Hughes stroker cam recommendation

-
Does the numbers also look better AJ?
I'm with YellowRose who doesn't much like Hydraulic rollers.
I have a FTH (Flat-Tappet/hydraulic) 230* cam in my 367 and it makes great WOT power. But it is impossible to make good fuel economy at a cruise rpm of 2240. A hydraulic roller will only be worse, with it's longer acceleration ramps, stealing duration from the power-stroke, and giving it to overlap.
If fuel economy is important to you, rather;
If fuel economy was important to me;
and I was looking to cruise at 2250ish rpm,
there is no way I would choose a performance Hydraulic Roller cam.
I'm also with Wyrmrider who doesn't like cams for which he cannot compare rates of lift, such as the ever secretive Hughes cams. and I'm also with
Rumble who knows his chit too, and who has already published his minimum size.
Here's the thing; the more overlap your cam has, the faster you will have to spin the engine at cruising-speed to help prevent that cycle from pushing raw fuel thru the exhaust. Ok, so; you can overcome that part.
But what cannot be compensated for, is the very short power duration of hydraulic roller cams, that release high-energy exhaust gasses into the pipes. It might seem trivial, but consider that every mile you drive at 2250 rpm=60 mph, your engine is sparking 9000 times. Every mile. It doesn't take much of an imagination to see that, for fuel economy, any energy not going to the crank, and/or any fuel passing thru the engine unburned, and/or any gasses still burning when they leave the chamber; is serious business. Consider that 9000 sparks per mile,at 60mph, is over half a million sparks per hour.
Lets say that on every one of those cycles, just 1/20 of a gram of fuel goes thru the system not contributing energy to the crank. That comes to 450grams per mile!. Or for Americans that is 1 pound of gas.. One pound .... per mile..... that contributed nothing to energy production. At 6 pounds per gallon, 1 pound is 1/6 of a gallon or 22 ounces. You know how many guys could get drunk on 22 ounces of whisky per hour? Me either, I quit doing that in 1993.lol.
To put that 1/20th of a gram into perspective; Lets say your car makes 15 mpg with that stroker. Had those 22 ounces contributed their share, that 15 mpgs would have been 18.1 mpgs
 
Last edited:
Thanks AJ. For pointing it all out. I want to go HR for ease of maintenance. We have a own company where we are very busy all the time. I know that you guys know your chit.
I think i go with the cam that rumble suggested. At the end all that matters is how fun it is to drive the car! I want to take it at holidays also. For daily drive's i get the audi or a van from the company. I surtainly let you guys know how happy(or not...) i am when i got it all up and running!
 
I think you guys are contemplating your navel a bit much when it comes to this stuff. If I think about it long enough and hard enough, I can make an excellent case that I look a hell of lot like the 1968 version of Elvis Presley.

Fuel economy? Who really cares? These cars are driven a fraction of the miles of a modern vehicle. It's tiresome....the idea that we can have it all if we just come up with the exact mix of parts. Spending $40,000 on a play-car then sweating $13 in gas? Life's too short.

You get lousy (whatever that is?) mileage because of 4 degrees of LSA? Ummmm. I'd be far more inclined to look at A/F ratio, ignition timing, combustion chamber design, cam duration/lift, and the overall inefficiencies of a vehicle that has had its ports enlarged, induction enlarged, and just about every other 'OEM fuel economy' consideration cast aside.
As for not using a hydraulic roller cam for fuel economy....that's one of the main reasons pretty much every OEM since the 1990's has provided a hyd roller cam.
 
I think you guys are contemplating your navel a bit much when it comes to this stuff. If I think about it long enough and hard enough, I can make an excellent case that I look a hell of lot like the 1968 version of Elvis Presley.
You handsome devil you!
LMAO!

Fuel economy? Who really cares? These cars are driven a fraction of the miles of a modern vehicle. It's tiresome....the idea that we can have it all if we just come up with the exact mix of parts. Spending $40,000 on a play-car then sweating $13 in gas? Life's too short.
Here in the USA, no doubt. But! He lives in Europe where gas is a bit more expensive. So a little extra mileage for him is very helpful. Also, why not for everyone else. While it maybe just a toy for you, others may drive there car a bit more than what you list.
(My personal toy gathered just over 15K last “Car Season” alone.)

@Jeffrey67dart How much is fuel for you in Europe? Sold by the Ltr. right? 3.78 Ltr. for each gallon.
Math time! LMAO!
You get lousy (whatever that is?) mileage because of 4 degrees of LSA? ———-
As for not using a hydraulic roller cam for fuel economy....that's one of the main reasons pretty much every OEM since the 1990's has provided a hyd roller cam.
Cam timing is everything. Next to the state of tune and then drivetrain ratios. As you know all three working together cam make great HP but also work for mileage.
While you state that the OEM have used Hyd. roller cams as standard for a long time now they also have the most modern tech within. Most of us do not. If you don’t see a problem with that, I myself and I’m sure a good many others here will be looking very forward to seeing you build thread on making a lot of power and getting high mileage. (Notice how I left that as a very broad ave. for you to travel.) Heck! If you can double the factory power output and retain the factory EPA rated MPG, I’m all ears!
 
