Cam question
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 2
From: ohio
I loved the way my truck sounded with my "Sausage Cam", I have a 236/242 547/548 cam now...But I have modded shimmed stock lifters, (not Rhodes) which are still hydraulic rollers, but you set them with a feeler gauge...Good for 7K plus RPM, which I need, but they kill some of the lope... RATS!
What good is cam if it doen't shake the fillings out of your teeth...
What good is cam if it doen't shake the fillings out of your teeth...
All Star
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 907
Likes: 2
From: Corrales, New Mecico
It does....
Stock bottom 360, runs 12s at over 7000' DA. With some air, I might scare myself...I'll spray it into the 11s this year.
The money pit http://www.nmbuilder.com/Dakota_RT_mods.html
Edit: Me spanking some loud yellow thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ75YyqeqEk
Last edited by Adobedude; Jan 8, 2011 at 03:13 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: PA
Hey, thanks to everyone for the replies and info. I've kicked out a few searches from what you've mentioned. It seems like more often than not guys who are doing a build with a mild to mid cam (street worthy) have 1.6 roller rockers - I'm gathering adjustables but details aren't always as prevalent as they should be.
Rockyhigh, I'm right with you on the new springs. I'd definitely get new pushrods too (left the stock ones in when doing the harland sharp 1.7's last year - they were in surprisingly good shape). Any other supporting parts that should be replaced will be. I noticed in your sig that you are running the hs 1.7 rr's with a Hughes .520/533 cam. I've searched for that description on their website but didn't come up with anything. I checked out the cam's they listed for the small block magnum engine (they have 23 of them - wtf I didn't know we needed so many different ones. haha) and didn't find anything with those numbers matching duration and lift, though they denote them by 1.5 & 1.6. I'm assuming that's why I don't see those specs. However, I also see you're running aftermarket heads - would that preclude me from running that cam in my truck? Either way, do you happen to have a part number?
Adobe, that is a sweet Dakota build. You've got that thing all worked the hell up. Few things make me happier than seeing a Dodge truck outrun a crappy new-school "muscle car". Anyway, on topic, something about "grinding" a cam seems like bad mojo. I dunno, that's the amateur in me. The smog-friendly part is pertinent though. We do have emissions testing in my part of PA though if I keep it under 5k miles a year it is exempt. Would your recommendation be the "sausage cam" (lol, great nickname) with stock heads? I didn't get any hits on "hypo tek" when I searched it - do you have any contact info for them or the Richard dude that you mentioned?
I would like to gather a consensus of opinion as to whether or not I'm barking up the wrong tree. I'm not looking to spend 4k-7k on the ultimate build, so we're not going supercharger over here or anything. But, I've got a good clip invested already and am good with dropping another 1k-3k to get this truck out of its own shadow.
Do y'all think I'm going to be able to see a decent bang-for-buck gain from a new cam (with new springs, rods, etc) with the stock heads and HS 1.7's or should I really be thinking the aforementioned upgrades with new heads and 1.6 adjustable roller rockers? Any other suggestions as to the direction in which I should take this build with a <3k investment would be cool.
I truly appreciate everyone's opinion and any experiences with any of these builds. Great forum.
Rockyhigh, I'm right with you on the new springs. I'd definitely get new pushrods too (left the stock ones in when doing the harland sharp 1.7's last year - they were in surprisingly good shape). Any other supporting parts that should be replaced will be. I noticed in your sig that you are running the hs 1.7 rr's with a Hughes .520/533 cam. I've searched for that description on their website but didn't come up with anything. I checked out the cam's they listed for the small block magnum engine (they have 23 of them - wtf I didn't know we needed so many different ones. haha) and didn't find anything with those numbers matching duration and lift, though they denote them by 1.5 & 1.6. I'm assuming that's why I don't see those specs. However, I also see you're running aftermarket heads - would that preclude me from running that cam in my truck? Either way, do you happen to have a part number?
Adobe, that is a sweet Dakota build. You've got that thing all worked the hell up. Few things make me happier than seeing a Dodge truck outrun a crappy new-school "muscle car". Anyway, on topic, something about "grinding" a cam seems like bad mojo. I dunno, that's the amateur in me. The smog-friendly part is pertinent though. We do have emissions testing in my part of PA though if I keep it under 5k miles a year it is exempt. Would your recommendation be the "sausage cam" (lol, great nickname) with stock heads? I didn't get any hits on "hypo tek" when I searched it - do you have any contact info for them or the Richard dude that you mentioned?
I would like to gather a consensus of opinion as to whether or not I'm barking up the wrong tree. I'm not looking to spend 4k-7k on the ultimate build, so we're not going supercharger over here or anything. But, I've got a good clip invested already and am good with dropping another 1k-3k to get this truck out of its own shadow.
Do y'all think I'm going to be able to see a decent bang-for-buck gain from a new cam (with new springs, rods, etc) with the stock heads and HS 1.7's or should I really be thinking the aforementioned upgrades with new heads and 1.6 adjustable roller rockers? Any other suggestions as to the direction in which I should take this build with a <3k investment would be cool.
I truly appreciate everyone's opinion and any experiences with any of these builds. Great forum.
