[Formulajones]

That's what I like about the SBF's. Unlike SBC and BBC, The old ford small blocks are easy to convert to rollers with the factory roller parts. So no need for the more expensive retrofit kits. The factory lifters and spiders are cheap and saves a bit of money when converting those. No need to hunt down roller blocks.

Here's a picture of one I converted for a customer, a 69 Windsor.

[meangene]

here we go again, 068 or 041 / 50 year old cam, and so called engine's builder, that's like throwing away your cell phone and tell everybody to get a wall phone and pick it up and ask the operator to dial your number. i'll tell you this, slow ramp speed / out dated/ technologies is way past that. i'm not saying any more.

[Steve C.]

Turning back time, to the 'dark ages' and outdated technologies ...........and to Malcolm ''Mac'' McKellar. Known best for the camshafts, and a hand in Pontiac's performance history.

The Pontac number 041 was often touted in vintage sales literature as the division's first "computer-designed" camshaft. Of that, McKellar says, "That's somewhat true-but not totally. We used a computer to generate the blueprints, and computer technology was hot at that time, so advertising decided to incorporate that."

He goes on.....

" I wish we could have used roller technology back then. It would have cut friction and allowed us to improve performance and street manners, but it wasn't available at that time."


.

[Cliff R]

Never been much of a fan of any of the factory cams that continued to use .406" lift and adding duration, 068, 744 to be specific.

The RAIV cam however, is not easily outran with any of this new stuff. Matter of fact, if one adds Rhoads lifter and high ratio rockers to a plain old 041 cam you can mimic the power of a very well chosen HR cam with similar .050" numbers at much less cost.

We did a back to back dyno test on my last 455. It used 260cfm KRE heads, 10.48 to 1 compression and Crower 60919 camshaft with Rhoads lifters and Ford 1.73 ratio rockers on it.

Idle vacuum was around 12" at 700 rpms, and it made peak HP at 5600rpm's.

We replaced it with a custom ground Comp HR cam with .361" XFI lobes. It had 284/296 duration @ .006", 230/242 @ .050" and 112 LSA.
On the dyno it was worth 3hp/4ft lbs torque improvement over the Crower cam, but finished at 5400rpm's It also made 13.5" vacuum so a little improvement over the longer duration flat cam even with the Rhoads lifters on it.

I would add however, that at the track the car picked up a bit more than expected. The best run every logged with the 60919 cam was 11.64. The roller cam went 11.52. Averaging runs it was right at a tenth quicker and 2MPH faster......Cliff

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Never been much of a fan of any of the factory cams that continued to use .406" lift and adding duration, 068, 744 to be specific.

The RAIV cam however, is not easily outran with any of this new stuff. Matter of fact, if one adds Rhoads lifter and high ratio rockers to a plain old 041 cam you can mimic the power of a very well chosen HR cam with similar .050" numbers at much less cost.

We did a back to back dyno test on my last 455. It used 260cfm KRE heads, 10.48 to 1 compression and Crower 60919 camshaft with Rhoads lifters and Ford 1.73 ratio rockers on it.

Idle vacuum was around 12" at 700 rpms, and it made peak HP at 5600rpm's.

We replaced it with a custom ground Comp HR cam with .361" XFI lobes. It had 284/296 duration @ .006", 230/242 @ .050" and 112 LSA.
On the dyno it was worth 3hp/4ft lbs torque improvement over the Crower cam, but finished at 5400rpm's It also made 13.5" vacuum so a little improvement over the longer duration flat cam even with the Rhoads lifters on it.

I would add however, that at the track the car picked up a bit more than expected. The best run every logged with the 60919 cam was 11.64. The roller cam went 11.52. Averaging runs it was right at a tenth quicker and 2MPH faster......Cliff

Cliff,
While peaks are one thing, averages are another. Would you happen to have both dyno sheets?

Stan

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

While peaks are one thing, averages are another.
Stan

Engine Masters - Hyd Flat vs Hyd Roller, at 11 mins you can see both dyno curves.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5p598o

I've seen this test done 5 or 6 times, 20 to 30 horsepower gain is very typical.
This 400 cube engine made peak 496 with the flat and 517 with the roller.

[Steve C.]

Set aside cost issues.

Custom ground hydraulic roller from Bullet Racing Cams.........

Intake lobe:
281 at .006
230 at .050
155 at .200
.3800" lobe lift

Combine it with a exhaust lobe that complements the cylinder head exhaust-to-intake flow ratio. And with the 112 lobe separation and in conjunction with a rocker ratio at or approaching 1.7
Do some dyno testing compared to the infamous Crower 60919 cam and some track testing.


