Page 3 of 3
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: September 24th, 2012, 3:17 pm
by Black00Sahara
Retlaw01XJ wrote:If you are using the stock springs, lift should be limited to 0.450" or so. That limits your cam choices.
Looking at Dino's cam spec page again:
http://www.angelfire.com/my/fan/Jeep4.0Camshafts.htm
The stock '96-'04 cam has intake close at 28 degrees (0.050" lift) and valve overlap of 41.6 degrees ( 'advertised'.... be careful here. Manufactures use different specs for 'advertised' specs, so they may not be directly comparable. They may use lifter rise between 0.002" and 0.006". I prefer to go by specs at 0.050" lifter rise, if given... then you're comparing apples to apples.)
Since your goal is to use stock springs, keep the computer happy (not too much overlap), and a late closing intake valve to lower the Dynamic compression ratio, there are only a few choices:
Isky 133125
202/202 duration (@0.050")
0.450" lift
Intake close at 33 deg (0.050")
112 lobe spacing
32 deg overlap (advertised)
505 Performance 263/265-14H
208/212 duration (@0.050")
0.0427"/ 0.438" lift
Intake close @ 38 deg (0.050")
114 deg lobe separation
36 deg overlap (advertised)
Erson E720112
208/214 duration (@0.050")
0.448"/0.0458" lift
Intake close @ 32 deg (0.050")
112 deg lobe separation
60 deg overlap (huh??, doesn't compute!)
I'm liking the 505 cam for you. Plug that into the compression calculator and see if it makes a difference for you.
Trying that cam in a dyno simulation program would be a good way to compare cams as well. If you can get more detailed info from 505 ( a cam card) we could give you a better comparison.
Another member here , TR1Hemi, posted some pics of his heads with opened up chambers, 68 cc. That might be an option for you to lower your compression.
Wow, thanks. This is great info. I agree, I like the 505 cam. Looks like like I have some good options, looks promising.
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: September 26th, 2012, 2:47 pm
by Black00Sahara
Just spoke with Isky, that cam will work ONLY if I have it custom tuned.
So I called B&G Chrysler and asked if my tune (i had it flashed already) would work and he said no but he would reflash it after I get the new cam installed and give him the fuel trim #'s and the data from the wideband.
My question is, the guys at Isky think it will start but won't idle, how do I obtain the fuel trim #'s to send to B&G if it won't idle? Aren't the important fuel trim #'s taken at idle ?
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: September 27th, 2012, 6:27 am
by dwg86
That Isky cam run fine. It is just a hair over stock. I wouldn't worry about a cam intil you start getting over 215 duration @.050. If you want to go over 215, widen the lobe separation to 114. You can run a narrower lobe separation 108-112 with a smaller duration cam, because the valve overlap is not that great.
That Isky cam is real close to the Mopar performance 30ab cam. I bought one and had it profiled by Reed cams before they went out of business. The Mopar cam had a 108 lobe separation. The Mopar 30ab cam ran fine for those that used it. If I remember correctly the 30ab cam had a 202 duration at .050 with a .453 lift. I have the paper somewhere, I'll find it.
I have posted several times the cam I ran in my stroker, and I'm sure folks that read this this forum are tired of reading about it. It was a custom ground Engle cam. It had 214 duration at .050 with .501 lift on both intake and exhaust. It had a 112 lobe separation, with 3 degree advance ground into the cam. I had no computer problems and it ran great. Here is a small article on lobe separation. There are tons on the internet.
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techa ... e_phasing/
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: October 3rd, 2012, 8:21 am
by showtime3492
my initial plan was to go with a stock cam and roller rockers, now im reconsidering going to a light to medium cam but wanna keep the same valve springs since my head is 100% new.
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: July 23rd, 2013, 2:06 pm
by troy5118
SilverXJ wrote:x2 on the smaller companies. After going through a Comp cam 68-231-4, some Crane, and a Hesco RVOB I went with a custom JCR cam. It is based on the 99+ cam core with wide lobes and the retaining plate. Seat duration is 260*/264*, .050" duration is 204*/208*, lift is .472"/.478". Out of Lunati, Comp, Crane and Isky, JCR was the only one interested in looking for the correct core.
Bringing this from the dead. Who is JCR camshafts? Trying to find a wide lobe supplier..
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: June 5th, 2021, 4:27 pm
by erickuntz
So it sounds like a camshaft with the specs below should have no issue operating with a stock 2001 ECU, correct?
STOCK '87 to '95 CAM SPECS
Valve lift .424/.424
Adv. Dur 270/270
[email protected] 196/196
Int C/L 110.5
LSA 112
Overlap 46
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: June 6th, 2021, 12:26 am
by Cheromaniac
It should work fine but the stock '96-'06 cam specs are different and oriented to producing more low/midrange torque.
https://www.angelfire.com/my/fan/Jeep4.0Camshafts.htm
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: January 21st, 2022, 5:15 pm
by dwg86
troy5118 wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2013, 2:06 pm
SilverXJ wrote:x2 on the smaller companies. After going through a Comp cam 68-231-4, some Crane, and a Hesco RVOB I went with a custom JCR cam. It is based on the 99+ cam core with wide lobes and the retaining plate. Seat duration is 260*/264*, .050" duration is 204*/208*, lift is .472"/.478". Out of Lunati, Comp, Crane and Isky, JCR was the only one interested in looking for the correct core.
Bringing this from the dead. Who is JCR camshafts? Trying to find a wide lobe supplier..
Jones cams I do believe.
http://jonescams.com
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: February 8th, 2022, 8:00 pm
by IH 392
The early 4.0 cam has bigger numbers on paper, but if it's so good why did Chrysler schitcan it in favor of the later cam!??, my dyno simulations show that the late cam is indeed superior to the early cam.
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: February 14th, 2022, 9:56 am
by Tolemar
They had emission constraints especially after getting rid of the egr and smog pump. I believe some emissions was built into the later cams.
Re: Which CAMSHAFT did you use and why....
Posted: February 15th, 2022, 7:41 pm
by Brianj5600
I chose the Comp Cam 163-201-5 because it works with stock springs and should give good low to mid-range torque. It also has a good intake closing event for my static compression.