Stroker specific cams (Part 2) cam reveal

-
DrEamer said:
I just got off the phone with Mike to make sure myself. He said to set it up straight and confirm the intake 108 if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yup. That means what I thought. Dot to dot "should" be at 108 ICL. But you know, the world ain't always perfect. LOL
 
yellow rose said:
Yeah, he wants you to line up the dots and then verify it’s in at 108.
Click to expand...

RustyRatRod said:
Yup. That means what I thought. Dot to dot "should" be at 108 ICL. But you know, the world ain't always perfect. LOL
Click to expand...

We are all on the same page then. He said I should shoot for around 107 because of chain stretch, and break in.
 
looks good
112 ok by me
I would have speced closer to a 270 with 10:1 but with the low gear in the OD trans and 3.73 you should be ok
for those of you that have 3.23 or taller gear or even 3.55, a standard low gear and no lockup look towards:

[email protected] [email protected] 544 lift
276 @.006 151@200 544
[email protected] 151@200 576

have 9.7 look at 264
9:1 256
street cars
DREAMER keep us posted great build
Mike's comment about the heads not needing a larger cam is the truth
 
Thank You for your extensive research on this. I have been putting off getting a cam because of all the back & forth info that kept me 2nd guessing every decision. Your build is almost identical to mine, except I have A500/42RH, and going into a Dart. Currently I have a 3.23 rear gear, but I intend to change that to 3.73 or 3.91. My usage goals are identical as well. Looks like I will be giving Howard’s a call as they were already on my short list. Did you work with anyone in particular, or are they small enough that I’m gonna get the same person anyway?
 
Last edited:
RogerRamRod said:
Thank You for your extensive research on this. I have been putting off getting a cam because of all the back & forth info that kept me 2nd guessing every decision. Your build is almost identical to mine, except I have A500/42RH, and going into a Dart. Currently I have a 3.23 rear gear, but I intend to change that to 3.73 or 3.91. My usage goals are identical as well. Looks like I will be giving Howard’s a call as they were already on my short list. Did you work with anyone in particular, or are they small enough that I’m gonna get the same person anyway?
Click to expand...

Mike at B3 Racing ordered the cam for me after going through my specs with me. I would give him a call, and he may change things a little bit for your combination. You can tell him you want a cam close to the one he build for Jeff.
 
Last edited:
It looks a little high on lift to me, at a glance. You could go with your preferred Comp rockers at 1.5 to fix that.

But I promised myself long ago to stop commenting on any performance-based discussion when someone using a hydraulic cam of any sort....

As for 'Chevy cams'.... I've never tried to install a Chevy cam into a Mopar but I am fairly sure it would not work given what must be some differences in the basic engine architecture. I never understand why people talk about Chevy cams unless they are working on a Chevy. Then, there was the guy who told me I should use Ford pistons in my engine because they are stronger than cast pistons.
 
Chevy cams is probably the wrong way to say it, It would more properly be called Chevy lobes. The cam itself would be designed to fit a mopar, bearing wise, spacing, etc. The lobes themselves are ground to work with "any" size lifter bore, rather than creating different lobe profiles to take advantage of Fords benefit over Chevys, and Mopars advantage over Fords. Economies of scale, especially considering Mopars are the smallest number of sales.
It has been explained WHY way better than I could do, (that & I type super slow). Google it, & it will probably lead you right back to whatever thread right here on FABO.
 
Yeah, I know what you meant.

Hughes should be issued a Nobel Prize for bullshit marketing. I bet they've sold 500,000 cams and put all of their kids through college on it.

It's bullshit because it presumes several factors as 'gospel' when they are hardly that.

It presumes that the engine will run better with a more aggressive profile. Maybe it will, but you can be sure sometimes it won't.

It eats into margin on the approach, eating into margin is an old trick that might do some good (see above) but it also means you're pushing things harder than before. In other words, you're closer to the edge. There's always risk in that. Mathematically, the difference between a .904 body and an .842 body is very small when it comes to approach radius.

It presumes the profiles developed by major companies like Comp Cams, Crane, etc. were derived as a result of them running into the limits of the lobe and having no other choice than to be 'less aggressive' than they'd like. Maybe they stopped because they weren't at any limit but rather they found that's where the best power was.