Legend
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Likes: 13
From: DFW, Texas
The one thing I've heard from most guys that recommend 1.6 rockers over 1.7s is that the 1.7s travel a little further across the tip of the valve. When revving the engine to high RPMs, it could concievably be a catastrophic event should the rocker arm slip off the valve tip, therefore, I believe its more of a precautionary measure for racers that wish to protect their investments. They choose less travel over the valve with the 1.6 rocker arm and get their desired lift ground into the cam.
Someone posted earlier that the stock springs are beehive, that is not correct. They are a straight spring with a dampner spring in the center. Mopar makes a performance spring that is rated for .600 lift, and is a direct replacement for the stock springs, you don't have to machine the seats, and you can reuse the retainers and locks.
Adobe mentioned that you could run the piston to TDC for each cylinder and the valve wouldn't fall into the cylinder, it would rest on the piston. That is correct, but I find the rope works better as the valve doesn't fall much if any, and it makes it easier to place the new springs on the heads while they're compressed in the spring compressor. You don't have to compress them down quite as tightly to get the groove of the valve stem to peak out above the retainer to set the locks into the groove.
One tip I got from a couple of guys was to give each retainer a couple of raps with a rubber mallet to loosen up the locks on the old springs. They tend to get stuck after sitting in the engine for 100,000 miles. Its not a bad idea to do the same with the new ones to be sure they seated correctly. Better to have one pop out due to a mallet strike, then during a WOT run.
Someone posted earlier that the stock springs are beehive, that is not correct. They are a straight spring with a dampner spring in the center. Mopar makes a performance spring that is rated for .600 lift, and is a direct replacement for the stock springs, you don't have to machine the seats, and you can reuse the retainers and locks.
Adobe mentioned that you could run the piston to TDC for each cylinder and the valve wouldn't fall into the cylinder, it would rest on the piston. That is correct, but I find the rope works better as the valve doesn't fall much if any, and it makes it easier to place the new springs on the heads while they're compressed in the spring compressor. You don't have to compress them down quite as tightly to get the groove of the valve stem to peak out above the retainer to set the locks into the groove.
One tip I got from a couple of guys was to give each retainer a couple of raps with a rubber mallet to loosen up the locks on the old springs. They tend to get stuck after sitting in the engine for 100,000 miles. Its not a bad idea to do the same with the new ones to be sure they seated correctly. Better to have one pop out due to a mallet strike, then during a WOT run.
All Star
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 907
Likes: 2
From: Corrales, New Mecico
The one thing I've heard from most guys that recommend 1.6 rockers over 1.7s is that the 1.7s travel a little further across the tip of the valve. When revving the engine to high RPMs, it could concievably be a catastrophic event should the rocker arm slip off the valve tip, therefore, I believe its more of a precautionary measure for racers that wish to protect their investments. They choose less travel over the valve with the 1.6 rocker arm and get their desired lift ground into the cam.
Someone posted earlier that the stock springs are beehive, that is not correct. They are a straight spring with a dampner spring in the center. Mopar makes a performance spring that is rated for .600 lift, and is a direct replacement for the stock springs, you don't have to machine the seats, and you can reuse the retainers and locks.
Adobe mentioned that you could run the piston to TDC for each cylinder and the valve wouldn't fall into the cylinder, it would rest on the piston. That is correct, but I find the rope works better as the valve doesn't fall much if any, and it makes it easier to place the new springs on the heads while they're compressed in the spring compressor. You don't have to compress them down quite as tightly to get the groove of the valve stem to peak out above the retainer to set the locks into the groove.
One tip I got from a couple of guys was to give each retainer a couple of raps with a rubber mallet to loosen up the locks on the old springs. They tend to get stuck after sitting in the engine for 100,000 miles. Its not a bad idea to do the same with the new ones to be sure they seated correctly. Better to have one pop out due to a mallet strike, then during a WOT run.
Someone posted earlier that the stock springs are beehive, that is not correct. They are a straight spring with a dampner spring in the center. Mopar makes a performance spring that is rated for .600 lift, and is a direct replacement for the stock springs, you don't have to machine the seats, and you can reuse the retainers and locks.
Adobe mentioned that you could run the piston to TDC for each cylinder and the valve wouldn't fall into the cylinder, it would rest on the piston. That is correct, but I find the rope works better as the valve doesn't fall much if any, and it makes it easier to place the new springs on the heads while they're compressed in the spring compressor. You don't have to compress them down quite as tightly to get the groove of the valve stem to peak out above the retainer to set the locks into the groove.
One tip I got from a couple of guys was to give each retainer a couple of raps with a rubber mallet to loosen up the locks on the old springs. They tend to get stuck after sitting in the engine for 100,000 miles. Its not a bad idea to do the same with the new ones to be sure they seated correctly. Better to have one pop out due to a mallet strike, then during a WOT run.
Last edited by Adobedude; Jan 10, 2011 at 11:26 PM.
Legend
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,843
Likes: 13
From: DFW, Texas
I have the mopar springs in my engine right now, there was little physical difference in the stock retainer and the mopar retainers I bought, if I mispoke about those, I apologize.
My understanding is that beehive springs get smaller at the top, the stock springs in my heads were the same size top and bottom verified by my dial calipers.
My understanding is that beehive springs get smaller at the top, the stock springs in my heads were the same size top and bottom verified by my dial calipers.