.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

Engine Masters - Hyd Flat vs Hyd Roller, at 11 mins you can see both dyno curves.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5p598o

I've seen this test done 5 or 6 times, 20 to 30 horsepower gain is very typical.
This 400 cube engine made peak 496 with the flat and 517 with the roller.

I would have liked to see one more test. A higher ratio intake rocker arm on the flat tappet to somewhat equal out the valve lift and 0.200 duration to the roller.

Stan

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Custom ground hydraulic roller from Bullet Racing Cams.........
.

Steve, I would add an intake and head that breath at least 290/300 CFM when paired.

One fellow with a low compression 350 and an Isky.450 lift flat tappet swapped from his 882 factory heads to AFR 195 that flow 275 @ .0500.
He gained .7 and 6 MPH from the heads and minor bump in CR. Just imagine if he swapped to a .550 lift cam and a higher stall.

[Stan Weiss]

I think that this generated lobe lift curve is very close to an ISKY 292 - 244 0.050 cam

Stan

Rocker_Arm_Ratio_1.5:1

Intake_BTDC_(IVO_to_TDC)_=_1.451
Intake_Pumping_(TDC_to_BDC)_=_52.588
Intake_Ramming_(BDC_to_IVC)_=_8.216
Intake_Overlap_(IVO_to_EVC)_=_1.451

Using_Valve_Seat_Angle_and_Width_for_Area_Calculat ion
Intake_BTDC_(IVO_to_TDC)_=_1.045
Intake_Pumping_(TDC_to_BDC)_=_47.751
Intake_Ramming_(BDC_to_IVC)_=_6.854
Intake_Overlap_(IVO_to_EVC)_=_1.045

VALVE_____Lift______Opens___Closes__Duration
_________________Deg_BTDC__Deg_ABDC_____________Ar ea
_________0.00000____38.22_|__78.22_|_296.45_|__41. 52
_________0.00600____34.11_|__74.11_|_288.23_|__41. 51
_________0.01000____31.91_|__71.91_|_283.82_|__41. 48
_________0.02000____27.33_|__67.33_|_274.66_|__41. 42
_________0.04000____20.17_|__60.17_|_260.35_|__41. 22
_________0.05000____17.15_|__57.15_|_254.29_|__41. 09
_________0.10000_____4.69_|__44.69_|_229.37_|__40. 13
_________0.15000____-5.69_|__34.31_|_208.62_|__38.89
_________0.20000___-15.31_|__24.69_|_189.38_|__37.14
_________0.25000___-24.81_|__15.19_|_170.39_|__35.12
_________0.30000___-34.74_|___5.26_|_150.52_|__32.38
_________0.35000___-45.77_|__-5.77_|_128.47_|__28.81
_________0.40000___-58.58_|_-18.58_|_102.84_|__23.93
_________0.45000___-74.73_|_-34.73_|__70.55_|__17.12
_________0.48500___-91.45_|_-51.45_|__37.10_|___9.15
CAM
_________0.00600____36.00_|__76.00_|_292.00_|__28. 26
_________0.01000____32.44_|__72.44_|_284.87_|__28. 23
_________0.02000____25.74_|__65.74_|_271.47_|__28. 13
_________0.04000____16.00_|__56.00_|_252.01_|__27. 87
_________0.05000____12.00_|__52.00_|_244.00_|__27. 69
_________0.10000____-4.50_|__35.50_|_211.00_|__26.45
_________0.15000___-18.90_|__21.10_|_182.19_|__24.71
_________0.20000___-33.50_|___6.50_|_153.00_|__22.09
_________0.25000___-50.37_|_-10.37_|_119.25_|__18.25
_________0.30000___-72.50_|_-32.50_|__74.99_|__12.16

=================================

Rocker_Arm_Ratio_1.6:1

Intake_BTDC_(IVO_to_TDC)_=_1.559
Intake_Pumping_(TDC_to_BDC)_=_56.148
Intake_Ramming_(BDC_to_IVC)_=_8.788
Intake_Overlap_(IVO_to_EVC)_=_1.559

Using_Valve_Seat_Angle_and_Width_for_Area_Calculat ion
Intake_BTDC_(IVO_to_TDC)_=_1.133
Intake_Pumping_(TDC_to_BDC)_=_51.239
Intake_Ramming_(BDC_to_IVC)_=_7.391
Intake_Overlap_(IVO_to_EVC)_=_1.133

