger cam which will likely be a used K cam. I imagine that larger valves installed would cost considerably more than just having a re-grind but if bigger valves will add a large enough improvement in power, considering the price, then I may be interested.

I had a shop in CT recommended to me for this sort of work so I'll have to get in touch with them for a price. If the bigger valves cost more than an extra 500 bucks then I will likely pass. Any chance bigger valves may not be a great idea because I have an auto transmission? I think there is something about how more air can pass through a larger tube but if the tube is too large then the air may pass more slowly than is ideal.

Heck if my 240 rots away in a few years then the modified head could just be stuck onto my next 240.

I am completely fine using the 91 octane over here. My primary car is a late model VW with decent gas mileage while running 87 octane.


If anyone has a K cam in good shape that you will sell then please let me know.
 
What I did for a street performance head is spend the money on improving the flow through the head with the existing valves. Cleaning up the flow path, a valve job, and stock size valves gave a good flowing head that still had plenty of low rpm torque. Great for a fun street engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top