|
|
Post by rumblefish360 on May 1, 2004 8:30:01 GMT -5
YEA! thats a lot of freakin money, for the roller set up.
The roller profile shows more promise than a mech. cam does. Problem is, most street guys have a hard time taking max advanyage of it. When they can, it's a small profile.
When the bennifit becomes the rollers favor, you should be going way faster than you are now. Waaaaaay faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by atoetly on May 3, 2004 11:22:22 GMT -5
So you think I'd go faster with a roller?
|
|
|
|
Post by rumblefish360 on May 6, 2004 10:21:50 GMT -5
Actually, if it's in the right car for the right thing, yes, I do. However, the big payout over the mech. cam is not going to show up until you get crazy about it.
A roller should be able to have more area under curve at .050 duration. This should translate into more power.
There is a limit to the area under curve a mech cam can have.
Being we MoPar runners have the advantage of the .904 lifter, the limit is much higher than the GM lifter can handle.
Example in the Comp Catolog;
Drag race mech cam; 310* w/ 275 @ .050 w/.585 lift.
Drag race roller cam; 310* w/ 276 @ .050 w/.627 lift.
Here, the roller will make more power even though the the .050 duration is 1* more. The larger lift is part of it in 2 ways.
The actual lift (Should) flow more air and fuel (If the head can suport it.)
2. The durations are nearly the same but being the rollers lift is larger, it will have to have a more agressive rate of opening the valve to get there in the same (or 1* more time which isn't crap) time. This here shows the area under curve to be larger.
I think the power difference would be small at this level, but there. More agressive rollers for going faster show a wideing gap in this trend.
Now, for you, do you think a mech. cam as described above is to your bennifit? Can your engine swallow this size cam and improve at the track? Lastly, is it worth the extra expense of converting? The last question, for me, on every engine I built, not that there super screamers, is No.
In the HEMI section there largest listed solid is ;
310* w/ 275* @ .050. w/.612 lift.
The largest rollers are a little hard to pick out after an all nighter at work but range in 310* - 334* adver. w/ 275 - 296 @ .050 w/ .612 - .824 lift.
If it's not enuff, you could allways custom order from Comp Cams or other maker. (Ha ha ha ha)
OK, bed time for bonzo.
|
|
|
|
Post by rumblefish360 on May 6, 2004 10:24:59 GMT -5
Also, (Before bed) I'd like to say that a roller for the street can make great power pound for pound, spec to spec over a Hyd. or Mech cam. But then again, theres that cost factor again that I just can not justify in spending.
Maybe one day when I have money to burn.
(Yes, I'll roll you a cigar as well to smoke with me made of a hundered dollor bill.)
Until then then, it's a mech. cam for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 6, 2004 10:38:10 GMT -5
Yup, there's nothing like a nice set of Tupperware lifters...after seeing Alan's car run I have bought my last set of solid steel lifters.
Our new 396 Crate Small blocks all will have Schubecks in them as a standard item, we will offer no choice.
Oh Oh I let the cat out of the bag here......whoops.
I guess I better put the post up before you guy's drive me crazy......LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by atoetly on May 6, 2004 11:28:27 GMT -5
The thing is Cam manufacturers Quit designing flat tappet cams because they only had a cast iron lifter to use on them. They hit the preverbial brick wall. with these schubeck lifters a whole new door has been opened and I can't wait to see what can really be done. It gets my panties all bound up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Lackman on May 7, 2004 3:09:38 GMT -5
You are still stuck to the same rate of lift lobe ramps when using the .904 Schubeck lifters. Thought the linked discussion might fit in this "Latest and Greatest in Cam Design" thread. IMO the last post is the most interesting one. Put a stick like that under your Schubecks..... John Kaase's roller cam bearing advantage (EngineMasters 2003) |
|
|
|
Post by atoetly on May 7, 2004 8:21:01 GMT -5
You obviously did read the whole thread? I'm using a 1" mushroom lifter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Lackman on May 7, 2004 14:01:32 GMT -5
Yes I saw that.
I like that "out of the box" thinking.
Will Racer Brown grind a cam to take advantage of the 1" mushroom lifter diameter?
It's kind of funny after all these years that there might be a revival of mushroom lifters.
Those Schubecks can take abuse. Like tearing out the opening ramps on two cams in the Moparts EngineMasters entry, it didn't hurt the lifters at all. There was no wear across the lobe nose but the lifter bottom edge was scooping the cam lobe's opening side.
That same set of Schubecks are going on a flat tappet cam ground on a roller cam core in a W-2 3.9L V-6.
|
|
|
|
Post by atoetly on May 7, 2004 15:42:11 GMT -5
No cookie cutter engines here! I need to clairify this If I had an unlimited budget and wanted to go as fast as possible I would mabey run a Schubeck roller lifter. This is an Idea that we came up with to run a car in the 9 second range without having to tear the thing apart ever 50 runs. Think of the cost associated with running a roller that needs to be torn down after 50 runs and low and behold you find a lifter bad. Springs with 350lbs closed 700lbs open already weak. The cost gets ugly.
|
|
