Roller Cams in Stock Eliminator?

[Chipper Chapman]

How many of you guys AREN'T using some form or brand of racing oil? Which all have the proper additives and such for flat tappet use. The issue is that many are running roller spring pressure on flat tappetts. You want a roller, go to super stock and get the intake that goes with it!

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by sammy pizzolato

Like Mike said is true!!! the cost and time is unreal we need to ban together and loby for roller lifters. the big problem is the oil it's not there any more with all this EPA crap the world has gone in the tank. when you talk to the Cam people they won't sell cam's to the public without being a roller because of the oil. and the spring Pressure is not the problem!!!!!!!!!! it's the oil.

Yeahhhhh, no the problem is the spring pressures and the lobe designs.

[Run to Rund]

As noted above, most of the cam/lifter failures could be avoided if max spring pressures were something like 170 seat, 400 open. That limitation would force more lobe profile development, I suppose, but the current combination of square lobes and 550 lb open doesn't have longevity.

[Dan Fahey]

Originally Posted by Run to Rund

As noted above, most of the cam/lifter failures could be avoided if max spring pressures were something like 170 seat, 400 open. That limitation would force more lobe profile development, I suppose, but the current combination of square lobes and 550 lb open doesn't have longevity.

OK see one idea of 170lb/400lb Open..
Looks reasonable..ANY other feedback...?

What is the breaking point?
I am on the NO Roller Lifter side of the argument and No Roller Rockers.
Will Stock Stamped Rockers should survive this rating?
Already saving money !

Should we also Limit Retainer Height to say 1.80 inches?

Are many cams exceeding 550 inches lift?
Most seem to be in the .400 to 450 inch range..

IHRA and NHRA has to be watching this !

Dan

[Bob Mulry]

Too hard for NHRA to check open pressure because all cam lifts are different..........

Set an installed height valve spring pressure limit of around 150 pounds....

Have NHRA buy an LSM valve spring testers to check installed pressure with the spring installed on the head and if the spring doesn't pass, remove it, measure installed height and use a RIMAC to confirm the pressure......

Looks pretty easy......

NHRA could even spot check the pressures....Only have to remove a valve cover...

Bob

[Dwight Southerland]

Well, let's look at it from the $$ side of things since that seems to be of interest.
Switch to roller cam = new billet cam, new roller lifters, new push rods, new valve springs (after all, what's the limit?), camshaft movement limiter of some sort, roller rocker arms, and then add in the machine work to allow the new maxsize valve springs that will be the next on the list to be allowed.


Reduce max seat pressure to something that will live with flat tappet lifters = new cast cam to work with the reduced pressure, new flat tappet lifters, new valve springs.


If you are smart, lobby for spring pressures that will allow common auto parts store parts to live. But I forgot, it takes too much to figure that out.

[Pvt Parts]

Originally Posted by Dan Fahey

OK see one idea of 170lb/400lb Open..
Looks reasonable..ANY other feedback...?

What is the breaking point?
I am on the NO Roller Lifter side of the argument and No Roller Rockers.
Will Stock Stamped Rockers should survive this rating?
Already saving money !

Should we also Limit Retainer Height to say 1.80 inches?

Are many cams exceeding 550 inches lift?
Most seem to be in the .400 to 450 inch range..

IHRA and NHRA has to be watching this !

Dan

I really don't see what all the crying is about. It seems that the rules are doing what they are supposed to do... limit the cost and performance of a Stocker. The guys who are hurting parts are pushing the components beyond their limits.

Choices:

1. Back off on the cam/lifter issue and find more ET somewhere else.

2. Do whatever it takes to solve the problem. Exotic materials, different lubrication, different cam combination. If you can fix the problem, you'll have something no one has. And we all know that the cream rises to the top.

I do believe however, that valve train components should be consistent across the board. Allowing the older cars to run the same cam/lifter as the new cars would level the playing field.

[Bill Diehl]

You guys are killing me with this spring pressure BS. nobody will change there cam profile, nobody wants to give up power....unless of course, you are bracket racing, Oh I forgot, that's what it is, because everybody bitches when somebody runs it out the back door.

back to the subject...you guys want to see a ton of broken valvetrain parts...limit the spring pressure and you will

next you will want an rpm limit

[Bill Diehl]

Originally Posted by Pvt Parts

I really don't see what all the crying is about. It seems that the rules are doing what they are supposed to do... limit the cost and performance of a Stocker. The guys who are hurting parts are pushing the components beyond their limits.

Choices:

1. Back off on the cam/lifter issue and find more ET somewhere else.

2. Do whatever it takes to solve the problem. Exotic materials, different lubrication, different cam combination. If you can fix the problem, you'll have something no one has. And we all know that the cream rises to the top.

I do believe however, that valve train components should be consistent across the board. Allowing the older cars to run the same cam/lifter as the new cars would level the playing field.

Excellent post

[kansas stocker]

Funny how we ran for years with stock spring pressures and it was easy to check.
Times will be slower and nobody will be able to tell the difference except in their pocket book.
Pete