Roller cam vs. flat tappet vs.$
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Roller cam vs. flat tappet vs.$
Okay i know the that the roller cam reduces friction and can open
the vavlesquickerand stuff but.... lets say I had an identical cam
with the same specs, how much of a differernce would there be?
Horsepower.
torque.
gas mileage.
I want to hear some examples. "if possible"
the vavlesquickerand stuff but.... lets say I had an identical cam
with the same specs, how much of a differernce would there be?
Horsepower.
torque.
gas mileage.
I want to hear some examples. "if possible"
Senior User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
From: nc
Roller cam vs. flat tappet vs.$
i can't answer that question with the info given. i would say that the roller cam has made the 302/5.0 more potent down low as far as torque is concerned. you mentioned the fact that the roller lifter allows for a more radical lobe ramp and opens and closes the valve with a lot of efficiency when compared to the traditional flat tappett. i subscribe to the theory that valve component weight contributes to an engines ability to rev and its durability at elevated rpm. so the best answer in my opinion is that the roller cam will operate more effectively at lower rpm than the flat tappett and will be more crisp in regards to low end throttle response. if it boils down to dollars and you are considering a reduced base circle cam for a early model retro. i would stick with the flat tappett. if i had a roller engine i would not replace the roller cam with a flat tappett cam.
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,903
Likes: 2
From: Copley, OH
Roller cam vs. flat tappet vs.$
The whole point of a roller is to allow the much more agressive ramp angles which in turn allow greater dwell without increasing overlap. If you're not going to get the benefits of a roller, why would you want the added complexity?
just a bigger lift!