VALVE_____Lift______Opens___Closes__Duration
_________________Deg_BTDC__Deg_ABDC_____________Ar ea
_________0.00000____38.54_|__78.54_|_297.07_|__44. 34
_________0.00600____34.57_|__74.57_|_289.14_|__44. 33
_________0.01000____32.44_|__72.44_|_284.87_|__44. 32
_________0.02000____28.00_|__68.00_|_276.01_|__44. 26
_________0.04000____21.10_|__61.10_|_262.19_|__44. 06
_________0.05000____18.18_|__58.18_|_256.35_|__43. 93
_________0.10000_____6.17_|__46.17_|_232.34_|__43. 06
_________0.15000____-3.75_|__36.25_|_212.50_|__41.83
_________0.20000___-12.86_|__27.14_|_194.27_|__40.27
_________0.25000___-21.75_|__18.25_|_176.50_|__38.26
_________0.30000___-30.85_|___9.15_|_158.31_|__35.80
_________0.35000___-40.69_|__-0.69_|_138.63_|__32.56
_________0.40000___-51.79_|_-11.79_|_116.41_|__28.44
_________0.45000___-64.95_|_-24.95_|__90.10_|__22.92
_________0.48500___-76.40_|_-36.40_|__67.21_|__17.31
_________0.50000___-82.40_|_-42.40_|__55.20_|__14.35
_________0.52500___-96.61_|_-56.61_|__26.78_|___7.16

[Steve C.]

Stan, I did not look elsewhere but for a Bullet Racing flat tappet lobe the only thing that comes close to the roller at the same .050" duration and with a similar .006" duration falls short at .200 and with a lot less lobe lift...........

282
230
142
.3334" lobe lift


.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

falls short at .200 and with a lot less lobe lift...........

Similar with the video cams, the Hyd Roller cam had 7 degrees more @ .200 with 160 and .053 more valve lift.

Higher ratio rockers work, why at one time some Nascar teams used 2.37 ratio rockers..

[tom s]

10000 more views for a simple 455 cam!Tom

[77 TRASHCAN]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Turning back time, to the 'dark ages' and outdated technologies ...........and to Malcolm ''Mac'' McKellar. Known best for the camshafts, and a hand in Pontiac's performance history.

The Pontac number 041 was often touted in vintage sales literature as the division's first "computer-designed" camshaft. Of that, McKellar says, "That's somewhat true-but not totally. We used a computer to generate the blueprints, and computer technology was hot at that time, so advertising decided to incorporate that."

He goes on.....

" I wish we could have used roller technology back then. It would have cut friction and allowed us to improve performance and street manners, but it wasn't available at that time."

Many here, and others have used the 041 in a 455, with great results (yes there ARE better cams), Cliff, Jim Hand. It's crazy to me, that folks can read tons of info here, and then choose a cam that is TOTALLY worthless, have mega problems then wonder why??? "My XE 262 oe XE268 in my 10:1 455 has this, that, and the other problems...Waaah what can I do to make it work, oh yeah, I don't want to change the cam....LMAO....


.

In Smokey Yunick's Autobiography (insane) book about himself. He said Mr. McKellar was one of the only engineers that had a grasp of camshaft technology....not an exact quote, but close.

If, IF you don't think camshaft technology can go backwards...look at the XE stuff, that countless thousands of folks buy every day. They MIGHT have a market of some sorts, but most folks are clueless.

[Steve C.]

"He said Mr. McKellar was one of the only engineers that had a grasp of camshaft technology....not an exact quote, but close. "

My mention was NOT in any way suggesting Mr. McKellar was not as Smokey Yunick suggested. Nor any reflection on the 041 cam itself. Only the bringing forward his comment that he wished he had roller cam technology back then.

I have no clue what this is all about.......

"Many here, and others have used the 041 in a 455, with great results (yes there ARE better cams), Cliff, Jim Hand. It's crazy to me, that folks can read tons of info here, and then choose a cam that is TOTALLY worthless, have mega problems then wonder why??? "My XE 262 oe XE268 in my 10:1 455 has this, that, and the other problems...Waaah what can I do to make it work, oh yeah, I don't want to change the cam....LMAO."

Not associated with my comment in any way.


.

[Steve C.]

And the obvious, the Smokey Yunick comment reflecting McKellar's grasp on camshaft technology might reflect a certain period in time. No one in there right mind would suggest there are not hundreds of cam engineers designing cams today doing great things in cam design. 50 years is a big leap !


..

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

50 years is a big leap !

Yes.
As far as hyd flat tappets go I suggest Harold B or Jones lobes.
For solid flats and rollers there are many great companies.

Regardless there are many Pontiac builders with plenty of success with XE flats. Butler Performance, Jim Lehart, Pontiac Dude, Len Caverly, Paul Sandoval and Paul Spotts. Browse through the recipes of Hand's book, plenty of XE flats there. Including "A" from SD Performance (XE284).