Here it is about $7,- per gallon. So a little thinking about fuel efficiency isn't a bad thing. And the prices for fuel are at the moment at the lower side. Because covid, oil prices etc.
 
The level of maintenance for a solid lifter is minimal. You set it and after it settles in you check it once a year. I don’t like hydraulic lifters. Anything that already has adjustable rockers would get a solid lifter. You are taking a real chance with any hydraulic lifter pumping up or collapsing. You run a roller to take advantage of being able to snap the valve open to a usable lift quicker than a flat tappet can. This means you need more spring pressure on the seat to control it. Increasing the “violence” of the valve action, but then use a squishy hydraulic lifter? DON’T be afraid of the solids level of maintenance. Not to mention for someone maybe relatively new to engines, it is good experience and it is like a physical for the engine. The gap starts to open up you know to look into it further. You can catch things going bad before they can get REALLY expensive.
 
I think you guys are contemplating your navel a bit much when it comes to this stuff. If I think about it long enough and hard enough, I can make an excellent case that I look a hell of lot like the 1968 version of Elvis Presley.

Fuel economy? Who really cares? These cars are driven a fraction of the miles of a modern vehicle. It's tiresome....the idea that we can have it all if we just come up with the exact mix of parts. Spending $40,000 on a play-car then sweating $13 in gas? Life's too short.

You get lousy (whatever that is?) mileage because of 4 degrees of LSA? Ummmm. I'd be far more inclined to look at A/F ratio, ignition timing, combustion chamber design, cam duration/lift, and the overall inefficiencies of a vehicle that has had its ports enlarged, induction enlarged, and just about every other 'OEM fuel economy' consideration cast aside.
As for not using a hydraulic roller cam for fuel economy....that's one of the main reasons pretty much every OEM since the 1990's has provided a hyd roller cam.

Amen, except now way in HELL are you getting me to believe the Elvis thing. I was born at night, but not last night!!

This is my biggest pet peeve. Guys build a “fun” car and then handicap the thing because, as you say, they are worried about 13 bucks worth of fuel.

So they cripple the thing with stupid cam timing, yet do nothing to tune the carb, ignition system or anything else.

Just dumb really. You end up with a car that isn’t fun to drive, still gets low fuel mileage and you spent a ton of money.

Edit: I forgot to mention that OE HR lobes are not even close to what they aftermarket HR lobes are. The aftermarket stuff is noisy and that is one reason the HR guys want them...quiet.
 
Here it is about $7,- per gallon. So a little thinking about fuel efficiency isn't a bad thing. And the prices for fuel are at the moment at the lower side. Because covid, oil prices etc.

in the US they don't get how expensive gas is if you drive the car over 10,000 miles it adds up fast . i want to change my cam as I'm tired of 10mpg , cam, specs on my 426 stroker . I drive 120 miles a day and that means 1 tank of gas a day at 7.00 plus a gallon it adds up
lobe sep 106
inst centerline 102

lobe lift .337 .337

valve lift 1.6 603 603

dur @50242.6 in 245.6 e
 
You handsome devil you!
LMAO!

Here in the USA, no doubt. But! He lives in Europe where gas is a bit more expensive. So a little extra mileage for him is very helpful. Also, why not for everyone else. While it maybe just a toy for you, others may drive there car a bit more than what you list.
(My personal toy gathered just over 15K last “Car Season” alone.)

@Jeffrey67dart How much is fuel for you in Europe? Sold by the Ltr. right? 3.78 Ltr. for each gallon.
Math time! LMAO!

Cam timing is everything. Next to the state of tune and then drivetrain ratios. As you know all three working together cam make great HP but also work for mileage.
While you state that the OEM have used Hyd. roller cams as standard for a long time now they also have the most modern tech within. Most of us do not. If you don’t see a problem with that, I myself and I’m sure a good many others here will be looking very forward to seeing you build thread on making a lot of power and getting high mileage. (Notice how I left that as a very broad ave. for you to travel.) Heck! If you can double the factory power output and retain the factory EPA rated MPG, I’m all ears!

my old 340 that was stolen made 400 hp 425 tq and got over 20mpg with the GV overdrive , so it can be done
 
Of the many solid cams I've installed, they get an initial adjustment. Then after 'a while', maybe 1500 miles, they get a second adjustment. That's OK because it gives me a chance to look around under the valve cover to see how everything is faring. Then...they never need adjusting again (for many years) unless something is changed.

I learned that because I would go in and 'readjust' the rockers but it became apparent they weren't out when I started.

