I've just bought a like new 2017 bike (UK bike, so has FI) and have just started with the mods...

As standard apart from a K&N air filter which came with the bike, it was disappointing, felt more like a 125 than a 250 and struggled to get past 60mph. After removing the snorkel and shorting the clutch switch, it was much improved and can do 80 - 85mph, which is pretty much what I expected.

After reading the monster Marcellino thread, I've done the mod (both cams & removed the KACR spring) but its hasn't really made much of a difference. The intake sounds different, not quieter just different and I haven't noticed the claimed torque improvement. The only difference it seems to have made is that it pulls slightly better near the redline.

So question is, is this to be expected given I'm running the standard exhaust and fuelling - it does feel slightly hesitant around 4K so may be running lean. Really I'm looking for any advice here before I start spending money:

- Does the cam mod need an EJK on an EFI bike?
- Is an aftermarket exhaust needed for the cam mod to work?
- Could I have messed up the mod (I found a pic online of what it should look like afterwards, which matches my bike)?

An FMF pipe and EJK is pretty expensive in the UK, so need to be sure before spending that much...

 

The cam mod is not experimental. Its' effects on the KLX powerband are known, proven, and not debatable. When done correctly, on '09 - 2014 KLX's, there is a significant increase in TRQ levels through 6.5k - 7k RPM regardless of all other mods - but assuming the bike is fueled correctly..

If Kawasaki is running the same cams and cam timing on your '17 as it did on the '09-'14's, you have the improvements. Retuning a properly fueled bike is not required but adding a little more fueling (than stock fueling) below 7k rpm enhances the MCM power improvements.

It should not pull better near redline - in fact it should be down .5 - .75 lb ft TRQ in that area of RPM vs stock cam timings..

Did you advance the intake cam and retard the exhaust cam - the equivalent of 1/2 tooth for each?

Perhaps you had better post the pic you used to verify your MCM mod..

The end result of the MCM is that both cams are rotated toward eachother the equivalent of 1/2 tooth..

 

Thanks for the feedback. I think I did it correctly but I'm starting to think I should double check...

Here is the pic I used for verification:
Cam Mod

 

Remember, it is a 250. The increase was noticeable to me in what felt like better torque through the middle, starting a shade lower. But again, it isn't like going big bore. It just feels stronger, at least for me.

 

That pic is not accurate. The indexing of the timing marks relationship to a tooth, on the gears, changes from the top pic (stock) to the MCM pic.. More importantly, the tooth count relationship to the head casting surface , as depicted in the "cam mod" pic is wrong, The pic seems to show a 3 tooth chain mod - when you count the teeth.. Since MCM documentation is clear that you move each cam two links, the irregularity in the pic is likely not going to cause peeps to move their cams 3 links unless an owner uses that pic as "gospel" and does "whatever it takes" to match that pic..

If you did move the cams /cam gears 3 chain links instead of 2, your cams are now 1/2 tooth "wrong" - in which case your intake is retarded and your exhaust is advanced compared to stock timing - which will definitely serve to increase power in only the very top end and kill power everywhere else..

Writing instructions is an art form.. I can't understand the phrase "align camshaft hole and mount" - this is complete gibberish to me..

I have crudely added new timing index marks and the cylinder casting surface to correctly show a two tooth mod -

Cam Mod.pdf

 

Thanks for taking the time to spot the errors. I think I may have been guilty of matching the pic... Certainly enough doubt in my mind that its wrong, so I'll take a look at the weekend.

I think I'll photograph it as it is now, revert to stock, then reapply the mod following the instructions rather than that pic. Be interesting to see if its different :-)

Know what you mean about writing instructions being an art form, but for what its worth your description in your previous post "The end result of the MCM is that both cams are rotated toward eachother the equivalent of 1/2 tooth" nailed it for me!

 

Here is a good pic of the final "product" - I have edited it to help make this as clear as possible..
This photo is from KLX678 's tutorial on the MCM. See it from his link on his signature line in his post above..

Sidebar: Throughout many years, the MCM was considered experimental because it did not "seem to work" for some and no one had dyno tested it.. This is likely one reason why it didn't "work" sometimes - going 3 links instead of two.. But those days are long gone - with my dyno testing showing proof of effectiveness, the MCM effectiveness cannot be debated..

 

If I remember right copied the photos from Marcelino's thread. I think they're gone now since they were in a photo service. Mine are in the Google Drive and I don't foresee my taking them down any time in the future. Although it might be good if some others here would copy them and keep them around. I don't know if they can be pasted into a new MCM thread in a permanent fashion here. Would be good if they can be done.

 

I personally like to look at the "keyways" in the ends of the cams, comparing before and after as a sanity check. Too easy to miscount teeth and get confused but those keyways are a solid reference.

 

I have re-edited the photo numerous times trying to get more succinct in relaying the pertinent information..

Any remaining questions should be asked here so I can edit the photo more if need be..