[Cliff R]

"Cliff,
While peaks are one thing, averages are another. Would you happen to have both dyno sheets?

Stan"

Unfortunately lost them when my last computer hard drive crashed.

On the same dyno session we also ran a custom ground flat solid from Comp which they said would outrun the Crower. It had 240/248 @ .050" on a 112LSA. Ran it with and without high ratio rockers, moved it several times with a 9 keyway timing set, and tight lashed it as well.

On it's best run tight lashed and with the 1.73 ratio rocker arms it was DOWN 10hp/22ft lbs torque over the Crower 60919 cam with the Rhoads and 1.73 rockers.

That cam also had considerably more lift than the Crower RAIV clone, up around .580" in my memory serves me correctly. It was also rated at .020" for advertised specs, so a bit more difficult to compare to the other two cams in terms of seat timing, but one would have thought the bigger flat solid cam would have at least ran as good as, if not a tad better than the "old" design flat hydraulic cam.

Another thing to point out here, back when Jim Hand was testing camshafts, and making runs to compare them (no dyno testing) he was not able to outrun the "old" Wolverine 5059 grind. He picked a few cams that were very popular and in production, which included several Ultradyne grinds bigger and smaller than the 5059, and had both Lunati and Bullet custom grind cams for him based on what they thought would work better for what he was doing.

Not my testing but I do remember many of the details and logged them to memory.

In any case one also has to factor in that the ultimate goal here, at least for my testing is to maintain good street manners. This includes good vacuum at idle, smooth off idle, and excellent street manners. I'm also using a tight converter and 3.42 gears, and my car will run the numbers with deadly repeatable results. I've also spent many years dialing things in, so when we come along and change a part, whether it be a camshaft, intake, carb, etc, it's going to have to make more power at every RPM to show us quicker track runs.

The HR cam we tested make great mid-range numbers as HR's typically do compared to similar size flat cams. This comes from the ability of the lobes to get the valves up to full lift and keep them there longer establishing an improved overall average but NOT adding any seat timing. With a flat cam the relationship between the lobes and lifters at the stock lifter diameter limit those abilities so we end up using high ratio rocker arms to help things out, and bleed off a little duration at lower RPM"s with the Rhoads lifters to widen the power curve even further.

To this day I also believe that if we would have went another 6-10 degrees with seat timing for the flat solid cam it would have also made more power than the RAIV clone. It just didn't have a fighting chance with 240/248 @ .050" duration even with the additional lift over the Crower cam. I say this because we've done a couple of 455 builds with much larger flat solid cams in them and those engines made excellent power numbers on the dyno, and the vehicles they went into run deep into the 10's at the track......FWIW.......Cliff

[TCSGTO]

I swapped a RAIV/Rhodes set up for a 247/252 @.050 solid flat on a 455 with unported Edelbrock round ports with no other changes. I have no idea what it dynoed, but at the track it would run nearly identical to the old hydraulic. I tried lashing it from .014 to .024 and the tighter lash settings would only make the idle rougher.

Street driving was identical once you got off of the rougher idle. What I got out of that little exercise was that for a street car, there is no need for any kind of custom cam. It’s comical to hear cam salesman tout there cams as being superior to any other in a STREET car.

If you get close with a shelf cam nobody’s rear end is going to be sensitive enough to feel a difference in the 10 or 20 horsepower you may or may not gain with some cam wizards custom job. And getting close with a 455 is not rocket science. Then what if you want to make a slight change in your combo? Will you have to go back to the wizard and request another custom since the last one was mathematically calculated to be perfect only for your last set up?

Like Tom said a few posts back,10000 views for a simple 455 cam! Cabin fever must be setting in, I know it is for me.

[Cliff R]

What I think happens with this sort of thing is that once you find the right cam, and get the combo "dialed-in", changing camshafts and nothing else just doesn't bring a lot to the table in terms of increases in ET.

What I found with testing parts, intake manifolds and spacers (for example), is that I could move the power around some in the RPM range, but the shift in power only resulted in leaving a little softer and finishing a little harder, but overall still about the same ET.

I try to do that sort of testing at private track rentals so I can swap the parts quickly and return to the track 15-20 minutes later to avoid big changes in weather/track conditions.

It's been a few years now, but I drag strip tested the Tomahawk intake when it first came out. To make it run close in ET to my "modified" iron intake it REQUIRED a 1" spacer and 850cfm Holley carburetor. It didn't much like a carb bolted directly to it, and favored a square flange carb vs spread bore. The big single plane intake, 1" spacer and Holley 850 was worth nearly 2mph on top end, but very close in ET to the factory iron intake with the Q-jet bolted directly to it w/o a spacer.......FWIW.......Cliff