Jeep Strokers

I was just wondering how people liked the 229 cam compared to their stock? Was there a huge difference? I also live in California and was wondering how much this cam will affect smog?

I'm kind torn between this and 91-95 cam, also the 96 cam sort of. Is the 229 and the 96 cam almost similar? Thanks.

Talk to Russ Pottenger.

He and I have talked at length on cams for California smog machines. Hauk`s Edlebrock engine had a Comp in it and if Hauk ever had any problems smogging it we would have heard.

optmaxx wrote:I'm kind torn between this and 91-95 cam, also the 96 cam sort of. Is the 229 and the 96 cam almost similar? Thanks.

All of those cams will pass CA smog emissions. Yes, the 229 and '96 cams do perform similarly with very good low rev torque characteristics and both are tapped out by 4400rpm. The '91-'95 cam (which I have in my stroker) is still strong at low rpm but pulls to about 300rpm higher up the rpm scale than the '96+ cam and offers a wider power band.

Thanks guys. I was looking at cam specs and trying my best to understand them when I think I noticed something about the milling MC809 cam, which is the replacement for the stock 91-95 4.0 cam. I know that the the cam for those jeeps is -8 retarded, and I'm not sure, but the way to figure that out is to subtract the LSA from the ICA? For example the LSA for the stock 91-95 cam is 112 and the ICA is 120 which comes to -8 deg? Am I wrong? Anyways, those numbers are different for the MC809. The LSA is 112, but the ICA is 110.5, does that mean that the MC809 is advanced 1.5, and not retarded -8 deg? Let me know if I'm wrong and how that will affect my build, I mean I know it will raise my DCR, but not over 7.5 which isn't a bad thing, but is that good for this grind?

I just noticed that those specs are the same for the Renix Jeeps that have egr valves to prevent pinging, but 91-95 Jeeps don't have egr valves, interesting. i guess it shouldn't be a big deal since performance cams aren't retarded, should there be some kind a performance gain from the MC809 over the stock cam?

optmaxx wrote:Thanks guys. I was looking at cam specs and trying my best to understand them when I think I noticed something about the milling MC809 cam, which is the replacement for the stock 91-95 4.0 cam. I know that the the cam for those jeeps is -8 retarded, and I'm not sure, but the way to figure that out is to subtract the LSA from the ICA? For example the LSA for the stock 91-95 cam is 112 and the ICA is 120 which comes to -8 deg? Am I wrong? Anyways, those numbers are different for the MC809. The LSA is 112, but the ICA is 110.5, does that mean that the MC809 is advanced 1.5, and not retarded -8 deg?

Correct. I believe the set-up of 1.5 degrees advanced is for the Renix 4.0 and it's 8 degrees retarded for the '91-'95 4.0 HO (hence the higher rpm peaks for HP & TQ) but we need someone with a degree wheel to verify those specs.

Ok. I also found this Milling cam spec chart that gives a different spec on the 809, I'm just a little thrown off by this spec though. According to this one the Center line C/L for the INT. is 110 and the EXH. is 114. So I was wondering if that meant that the cam is +4 deg adv or -4 retarded? If it is +4 adv, isn't that a bit much? I guess I'm just a little thrown off by the different specs, even the Sealed Power stock replacement has different specs from the OEM and Milling on the lobe separation. So I just need to confirm if this means that the 809 is + or - 4 deg, and then I can make a decision, and I don't mind if it's advanced a little cause I've read that advancing a stock cam can increase performance, but just not to the point where it will give me problems.

Milling chart: http://www.melling.com/Portals/0/Size%2 ... 0Chart.pdf

I saw on another thread someone running the 809 cam made 173.08hp and 295.7lb-ft of torque at the wheels, so I think I should be fine with this one. He probably didn't do any porting to the head I'm guessing to not reach the 200 hp mark. It also looks like the stock Melling cam for the 96 has different specs, it seems to be -5 deg retarded? I could be wrong, it's the MC1376. But if it's true, would that increase HP over the OEM cam? I'm just curious about these different stock specs and if they effect stroker builds in a good way, but I'm also trying to figure out how to read these specs haha. Thanks.

optmaxx wrote:Ok. I also found this Milling cam spec chart that gives a different spec on the 809, I'm just a little thrown off by this spec though. According to this one the Center line C/L for the INT. is 110 and the EXH. is 114. So I was wondering if that meant that the cam is +4 deg adv or -4 retarded? If it is +4 adv, isn't that a bit much?

With an ICA of 110* and an ECA of 114*, the LSA will be 112* making this cam 2 degrees advanced (LSA - ICA).
The MC1376 has an ICA of 110*, ECA of 105*, and an LSA of 107.5* making this cam 2.5 degrees retarded.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my question, everything seems good now and I ended up with the 809; looks like the 1376 is OEM.

I'll just point out the reasons why I went with the 809, and feel free to correct me. I've read that advancing the 91-95 cam will give similar results to some after market cams, but since the 809 is already advanced, I can just install it straight up. Also, I ran these specs in the compression calculator and now my DCR is at 7.32 which is way better than the 6.73 I was getting with the -8 retarded spec.

At first I was unsure about the 809 because in another thread someone seemed to be having performance issues and thought that it could be the cam, but it turned out that it was installed incorrectly. His Dyno numbers seem decent, and not far from what people have been getting with after market cams, I hope that his 295.7lb-ft of torque wasn't a typo cause that seems pretty good.

Was it this one?

http://www.jeepstrokers.com/forum/viewt ... f=5&t=4759

A 4.2 mini-stroker with a 229 cam putting out 205bhp & 293lbft at the crank.

It was this one actually. http://www.jeepstrokers.com/forum/viewt ... 9&start=15

Dyno results are on the second page last post, but he was having issues at first that was fixed by a shop. He says the numbers are at the wheels, but it was also tuned at the shop, so maybe those numbers aren't a typo?

I just noticed that the 809 cam lobes are narrower than the stock cam, oh well, it doesn't seem that people had a problem with this cam failing. Just by judging from the product picture, the stock replacement Sealed Power lobes look wider than the Melling's. I figured I should point this out if people are shopping for a cam with wide lobes.

Just wondering if the timing set retards or advances the cam timing as well? For example, does the Renix timing set give the cam it's advanced timing and the 91-95 timing set give it it's retarded timing?

optmaxx wrote:Just wondering if the timing set retards or advances the cam timing as well? For example, does the Renix timing set give the cam it's advanced timing and the 91-95 timing set give it it's retarded timing?

S A gear ( Parent company of Dynagear) manufactures most of the OEM replacement timing gear sets for the Renix engines.
The ones that I've checked are straight up with no advance or retard built into them

Thanks. I know that it probably doesn't matter now since I bought the 809, but what do you guys think of my old '96 cam? I was looking at it trying to find something that stands out because one of the reasons I decided to replace it is because it looked like two lifters weren't spinning, or they were spinning slowly. Instead of the circular ring wear that showed that the lifter was spinning, two of them had a lobe mark on the bottom. So here are some pics of the old 96 cam, and the surface feels smooth.