Jeep Strokers

I can tell you the LAST thing I am going to do is put more oil leaks inside my engine.
Just my opinion, but if 4 million engines left the factory with out it...I don't need it.

And how many cam failures have there been because of oil issues? Extra oil on the cam is a good thing, especially at low rpm where the oil isn't getting thrown around. And with all the research I have done on this I haven't heard of anyone complaining about low oil pressure from the grooves. Same theory as using an EDM in a solid lifter or the Cam Saver lifters.

TurboTom wrote:I can tell you the LAST thing I am going to do is put more oil leaks inside my engine.
Just my opinion, but if 4 million engines left the factory with out it...I don't need it.

Keep in mind that the 4 million engines that left the factory have a max rpm of 5200, made for soccer moms who would probably never rev it past 4k, the valve springs aren't very strong and none of them had a turbo.

IIRC one of the ford V6 engines came from the factory with lifters that were ground on the side to improve oiling to the lifter surface. I haven't seen one yet buy my boss said that it looked like they were done on a bench grinder, but they worked.

~Alex

Not only that but if you take that line of logic.. why do you need a turbo, stroker, roller rockers, roller cam, or a belt timing drive for that matter?

SilverXJ wrote:... why do you need a turbo, stroker, roller rockers, roller cam, or a belt timing drive for that matter?

Great, now my life has no direction.

seanyb505 wrote:

SilverXJ wrote:... why do you need a turbo, stroker, roller rockers, roller cam, or a belt timing drive for that matter?

Great, now my life has no direction.

Its Ok, I don't have a good reason for building my stroker either, except for the fact that I work in an automotive machine shop and I can.

~Alex

remember sometimes he posts after drinking

Did cams fail because of oil issues or oiling issues?
How many factory cams gave up in these engines? If there was an inherent problem with the cam oiling system, then how did any of these engines make it past 100,000 miles?
Or were the only problems with aftermarket cams, lifters?
Some failures were due to incorrect rod bearings.
Many cam failures in the last few years for all kinds of flat tappet engines has been linked to lower zink content in newer oils.
Turbo's , strokers, cams and belt drives are to make more power. So I am not sure what the 2 have to do with each other.
Hey it's your engine build it the way you want. I just said it was the last thing "I" would do.

Hey I said it was my opinion.

( This was an alcohol free post )

TurboTom wrote:Did cams fail because of oil issues or oiling issues?
How many factory cams gave up in these engines? If there was an inherent problem with the cam oiling system, then how did any of these engines make it past 100,000 miles?
Or were the only problems with aftermarket cams, lifters?
Some failures were due to incorrect rod bearings.

Factory cams are 1) less aggressive than after market cams, 2) have a wider lobes, 3) don't require high spring pressures. So perhaps that is why they survive better than after market ones with current oil. Despite that I have seen a few factory cams that have bit it. Besides more to the cam = good.

Turbo's , strokers, cams and belt drives are to make more power. So I am not sure what the 2 have to do with each other.

It has to do with this:

Just my opinion, but if 4 million engines left the factory with out it...I don't need it.

Most of the stuff on this site never came from the factory. Did your turbo?

Of course my turbo did not come from the factory. My "I don't need it " statement only applied to the subject at hand.
All I am saying is that the factory system is not suspect in my mind.
No matter how much oil you flood the cam with, if the oil will not take the load or the cam and lifters are not at similar rockwell hardness it will fail.
I don't think anyone here is running "high" spring pressures, higher yes but high (as compared to other racing flat tappet engines) No.
Once again, build your engine however you want.

I was planning on putting the groove on the passenger side of the block because that is the point to oil the cam lobe before it hits the lifter. However it seems like it would be easier to just to as the instructions say and put the groove on the driver side, right under the oil galley hole. my only concern with that is that it is when the lobe exits the lifter, so it might not be as effective as the previous place. However, would the oil 'stick" to the cam, especially during low RPMs?

TurboTom wrote:Of course my turbo did not come from the factory. My "I don't need it " statement only applied to the subject at hand.
All I am saying is that the factory system is not suspect in my mind.
No matter how much oil you flood the cam with, if the oil will not take the load or the cam and lifters are not at similar rockwell hardness it will fail.
I don't think anyone here is running "high" spring pressures, higher yes but high (as compared to other racing flat tappet engines) No.
Once again, build your engine however you want.

Having torn down something like 6-7 4.0's and over a dozen 258's I can tell you the amount that had a good looking Cam and set of lifters can be counted on one hand. SilverXJ will tell you, he carted away one of my tear downs that still had the factory cam in it and it had a lobe wiped out. I have a just broke in HESCO RVOB with a nubby lobe out of the 258 in my Avatar, the cam the RVOB replaced was a 40k OEM piece that mic'ed out much smaller than it was supposed to be I forget the number but it was surprising at the time (back in those days I used any oil and paid no attention to ZDDP). The factory cam that came out of what became my XJ's stroker was also under the factory spec, and had rounded shoulders and pitting at 160k. I don't think the oiling/ZDDP thing is ONLY a long term reliability issue.

