Originally Posted by Black Baja (Post 4404582)

Was it ever cc'd?

Originally Posted by MILD THUNDER (Post 4404474)

i was just thinking about this, and looked up that crane solid roller you mentioned.

That Crane solid roller profile, is VERY mild for a solid roller cam.

304/312, 254/262, .636/.636 valve lift (.374 lobe).

You switched it out for similar duration, .671/663 (.394 lobe) hydraulic roller.

Without having all of the camshaft details, I'd be willing to bet that the hydraulic roller you switched to, not only has more lift, probably also has a more aggressive lobe than that particular solid grind you mentioned.

Now, try putting that hydraulic roller up against a solid lobe, that is comparable, and I think you'd find the results would have been a bit different. Just because a cam is designed for a solid, doesnt make it more aggressive, and just because a cam is designed for a hydraulic, doesnt make it less aggressive. I'm not a cam guru, but plugging those basic numbers off the cam card from that solid crane there, into my simulator, shows its lifter acceleration to be, very tame. I've seen off the shelf hydraulics more aggressive than that as far as lifter acceleration goes. Its spring recommendation of 190lbs on the seat, kinda says something in my opinion as well.

Originally Posted by StraubTech (Post 4404588)

Lunati never made their pistons, they were always subcontracted out and I believe Weisco had the contract the entire time. Comp Performance Group bought Lunati around '03, '04. Comp Performance Group bought Crane 2 years ago this month.

Originally Posted by Panther (Post 4404610)

I think it's fair to say that if I put a 700 lift (680 minus .020 lash) solid roller in, it definitely would make more power, they usually do. That wasn't my point. If I wanted a more aggressive solid roller with higher lift, I would have run it. The solid roller that was in there was not aggressive which is what I wanted at the time (2007) because there were a lot of hydraulic lifter issues back then. I was sick and tired of lashing valves so I had my new cam modeled around my solid roller with more lift to take advantage of the AFR's head design. I had been looking at several shelf cams but I wasn't finding what I was looking for.

The idle quality of the hydraulic is better than the solid was. The torque improved substainitally in the mid-range and had a pretty sizable gain on the top end. We expexted the power to increase a little bit over the solid roller but not as much as it did.

My point is that the cam selection and design was a success and I'm very happy with it.

Originally Posted by StraubTech (Post 4404586)

Assuming 6000 propped max rpm

650/620
243/253 .050
112 LSA

Originally Posted by Panther (Post 4404617)

Is there any reason you wouldn't go with a 114 LSA on this combo?

Originally Posted by Panther (Post 4404617)

Is there any reason you wouldn't go with a 114 LSA on this combo?

Originally Posted by Black Baja (Post 4404626)

I would think you would need another 50ci"s for that to work out.

Originally Posted by Panther (Post 4404636)

114 LSA's on blower engines have long been favored... even 115 LSA's.