Roller Rocker problem

[jinx]

Ok, Tim C I understand your build philosopy. Yes u can chase efficiency at higher

rpms and lessen torque for longevity. Such a setup could very well alter driving

dynamics and in that regard I can see u claiming one cam 'blows the stock cam away'.

ONLY in 'feel' and perhaps peak hp per psi. In a timed acceleration sprint ? Never.

 

I'm saying every engine can benefit from a torque and HP curve that goes higher than the stock set-up can.

 

I just gave two examples that didn't; the quickest T04B MPI and quickest 17C TBI car.

..and they're not "wasting it" neither imo. If the same setups could accomplish the

task "more efficiently".... again, I'd like to see it.

 

What distinctive benefits of a roller G54, warrant the fuss & expense ??

[Shelby]

what modern engine has NOT got roller rocker valve train of some design ,

to put it simply ,even on a 100% stock car the engine would gain from roller rockers ,if from nothing else but power saveing from simply rotateing it's self with less effort

[Caliber308]

what modern engine has NOT got roller rocker valve train of some design ,

to put it simply ,even on a 100% stock car the engine would gain from roller rockers ,if from nothing else but power saveing from simply rotateing it's self with less effort

 

AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!! and if set up properly.... No torque loss and higher top end revs. The bottom line to me is: If you don't run a roller cam, HD valve springs, custom valves, the proper cylinder head (with some modifications) with the rollers, you might as well stay with the slipper set up. Like I said before in this post. You can't just install a set of roller rockers and expect "magical" things to happen.

 

CALIBER 308

Edited October 28, 2008 by Caliber308

[PDX87Starion]

AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!! and if set up properly.... No torque loss and higher top end revs.

CALIBER 308

 

Thats what we are all looking for!

 

Cal I really wish you would be willing to back that statement up with a dyno slip. So far there has not been any dyno done that has NOT shown a big loss in torque with a aftermarket cam grind. Since your adamant that your set up works great and that its really fast I think it would be really beneficial for the members to see your torque curve. If you really didnt loose any torque that would really be something.

[jinx]

what modern engine has NOT got roller rocker valve train of some design ,

to put it simply ,even on a 100% stock car the engine would gain from roller rockers ,if from nothing else but power saveing from simply rotateing it's self with less effort

 

I can't even think of a modern 4 with 2 valve per cyl.... yet, here we are

Would roller gains show up at the tires, by any measurable device ? Doubt it.

I figure something 'more substantial' than that must've conviced folks to commit.

Sorta like a roller bearing turbo, huh. Want one ...need one ...worth it $$$$ ?

 

On an interesting side note;

My nissan CA18det(1.8L turbo) and nissan KA24DE(2.4L dohc) both have the cam lobes

directly pushing down on an inverted bucket to open valves.... just like my 1970

chevy vega 4cyl - lol

 

The two quickest nissan CA18 "street" S13s(240sx body) clubmembers I know of;

one fully built gone 10.8. The other 10.9, stock cams

Of the quickest S13s(240SX) overall... this one;

http://www.ka-t.org/klattr1/9secka/9secka5.jpg

http://www.ka-t.org/klattr1/9secka/9secka6.jpg

7.93 ...letting off at the end. "car was just too fast to control up the track"

2.4L with stock cams

 

Many talented individuals push the envelope using oe equipment. Don't underestimate it

HUGE difference is..... ALOT of parts testing - dyno and/or ET

[Shelby]

number of valve per cyl have nothing to do with haveing slip or roller rockers, your 2.0 and 2.4 and most other engines all have rollers in some part of their valve train ,

i'm also sure that no engine manufactor did it for no reason at all

and all cup following cams i have seen are nearly imposible to change cam profiles on

esp lift i'm sure you've notice'd that most all of them have also went to hyd lifter configuations

[jinx]

you missed the sarcasm.

If you're sold on "modernising", a 4G63 motor swap show endless advantages for the

cash outlay, while a roller looks like a lot of fuss for minute gains'(if any?).

 

yes, the oe must've gone roller on modern motors 'for a reason', but I was asking

why do "we" retrofit... considering the expense and problems folks experience.

