Jeep Strokers

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

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.

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

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

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

Russ, I sent you an email.
Al

bigal389 wrote:Russ, I sent you an email.
Al

Hi Al,

Shoot it to my private email
[email protected]

Thanks!

Sent

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?

jeepxj3 wrote: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

None of the above.

Thanks Russ, that makes more sense now.

IDK what Ryan is beating?

jeepxj3 wrote:IDK what Ryan is beating?

His dead Mustang.

FlyinRyan wrote:None of the above.

??