------------------
SCOOP

"If you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else."

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster:

Also, more HP is harder on the driveline. And you will need to replace rear tires more often as well

---

LOL

One machine shop told me that the roller cams are more easy on the valve train.

------------------
SCOOP

"If you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else."

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

------------------
I am looking for information concerning factory performance/aftermarket speed parts (1958/1960) used on the MEL (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) (Also Thunderbird 59/60) Engine Series (383-410-430-462) produced from 1958 thru 1968.

Also older FORD Special Service Tools

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
Why do you think the factory went to roller lifters?

John

---

My guess is for a smoother running motor,better gas milage, and a longer life ?

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

Valve guide wear comes from a misaligned valvetrain.

A class racing roller cam is too radical for street use but a roller cam designed for street use is no harder on the valve train than any other street cam.

Roller tappets eliminate cam break in problems and allow a fatter lobe for improved torque.

If you don't like adjusting valve lash use hydraulic rollers.

When you consider cost don't forget to factor in the extended life of a roller cam.

I don't see a downside.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
Add improved torque to that list.

Roller tappets eliminate cam break in problems and allow a fatter lobe for improved torque.

John

---

John how or why improved torque with a roller ?

Also Roller "tappets" you mean rockers, or lifters ?

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

Look at is this way, compare a square wave, on and then off, to an analog wave electrical scope pattern. The square wave would be a roller and the analog would be a flat tappet. The roller is more either on or off and the flat tappet is more gradual in the opening and closing of the valves.

grrr, I tried to give an example, but it didn't work, lol.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster:
Roller cams are able to open the valves sooner then flat tappet cams, due to the ability to have more aggressive ramp speeds because of the roller tipped lifters.

Look at is this way, compare a square wave, on and then off, to an analog wave electrical scope pattern. The square wave would be a roller and the analog would be a flat tappet. The roller is more either on or off and the flat tappet is more gradual in the opening and closing of the valves.

grrr, I tried to give an example, but it didn't work, lol.

[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 01-28-2004).]

---

here is a scope pattern I found, the above pattern is analog and the lower is a digital pattern.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
The power advantage of roller cams is a well known and documented fact. If you don't believe us then talk to the cam manufacturers.

John

---

John it's that I don't believe you or anyone else. I'm just trying to learn as much as I can. I'd rather learn it from the guys that use, race and run these cams, not from people that just tell you what they have be told.

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

In addition the cam manufacturers have a wealth of knowledge (well some of them do) and they will share a lot of it with the customers. When I am going to buy a cam I call the manufacturer of my choice and discuss the application with them. They will usually get you very close to the best combination for your particular usage.

Somebody like Alex who has installed lots of cams for personal use and for customers is a great resource. I know he stopped giving advice on cams because he got tired of debating with people who don't have his experience base. But if you call or email him I am sure he can sell you a cam or recommend one you will be very happy with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster:
Roller cams are able to open the valves sooner then flat tappet cams, due to the ability to have more aggressive ramp speeds because of the roller tipped lifters.

Look at is this way, compare a square wave, on and then off, to an analog wave electrical scope pattern. The square wave would be a roller and the analog would be a flat tappet. The roller is more either on or off and the flat tappet is more gradual in the opening and closing of the valves.

grrr, I tried to give an example, but it didn't work, lol.

[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 01-28-2004).]

---

Hey buster we mirrored each other!
My earlier post>

"The only thing rollers allow, is you to run more steeper ramps, therefore your opening and closing events can be much earlier and much later, therefore a more radical cam profile if permitted. Drawback is: your vavle guides wear out MUCH quicker, your seat pressures are much higher, and you're slamming the valves shut; all extremely hard on the valve train."

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
But if you call or email him I am sure he can sell you a cam or recommend one you will be very happy with.

John

---

John no offensive taken here, I just wanted you and the others to know I was just looking for all opinions. Nothing wrong with a good debate from which all walk away knowing more then before. I just keep in mind the difference between opinions based on theory, and experience which is closer to FACT.
I?ve always been one to question what I read. I like to get information for those that have done it already.

