- Thread starter
- #26
92tsiawdguy
10+ Year Contributor
- 354
- 8
- Sep 11, 2008
-
kansas city,
Missouri
thanks for all your help guys.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. This is where the DSM platform history is documented and archived. Log in to help us in our mission, and to remove most ads from the browsing experience.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
^^^ Very simple.. Kelofrd's ARE NOT as what they are advertized---- 272's..
Is that simple.. Their REAL lift and duration is more like 288+ cams...
The tx-288 are made for high performance race engine. They will require a solid lifter conversion to run them.
All of the cams that they have on their page that require solid lifters say that they require solid lifters.
I think that these are the top for the hydraulic lifters.
I think you got of backwards. The tx-264, tx-272 and tx-280 are designed for hydraulic lifters and the tx-288 will require a solid lifter conversion for a more aggressive cam profiling that can accelerate the valve off the seat and open more quickly at higher rpms.
Nope I just got an email from Kelford, they said that they are for hydraulic lifters. So there you go.
They must having redesign them because they were strictly for solid lifters before to be more stable or higher rpms.

Well. Don't think it would matter much. Keeping an eye on and re-adjusting lash is a menial thing for a motor that will see results merriting kelford 288cams.

. . . If those are safe limits then for most profiles when using solid lifters, I'll bet it comes down to the spring in determining how much overlap/duration you gain, right?