At least you didn't say I wasted your time!

I encourage you to be a little bit more open minded instead of repeating mantra "MCM results are fully documented and not experimental". Mu charts shows roughly the same as yours. Torque drops from 6500 rpm compared to stock cams. Doing exhaust cam mod will make things worse - it might add a tiny bit torque down the line on lower rpm, but it will drop earlier and more drastically compared to intake only.

 

What happens with cam lobe separation is explained in a Motor Trend article. The fact that a four stroke is a four stroke is a four stroke makes this article applicable to the KLX as much as it is to a small block Chevrolet. It takes some time to view the hp and torque curves to understand what is going on, where the power is delivered. Three cams totally identical with the exception of Lobe Separation Angle were ground, then tested.

Here is a link to the Camshaft Shootout: Lobe-Separation-Angle Tested and Explained Check it out to understand the LCA. There may be a slight loss of top end power, but that is significantly offset by the change in the torque curve over the power band of the engine. This will be true with any four stroke. A similar timing change was done in a Joe Minton article on a Honda Nighthawk S, retiming the cams to a narrower LSA, gaining better more useable low to mid range power, with a minor loss at the top (seldom used as the owner seldom was redlining his Nighthawk riding on the street). I would say if you finished the MCM you would find a power increase in the most vital area, a wider torque band that is constantly in use, maybe losing a bit at the top, which is seldom used.

Here was their general take away (from the article)

LSA at a Glance

Narrower LSA:

• Moves torque to lower rpm
• Increases maximum torque

• Narrow powerband
• Increase chance of engine knock

• Increase cranking compression
• Idle vacuum and quality is reduced

• Valve overlap increases
• Decreases piston-to-valve clearance

Wider LSA:

• Raise torque to higher rpm
• Reduces maximum torque

• Broadens powerband
• Decrease chance of engine knock

• Decrease cranking compression
• Idle vacuum and quality is improved

• Valve overlap decreases
• Increases piston-to-valve clearance
  
  

 

Note to all:
I am 110% for creating new findings and finding new data that is USABLE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP .
On the other hand, and in my old age, I am more and more intolerant of USELESS DATA that could ONLY confuse the membership.

By creating some sort of exhaust system ( A system with unknown, and unproven, performance characteristics/results. A exhaust system that cannot be duplicated nor utilized by the membership) the data that results from any testing is useless.

It is inappropriate to post, in the MCM thread, a experimental platform's experimental data as if to provide information regarding MCM effectiveness - especially a 1/2 MCM, and especially on an engine that drops all power production at 7.5k RPM.

MCM is not experimental, it is fully vetted and documented - for years now..
Do it and you gain huge TRQ in the 1st 1/2 of the RPM range ( off idle to 6k RPM ) and, if fueled properly at 12.6 - 12.8, the upper half RPM range performance will be same-as or within .75 HP of.

 

This is misleading. In my charts the only difference between runs is intake cam mod. Which adds ~0.5nm below 6500 and loose ~1 nm or 1-1.5hp at 6500-7500 rpm.
Second misleading statement is about "special engine" which drops power production after 7500. In fact all efi engines are detuned with ignition retard after 7500.
Please stop providing misleading information in this thread just to support your prior experience with mcm on 250cc carb bike with completely different power and torque characteristics.

 

1. Doing intake only is a waste of time and always has been.
2. The newer KLX's DO NOT have detune programming running in the ECM - they are quite capable of producing "normal" power curves ( same-as the carb'd KLX's ) once the secondary throttle valve is removed. Yours, however, requires an aftermarket performance ECM before it can produce a proper power curve.
3. Different power and TRQ characteristics ? Wrong again - they are all the same engine and even have the same induction and exhaust tracts !

 

Well, your results may be good for doing half the change, not the entire change, but half. In addition I provided you a link to an article on LSA and what it does. You will notice they have the lobe center angle equal from TDC to each lobe. Your chart shows that half of the work still boosted exactly what was predicted to be done, from what I see. It boosted the power across almost all of the range up to near the very peak. Useable power, not highest number power. That was what the article predicted. It was also what Marcelino found. What this would mean is stronger pull in mid range, especially if the second part was done, making the LSA narrower to what Marcelino had.

By the way Marcelino and Minton pointed out that it wasn't experimental in what they did, that they were doing exactly what the MotorTrend article found. A narrower LSA provides higher peak torque. Fact is the general LSA they both used were pretty much in the 100-108 range, similar to what MotorTrend had noted. It's been a long known fact, the reason I posted the link. They weren't "experimenting" with LSA in the article, they were giving the facts with an explanation.

Here is a quote from the initial post in the thread, compare the numbers to that of the MotorTrend article, where the engine corresponds relatively closely to that of the KLX. a couple thou difference.

All of the above means that the KLX doesn´t have enough intake advance and has too much exhaust advance . I´ve got a service manual and when I looked at the camshaft timings I´ve seen that I was right . It has the top elevation at 110 degrees after TDC for intake and 110 before TDC for the exhaust . These angle are typical for a Ducati , BUT the KLX cannot even dream with a engine tuned for 13000 RPM or more . We ain´t got desmodromic distribution , large vertical ports , ignition advance etc. The camshafts in the KLX should be tuned for a 8000 RPM engine , due mainly for ignition mapping , carburetor/FI diameter , ports shape and size , reliability considerations . That means we should have 100 degrees not 110 . We gain in lows and midrange and we lose in the top that we will never have ( 13000 ) . The ECU ( igniter in carb models ) downright cuts the spark at 10500 RPM .

Not theoretic or experimental by either party, although I am not sure of Marcelino's comments about the Ducati. In a side note the more conservative timing Kawasaki used would give a softer hit in lower-middle rpm for a new rider.

 

No
Marcelino says

,,The camshafts in the KLX should be tuned for a 8000 RPM engine , due mainy for ignition mapping,,


There is a lot of ecu whit different ignition mapping
Marcelino tuned his camshafts according to his ignition mapping .

If you hawe another ECU you maybe winn more or you lose


​​​​​

 

While he was correct with what he had to work with ( EFI 250 massively detuned/neutered by its' ECM programming ) , Marcelino was, apparently, unaware of the power curve/production capability of the 250/300 when fully "unleashed".

When unencumbered, the 250 or 300 engine will pull hard to redline ( 10.5k rpm ) . The dyno charts show a very strong HP curve in the upper RPM range is possible with proper mod combos.

This is why I provided a dyno chart comparison of the MCMs' effects on a fully "uncorked" 250 - to see how MCM performs in a "full power" upper 1/2 RPM range - a range that Marcelino did not have access to.

Given a reasonable margin of error between dyno runs ( + or - 2% ) , MCM produces "same as" power levels, to Non-MCM , at 6500 rpm and up.

 

ECU part number 24hp stock
if someone want

 

My KLX seems to rev to 10,000 rpm without any rev limiter or problem. It runs out of power, per Kawasaki's numbers and my butt, at around 8600 rpm, where peak horsepower is. Some will use the over rev, I seldom do. I use the mid-range 5000-7500 rpm the most.

The point that missed in Marcelino's wording is that the cams and tune are for the peak power around 8600. If they wanted more they'd use different cams and some other tune that could put it up around 10,000, but likely lose a bunch below 5000 making the bike harder to ride on the street. That and it costs a lot to do so, may as well buy a KTM then. You can do all the tricks with ignition timing, but if the limitation imposed the cam profiles or intake/exhaust are met, timing changes will not gain more..