BTW that call to Alex was already done some time ago; new cam is in my garage just waiting to be installed.
He really does have a wealth of knowledge and is more then happy to share it.

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastymz:
So it's safe to say that the roller cam will make more power then the flat cam. On mild street car like mine would I see enough difference for the price. And as for how long they last,with again some one like who only drives 2000-3000 miles a year would it be worth it ?
Just trying to get a handle on cost VS gains.

---

You have to have over 250 duration @ .050 to seen any real gains with a solid roller.
Maybe even 260.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHIPSBAD67:
kid, a solid flat on the street? define "street" and if you only gonna run a mild cam anyway, say around .500 lift and around 220 @ .050 give or take then why run a solid anyway? street to me means you play with the car, sunday drives, and if your beater breaks down you could easily drive it to work all summer without a hitch. the solid stuff goes in a car that gets serious track time. ive seen a lot of hydraulic roller cammed cars kick a lot of arse. not for or against any type of cam here, all have their place. maybe i got "street" confused with "daily driver". im not a big fan of debating cam stuff either, too many variables....why am i even here...

---

Thought I'd throw that in. Personally I am going to go to a solid non roller cam in my 289.

B-loose

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bloose:
Another advantage of a roller cam is if you want to do a cam swap you can do it without removing the intake. The lifters just need to be raised and held up so you can pull the cam out (there is a tool for this).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHIPSBAD67:
im not a big fan of debating cam stuff either, too many variables....why am i even here...

---

How do people learn without debating issues like these.

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

For these reasons, hydraulic rollers haven't been too popular with big lift/duration and high rpm applications. They can only be made 'so' aggressive without exceeding their design limits.

For street use under 6k rpm, they work just fine.

My personal favorite for street/strip 289/302's is a solid flat tappet. These offer great valve acceleration without all the hassles of hydraulics. You are not dealing with a lifter pushing on a 'cushion' of oil. When the cam moves, the pushrod and valve moves! They rpm way better than hydraulics as well. Hotrod 289/302's easily rev past the point where hydraulic rollers start to give up.

As far as maintenance is concerned, my car has always seen TONS of use over the summer... and was NOT babied around. When it came out of the garage, it saw redline several times before it was put back! I would adjust the valves once or twice a summer. The second time would usually just be a checkover, with very few adjustments. It's no big deal. Polylock style adjusting nuts don't back off like the old locknuts of the past.

Solid rollers are great for racing when every last little bit counts. BUT, they are extremely hard on the valvetrain, since aggressive ones really YANK the valve off the seat and SLAM it back down. This is very tough on valve jobs and valve guides. Solid roller lifters are also less than 100% reliable with extended use. They need regular checks to make sure their bearings aren't loose and there's nothing wrong. They live in a harsh world, and are not bulletproof. Some say to use a mild solid roller to minimize wear and maximize reliability... Well, then you might as well save your money and purchase a solid flat tappet!

I know, there are exceptions to every rule. Big inch small blocks breathing through limited size heads and valves need as much lift as soon as possible to make maximum power. 400+ci stroked small blocks really seem to like rollers. For most of us, it's not worth the money and hassle to run a solid roller on the street. Others don't mind. Personally, I believe most street/strip engines would benifit more by taking the 'roller' money and spending it to upgrade other parts... like heads, carbs, etc.

Everybody has their own viewpoints... That's just my $0.02

Roller cams when properly set up are not hard on the valve train and do not drop the valve on the seat. Guide wear problems are the result of lubrication problems or poorly aligned valve train components. Valve bounce is caused by inadequate spring pressure. Valve "float" is just a case of runaway bounce. Any type of cam is subject to valve bounce, roller cams because they can use more spring pressure are less prone to valve bounce. The rollers in the tappets will wear out the bearings and need to be rebuilt periodically, I can't say how often because I have never worn any out. If the tappets are breaking, the engine is experiencing valve bounce and needs more spring pressure. If you drop a valve, you need more spring pressure (unless you are running a cleveland with the factory valves).

