99+ cam

[biscuit]

i have searched and searched. ive learned what i can. it appears cam options for the 99+ wj are limited.

seems the choices are...

stock. custom grind. or <98 cam and ditch the plate for the spring/bolt/older Timing cover.

am i missing something?


given the choices... here is the build i am working on.

2002 WJ threw a rod so it is the block to be used
3.095 Bore
3.895 stroke (long snout 258 crank)
5.875 Rods (258 rods)
62cc chambers -russ pottenger P&P with ls valves on an 0331 Tupy head.
22cc 2229 pistons, again thanks russ
.0 deck with .043 victor gasket
99+ intake boring out inlet to 62mm match porting to head thanks again russ
stock manifold for cam break in, header later.
62mm bored TB
24# ford injectors (help me out on this one...)


plan to groove the lifter bores to help on the cam break in/
balanced rotating assembly

the above machine work calculates to

SCR 9.27 DCR 8.02 DCR@ 515' 7.92 quench .043 that is the stock cam

i really like the wide lobe cam, and jonescams has the blanks. $325 is painful

i want to run stock springs on the big valve PnP head. so if i am looking at a custom grind, the options are wide open.

russ is reccomending a comp 68-231-4 with a LSA of 113 the shelf cam is LSA 111.

max lift on stock springs 99+ is .450 or is it .500?

any help much appreciated. this is a DD and will rarely go over 4000, so the lower broader band is preferred. Hoping to run 87 octane, but i know i may have to run mid. which puts me back at the 111LSA. basically a 29AC purple mopar in a 99+??

[jsawduste]

If Russ is making a recommendation of the comp 68-231-4 why second guess him ? He knows his stuff.

The wide lobes are nice and so is the retainer plate. Not enough to loose sleep over, however. I`ll trade you a double chain instead of a retainer plate.

There is no reason to worry about the "narrow" lobes if the rest of the valve train is set up properly. Reasonable spring pressure and correct length pushrods/rocker arm geometry. Don`t skimp and use import lifters.

Plenty of SBC/SBF running the "narrow" lobes and they seem to be working ok.

By your own account this engine is going to see mild use. Plenty of other engines running a spring and pin with narrow lobes that are used just the opposite of your intentions.

[Cheromaniac]

i really like the wide lobe cam, and jonescams has the blanks. $325 is painful

i want to run stock springs on the big valve PnP head. so if i am looking at a custom grind, the options are wide open.

russ is reccomending a comp 68-231-4 with a LSA of 113 the shelf cam is LSA 111.

max lift on stock springs 99+ is .450 or is it .500?

any help much appreciated. this is a DD and will rarely go over 4000, so the lower broader band is preferred. Hoping to run 87 octane, but i know i may have to run mid. which puts me back at the 111LSA. basically a 29AC purple mopar in a 99+??

If you're rarely going to take the engine past 4000rpm, why go for the big valve PnP head and yet request a mild cam (or stock cam) with stock valve springs? That doesn't make sense.
A mildly ported stock valve head would do fine if you're going to reuse your stock cam/springs. With the recipe we discussed earlier you'll have no problem running 87 octane.
If you go for the big valve PnP head, you'd be better advised following Russ' recommendation for a 231 cam with a 113* LSA, upgraded valve springs, dual roller timing set, and the recessed cam bolt/spring/pin. This will be a higher performance build and naturally it'll cost more. You'd probably find yourself running it on midgrade fuel too.
BTW, maximum recommended valve lift on stock valve springs is 0.430".

[biscuit]

Ok, so i'll get the cam. and frequently take it to 4500 rpm.

jones cams has the wider lobe .67" which is about above stock width. im a big fan of that. bouncing the info over to russ, they suggested a custom grind. said they wont copy a 68-231-4. here is what they came up with.

