Jeep Strokers

I'm almost ready to start ordering stuff. Just caught up on the head. The price of Russes "big valve head" parts plus the machining on the old head flirts with $600 without any porting. Clegg sells a ported head with the large valves for $650. The biggest benefit I see with the Clegg head is it lowers the chance of any sort of mess up. On the other hand, if I had my machinest rebuild the head with all stock parts I'm out the door at $250 and I can do some bowl blending and port matching myself

Cheromaniac wrote:
Probably the 68-232-4 cam which is a good all rounder. The cam in my rockcrawler combo is more of an "RV" cam biased towards producing more low rev torque (especially off idle) and less HP.

From other threads I've read this cam works well with stock Springs?

The more I read the more I am inclined to just port match bowl blend and polish a stock valve 7120 head, it seems to be a popular move.

Stock valve springs are only good to 0.440"-0.450" valve lift.
Comp 232 cam has more lift than that.

Hussler wrote:

Cheromaniac wrote:
Probably the 68-232-4 cam which is a good all rounder. The cam in my rockcrawler combo is more of an "RV" cam biased towards producing more low rev torque (especially off idle) and less HP.

From other threads I've read this cam works well with stock Springs?

The stock springs would be OK for breaking in the new cam/lifters but I wouldn't use them long-term.
As for head porting, pocket porting yields the best results for the least effort so I suggest you read up on that before you embark on the exercise.

jeepxj3 wrote:Stock valve springs are only good to 0.440"-0.450" valve lift.
Comp 232 cam has more lift than that.

The Comp Cam 68-232-4 cam has a gross exhaust valve lift of .476
Installing it at 1.640 it'll be .060 from coil bind. Nothing wrong with that if set up properly.

That said, it's the most lift the OEM Spring can safely take. At the cost of $42.00 I'd put new springs on.

Russ Pottenger wrote:

jeepxj3 wrote:Stock valve springs are only good to 0.440"-0.450" valve lift.
Comp 232 cam has more lift than that.

The Comp Cam 68-232-4 cam has a gross exhaust valve lift of .476
Installing it at 1.640 it'll be .060 from coil bind. Nothing wrong with that if set up properly.

That said, it's the most lift the OEM Spring can safely take. At the cost of $42.00 I'd put new springs on.

Is there an option for upgraded Springs on the stock valve setup? My machinest said he could cut down the valve seats for about $150.

Russ Pottenger wrote:

jeepxj3 wrote:Stock valve springs are only good to 0.440"-0.450" valve lift.
Comp 232 cam has more lift than that.

The Comp Cam 68-232-4 cam has a gross exhaust valve lift of .476
Installing it at 1.640 it'll be .060 from coil bind. Nothing wrong with that if set up properly.

That said, it's the most lift the OEM Spring can safely take. At the cost of $42.00 I'd put new springs on.

Russ, I was close to your figures, but calculated the Comp cam is only 0.043" from coil bind with '01 stock springs.

Measured my stock 2001 springs... compressed in a vise, they coil bind (solid) at 1.121".
With an installed height of 1.64" , that leaves 0.519"..... subtract the 0.060" safety margin, and they should be good for 0.459" lift.
I don't know what the spring pressure is at that lift.
I'm running a Crower 44243 cam spec'd at 0.437"/0.445" lift. Stock springs work fine for me.

I'm just throwing my numbers to you to add to your pool of info.

Interesting. My stock replacement springs coil bind 1.100 to 1.105
Although I've never reused a stock valve spring on a stroker build,
It should definitely be checked and verified.

I've been deliberating a lot on this, more so than any other project in my Jeep. I think I'm going to get the Clegg stage 2 head. Has anybody here dealt with them?

Sounded knowledgeable over the phone, uses stainless LS valves, cuts the spring pockets for larger springs, ports and polishes.

The rest of the part ordering really relys on the head

Got the head ordered but decided to wait on the Pistons until they cc the head.

Going to the junkyard tomorrow to pick up a block. There's a '99 xj there that looked pretty nice. The 96+ blocks have more webbing correct?

Do the 96-99 blocks have trouble accepting the older style cam?

Going tomorrow to pick one up

Hussler wrote:Do the 96-99 blocks have trouble accepting the older style cam?

Going tomorrow to pick one up

The older style cam was still used up to '98. If you get a '99 block that has the newer style cam, you could consider keeping it as it's very good for low/medium rpm torque production. If you're still set on an aftermarket cam, you'll need the earlier style recessed cam bolt with spring, pin and washer. You'll also need either a '94-'98 OEM timing set or an aftermarket dual roller.

Why would I need a 94-98 timing set? What's the difference between that set and the older years? Like 92? How could a cloyes double roller that fits 1986 to 1998 work but not a regular link belt from older years? Just curious

Hussler wrote:Why would I need a 94-98 timing set? What's the difference between that set and the older years? Like 92? How could a cloyes double roller that fits 1986 to 1998 work but not a regular link belt from older years? Just curious

The '94-'98 timing set has beefier sprockets than the '87-'93 with a silent link chain that's stronger and less prone to stretching than the single roller used earlier. Yes, the '87-'93 OEM timing set would indeed work in a later block but why use an inferior product?

Just curious, a lot of different part number timing chains pop up for different year jeeps.