And I know someone will bring up the "too much spring pressure loses horsepower" argument so I will answer it here. For every lobe that is fighting the spring pressure to open a valve, there is another lobe being pushed closed by the same spring pressure. In a dynamic situation the pressures cancel each other.

To summarize:

Most valve problems are caused by float or bounce which is caused by inadequate pressure.

Roller cams will tolerate high spring pressure with no problems unless they have hydraulic tappets. The hydraulics require well matched springs and you should use the spring recommended by the cam grinder.

Race track cams with any lifter type are not reliable on street cars because of their aggresive lobe profiles. If you are contemplating a street car do not over cam it unless you like to fix it a lot.

That is cam law according to Quinn. Feel free to disagree but I like to think I have learned something in forty five years of racing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:

And I know someone will bring up the "too much spring pressure loses horsepower" argument so I will answer it here. For every lobe that is fighting the spring pressure to open a valve, there is another lobe being pushed closed by the same spring pressure. In a dynamic situation the pressures cancel each other.

---

Sorry, I dis-agree with that. When I put a breaker bar on the front of my motor when it has a flat tappet cam, it turns over a ton easier than when it has a solid roller in it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
Kid when you are using the breaker bar that is a static model not a dynamic one. The pressures are completely different when the crank is spinning.

John

---

Shouldn't have to be a dynamic situation... as there should be just as many valves closing as opening at any one time.

In addition, it should get WORSE as rpm increases. As the engine spins faster and faster, it's the inertia of the valvetrain that works against the cam more than the valve spring pressure. And this inertia is only fighting the cam on the opening side, not the closing event.

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

You can even do this by hand for a short while. It is much harder to start the spinning than it is to keep it spinning.

At high engine speeds if you have enough spring pressure the followers are always in contact with the cam lobes. The only inertia the lifters see is up and down motion. The only things overcoming that inertia so that they can change directions are the springs and the cam lobes. They really dont care about rpms they are only affected by reciprocal forces.

Could have something to do with the Roller lifters and rockers on the big 7500HP, 12 cylinder Wartsilla ship motors we run every day to keep the folks up north warm. The difference can be seen on an anylazing scope just like was posted. Engine harmonics, cam load and vibration all play a big part in eventual HP calcualtions. I suppose you could run a belt drive, BUT a roller cam is less harsh on an engine than a flat tappet, no one could reasonably argue different.
less harsh free's up the motor to make more torque.

Now is it worth the cost, I dunno, like I said that would depend on the cam grind and application. It might not run ANY better, but I can assure you your motor, if properely maintained will show less wear.

When that cam lobe pushes the lifter up, the energy is transfered to the spring through the valve train. Some of the energy is transfered to the valve which causes the valve to open. The rest of the energy is absorbed into the spring and is pushed back down to the cam when the spring closes the valve. If there is more energy than the spring can absorb, you get valve float, the rythm of the valve train is broken and you get some wild harmonic oscillation resulting in broken stuff.

I'm trying to explain all this without using force vector diagrams and a lot of math because I don't know how to draw force vector diagrams with my keyboard and I think math is real boring. I hope this is clear.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
When your starter starts to turn over the engine does it spin faster or slower after the first couple of revolutions.

---

I'm not comparing static to kinetic friction. (it's harder to start something moving than it is to keep it moving)

I'm talking about inertia. (objects at rest tend to remain at rest, objects in motion tend to remain in motion)

The whole valvetrain operated by any lobe consists of a lifter, pushrod, rocker, retainer, valvespring and the valve.

At low rpm, the engine is simply working against spring pressure to open the valve, then the spring pressure helps to close it after the lobe rolls across max lift. picture rolling a bowling ball up and down a small hill

At high rpm, (6000 for example) each valve is opened and closed 50 times per second.
Now we have to accelerate that bowling ball RAPIDLY up and down that hill. The inertia (mass) of the ball becomes much more import than the force of gravity.

