Tim_C.

I believe they are worth it. My machinist said the one I got was the best Aluminum flywheel he's seen. Very hi-quality. He does a lot of balancing and race engines for roundy cars who really need the lightweight flywheel. Mine was very fast to revv even though I screwed up on the bearings. Going back in next week, so we'll see again. Tim C.

Try solid steel! He He! I drove a solid steel mount SBC in a '66 Nova for about 12 years. I loved it. Put them in the quest, and major vibration. I want to just go poly on the motor mount, and maybe the others too if that doesn't cure it. I might be sticking with the Solids because Otis isn't returning my E-Mails, and he said he could ship some mounts to me. Haven't got them yet, so if they aren't here by next week, I will have to go with my solids for now. Tim C.

Well, of course my bottom end problems continue. The set-up works, and you just need to order the custom length valves, and lash caps with the deeper skirt, or better yet get the hardened wafer tip custom length valves from Manley. I am sending a cam to a custom grinder who claims he can grind our stock cams to relfect a wider RPM range than stock, and much better power throughout, which is what we are looking for. We may need to incorporate the 1.6 ratio rockers due to a slightly smaller base circle, but the cam will be drop in, and at the most use lash caps. When I get this going, and it is a drop in cam, I will release the name of the guy I'm going thru. He is a 20+ year grinder with several grinds already for the turbo g54b slip rocker set-up. He says it is better to use the stock cam since the steel is of the highest quality, which you don't find in any aftermarket unless you pay big bucks. Also, he says Schneider is notorious for going too big on their grinds for what performance reason he doesn't know, because he can get the most possible from less in every application he has compared to with them. There are companies who sell his cams as theirs too. Plus, he has many of our cams laying around, and can stock cams already ground so there is less downtime, or no down time. He just wants me to send a stock one in to be sure we are talking the same language. I will keep you all informed. Tim C.

Does that thing fit under the hood? Tim C.

Well, we'll find out how durable the sleeves are. They are big enough for lots more really. My machinist does lots of Jap engines, and he says the roundy guys go even bigger, and run 7500+RPM all night long. Tyrell is said to have gone .160 over with no issues, but it was a single day race in Nevada.where he averaged 165MPH, supposedly with that engine. Tim C.

OK John, I will try to get a cam figured out for us. Yeah, we can use the 1.6 ratio rockers to do it. That will help us not have to reduce the base circle as much. Hey, is that Mitsu part #MD16025 the same as the Melling MR925? It is possible to do the roller cam without reducing the base circle so much, so we are attempting to do it. Mine will have the mondo 510 lift for now, and I will kep everyone posted on how this baby lasts, etc.... Kev: Hey, I think that lobe we can see in Hendu's pic is the unused fuel pump lobe! He He! Tim C.

It was $524 for the set on ACT's web site. I've just had bad experiences with the pucked discs. Spring hub. But, it's been a couple of years, so maybe they are better now. Got my Fidanza today. My machinist is going to balance it with the clutch, even though they are said to be balanced already to zero. Almost all clutches are not in balance very well. The Jap ones are better. My machinist says it's the best aluminum flywheel he's seen. Also, the Fidanzas take both size clutches it looks like to me. The PP mounting holes, and the dowel holes are there. Mike K.: I figured you didn't go with the ACT disc options. They just looked like they would tear up the flywhel and pressure plate. Those fan blade styles are pretty aggressive that way. I knew a guy who ran a 9 second '69 Camaro, and he would go through those things about twice a season, and when they go, you replace the flywheel, pressure plate, and disc. The Fidanza isn't as bad since you can swap a new insert in, so I guess the fan blade pucks aren't too bad of a choice. Especially if they are the only ones that will get you there strength wise. Tim C.

Yeah, I looked into the ACT. Yes, their PP is the best choice as I can see, but the discs are way too agressive if you get ones that are pucked like that. They chew up flywheels, and the pressure plates very, very fast. If they are streetable, then I guarantee they won't last long. The one to get is their organic disc, but they have a $524 price tag on that baby. It's the only one they offer that will last very long. I decided to just go with TEP's Street Version, instead of the S/strip one. The one they offer that says, "a bit grabby but you'll get used to it", is a solid hub disc! Steve says you really can't run it on the street w/o a very jerky take off, which eats the PP, & flywheel even worse. Heck, the Street Clutch of theirs is only $335, and has a disc that will last almost as long as stock. Sure, you can replace the inserts on the Fidanza, but I don't want to go there as often. Plus, with the Fidanza, the clutch life should be increased. Anyway, 275HP clutch for $335 seems good to me, and I really didn't have the cash to go with more. I guess MPI & more HP dictates the need for the ACT more, but just don't expect them to last unless you fork out the $524 for the organic disk. Tim C.

