"Old School" Stocker Cams

[Alan Nyhus]

Originally Posted by impstocker

I am just going to be happy racing again! Will Lamprecht
G/H/I Stock 65 Impala 396/325

Now that's a racer! -Al

[astikhossw]

One is a stocker and they both have the same lift and duration.

[Mike Jones]

Originally Posted by astikhossw

One is a stocker and they both have the same lift and duration.

Same duration?

[impstocker]

Originally Posted by astikhossw

One is a stocker and they both have the same lift and duration.

OK..I think I get it now..the lift is the same..the duration being the same amount of degree's the valve is open as the stock cam..but with the square lobe the "dwell" time of the valve stays open is the big difference. ? right?

Is this a actual old stocker cam you show..another words those old cams had square lobes too?

The cam in my 396/325 is square lobe..but has more duration built into it, right?

Did they also change the LSA, lobe separation angle of the race cam compared to the stock cam too? More overlap for higher RPM?

Thanks for the lesson! I think it makes more sense to me.

Will Lamprecht
65 Imp...

[Dwight Southerland]

Maybe not more measured duration from open to close, but more "effective duration" due to opening the valve quicker and closing slower so that the valve is further off the seat for a longer period of time and thus allows more air to flow. "Area under the curve"

[Terry Cain]

Originally Posted by Frank Castros

Rollers for everyone! Cost effective and makes sense for everyone based on on the the current evolution on the rule book.

Hasn't been a flat tappet motor produced in 20 yrs or more but still the flat tappet racer wants to have a dis-advantage over the newer cars. SMH

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland

Maybe not more measured duration from open to close, but more "effective duration" due to opening the valve quicker and closing slower so that the valve is further off the seat for a longer period of time and thus allows more air to flow. "Area under the curve"

Right..and the duration specs were listed as .001 to .001 or less :-0
It's hard to compare those specs to .."@ .050, today, because that term was not part of the mix.

[gmonde]

Originally Posted by impstocker

I started this thread just to learn what made a Stock "cheater cam" different than a factory cam using the same lift and duration..

I see it evolved into a discussion about roller cams in stock.

I am running the same 396/325 HP engine I ran in my 68 Impala back in 2003-2006, at that time the index was 12.50 in I/S which I ran. I would go 11.70-11.80's , 6 to 7 tenths under. I used stamp steel rocker arms which was the rule then. "Everybody" told me BBC always broke rocker arms..in over 100 passes with that motor never broke a rocker arm. I used Crane rocker arms, nothing special, not even "long slot" since I only have .398 lift.

"Everybody" also told me the car would be a parts breaker running a stick in a heavy car...(4095 lbs in I/S) I broke one set of gears, that was only because I used a set of street gears 4:88 at first, swapped to Pro gears, never had a problem after that.

Since then the index has been changed to a quicker 12.20..3 tenths quicker. Running the same motor in my 65 Impala now, do I think roller rockers, or lets say a roller cam, will make up that 3 tenths difference? I don't think so.. I decided to go back to running a stick too..same set up I had back in 2003-2006 I know I still left some ET on the table with my clutch settings and 60ft times.

So most probable you will see low valve covers with stamped steel rocker arms under them. I do have a set of "chinese" roller rockers I can use, but rather spend my $ right now getting rest of stick stuff I need..bellhousing, shifter, Z-bar, pedals ect. instead of a good set of roller rockers..plus need to get longer rocker studs for those. Plus I still will be using Shubeck "hydraulic" lifters..even though I guess I can use true solid lifters now. oh, I also need to buy a trailer too, just "refurbished" my 1977 Chev C30 to tow with, which I used back in 2003-2006

So I guess my point is you can allow me to use upgraded stuff like roller cams, but for now I will be showing up with a "old school" motor that instead of running 7 tenths under I should go 3 to 4 tenths under..another reason to run a stick. Less heads up then.

I am just going to be happy racing again!

Will Lamprecht
G/H/I Stock 65 Impala 396/325

Now that's what I call working on your stuff,,,,

[doug schriener]

Impstocker-you have a PM

[jimi]

I’m not opposed to roller cams in stock and some cars already have them, NHRA has given everything else like a super stocker in stock and in my opinion there is no hp advantage or durability advantage. I also have never had a single valve train problem with my Hemi. It’s not the roller lifter that allows the working rpm range it’s the cam profile.
New billet steel cam $1000 , proper flat tappet lifter for said cam $850 , new set of push rods $400 , about the same price as the roller. If I’m going to upgrade from a cast cam I’d prefer the roller( not that we can have it). I’d also like to eventually run my cam/car through the traps at 85-8600 not so sure we will ever get there with the flat tappet stuff.

20+ years ago I wrote a letter to Nhra asking for roller cams , roller rockers , better springs, aftermarket rods , aftermarket brakes etc... with my opinion why we should do it. I never got an answer but eventually everything except the roller cams has come to pass. I get it Billy And Todd both like the little of what’s left , the purity of stock racing but it has moved so far away who really gives a **** anymore? $3500 stainless headers $6500 transmissions, $5000 torque converters ? Some stocker engines are approaching $30000. not much STOCK anymore for a long time now! This argument has been going on since 1987 when the cam rules changed and it has not gone backward since.