The same thing can be applied to the valvetrain. The whole valvetrain needs accelerated at an INCREDIBLE rate. These accelerating forces exceed those of the valvesprings at higher rpm.

Plus, at higher rpm, the valvespring is barely keeping the lifter in contact with the lobe on the closing event, so its energy 'push' is barely felt. It does very little to help the cam rotate.

See where I'm coming from now?

I just added another thought to my post above see if that makes the picture clearer.

Shoving that bowling ball UP the hill is easy when done slowly... but requires an incredible force to do it 1/50th of a second!

At this rate, the spring pressure (gravity) becomes almost insignificant. The inertia becomes the main obstacle to overcome.

I have both solid roller and solid flat tappet. What I am sure about is I won't run a hydraulic cam on any performance engine,

The roller is nice for its lack of cam breakin too. Peace, out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHIPSBAD67:
i just want to say to mike that idea that hyd. cams wont go past 6k even in roller form is a total myth. at this point i will refer you to the guys that race in the nmra and a guy named rick anderson. are agressive hyd. roller cams that will rev. and make power past 8k

---

I didn't say hydraulic cams won't rev past 6k, I said they were not efficient past that point. Anything very far north of 6k, solid lifters start to make a significant difference.

Stock hydraulic lifter mechanisms can be disabled. Yes, they will still be stock (on the outside) but will not have a stock hydraulic action. Modified hydraulic lifters can be made to be effectively solid, and have very little hydraulic character. I'd venture Mr. Anderson's lifters are not 100% stock on the inside.

As for the Beehive valvesprings, David Vizard is the one pushing those. He is the one who wrote the articles in MM&FF. He's a pretty smart guy. That type spring is also used in the Chevy LS1 engine. These springs were originally developed for replacements in these powerplants. I've not tried them, but can see the benefit of having no resonant frequencies (a frequency where the spring will naturally 'twang') and a lighter spring/retainer mass. The new MMFF magazine has some seemingly good spintron data (I believe it was comp's own machine) comparing beehive and standard single and double springs of various stiffness. It's at least pretty good reading. You can take it for what you think its worth. I looked over the article at the news stand, but didn't buy the magazine. I'm not a subscriber. However, I do like to read Vizard articles. They are generally better than most generic magazine crap.

Good Luck!

------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220

If a hydraulic roller cam make power to 8 grand i'd like to see it, in the case of 5.0L hydraulic rollers they are so heavy almost no cam will go much past 6000. You try to maximize power below 6 with those.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
I guess there's one other point I should make about the dynamic forces. As the camshaft lobe spins it contains stored energy. the faster it spins the more energy is stored in the lobe. What it does with this energy is push against the spring and move the lifter up. when it goes past the peak the spring pushes the lifter down and puts energy back into the cam lobe.

---

I agree with this at VERY SLOW ENGINE SPEEDS. Yes, the engine has to work to compress the valve spring (open valve), but then that compressed spring pushes down on the closing ramp of the lobe and actually helps the cam spin back around. There is a lot of friction involved, so it's not exactly 100% efficient, but I get your point.

Here's my point.

Due to inertia, It takes a LOT more force to accelerate something FAST than to move it slowly. (imagine kicking vs. pushing a bowling ball)

At slow engine speeds, the cam lobe is simply working against spring pressure to gently open the valve. At 6000 rpm, that same valve is forced to open and close 50 times per second. The cam has to literally kick the valve open, and hope the valve spring can keep the valvetrain in quasi-contact with lobe during the closing event.

Speaking of quasi-contact on the closing event. At very slow engine speeds, the valve spring is able to exert a lot of force on the closing ramp of the cam lobe, which helps it spin back around. At high speeds, that valve spring is working as hard as it can to keep the valvetrain controlled. There isn't much extra energy left to push back down on the lobe's closing ramp.

Look at a used cam sometime. You'll see the opening ramp will be far more worn than the closing one.

------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHIPSBAD67:
by the way, a guy a comp told me those new beehive springs are junk.