Well, we hope to get the final lift at about the same or a little less than the Schneider 284. We want to reduce the stock base circle, but not enough to need to change valves or use lash caps. We are calling a grinding expert to help us come up with it, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for us. It may take a few months. Could be sooner, but I need to talk to this guy and figure out how far we can go on the lift and keep the same base circle, or reduce it about half as much as the Schneider. We know a company that has been grinding 2.6 cams for years and years, so we hope this place can get something together for us. They grind from blanks, and it will need hardened. I am going to talk to the guy tomorrow hopefully. Tim C.

Thanks Mark, I like the forged too because they have a lot shorter skirt, so less of a chance for that too. Tim C.

The extra row is definitely worth the trouble. Â Enough for me to pay $225! Hey, what does AC stand for? Â He He! Tim C.

Yep, I think James CNM got his BS technique from Jerry! He He! No, I just see Jerry wanting to make a sale, and he chooses what to say by how you present what you need to him. If you specify roller cam, he figures you will have a machinist set you up, and he doesn't mention all the details involved, and I'm sure he really doesn't know all of them. Â He lets everyone else figure that out. For me, that took a tune of $600+, and a few months of research in the school of hard knocks!! Tim C.

Yep, that's what Jerry sends if someone wants to use roller rockers on his cams. Especially when worded as such because Jerry knows it requires much more than slapping the rockers on to run the roller cam. He won't mention that when you order a roller cam either. I had to bring it up, and he stayed as vague with his answer as possible. Like, "we don't know exactly what it takes to run it, but there are many people doing it." He just tells you it needs dual coil springs, and not just HD. Tim C.

Well, we have pretty much given up on the idea of offering the Schneider 284RH as a bolt on cam, because it just can't be bolted on. Using the 3.0L rockers will hit the pistons on any application. Mine hit with .510 lift. Those are .544. No way any head will work with that unless you lower the CR ratio by using a thick copper head gasket. No one wants to do that. I have the pictures of Hendu's set up. There are NO lash caps! So kev says the numbers match his 3.0 rocker, so I believe that to be true, but there is no way to use the 284RH cam with stock length valves, and no caps. By looking at the picture of Hendu's set-up, there is no way that is th 284RH in there. Jerry at Schneider told me that all of the 284RH's are reduced base circle, and all of them the same reduction. The only rocker in Hendu's picture that you can see the lifter end, and the cam base cirlce, clearly shows the larger base circle. That is NOT a 284RH cam! Its most likely a 284 standard tappet cam. Show me a roller lobe on that cam, & I'll believe it then, but it is not possible to hide a roller lobe on that size base circle. You would see those monster lobes showing their guns in that picture. They are just not there. I'm not saying Hendu is not telling the truth about his application, but just saying maybe he was told it was a roller lobe cam, but it is not. Those rockers would be all steeped in that pic. They are not. Why? Becasue a slip rocker 284 cam only has 435 lift, and the tip of the lobes are narrow because it can't hold the valve open as long as a faster acting roller lobe. That is a slip rocker 284 at best. Is that a decent set-up? Yes, and that's why TEP and all suppliers don't offer the Roller Cams. You get .496 lift with the slip rocker cam, and to go roller, you need to flycut the pistons, increase the valve length, & raise the valve cover. This requires a complete engine teardown to accomplish. Can we grind a roller cam with just enough more base circle to work, and less initial cam lift to not hit pistons? You bet! But we will not be using the Schneider Cams. We are getting our own grind together & having our company grind them. They grind for 2.6 racers all over the world, so we are confident it will work. The Aussies use a 1.3 ratio rocker. That doesn't make sense, because then you need even bigger roller lobes on the big base circle. Our idea will fit under the cover, so we will get it together, and hopefully offer it by the end of Summer. Tim C.