Here's what I recommend.
Cam# 4.0L Jeep, H67300-69310-112
210/220 @ .050"
.300"/.310" Lobe Lift
.480"/.496" Valve Lift w/1.6 rockers
112 LSA
Price: $249.69

i trust russ and his experience. i just cant help but try to get a good grind in a retainer plate design with the wider lobes/gear. i know the narrower blanks are running fine everywhere. i know there was a cam plague. i know i gotta break it in properly. i know i gotta keep my zddp up. but.... the wider lobes saw no such plague. the wider lobes go for 200k+ miles. logically they have less psi on the contact. maybe they spin the lifters better and reduce wear. the mopar engineers made a choice on width. i'm actually feeling like a d!@k not just going with what russ recommends. but if i can get a wide lobe retainer style grind on what russ reccomends, i don't think i will need to nitride the cam. if i did the narrow lobe, i would feel the need to spend an extra $100 to nitride the comp cam. i.e, the jones cam may be a little cheaper and wider (stock width). my engine anlyizer pro is past demo. so i cant plug this cam in. however, the specs jones gave looks close to a com 68-235-4.

and as for my on this. i am doing my due diligence, and learning. I'm not trying to be smarter than the well experienced. but bouncing this info across the board is how i got this far. its how i realized how for a couple hundred bucks more, i could make my $3000 investment worth it. i.e. buck up for the cam and open up what i have been planning.

so. i guess im going to cam it up... run it like i stole it.... blast my rear end and tranny at some point? and also, this thing will see idle, a fair amount of it. thats why i want to groove my lifters and get the cam right. in my area, the o'l autostart in the winter is great. its great in the hot summer too. plus being that i do construction in the field, this thing will see idle which i know is bad. my 4.0 has 256k on it. and it still runs. its tired, but it runs.


btw, i really do search the hell out of the forums, other sites, books, beers, ect.
thanks in advance.

[CandyCaneXj]

Hughes engines also make custom wide lobe cams for the 4.0. I have not seen anyone mention hughes cams on this forum yet perhaps no one knows about them?? Here is an article on why the wide lobe cams are so much better. They have alot of useful tech articles on their site. http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticl ... stions.php

[jeepxj3]

I don't see any Jeep Cams on Hughes site.

[CandyCaneXj]

It's custom order only. They say they make them as advertised on the home page of their website. "1/27/2015: Good news; Good news! We can now supply camshafts for the following engines. Slant 6 mechanical cams, 392 Hemi hydraulic and mechanical, 331/354 Hemi hydraulic and mechanical, AMC V8, Jeep straight 6, Jeep 4.0L But wait, we’re not done yet…. What do all of these cams have in common? If you guessed .904” lifters then you’re a winner! All of these cams will be ground with our .904” “Real” Chrysler lobes to help make you a winner. These cams will be available on a custom order basis. Call with details of your combination and we will help you build a winner. 309-745-9558" I emailed them to double check and yes they do.

[biscuit]

Had a brief conversation with dave at hughes engines. Thanks candycanexj. the overall price is higher, but check out their site/logic. However, it seems they reccomend their springs. and keepers. fyi, the cam is $199ish add the springs and locks $94/$48. and the overall is about $350.00 just for the valvetrain parts. and i have yet to figure out what it will do to stock pushrods. still looking into things.

Installed Height/Pressure: 1.660"--120#
Pressure @ .450" lift: 280#
Pressure @ .500" lift: 300#
Pressure @ .550" lift: 310#
Coil Bind: .620" lift
Outer Spring ID/OD: 1.033"/1.440"
Type of Spring:Single w/ damper

for those wanting the wider lobes, jonescams and hughes engines do have them. jonescams has the later model blanks for retainer plate design. i have to get more info to/from dave at hughes. but it seems hughes is mopar performance oriented. they seem knowledgeable about how to get the most out of the design.

the spring diameter is considerably larger than stock. looks like I'm back to bugging russ about this find.

[jsawduste]

Wide lobes or not. That is more spring pressure then you want.

[biscuit]

im thinking its excessive also. plus too wide i think. that is why i still gotta consult russ. i just put up some of the info they recommended. good to see some options for stock width lobes. as the thread started, i saw very few options. at least i am able to find a wide lobe on a newer cam design. however, with the low demand of this, the price is naturally higher. im thinking of having russ determine the grind. he's helped determine most everything else.

both cam companies have suggested a slightly different grind. russ reccomends the 68-231-4 on a 113LSA as i have stated. every time i bounce back mfg cam suggestion, i here russ say.... uh hu.... so, i think i just gotta get what russ suggests. ground on a newer style blank, with the wider lobes. after all, russ knows what works, and what i am building. mfg will grind anything?