It ignores that high-end Mopar end small block engines often use Chevy-diameter lifters intentionally....if there were 5HP to be gained by staying with the .904 lifter you can bet they'd do it.

What Hughes should say, if they were being straight shooters, is: "We've developed some aggressive profiles that take advantage of the larger .904 lifter body; this tiny difference might or might not benefit your application."
 
gregcon said:
It ignores that high-end Mopar end small block engines often use Chevy-diameter lifters intentionally....if there were 5HP to be gained by staying with the .904 lifter you can bet they'd do it.
Click to expand...
This is not exactly accurate. The MoPars are limited to a smaller .842 because in some class racing, the Chevy enghine can n to bore the lifter bore out to a .904 or even the Ford size. This is Chevy's way of limiting the competition and leveling the playing field. Truth be told, a .842 lifter can still get a pretty aggresive lobe ground on to it. To truly take advantage of the .904 lobe will produce a very aggresive lobe that most engine do not or can not take advantage of.
 
I agree, but I know lots of guys who do it for other reasons including parts availability. They wouldn't do it if it cost them HP, though.
 
gregcon said:
It looks a little high on lift to me, at a glance. You could go with your preferred Comp rockers at 1.5 to fix that.
Click to expand...

I can address the thought process that Mike came up with when figuring out the cam. Since the Trick Flow heads flow well into .600 range, we wanted to take advantage of the available flow. Also, the springs are rated to the .650-680 lift, so at the .560 lift, it is not really taxing the springs. The other factor is that due to the poor push rod angle, it will never see the full lift anyway, therefore get as must practical lift as possible. There were other lobes available, but went with something that should be more reliable.
 
gregcon said:
I agree, but I know lots of guys who do it for other reasons including parts availability. They wouldn't do it if it cost them HP, though.
Click to expand...
Yes they would. If it costed 5 HP but was many dollars cheaper, ya damn skippy thats why they did it and even more so come replacement time. IF there .904 lifter cam isn't outlawed forcing them into a .842, then there engine isn't up to snuff on taking advantage of the .904 lifter.
 
There are guys running R3/W9 setup that are hardly cutting corners when it comes to money. They use the Chevy lifters, in some cases, to move the lifter bores themselves closer which gives 'max' pushrod clearance and the most port room. There are also more choices for Chevy lifters, too. They're probably doing it for other reasons, too, that they're not sharing. The point is...the .904 lifter is nice but hardly a must.
 
gregcon said:
There are guys running R3/W9 setup that are hardly cutting corners when it comes to money. They use the Chevy lifters, in some cases, to move the lifter bores themselves closer which gives 'max' pushrod clearance and the most port room. There are also more choices for Chevy lifters, too. They're probably doing it for other reasons, too, that they're not sharing. The point is...the .904 lifter is nice but hardly a must.
Click to expand...
Yes, true, the real advantage with a .904 compatible lobe ramp is really seen on a flat tappet rather than roller cam.
 
Cal Tonsley said:
Yes, true, the real advantage with a .904 compatible lobe ramp is really seen on a flat tappet rather than roller cam.
Click to expand...


Not true. Try fitting the .810 roller wheel in an .842 body. It won’t fit.

Where there is ANY argument of why a bigger diameter lifter is better than a smaller diameter lifter still goes on baffles me.
 
yellow rose said:
Not true. Try fitting the .810 roller wheel in an .842 body. It won’t fit.

Where there is ANY argument of why a bigger diameter lifter is better than a smaller diameter lifter still goes on baffles me.
Click to expand...
It is better. Just not the 'supercharger plus twin turbo' better that the Hughes Kool Aid package says.
 
gregcon said:
It is better. Just not the 'supercharger plus twin turbo' better that the Hughes Kool Aid package says.
Click to expand...


I agree. But, as an engine builder, I always tell the Chrysler guys if you can fit a bigger lifter, do it.

There is no reason to run a .750 wheel roller lifter in a chrysler.
 
