10 replies to this topic

[MiniHead95]

On a lot of forums you get quite a lot of people that 'hate' the Kent 276 cam, why is this? Amongst the comments there are people saying that they think it's a great cam but as I said before, more often than not people say it isn't a good cam.

 

Just wondered why people say this and have any of you had it and what do you think of it?  

[Gremlin]

Is hasn't really been designed, instead just bits of old cams bolted together, then gave it a name due to how it performed to fit in with the kent range

[Cooperman]

I built a 1293 Historic Rally Cooper 'S' with the Kent 276.
We got 94 bhp at 6100 rpm and it was/is a very competitive car. The owner loves it and with a 3.76:1 FDR and a SCCR gearbox it is extremely quick.

[KernowCooper]

A lot of comes from people who have comments but have no knowledge of using one, if its not a 286 its no good. So people read the negatives having never used one, and when its crops up then they jump in and say its not a good cam. I have the 276 in my 1330 which is about 95bhp and similar to the engine Peter Built. The issue is that when people ask what cam should I use then its a 286 for performance and 266 for torque.

 

Its not as cut and dried as bits bolted together from old cams, In my experience its a very good cam and has its position in the Kent range of cams between something like the 286 which is not suitable as a everyday driver and the 266 for a good all rounder. I've not seen the 266 cam in any thing listed on dyno days produce 95bhp, but plenty of 286s not setup correctly give disappointing results.

 

Its the same myth about webers drinking fuel, there are tons of post here on TMF saying just that. but thats not strictly true as there are loads of webers out there incorrectly setup and running rich, but the general reply is webers drink fuel

Edited by KernowCooper, 12 May 2014 - 04:34 PM.

[Midas Mk1]

Its like when people say 286 is rubbish in a road car. No harder than a 266 to drive imo.

[dennismini93]

It's because people build ab engine by power figures and forget drivability and torque. It is probably very good in the right engine and very poor in the wrong one

[Gremlin]

A lot of comes from people who have comments but have no knowledge of using one, if its not a 286 its no good. So people read the negatives having never used one, and when its crops up then they jump in and say its not a good cam. I have the 276 in my 1330 which is about 95bhp and similar to the engine Peter Built. The issue is that when people ask what cam should I use then its a 286 for performance and 266 for torque.
 
Its not as cut and dried as bits bolted together from old cams, In my experience its a very good cam and has its position in the Kent range of cams between something like the 286 which is not suitable as a everyday driver and the 266 for a good all rounder. I've not seen the 266 cam in any thing listed on dyno days produce 95bhp, but plenty of 286s not setup correctly give disappointing results.
 
Its the same myth about webers drinking fuel, there are tons of post here on TMF saying just that. but thats not strictly true as there are loads of webers out there incorrectly setup and running rich, but the general reply is webers drink fuel

The cam profiles are just from old cams and maybe slightly adapted, not many companys actually think about what a good cam profile is and just use old good profiles in slightly different orientations or maybe slightly more overlap lift or lift speed

[KernowCooper]

You make Kent sound like a back street 2 may shop who copies old stuff and re-markets it, what cams are the 276 cobbled together from ?

[Gremlin]

To be honest I don't know, ask ACDodd he's the man that'll know, I'm sure he'll be on this thread soon

[dennismini93]

just because its made from old cams doesnt mean its bad. i was reading the vizard manual and he worked with kent on over 1000 cams. they probally took other cams as a base and used the best bits to get the optimal resalt for application. the 266 started out based on the mg metro then was developed further

[Cooperman]

Too much crap written and talked about cams for the A-series engine IMHO.

There are those who claim their cams are better, mainly because they want to sell their cams, and others who don't understand how to select a cam for a specific application.

Some advocate a 286, which, if it is to be used as designed, means driving around at 6500 rpm a lot of the time for to have a 286 and not do this means the engine is 'over-cammed'.

First decide what the car is for, then decide what sort of revs you want to be driving around at, then look at the cam graphs and find one which matches your application.

For example, if you use the car mainly in traffic or twisty roads, but like to change gear at or before 5800 rpm and want a fairly high FDR for easy cruising, then the 266 is an ideal cam because peak torque (for acceleration) is at around 4000 rpm, peak power is at 5700 rpm and it will pull smoothly from around 2000 rpm.  It is easy to get over 85 bhp from an engine with a 286 and still retain the superb mid-range performance. A 276 is slightly better than a 266 so long as the cylinder head is well gas-flowed, the induction and exhaust systems are optimum and you are happy to rev to 6400 rpm.