[SilverXJ]

It's custom order only. They say they make them as advertised on the home page of their website. "1/27/2015: Good news; Good news! We can now supply camshafts for the following engines. Slant 6 mechanical cams, 392 Hemi hydraulic and mechanical, 331/354 Hemi hydraulic and mechanical, AMC V8, Jeep straight 6, Jeep 4.0L But wait, we’re not done yet…. What do all of these cams have in common? If you guessed .904” lifters then you’re a winner! All of these cams will be ground with our .904” “Real” Chrysler lobes to help make you a winner. These cams will be available on a custom order basis. Call with details of your combination and we will help you build a winner. 309-745-9558" I emailed them to double check and yes they do.

I see no indication on their site nor in what you posted that they use a wider cam lobe. "Real Chrysler lobes" does not mean a wider lobe. It means a faster ramp rate to get the valve open fully sooner and stay full open longer. This is an advantage of using a wide Mopar lifter, not the lobe it self. This is nothing new and most any cam manufacturer does this.

[CandyCaneXj]

Yes Hughes engines makes wide lobe camshafts for our engines. I just called them...lobe width is .67. That's what "real Chrysler lobes" mean. Wide lobes. Ramp rate is much faster on these because the wide lobes are stronger and can handle it. All this was explained in the first link I posted. They can most likely make you any cam you want! anyone who likes the specs of all the other narrow lobes out there should just call Hughes and have that same cam made with the wide lobes. $100-$200 more for a more durable and/or faster ramp rate for more power is definitely worth it. Why run a narrow lobe cam made for Chevy lifters when you have Chrysler lifters. My 2 cents

[SilverXJ]

Yes Hughes engines makes wide lobe camshafts for our engines. I just called them...lobe width is .67. That's what "real Chrysler lobes" mean.

No that is not what "real chrysler lobes" mean" It means lobes that have a profile to take advantage of the wire diameter lifter. However, that .67" is a wide lobe. Once you understand why the larger diameter lifter matters then you will under stand what makes the Mopar profile different and has little to do with the width of the lobe.

Wide lobes. Ramp rate is much faster on these because the wide lobes are stronger and can handle it.

Incorrect. A fast ramp rate cam be accomplished on a narrow lobe cam as other cam manufactures (which Hughes is not) have done for years.

All this was explained in the first link I posted.

The link to Hughes you provide mentions nothing of wide lobes. It makes mention of the wider lifter.

However, grinding a profile to take advantage of the Mopar lifter is nothing new. Many cam companies do that including Jones, lunati, ultradyne, etc. This is from Ultradyne: http://www.bigblockmopar.nl/tech/ultradyne-cam-specs/

[ngrover]

"real chrysler lobes" ... means lobes that have a profile to take advantage of the wire diameter lifter.

I'm an engine noob and I find this convo interesting. I had to think about this for a bit but I *think* I've wrapped my head around it. My understanding is that the larger diameter lifter will allow more duration ("travel time") of the cam lobe against the lifter. More duration can be combined with a fast ramp rate to get the valve open as fast as possible and as long as possible, and possibly more lift?

[Torqsplit]

Biscuit, if you foresee extended periods of idling with your stroker, take an honest look at the power levels you really want vs reliability in your cam choice. Reading over your posts on how you expect to use the engine the majority of the time, I would offer a recommendation to try and keep it in line with a milder build. *I don't mean to contradict any advice you've been given by others on the site, or those you've enlisted to build your engine.* Oil-sling to the cam is your friend on these engines, and its minimal @ idle rpm. Higher lift cams wont do you any favors in regard to extended idle reliability. Something closer to stock lift levels might do you favors in the long-run. Idling is less of an issue once the oil is up to temp, but not so healthy on a cold engine where oil circulation & lubricity are reduced. Even though the 4.0's put up with it without a fuss, I would be cautious. Only my 2-cents. Good luck on your build and your search for optimal components & peace of mind.