...and aren't there incompatability and geometry issues as well ?

 

"worked fine for over 100k miles" as you've often said, eh (slipper that is)

 

Also why I gave an example of 2 fairly modern solid 4s with 'ancient' valvetrain

Works extremely well, regardless of age... is what I was hinting at.

Lotsa proven performance cams available for those btw. Even the drop-in cams rip.

(wanna see a puny 577hp 1.8L on "mild" low lift cams? FFwd to 1/2way)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFw5eb0Czdc

The high lift versions actually replace the oe hydraulics with solid.

[Shelby]

my self i could give a dam less about any power gains i got plenty of power what i and some others are looking for is an OEM roller cam that will replace our sliper and be reliable , any thing you do to an engine that free's up or removes parasitic power robers can only help not hurt, and if i can gain 2-3 mpg thats all the better

 

i'm 95% happy as hell with my set up as it is, only thing i'd love to see is a tad more mpg and lower fuel costs so i can go back to 3:90 rear gears , don't get me wrong i'm over the 30+ mpg now but if i can do the 3:90s and still do the 30 mpg that'd be iceing on the cake , an oem roller cam may just be the ticket , your right it is not an answer for 450 hp with a roller cam , but lots of people don't want or need 400+ hp ,

theres no reason for any one to agrue about the gains or losses about roller cam use ,

if i want'd a 2.4/2.0 merger i have the stuff to do that with but i have no love for the dual over head engines,,, too costly ,hard to work on and not forgiveing at all ,, i may do one just for the hell of it but it'd not be my first choice as an engine for my toy

[Tim_C.]

The problem with the OE grind is it was engineered for an NA engine, and it is not a very good cam for that either. The oldest 2.6 configurations had the same basic cam lobe design. The factory simply saved money by using the same cam design. The 2.6L forklifts had the same cam. I actually have a better grind for that too.

[PDX87Starion]

The problem with the OE grind is it was engineered for an NA engine, and it is not a very good cam for that either. The oldest 2.6 configurations had the same basic cam lobe design. The factory simply saved money by using the same cam design. The 2.6L forklifts had the same cam. I actually have a better grind for that too.

 

If the stock is such a bad grind, why isnt there a cam that a guy thats running 14psi on TBI with an exhaust and other minor mods like hard pipes..why isnt there a cam grind that can be put in that will increase HP and torque over stock? Seems like it would be easy if the stock cam is so bad.

 

I would like to believe that the N/A cam is a bad design in theory, but I havent seen ANY dyno results from a "performance cam" that hasnt shown a big loss in torque for a very little gain on top.

 

I'm looking for a cam that will put out about the same amount of torque but will be a little better up top. Do you have one for me? (I dont care what the specs are.)

 

PS I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know.

Edited October 31, 2008 by PDX87Starion

[Tim_C.]

I haven't personally dynoed any of my cams. I have one mech slipper cam that I'm told doesn't lose bottom end, and gives much better mid range to top end. Mike K says his car will roast the tires off the line and launch much harder with it. I've sold many of them with no complaints at all.

 

Otherwise, yes, I do have a roller cam that has the same feel at low end as a stock cam, but flows better mid-range to top end. My grinder doesn't like to grind it because it goes against his philosophy somewhat. That is one challenge I have always faced, getting him to just grind what I want without his normal turbo grind characteristics included. All of my other cams are basically his grinds that I tested in my cars to give the performance for the application as well as I could test them. However, most of my engine builds have lighter pistons and rods, and crank machining and balancing that can run better than stock can with the same cam. Maybe that is a flaw in my testing, i.e. assuming people are going to have rebuilt their engines by now, and have included lightweight internals like I did. A heavy piston/rod combo, and heavy and unbalanced crank/flywheel combo doesn't see as much advantage with a performance cam. The best you can do with a stock bottom end is crank up the boost and hope it holds.

[Caliber308]

I haven't personally dynoed any of my cams. I have one mech slipper cam that I'm told doesn't lose bottom end, and gives much better mid range to top end. Mike K says his car will roast the tires off the line and launch much harder with it. I've sold many of them with no complaints at all.