But wait, there's more!!!: Alternative options for setting up the Schneider 284RH Roller Cam: Â Use the 1.6 ratio rockers, Melling part number MR925 (that puts the lift at .544 on the advertised .476 for the cam). Â These will work with the manual/mechanical lash adjuster valves, and at least a .080 lash cap (with a short skirt). Â The cap just starts to preload the lifter, but we are sure they will come out unless a sure fire way to secure them to the valve is used. Â Is there one? Other than a screw in cap on a prepped valve, there really isn't. There may be an epoxy that is rated hi-heat enough, but we hate to rely on such things, and don't recommend doing it. TEP offers a .125" lash cap, but they are shelf stock not to be replaced when they run out, and Steve said they send whatever size caps with their custom length valves since some final grinding is usually needed, and a little difference in cap size should never be a problem. Well, I'm getting tired, and broke from this stuff, and am just going with my TEP custom length valves, and .080 lash caps. Â We are preloading the lifter a little (.050at least), by cutting the seats on my brand new Marnal head. Yes, cutting brand new seats. Â Actually, we chose to cut them for performance reasons, and it will help put more pre-load on the lifters. Â The seats come stock with wide cut angles for increased longevity. Â Cutting them a little narrower works with more precision, and flows much better. It should still last as long as stock if the fuel mix stays good throughout its life. Â The wider angles just give better insurance for life, but decrease flow performance somewhat. We are also doing the pocket porting above the valve, but the Marnals have bigger pockets than the factory, and we won't have to cut nearly as much into it for that. Â Pocket porting is something that started in the Stock classes of racing where runner porting is not allowed. Â They found that opening up the pockets got them better increases anyway, and that is allowed in stock racing classes. FYI: The Marnals have the same runner flow as stock, but have better cooling passages, and manifold stud mounting bosses. Otherwise, they are the same (except the slightly bigger pockets, but that could be a year difference, and we just compared it to the '86 Caravan head I had). Tim C.

OK, Mario- The proper "preload" on these is deeper than a normal preload. Â We had .040 preload on my first set-up, and it lost a lash cap. We were using the Crane Cams .060 cap. Â They have a shallower skirt, and that contributed to why they came out on mine. Â I now have the Comp Cams .080 caps. They have a deeper skirt that should not come out, but it won't work on a stock valve due to hitting the retainer. Â That .040 is 1/3 of the way into the lifters complete range of travel. Â Should have been more than enough. Â We think the known lifter problem is the culprit. Â These lifters like to lose their pump, and when that happens, it doesn't push against the cap tight enough to keep it in. Â That makes for a problem that can be overcome with a bigger lash cap, or a cap that screws into a prepped valve(which we can't find yet), or a custom length valve w/a hardened tip. Â Manley now offers that valve. Â They didn't last year when I ordered mine. We also think the roller lobes are contributing to the lifter not holding its pump correctly. Â Another alternative is to use manual adjusters, which need to be custom made, or that Aussie place has them I think, but there aint no room for'em under the valve cover, so a cover spacer (at least 1/4") is needed to accomodate that to clear the cover. These are all problems that can be solved easily with a proper length valve. And flycutting the pistons! Unless you have a virgin head. That should give enough clearance, but the 284RH cam really needs to be clay checked for clearance. Tim C.

Well, the 3.0 V6 rockers are shorter on the valve side. We had the 2.0, & 3.0 rockers on the same shaft, and the valve side is shorter as far as from the center of the rocker shaft diameter to the center of the lifter hole diameter. Also, the 3.0 puts the lifter closer to the valve, so it is more feasable to use that way. Yeah, the difference should be able to be taken out with an adjustable cam gear if you really want to get perfect, but it would just make a little less at low RPM with the cam straight up, and hi-RPM's should be better. A little less at low RPM for a roller cam is still much more than any other cam. Slight ratio increases should not make enough difference to cause concern, but what you say is true. Maybe the 1.72 ratio one would be enough to want an adjustable cam gear? Don't know. All I know is that one is too different/big for me to want to try. That would put the 284RH lift at .584!!!! Mario- You may want to pull the cover to check for that cap, because when mine lost one, I drove it for 4 miles maybe, and it already started to deform the top of the stainless valve. Unless yours are hardened tips. What valves are you running? Stock lengths? What size caps? We think stock valves from a manual lash adjuster head will work with the 1.6 ratio-3.0 rocker, and a large cap like .125" It would be good to hear what you are using. We are trying to figure this one out, so the StarQuest community will have a new, top of the line option available. If all it takes is buying the parts and assembling them (w/minimal machine work), then I will start doing that for just compensation of my time in it, and get these heads out there. Thanks, Tim C.

Yeah, the other sites/resources thing. Tim C.

I must be blind or something, but I can't find any links??? Tim C.

We are checking the 1.6 rocker and some longer manual adjuster stock valves to see if that is feasible to use without lash caps. If so, then a cam can be ground to our specs made for the 1.6 ratio. Anyway, proof is in the pudding so to speak, and we are checking lift with both rockers to verify all ration info given to us. 1.5 for the 2.0, and 1.6 for the 3.0 If it works with stock valves, that will be the ticket for a much cheaper roller cam head. TheMellings are considerably cheaper. John said $13, but that is a dealer cost, or so Melling Denver told me. They said anywhere from $14-20. I can start an account with them and get them cheap. More to come!!

