Jeep Strokers

I talked with the company that said they were going to manufacture the "96 and later" camshafts. They haven't started yet. He said the demand hasn't been enough to make the mold for the cams...cost around $20,000.00, but they have been getting more request, so maybe soon.I wanted to ask more questions but he sounded busy, and hey, I am only a single consumer and not a camshaft company that wants to buy a lot of cores. So i didn't push the issue.
A couple of things I got from our conversation...He said the newer camshafts were a different length, as well as having wider lobes...he has one of each on hand.
A couple of things I dont understand...He said "96 and later". I thought they changed the way the camshaft was retained in the block in 1998(cam plate vs. spring in the end of the cam sproket bolt). But I also thought they changed the bock in 1996, with wider main webs and a main girdle. So maybe with the block change in 96 there was a cam change?...I don't know.
He also said there is only one company in the USA that makes camshafts...CWC. So you would think they would have the original molds or at least the blue prints from the original. So why the extera cost?
He said that there is a company that has the 96 and later camshafts(maybe Melling,not sure). But since there is only one company in USA that makes camshafts...they must be coming from over seas.
Does anyone have any old cams laying around that we can compair and measure? Maybe a 96, 98 or later, and 95 or older. I am curious about the length and where the lobes are positioned.

Just remember how the camshaft length issue came into play. He said they were looking at modifying the way the existing cam was retained in the block to the later style, but the was a differance in length and it wouldn't work. So I am assuming the newer cam is for the 98 and later, and not 96 and later.

Why the extra cost? Very common in the trade that the core box belongs to the customer. Chrysler. If you are making for someone else, you get another core box.
John

Makes sense.

I don't see a need for the later camshaft's retaining method. The spring and pin in bolt worked well for so many years and the conversion just requires the bolt, gear, spring and pin. You are going to need a new timing set anyhow, so the cost isn't that much more. Were there actually problems with that retaining method? I'll take the wider lobes though.

SilverXJ wrote:I don't see a need for the later camshaft's retaining method. The spring and pin in bolt worked well for so many years and the conversion just requires the bolt, gear, spring and pin. You are going to need a new timing set anyhow, so the cost isn't that much more. Were there actually problems with that retaining method? I'll take the wider lobes though.

The cam's that were sent to Roto Faze for evaluation, there was non that were longer then the next.
the main difference was the # 1 cam journal was wider so when the cam plate was installed,(99) the cam couldn't move outwards, and the cam sprocket keeps it from move inward more then a few thousands.

I do agree with Silverxj as the spring and pin has worked vary well for years. the spring and pin have worked for 300,000 on my 89 XJ

Flash.

And they work even better if you shim them to zero clearance against the cover plate. The cover will spring more than enough to live a long life and cam walk is history.
John

How do you do that? Use a longer pin? I would be concerned about the pin eating a hole in the softer aluminum.

Why are you worried about the pin eating a hole through the cover when the factory design has constant pressure against it from the spring. Mine has a rod behind the pin instead of a spring. Set to zero clearance by measuring and then machine rod to size.
John