 

Otherwise, yes, I do have a roller cam that has the same feel at low end as a stock cam, but flows better mid-range to top end. My grinder doesn't like to grind it because it goes against his philosophy somewhat. That is one challenge I have always faced, getting him to just grind what I want without his normal turbo grind characteristics included. All of my other cams are basically his grinds that I tested in my cars to give the performance for the application as well as I could test them. However, most of my engine builds have lighter pistons and rods, and crank machining and balancing that can run better than stock can with the same cam. Maybe that is a flaw in my testing, i.e. assuming people are going to have rebuilt their engines by now, and have included lightweight internals like I did. A heavy piston/rod combo, and heavy and unbalanced crank/flywheel combo doesn't see as much advantage with a performance cam. The best you can do with a stock bottom end is crank up the boost and hope it holds.

 

This is perhaps why I don't feel any loss at low end torque, midrange power or top end RPMs. Lightweight pistons, shaved flywheel, cylinder head work and balancing???? I don't need a dyno to tell me what I feel. I know Tims roller cam works,Tim knows it works. If others don't believe it, maybe they have never ran one, or don't have the proper set up for it to perform throughout the power band. P.S. When I called Tim to inquire about his Roller cam, I told him EXACTLY what I was doing as far as engine rebuilding and modifications. He in turn supplied me with a Roller cam that met my needs. Anything anybody says..... is a moot point to me.

 

CALIBER 308

Edited November 2, 2008 by Caliber308

[Indiana]

This is perhaps why I don't feel any loss at low end torque, midrange power or top end RPMs. Lightweight pistons, shaved flywheel, cylinder head work and balancing????

 

I told him EXACTLY what I was doing as far as engine rebuilding and modifications. He in turn supplied me with a Roller cam that met my needs.

 

Anything anybody says..... is a moot point to me.

 

CALIBER 308

This makes your comments USELESS unless you ran that same setup with a stock cam then changed. Why did you ever comment at all? When we used them that is ALL we changed was the cam and used those washers and you didn't like my comments. Edited November 2, 2008 by Indiana

[Caliber308]

This makes your comments USELESS unless you ran that same setup with a stock cam then changed. Why did you ever comment at all? When we used them that is ALL we changed was the cam and used those washers and you didn't like my comments.

 

Because you think your always right :confused0024: And think you know more than the members running this set up with ALL the modifications in place. Why in the hell would I comment on a exchange between a stock camshaft and a roller set up that has not had the engine mods that I stated. Is that the problem you have with me? Or is it because I haven't lost any Bottom end torque, Midrange power or Top end RPMs??? If you had the same engine modifications as I do, you most likely would have the same results?? After all, this post is about Roller set ups. Not the difference between Stock slipper cams and Rollers. If your not looking for performance, stay with the stock camshaft and engine configurations PERIOD!!!! I know how my car ran with the stock camshaft, and I know how it runs with the roller set up. Anyone choosing to run a roller set up should consider other mods also. I think I stated that in a earlier post, but here it is again: Roller rocker camshafts are not a "magical" fix !! :deadhorse: If roller set ups are "junk" with no possible gain over slippers. Why has Mitsubishi installed them in 2.0, 2.4 and 3.0 lt. engines. Galant,Sigma,Diamante,Expo and 3000GTs. But I guess you know more than they do.

 

CALIBER 308

Edited November 4, 2008 by Caliber308

[Shelby]

Cal you were doing so well.........but then you had to add that extra ( But I guess you know more than they do.)

 

thats some times call'd over kill , once you've made your point STFU LOL

[Indiana]

ya the part with the ???????? where you wonder if all those "other" things is what makes the motor what it is and the cam didn't do crap but you have no way of knowing not one bit what that cam did but you sure beat the hell out of it for weeks. You completely change your entire setup and say its all because of a cam, that's about the sum of what you just said so ya that means your comments about the cam and what it does for you are useless. People have a running car and want to only change the cam and ask and you comment? I'd hope you would say from now on what you did exactly and when so they too would know not to pay any attention to what you thought your cam "does".

[Caliber308]

Cal you were doing so well.........but then you had to add that extra ( But I guess you know more than they do.)

