Mopar Cam

[bigal389]

Yeah for some reason I had 62cc chambers in my head but I went back through my notes and they were 58.5 with .005 out of the hole and a .043 head gasket. That puts me at 9.4 and 7.54 taking the advance out of the cam

[IH 392]

I lost all of my dyno simulations when my old computer crashed but IIRC? the OBD II cam is a little bigger than either the 228 or 229 cam?
I wish they'd bring back the 230 cam, I just missed out on them right before I started piling up my parts.

[Cheromaniac]

A stock '96-'04 cam, or its Melling MC1376 or MC1377 equivalent, would work great with 1.7 ratio roller rockers in a mild stroker. With the valve lift at 0.433"/0.440" you'd still be able to use the stock valve springs. It wouldn't be a high HP motor but low/medium rpm torque would be phenomenal.
Here's my cam spreadsheet to help you make new dyno simulations:

http://www.angelfire.com/my/fan/Jeep4.0Camshafts.htm

[bigal389]

Yeah I have the 04 cam with stock rockers in mine and it is very torquey down low. But I've either have a bad lifter or have wiped a lobe out. That's why I'm researching cams again. I still have stock valve springs. I may just try a different model stock cam or just replace it with another 96-04 cam. It's a daily driver that sees 2300 rpm mostly at my normal route to work with light wheeling. What do y'all think?
Al

[Russ Pottenger]

For whatever it's worth, my camshaft choice is one that Comp builds for me based off the 68-232-4 grind.
Duration @.050 206 212 In .435 Ex .448 113° lobe separation angle.

With the reduced lift it works great for a mild Stroker utilizing a stock valve spring.

Don't hesitate to shoot me a PM or email if I can help you out in anyway.

Russ

[bigal389]

Russ, I sent you an email.
Al

[Russ Pottenger]

Russ, I sent you an email.
Al

Hi Al,

Shoot it to my private email
[email protected]

Thanks!

[bigal389]

Sent

[jeepxj3]

Interesting that Russ's '232' cam uses less lift than Comp grinds on their boxed 232 cam. 0.435"/0.448" vs 0.460"/0.476".

Russ do you also use a cam with more lift? Ever?

[Russ Pottenger]

Interesting that Russ's '232' cam uses less lift than Comp grinds on their boxed 232 cam. 0.435"/0.448" vs 0.460"/0.476".

Russ do you also use a cam with more lift? Ever?

I believe you misunderstood me.

The Comp 68-232-4 cam has a intake lift of .460 and exhaust of .476. It's the most popular camshaft that I sell.
The only problem with that camshaft is with a stock valve spring at full left you'll be about .060 from coil bind, but that's about as close as you want to get
In one of my own personal stroker's I have this camshaft with stock springs, but I was real careful in setting up the installed spring height.

To allow this camshaft to be used in a more customer friendly manner, I had Comp reduce the lift to .435 .448
for applications were customers didn't want to change out the valve springs but we're still looking for a camshaft upgrade, and wanted something that was better than stock.

As of today I haven't run a camshaft with more than a net
lift of .550, and the main reason is primarily the valve spring.

Hope this clears up any confusion

[FlyinRyan]

None of the above.

[jeepxj3]

Thanks Russ, that makes more sense now.

IDK what Ryan is beating?

[Cheromaniac]

IDK what Ryan is beating?

His dead Mustang.

[Russ Pottenger]

None of the above.

??