Sure, there is no real detriment to a larger lifter...but on second thought, if I were go larger, I'd go all the way to a Jesel 1" lifter or something like that...and make sure I was watching the weight. Bigger is heavier if you don't watch it.
 
gregcon said:
There are guys running R3/W9 setup that are hardly cutting corners when it comes to money. They use the Chevy lifters, in some cases, to move the lifter bores themselves closer which gives 'max' pushrod clearance and the most port room. There are also more choices for Chevy lifters, too. They're probably doing it for other reasons, too, that they're not sharing. The point is...the .904 lifter is nice but hardly a must.
Click to expand...
There not running Chevy lifters because there better or cheaper or because there are more choices. The lifter diameter limits the aggressiveness of a cam lobe.

What your telling me is they want to run whimpy cams.

What YR said, this is an argument that you have lost already and don’t know it yet. Using an excuse of “Well these guys with there high dollar stuff use....”
It just doesn’t fly my man.

Capitulating to the thought of a Jessel 1 inch lifter .... after you argue otherwise..... seems like your here to just start **** and stir the pot.
 
I sure hate seeing you get all riled up....have you considered some chamomile tea?

You have no idea what you're talking about....these are engines that probably cost more than your whole car and house. They're running cams that would make your cam look like Granny's. Wimpy and cheap are not words that come into play.

I'll repeat myself, slowly since you read slowly - a bigger lifter is a slight benefit. Not a big one. And it's a slight benefit that might or might not be visible in an engine. It's like having $10 dollars in the bank .... nice, but not really any different than being flat broke.
 
gregcon said:
I sure hate seeing you get all riled up....have you considered some chamomile tea?
Click to expand...
And so you assume or just throwing **** to see what sticks. Poor attempt.

You have no idea what you're talking about....these are engines that probably cost more than your whole car and house. They're running cams that would make your cam look like Granny's. Wimpy and cheap are not words that come into play.
Click to expand...
Verse what they could use with a bigger lifter?
You lost again. Poor attempt.

I'll repeat myself, slowly since you read slowly - a bigger lifter is a slight benefit. Not a big one. And it's a slight benefit that might or might not be visible in an engine.
Click to expand...
That is understood. Perhaps you, yourself, should read more instead of just skimming through a post ASSUMING.

It's like having $10 dollars in the bank .... nice, but not really any different than being flat broke.
Click to expand...
Clearly you have no concept of money or what to do with it.
 
gregcon said:
Sure, there is no real detriment to a larger lifter...but on second thought, if I were go larger, I'd go all the way to a Jesel 1" lifter or something like that...and make sure I was watching the weight. Bigger is heavier if you don't watch it.
Click to expand...


BTW, I forgot to ask about the guys using smaller diameter lifter bores to move the lifters over for better geometry.

My question is are they using those lifters (I forget the actual name for them and I didn’t look it up first) that have the bigger wheel with the smaller body? I’ve seen pictures of those, but never had one in my hand.

IIRC, they have to be installed before the cam because the wheel won’t go through the lifter bore.

Again, IIRC, I think they are even using those in Comp and PS because you can only get the lifter bores so big before you are just wasting up what little real estate you have.

Edit: I forgot to mention that probably 20 or more years ago Schubeck was working on a solid roller without a wheel. It had a radius that would act like a 2 inch diameter wheel or something like that. I know a couple of PS guys did some testing with them, but the associated parts were expensive to go with the lifters. Then he either went broker or died.
 
Yeah, Schubeck lifters....they seemed to go quiet (as a company). My guess is it was a sound idea on paper but probably required very tight manufacturing and assembly tolerances that were hard to actually achieve. If there is no rolling, only sliding, the need for precision is much greater.

I haven't studied roller lifters too much lately but the most expensive ones seem to be using a wheel with no needle bearings...a 'plain' bushing instead. I looked at some but they were well over $1200 for a set. Makes sense though, as the contact area is much greater with a bushing. I think it was Crower or Isky....you buy their best lifter $$$ then option up $$ for the bushings.

I don't know specifics on what the SBC/SBM guys are using...they tend to keep the details pretty 'need to know'. Some of them run a big diameter wheel that is only about 1/4" wide, even. I also have some friends who are circle track guys....they run their SBC with a modified cam bore and the entire cam is run encased in a 'tube' that only has holes for the lifters to pass through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top