 

thats some times call'd over kill , once you've made your point STFU LOL

 

But Shelby, That is the only way to talk to him. He doesn't understand it any other way.

 

CALIBER 308

[Caliber308]

ya the part with the ???????? where you wonder if all those "other" things is what makes the motor what it is and the cam didn't do crap but you have no way of knowing not one bit what that cam did but you sure beat the hell out of it for weeks. You completely change your entire setup and say its all because of a cam, that's about the sum of what you just said so ya that means your comments about the cam and what it does for you are useless. People have a running car and want to only change the cam and ask and you comment? I'd hope you would say from now on what you did exactly and when so they too would know not to pay any attention to what you thought your cam "does".

 

I think I covered that before. But here it is again...... For the final time. A roller set up is not a "magical" fix...... GET IT!!!! Forged pistons, balancing, lightened flywheel will in themselves will not contribute to higher RPMs and all around stable engine performance at low, midrange and top end. Cylinder head work and a roller set up will. Why install roller rockers and a roller cam if your not going to do what it takes to get the most out of the expense. You said in a earlier post that Tims roller cam didn't work for you.... (Post no. 48) Were you just bashing him?? maybe you should have done the correct thing in the first place and called him like I did, and tell him what you had as far as a engine, what you expected, and asked for his advice?????? Sounds to me like you did none of these things. But still made the comment, and I quote: SUCKY, NOISY and HACK !!! If that is not bashing Tim, I don't know what is. I've been running Tim's roller cam "Shims and all" for three years now up to 7000 rpms with no problems what so ever. You can slam me all you want. But don't try and discredit a member who sells parts on this site that have worked for myself and other members.

 

CALIBER 308

Edited November 8, 2008 by Caliber308

[jinx]

roller can't be a "magical fix". In fact it can't be any fix at all. First you'd

need a 'problem'. There isn't any... unless it's like the 'oe cam problem'.

 

If your not looking for performance, stay with the stock camshaft and engine configurations PERIOD!!!!

 

Lots of 17C TBI starquests here. Odd how the quickest gone 12s replacing the

'performance cam' with a stock cam.... again, after back to back testing against

some measuring device.

So I guess he wasn't "looking for performance" ?

 

Hard "numbers" is where the bull stops. That is what some of us are saying.

[jinx]

The problem with the OE grind is it was engineered for an NA engine, and it is not a very good cam for that either. The oldest 2.6 configurations had the same basic cam lobe design. The factory simply saved money by using the same cam design. The 2.6L forklifts had the same cam. I actually have a better grind for that too.

 

errr.... doesn't matter if it was designed for a riding mower. The quickest

member/street car detailed on this site gone 10.48 using the "lousy oe cam". 400

ft-lbs tq, without spray. Wanna explain this 'problem' you see ?

 

I haven't personally dynoed any of my cams

that would seem like more of a 'problem' to me, if ya gonna make claims.

 

The faster cars put forth that considerable effort testing parts to come up with the

numbers they do.... reverting to stock cam after direct comparisons, same setup.

 

"Feels great", "being happy", etc. is all good, but useful only to the beholder.

Can't be measured, and it has no bearing on a cars ability to accelerate.

Doesn't communicate anything at all to we 'observers' = useless. No yardstick.

 

Promoting any 'performance cam', should be done on its own merit (perf numbers).

To constantly "belittle"(or discredit) the oe cam, *despite its' proven capability*,

is plain ignorant imo.

[Caliber308]

errr.... doesn't matter if it was designed for a riding mower. The quickest

member/street car detailed on this site gone 10.48 using the "lousy oe cam". 400

ft-lbs tq, without spray. Wanna explain this 'problem' you see ?

 

 

that would seem like more of a 'problem' to me, if ya gonna make claims.

 

The faster cars put forth that considerable effort testing parts to come up with the

numbers they do.... reverting to stock cam after direct comparisons, same setup.

 

"Feels great", "being happy", etc. is all good, but useful only to the beholder.

Can't be measured, and it has no bearing on a cars ability to accelerate.

Doesn't communicate anything at all to we 'observers' = useless. No yardstick.

 

Promoting any 'performance cam', should be done on its own merit (perf numbers).