We know "Higher" spring pressures require more ZDDP than stock spring pressures. However there's already not enough ZDDP in current oils for most stock spec pressures. Not just crazy high lift racing spring rates.

In my ZDDP related internet wanderings I have found at least two SAE papers that DIRECTLY measured metal wear rates (via PPM of valve train metals) and found that even moderate increases in spring rates (less than 100lbs) without an increase in ZDDP dramatically increased wear metal levels in the oil. Spring pressures that most of us would consider "mild performance" or "street and strip" made the ZDDP "sweet spot" go from 10% for stock pressures, to 12% for pressures around 300lbs (If I remember correctly it was less than 300lbs). As an aside more ZDDP over that required for the spring pressure didn't decrease wear metals past a certain "sweet spot". But ZDDP levels just under the sweet spot, increased wear significantly. In other words, when 10% was good enough, 12% didn't help any, but 7-8% tore the cam a new ass****

Putting more oil on your cam should in effect increase the ZDDP that gets deposited on the lobe forming the sacrificial EP layer. Among other things like lowering the peak temps of the cam and lifter's EP surfaces. Sure the same PPM of ZDDP is in the Oil, but if more of it is run through the lobe/lifter interface per revolution more of it should get a chance to get crushed down onto the lobe or lifter shoe surfaces. I would submit that EDM hole lifters, and grooved lifters and bores in the aftermarket and even the OEM's is all the proof anyone needs that extra oiling can be beneficial in a general sense. Is it a benefit specifically for the 4.0? I've no proof but I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence.

I guess the reason to do this is exactly the same as the reason to put a Turbo on your 4.0... to improve and upgrade our engines and get more out of them be it power or reliability.

1bolt wrote:

TurboTom wrote:Of course my turbo did not come from the factory. My "I don't need it " statement only applied to the subject at hand.
All I am saying is that the factory system is not suspect in my mind.
No matter how much oil you flood the cam with, if the oil will not take the load or the cam and lifters are not at similar rockwell hardness it will fail.
I don't think anyone here is running "high" spring pressures, higher yes but high (as compared to other racing flat tappet engines) No.
Once again, build your engine however you want.

Having torn down something like 6-7 4.0's and over a dozen 258's I can tell you the amount that had a good looking Cam and set of lifters can be counted on one hand. SilverXJ will tell you, he carted away one of my tear downs that still had the factory cam in it and it had a lobe wiped out. I have a just broke in HESCO RVOB with a nubby lobe out of the 258 in my Avatar, the cam the RVOB replaced was a 40k OEM piece that mic'ed out much smaller than it was supposed to be I forget the number but it was surprising at the time (back in those days I used any oil and paid no attention to ZDDP). The factory cam that came out of what became my XJ's stroker was also under the factory spec, and had rounded shoulders and pitting at 160k. I don't think the oiling/ZDDP thing is ONLY a long term reliability issue.

We know "Higher" spring pressures require more ZDDP than stock spring pressures. However there's already not enough ZDDP in current oils for most stock spec pressures. Not just crazy high lift racing spring rates.

In my ZDDP related internet wanderings I have found at least two SAE papers that DIRECTLY measured metal wear rates (via PPM of valve train metals) and found that even moderate increases in spring rates (less than 100lbs) without an increase in ZDDP dramatically increased wear metal levels in the oil. Spring pressures that most of us would consider "mild performance" or "street and strip" made the ZDDP "sweet spot" go from 10% for stock pressures, to 12% for pressures around 300lbs (If I remember correctly it was less than 300lbs). As an aside more ZDDP over that required for the spring pressure didn't decrease wear metals past a certain "sweet spot". But ZDDP levels just under the sweet spot, increased wear significantly. In other words, when 10% was good enough, 12% didn't help any, but 7-8% tore the cam a new ass****

Putting more oil on your cam should in effect increase the ZDDP that gets deposited on the lobe forming the sacrificial EP layer. Among other things like lowering the peak temps of the cam and lifter's EP surfaces. Sure the same PPM of ZDDP is in the Oil, but if more of it is run through the lobe/lifter interface per revolution more of it should get a chance to get crushed down onto the lobe or lifter shoe surfaces. I would submit that EDM hole lifters, and grooved lifters and bores in the aftermarket and even the OEM's is all the proof anyone needs that extra oiling can be beneficial in a general sense. Is it a benefit specifically for the 4.0? I've no proof but I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence.

I guess the reason to do this is exactly the same as the reason to put a Turbo on your 4.0... to improve and upgrade our engines and get more out of them be it power or reliability.

I couldn't agree more!!!!!!
and that last paragraph is priceless

Flash.

I also have a dead stock cam in my garage from a 2002 TJ with 40,000 miles on it.

So.. err.. what about the position of the groove?

SilverXJ wrote:I also have a dead stock cam in my garage from a 2002 TJ with 40,000 miles on it.

So.. err.. what about the position of the groove?

Sorry, guess we got a little off track there...........I thing you should put the groove were the manufacture sugests...............They chose that position for a reason.......that we may not understand......at this time.

Flash