The hydraulic cam is much like the onion - they're everywhere you go but that doesn't mean they aren't the devil's handiwork. They are.
 
in the US they don't get how expensive gas is if you drive the car over 10,000 miles it adds up fast . i want to change my cam as I'm tired of 10mpg , cam, specs on my 426 stroker . I drive 120 miles a day and that means 1 tank of gas a day at 7.00 plus a gallon it adds up
lobe sep 106
inst centerline 102

lobe lift .337 .337

valve lift 1.6 603 603

dur @50242.6 in 245.6 e

Looks like your lobe lift and lift @1.6 are contradictory? Typo? Just curious as Im always looking at others combos..
 
Wow Nat! You do drive the thing alot then!

You guys think it is needed that when you put a solid roller engine away in winter time, you need to adjust the lash? So there is no stress on the valvetrain? You guys know what i mean?
 
"I’m sure a good many others here will be looking very forward to seeing you build thread on making a lot of power and getting high mileage. (Notice how I left that as a very broad ave. for you to travel.) Heck! If you can double the factory power output and retain the factory EPA rated MPG, I’m all ears!"

That's the thing...I don't care what MPG I get. But on the flipside, I also know that if I have a engine put together right, it'll get pretty good mileage. BSFC and all that.

Another massive step in MPG is to simply have EFI. The ability to control spark and fuel based on load is tremendous.
On my 66 Fury, a full-on loaded pimp car with power vent windows, I had 4.10's in back and a 526" Hemi under the hood. I didn't care at all about MPG, but it would still turn 17 MPG on the highway. I drove the car on 3 separate 350 mile trips so it didn't happen just once. I was also running tons of timing advance on 10.5:1 CR.

The MPG is icing on the cake.
fury sit.jpg
DSC01683.JPG
 
Car has a a518 with 3.91.
What is important is, does it work with aftermarket efi(holley sniper). The lsa 110 is maybe pushing it in combination with the duration?! 238 at 0.050.

Im also a little scared that while cruising the rpms are to low for the cam. Cruising 50 or 60 mph. I hope you guys get what i mean...
Great info! Thanks! How does yours pull when your down on rpms? What gear-ratio do you have?
I think i go with the cam that rumble suggested. At the end all that matters is how fun it is to drive the car! I want to take it at holidays also. For daily drive's i get the audi or a van from the company. I surtainly let you guys know how happy(or not...) i am when i got it all up and running!
Here it is about $7,- per gallon. So a little thinking about fuel efficiency isn't a bad thing. And the prices for fuel are at the moment at the lower side. Because covid, oil prices etc.



That's the thing...I don't care what MPG I get. But on the flipside, I also know that if I have a engine put together right, it'll get pretty good mileage. BSFC and all that.

no comment
 
Nice car Greg.
"I’m sure a good many others here will be looking very forward to seeing you build thread on making a lot of power and getting high mileage. (Notice how I left that as a very broad ave. for you to travel.) Heck! If you can double the factory power output and retain the factory EPA rated MPG, I’m all ears!"

That's the thing...I don't care what MPG I get. But on the flipside, I also know that if I have a engine put together right, it'll get pretty good mileage. BSFC and all that.

Another massive step in MPG is to simply have EFI. The ability to control spark and fuel based on load is tremendous.
On my 66 Fury, a full-on loaded pimp car with power vent windows, I had 4.10's in back and a 526" Hemi under the hood. I didn't care at all about MPG, but it would still turn 17 MPG on the highway. I drove the car on 3 separate 350 mile trips so it didn't happen just once. I was also running tons of timing advance on 10.5:1 CR.

The MPG is icing on the cake. View attachment 1715579132 View attachment 1715579133
 
I don’t back off on the valve train for when the car sits over the winter. I have asked the question of a bunch of people running much higher lift numbers than I do. The ones I asked don’t either. I asked a guy who worked for a company that made all kinds of springs, not valve springs, but some high tech springs. He told me that holding a spring in a compressed state is not bad for it. He said heat and number of cycles are the killer of springs.
 
If you are going to spend what Hughes charges I'sgo with a Jones inverse radius flank HR grind
not that the hughes specs are right or not but if they are jones can have about an 8 degree advantage
either 8 degrees shorter with same lift
or same duration with more area
fill out his cam request card
really smooth action
he and his computer program are good cam pickers
no offense rumble
but I can't see the .006 durations
edit
YOU Cant tell which Hughes cam is better and neither can your builder without seat duratios (from my disagree on preious page)
AJ is making educated guesses but as he has shown a few degrees can make a big difference- take as much guess work out as possible
 
Last edited:
Looks like your lobe lift and lift @1.6 are contradictory? Typo? Just curious as Im always looking at others combos..
that is what the card says in lift 603 Ex lift 603 with 1.6 rockers
 
-
Back
Top