When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I am still wondering about cam selection for my rebuild. I just loaded the data for a Crower 16462, and on the desktop Dyno it looks pretty good. It's a roller, and dual pattern, which should make it a bit better than the Edel Performer Rpm. Anybody know anything about this cam?
Thanx for any info
Tom
Gears... 4.10 rear and 4.09 front. C6, NP 203. Right now open differentials front,and "no-slips" from Power-trax in the rear. Tires to be......35's probably, still looking and figuring. It's a work in progress, if you know what I mean. L2291f30 pistons, deck machined to achieve 0 deck, about .020" removed. .010 under on crank and rod journals. Line honed. Balanced, Harland Sharpe roller tip rockers with "rocker Arm Specialties" stands with end supports. ARP everything. Stans tri-Y headers, the balance of the exhaust to be determined..... probably 2-1/2", maybe with X/H pipe equalizers. Windage tray, HV oil pump, and the Oil mods on everything except oil to the rockers, at this point. Edelbrock performer RPM heads, manifold, carb(750), C.R. at 10.25 +/-
That is one heck of a roller cam. That should run great. Is it a solid or a hyd. cam? I'm glad too see you are beefing up the valvetrain. Have you considered dove roller rockers? They are supposed to be a little better and they are cheaper. Also the dove hardened shafts are priced pretty good also. Stock shafts won't be enough even with the stronger stands and end supports.
Tom, what are the specs for that cam ? Hydralic or solid ? I think most of us would love to have a roller cam, but they are usually rather spendy, and then you need to upgrade the rest of the valvetrain as well. DF
It's a solid lifter that is provided in the accessory pack. Lift .580 in. .582 ex. dur at 0 280 in and 288 exh, LCA 110. I am waiting to talk to Crower to find out more. Their catalog lists hyd rollers but not for the FE. Could Hydraulic roller lifters be used with a cam designed for solid rollers? Crane makes some for the FE, but I don't know if mixing brands is agood idea. What would be involved to convert an FE to solid cam? Steve Christ book talks about converting a 427 but not a 390. I already have the Harlan Sharp rockers, shafts, and Rocker arm specialties stands with end supports, so I think I am okay there. The whole set up from Crower is about 8 bills, which does not seem too bad for a roller setup.
Thanks for any thoughts
Tom
DD shows 500 HP @ 6000 and 497 ft-lbs @ 5000. That's with the Crower cam. I have not figured out how to post the graph like Ratsmoker does.
What do you think about using the Crane hydr roller lifters with the Crower roller cam? Or back to my original question what is involved in converting an FE to solid lifters?
Tom
The opening ram of the solid cam will be "wasted" with the hydraulic lifters. If you set hydraulics with a lash it be difficult to set and inconsistant.
If you compress all the "hydraulic" out and use them as solids the opening ram will increase overlap and degrade idle etc
So FE, your saying a hyd. roller lifter compresses and gives erratic lift with a solid roller cam. I thought hyd. lifters were supposed to funtion in a way that removed the lash. The oil pressure in the lifter causes all the lash to be removed, and then when the lifter started to lift, the check valve in the lifter caused a hydraulic lock that then opens the valve. Are you saying a solid roller cam has a more radical ramp? and therefore will cause the lifter to collapse? Anyway, back to the the other question.... what has to be done to an FE to convert to solid lifters?
Thanx for any info.
Tom
>So FE, your saying a hyd. roller lifter compresses and gives
>erratic lift with a solid roller cam.
No more than normal hydraulics.
It would be the last setting that is troublesome to get correct
I thought hyd. lifters
>were supposed to funtion in a way that removed the lash. The
>oil pressure in the lifter causes all the lash to be
>removed, and then when the lifter started to lift, the check
>valve in the lifter caused a hydraulic lock that then opens
>the valve.
Yep, you could remove the innards to create a solid lifter
Are you saying a solid roller cam has a more
>radical ramp?
No softer to take up the lash
and therefore will cause the lifter to
>collapse? Anyway, back to the the other question.... what
>has to be done to an FE to convert to solid lifters?
Interesting..... Okay so I have adjustable rockers, and will have to purchase the right length pushrods. There are no other mods needed to use the solid lifters? I thought you had to block off oil passages to the lifters to convert to solids. I believe Steve Christ talks about this in his book, but he is talking about the 427. Are you saying all that is needed to use the Crower 16462 roller cam is to use their solid lifters? Sounds too easy. Let me know your thoughts.
Tom
>FE, so are you saying that if I tighten my lifters to about
>.020 lash (compressed) it will give better performance??
NO.
(Do you have a solid cam under you lifters ?)
But your valve train would be noise like a solid cam - sound counts for something ?
Though you will have no "pump up" if you happen to float the valves.
A few thou preload (and the right springs) is the best way to cope with pump up though
Hydraulic cams have virtually no opening ram as there is no lash to take up.
Setting hydraulics to a specific lash ( to use on a solid) is challenging.
corretly set hydraulics on a solid just idle poorly
>Interesting..... Okay so I have adjustable rockers, and will
>have to purchase the right length pushrods. There are no
>other mods needed to use the solid lifters?
There are thing you could do but only if the engine was apart.
I thought you
>had to block off oil passages to the lifters to convert to
>solids.
FE lifters are not flow thru to rocker type lifters so there isnt much difference. I still like to see the lifters lubed any way. And being rollers id actually advice against restricting oil to the lifters.
I believe Steve Christ talks about this in his book,
>but he is talking about the 427.
I would suggest that when you see 427 you read it as:
"any FE that may need to turn 6500+ rpm"
Are you saying all that is
>needed to use the Crower 16462 roller cam is to use their
>solid lifters? Sounds too easy.
as long as the rest of the valve train is up to it