To constantly "belittle"(or discredit) the oe cam, *despite its' proven capability*,

is plain ignorant imo.

 

Some of us are happy with our Roller set ups. If your happy with the stock cam that's fine too. Some of us that run Roller set ups don't need "numbers" to prove anything. Like I said before: "I don't need a dyno to tell me what I feel" and it's not "ignorance". We all know our own cars, what works for one engine set up and modifications might not be the best for another :thumbsup:

 

CALIBER 308

Edited November 11, 2008 by Caliber308

[Tim_C.]

Jinx:

Let's take it to PM's.

 

It would also be a big help if all of us stuck to posting our own experiences. Then we can speak for ourselves and share what worked for us and what didn't work in more detail because we know exactly what we did, when, etc.... There are always things people leave out of their story, so when we try to relay it, it gets even less accurate. If we participate in a thread, we can remember more about what we did, and add it to our tale of our experience instead of hearing a bunch of numbers with few details.

[jinx]

Being an ex GN owner, I've always viewed the 2.6 as my "baby GN". Virtually two

thirds of that motor... same breathing/revving handicap, but still makes decent tq.

My 'theory' from the getgo; get the 2.6 to seal well, throw mpi, boost & a good tune

at it & she'll rip - just like the gn, revs are totally unnecessary/optional.

eipquest proved that 'theory' to a T.

In my GN "stock appearing" class, back then 10sec full wt was a high water mark.

Cars with 'perf' cams were never among the quickest. Surprised ?

 

No time/money for 'guesswork' so my mods lie in the wake of *only those who have

thoroughly tested parts and their combo*. Nothing to prove, hide, gain or sell.

IF one is interested in extracting the most out of any collection of parts, back to

back testing is the ONLY way. Such effort weigh heavily with me. Rarity in SQ land.

 

To denounce the stock cam... imo, is a slap in the face of those who've done far

more testing and have way faster cars (+oe cam) than any of us. -Hence my input-

The quicker or more powerful cars are never built by "feel".

 

Fine if that's your guiding star, but realize that 'feel' won't cut it for some.

Take a 400hp mid 12sec street turbo 4 for a spin, if I told u its 500hp & ran hi

10s. You'd probably agree.

Install a 4.50 gear, it'll 'feel like a missile. Put a clock on it, get your horrors.

That's how deceiving, accurate and useful "feel" is.

 

My experience still limited to the 'crappy' oe cam. Will easily surpass my goals

with the 60-1 & mpi. 1st major move was to put another 2.6(14g/tbi) in a corolla.

As expected, my 16g/tbi SQ is a joke by comparison... and yes, solely by 'feel'.

(...but cam is nothing like a substantial weight reducton, 30psi, a 100 shot, etc.)

Sticking to 'proven' mods that yeild definitive measurable gains.... a roller conversion, for me, would be like lookin' for luv in all the wrong places.

If I do, mech cam will be the last single item I change. Could even be one of yours should a combo spit out some appealing numbers.... who knows

[Shelby]

jinx why do you continuely harp on drag raceing when several have state'd that more hp was not what they were looking for ,

ask Chip why he is not planing on swaping out his roller even tho is has proven to be a lower performer then the 292 he had in the engine last dyno

if you were to find me 3 guys that said their 10sec 1/4 car was fun to drive on the street i'd be realy amaze'd, cause a 10 sec 1/4 car is NOT fun to drive as a daily driver , where as a 13 sec car can be a blast to drive and even a 14 sec can be fun and not kill your pocket book every time you take a ride

for ever 1 drag racer on here you'l find 99 guys that just want a fun car that can still get 30 mpg if driven with a little restrant

[PDX87Starion]

if you were to find me 3 guys that said their 10sec 1/4 car was fun to drive on the street i'd be realy amaze'd, cause a 10 sec 1/4 car is NOT fun to drive as a daily driver , where as a 13 sec car can be a blast to drive and even a 14 sec can be fun and not kill your pocket book every time you take a ride

for ever 1 drag racer on here you'l find 99 guys that just want a fun car that can still get 30 mpg if driven with a little restrant

 

If I'm not mistaken you just made a perfect point of why to keep the stock cam.