Jeep Strokers

Hey guys I haven't been able to get on here in a while due to some family issues.
If you could choose any Mopar Performance cam which would it be and why?
P4529228
P4529229
P4529230
P4529231
P4529232
Thanks, Al

I've been running the Mopar P4529230AB in my stroker for over 8 years. It is advertised 256* duration and .45" lift and 40* overlap. It is No Longer Available. So known specs:
28: 240* duration .43" lift 24* overlap
29: 248* duration .44" lift 32* overlap
The other two are NLA and
31: 260* duration .46" lift 44* overlap
32: 268* duration .48" lift 52* overlap

I'd be tempted to buy the 29 and use 1.7:1 ratio roller rockers if I was building another.

bigal389 wrote:Hey guys I haven't been able to get on here in a while due to some family issues.
If you could choose any Mopar Performance cam which would it be and why?
P4529228
P4529229
P4529230
P4529231
P4529232
Thanks, Al

If it's for a stroker, none of them. The 28 & 29 are too short in duration and 30-32 are no longer available.

Dino, I know that only a he 228 & 229 are the only ones that are still available. If the others were would you run one of them? Just a theoretical question.
Al

bigal389 wrote:Dino, I know that only a he 228 & 229 are the only ones that are still available. If the others were would you run one of them? Just a theoretical question.

Yeah I'd consider any of the 30-32 cams on a stroker but I'm not a fan of single pattern cams in the Jeep I6. The 4.0L head has a relatively low exhaust:intake port flow ratio (even when ported) so I prefer a dual pattern cam with a longer exhaust duration and higher exhaust valve lift.

gradon wrote: I'd be tempted to buy the 29 and use 1.7:1 ratio roller rockers if I was building another.

I Just did this.

I had an experimental combo I think, prior and it was mated to a 32RH (3sp). It was not very anything. And didn't pass smog here in Cali.

Pulled a million dollar alum head, a semi custom cam grind (with alot more everything and dual pattern), and the POS 32RH.

Put a off the shelf New clearwater head with 2.02/1.6 valves with their springs for the larger than OE lift, a 229 Cam, 1.7 HS RRs, and a AW4.

HUGE improvement in all ways. Drivability is the biggest. I am pretty sure the trans with 151K miles being swapped to the AW4 was the main improving factor. But that cam and this head and such. It now still has about the same power I would say, but alot more usable (again likely trans), and hoping to get it past smog next week.

Just my experience.

I always liked the big valve head and stock or just mildly above stock cam and 1.7:1 roller rockers.

Did you by chance get the clearwater BV head flowed before it got installed?

Making the head more efficient by increasing port flow, especially at lower valve lifts, will help you get more out of a milder cam and widen the torque curve.

Yeah hogging out and big ports help the higher rpm and higher lift flow numbers. More duration moves the powerband higher up in the rpm range. This might be great for a Jeepspeed or race jeep build but not so good for street use. Racing might be more 4-6000rpm and street 2-4000rpm. Just saying.

Even though there is a theoretical valve shrouding issue, in reality at low lift and low rpm as in our engines this doesn't effect and negate the use of the bigger valves. Yeah maybe lose 1-2% due to the shrouding and gain 10% due to the bigger valves (numbers are just for example/clarity).

Great choice aftermarket improved thicker head, big valves, very mild cam and 1.7:1 roller rockers.

How would a cam with the following specs perform in a 4.7 with 9.1:1 comp. 63 mm tb and stock exhaust manifold with 2 1/4 exhaust
262
262
114 lsa
7* retarded
440 lift

Why would you retarded it 7°?

Sorry that was supposed to be 4* and it's built in

What's the duration @ .050 ?

Don't forgets the dynamic and static compression ratios and the cam dynamics. That is an important factor.

191 @.050
Static comp. is 7.07

Thanks, Al

Short cam, no need for any retard. Depending on your set up I might even advance it.

You sure on that compression number ? Seems quite low.