---

You must have been talking to one of the phone monkee's who doesn't know crap. I bet that since the NASCAR guys use them springs on their plate motors, that they aren't junk.
And like Mike said, since David Vizard thinks highly of them, they must not be junk. He is one of the few remaining highly intelligent mag writers left in this country and speaks from personal experiance, not from what he gets paid to say.

I wouldn't take too seriously what the phone monkees at Comp tell you. After all, they told me that a 351 Cleveland had a taller deck height than a 351 Windsor.

gee, you don't suppose that has anything to do with the rpm's the plate engines turn do you. let us know when they start running them in un-restricted engines.

Is it just for the reduction in heat ?

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

TomP, nobody said all the energy is returned to the lobe. There is always energy loss.

I quit, I am not going to hold a class in physics and dynamics. If you want to know more get an engineering degree like I did.

The lifters used on the Anderson cams are unaltered Ford lifters. That is what the rule book calls for and is one of the first things checked. If you don't believe they can rev to 8000 I suggest you go to an NMRA race and talk to some of the Pure street racers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:

I quit, I am not going to hold a class in physics and dynamics. If you want to know more get an engineering degree like I did.

It's been fun
John

---

Don't quit John, I'm just getting ready to move to the front of the class.

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JCQuinn@work:
Mike you are completly missing the point of stored energy. The faster the cam spins the more energy it has to pass on to the spring and the more energy the spring passes back to the cam.

---

The only way a valvespring can help a cam rotate, is by pushing the lifter against the closing ramp of the cam lobe.

At very low rpm, sure, the spring's energy is barely needed to close the valve, and its energy is used to push the lifter down the closing ramp, which helps the cam rotate. (minus friction)

At higher rpm, the spring cannot pass much of its energy back to the cam. The spring has all it can handle in trying to keep the valve from floating. There's not much extra energy left to push back down on the closing ramp of the cam lobe.

Most of the spring's energy is used in closing the valve when the engine is turning at high rpm.

Since you are an engineer, you understand...
Force = Mass x Acceleration
The faster the engine turns, the faster the valve needs accelerated to keep it's lifter in contact with the closing ramp of the cam. This extra acceleration requires more force.

As more and more of the spring's stored energy is used to close the valve, less and less is available to push down on the closing ramp of the cam lobe to help it turn.

------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHIPSBAD67:
jcquinn is right, %100. especially what he says about the hyd. roller cams. i run an anderson cam, i shift just before 7k and the motor isnt falling off after 6k.

---

If the engine is spinning 7k, it would be faster with solid lifters. Heads up racers can employ strategies that are not practical for an engine that sees regular street use. If the lifters are checked, they can still use special camshafts, run zero lifter preload, etc. You won't find too many people who actually choose to run a hydraulic cam at those engine speeds unless it is required by the rules.

quote:

---

you are right that in a higher rpm dynamic situation the cam lobes dont cancel each other out but at higher rpms the loss is almost completely insignificant,

---

Not true. As rpm increases, it gets tougher and tougher to open the valve since it needs accelerated faster and faster off its seat. At the same time, you get less and less help from the vavlespring as more of its energy is going into closing the valve, and not pushing on the closing ramp. The higher the rpm, the more energy it takes to spin the cam. Aggressive solid rollers often require double pinning the timing gear to the cam to avoid shearing. This is far from insignificant.

quote:

---

by the way, why would a comp tech tell me that his own springs were junk?
[/B]

---

They hire the best tech guys $6/hr can buy. The beehive spring is indeed a good design... else they wouldn't be used on the new LS1 engine. Nascar wouldn't be using them either. These are a SINGLE spring that has no natural frequency. (rpm where they naturally 'twang') NASCAR uses some serious cam profiles. If a single beehive valve spring can stand up to their cam profiles at 7k+ rpm for 500 straight wide open miles, they are doing pretty well. To work on their non plate motors, they would have to spin 9k+ rpm, which is a bit too much to ask out of a single spring.