OK, found out today that Mellings version of the MD195450 is a 1.6 ratio!!!!  So, that puts quite the lift increase to any 2.6 cam.  That puts the lift of my .476 roller cam at .544!!! Way too much even for my blood!! He He! (Cam lift .340 X Ratio) Gabe, it may not last long, and you should maybe check the lobes for wear.  You would think that there is less wear, but the roller is said to make a groove from more pressure on a smaller contact patch.  However, I have 2 stock cams, and they are a dime a dozen, so if they don't wear too fast, slap on another one!  Or, pay to get one hardened if it isn't too much. Or save $150 or so, and put the hardened upgraded cam in. The Melling part# is MR925 for the Galant 3.0Liter Roller Rocker.  I talked to Dan at 1-800-Melling  Technical Dept.  He had to look it up and call back with that 1.6 ratio figure.  I compared the two roller rockers, and the 3.0 one ends up closer to the valve and a tad shorter throw.  At first I thought that would make for less ratio, but now I see it makes sense for more ratio, since the rocker needs to turn less to get the same result at the other end.  It will get turned the same amount as the 2.0, or any rocker on the same cam, so the lift will definitely be increased.  We are checking the EXACT lift of intake and exhaust valves using each rocker to be sure. Stay tuned, and one of these years we'll get there. Tim C.

Yeah, John sent me a 3.0 roller rocker to compare too. Â Doing that today. He sent a Melling version of it, and it looks very well made. Â He says they are $13 each. Â The Mitsu part number for it is MD195450. Is that the same as the 3.0 ones you have? Well, my Marnal head should come together this week. Â I am going to stick with the TEP valves & lash caps, since we have a cap w/a longer skirt, and .020 more height than the ones that slipped out. Â Problem is that we will be grinding the new seats. Â I figure as long as it lasts, it doesn't matter. Â I am getting the measurements to order the correct lengths with a virgin marnal head so I can get another one put together. Yeah, Manley is the only one who offers the hardened wafer tip on their custom length SST valves. Titanium would be sweet too! It all matters what we want to spend! Tim C.

Yeah, just about anything Red-Line makes is top quality stuff. Â They told me who my local distributor is, and I went over there. Â This guy is very eccentric, and won't open his shop door unless he knows you! Â He designed the Holley Dial-A-Jet, and makes the fastest Harley engines available, but dude won't answer his door! Â Plus, his kid is a spoiled brat who is living to train for the Olympics in skiing, so this dude is always at Crested Butte with his kid. Â He collects residuals from Holley. My machinist knows him. Â racerwholesale sells Red Line Products Tim C.

Yes, but it won't be under $1,000 unless we find better deals on stuff. The parts alone are already more than that. I was hoping for better deals, so I'll keep trying. Marnal head: $315 (that's a GP price too) Comes w/studs, & cam caps (w/bolts for caps) Roller Cam: $200 Dual coil springs: $125 Valves: $160 Rockers: $210 Rocker Shafts: $185 (Mitsu) Lifters, retainer kits: $60 Well, that comes out to $1255 Guess I better start looking for cheaper stuff. Those prices are what anyone can get them for. Melling makes a rocker for $4.00, but I haven't seen what it looks like. John sent one to me, and I should see it today. I will start looking into aftermarket brands to see what kind of quality & price they offer. I want the parts to be under $1,000, or I don't think I can make 'em for a price anyone will want to pay. I will use my friend's alternator shop to maybe get better prices on some of this stuff. So, anyone know of alternative sources, let me know. I will not be wanting to make a killing on these. In fact, I will just want compensated for my labor. That is about 1/2 shop rate, so we'll see. I'm not in this to make money, unless I stumble on a product that goes for all cars so to speak. No one will ever get rich if they just supply parts for the StarQuest. We've sold about 20 alternators so far in about one years time, so that helps, but it won't pay the bills! Tim C.

The reduced base circle (.140 less) is a must for many reasons. Â Most include longevity. Â The lobe needs reduced to keep the action in it's wheel-house so to speak. Â Like a pro baseball player hitting a ball with perfect timing. Â The stock base circle would put more stress on the rockers and shafts. Â Also, for you guys who want more from their slip rocker cams: Â You can put the 1.5 ratio roller tip rockers MD106245 on, and get the gains from the increased lift, and less resistance from the frictionless roller tip rockers. Â James CNM used to sell those with his (really Schneider) cams. (The cam must be hardened for the rollers, but all of Schneider's are) I have the new marnal head, and am getting the overall valve-length dims so I can get specs together and build another one from just new parts assembled, with little or no machining, except porting. Â I think we can come up with the ultimate StarQuest head for under $1,000 if we assemble it ourselves. Â If not, then I will still try to get another one put together with all new/virgin parts. Â I should have mine going by the end of next week hopefully, but you know how those time frames go. Â I want to prove it first. Tim C.