Are beehive springs always needed? No. They work especially well in aggressive hydraulic applications where the spring pressure needed to control the valve at high rpm exceeds the capacity of the hydraulic lifter. Beehive springs significantly reduce the reciprocating mass (weight) of the valvetrain, allowing for the reduced spring pressures. Combine these with titanium valves and retainers... and you have a 'start' at what guys like Anderson are running.

As for the durability (long lasting properties) of Comp's beehive springs, I have no experience, so I cannot give any valid comments, only assumptions... but they are a good design.

------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220

your "kidding" right? they don't even spin their qualifying plate packages that tight.

there you go again, when did i say they were junk? but they are still the first pieces that hit the round file with the serious mod engine builders.

feel free to run a set in your next build.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kid vishus:
Not kidding at all. Gee I guess the guys around here that work on them for a living don't know what they are talking about either.
Since you are the expert, why don't you inform all of us of exactly how tight they do spin thier plate engines. Or, how tight do they spin thier non-plate motors? Maybe they only turn the non plate motors 6500 also?

As for me running those springs, they aren't compatable with solid roller cams that use 250#'s on the seat.

---

hey kid here's a clue, watch the in car shots 2wks form now in Daytona. get back with me after that.

experts, i have seen your fine work. 250" on the seat, so what, what's it at open, oh you say 650" no wonder you need a breaker bar to turn your engine over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by themav:

... your always good for a few laughs at our friday bench sesions

---

And maybe someday you will have a real racecar and not have to bench race with all the ricer boys.

I don't even know what they were badmouthing about... KV didn't rattle anyone's cage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by n2oMike:
Well, it went close to 70 posts before someone came in and started badmouthing...

I don't even know what they were badmouthing about... KV didn't rattle anyone's cage.

---

My dad always says consider the source.

Lots of great info for guys like me. I printed it all out. Thanks for taking to time and hanging in there to all.
Your time and knowledge is never wasted, there are always people learning from it.

Ron

------------------
SCOOP

oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs

2.26 60'S
14.9 @ 90.86MPH

65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc.

My Pics

quote:

---

Originally posted by kid vishus:
Considering the plate motors still turn between 7000-7500

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by themav:
your "kidding" right? they don't even spin their qualifying plate packages that tight.

---

Well, unless things have changed recently I've seen CUP cars hitting just about 9000 rpm on the short tracks and 7000 to 7500 [edit out 8500] on the super speedways....

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here but don't they haft to run the same engine they qualify with or head to the back of the field if they swap out engines?

Yes, they now have to race using the same engine they qualify with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster:
Please tell me more....

---

Here's some more info,

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2002/07/camswap/index.shtml

I thought I would mention one more thing. I have two cousins who both have BBC's. Their motors are basically identicle. One runs a solid roller cam and one a solid flat both of similar specs. The flat is in a '70 Chevelle the Rroller is in a '67 Camaro. The Chevelle runs one to two tenths faster. I know the Camaro can have problems with traction depending on track conditions where the Chevelle is more consistent. I guess the moral to the story here for me is like has been said above. For extracting every needed pony I think a roller cam would be the choice, but for the money it seems like a lot for very little. This is why I'm going to go with a solid flat.

B-loose

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bloose:

Here's some more info,

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2002/07/camswap/index.shtml

B-loose

---

Thanks for the link! I like that idea.... Right now I'm battling a TOO SMALL cam problem.

I made a mistake picking this roller cam, I bought it from a friend because the price was right and I didn't have the piston to valve clearance to run the flat tappet cam I wanted to use, so I gave it a shot anyway.

The right thing to do is remove the pistons and fly cut them. However, I got pissed when I built this engine because there wasn't enough piston to valve clearance, AGAIN.

I have bad luck ordering pistons, you would think a piston manufacture would know a 13.5:1 engine would need piston to valve clearance...especially when they were told the cam spec's. To top it off, this isn't the first time this has happened to me either. It's real nice when you special order JE's and Ross pistons and then need to spend another $125.00 to get them fly cut.