Wow...:eek2: Do you really think a roller is worth that much over a performance flat? Your saying about the same cam specs?I dont know because I never used a roller. That is a lot for any engine , awful lot for a nailhead. Hp gets a little harder to make, Tq comes in abundance
It's probably overrated, just like all the other hp figures. Buick also offered that Q-jet engine with 11:1 compression instead of the 10.25....The NHRA rated the 11:1 version at 332 hp. We still haven't figured out how the 11:1 could have been ordered in 1966. It wasn't a regular production option like the L-76 was. Jimmy has a couple 11:1 cars and a pilot(prototype) 10.25 car. My car runs, but needs the resto completed. I haven't driven it on the road. Roller rockers would provide the steroids for that cam!
Using a "Roller " cam doesn't eliminate the need for "ZDDP". We still have "Rocker Arms" that require it be used. It's called "Shear". The "091" on "Steroids" is the "Cam" that's in my '64 Riv. With "My Rockers" is the reason there was a 26.6 HP & 15.1 ft lbs. of torque additional to the rear wheels on the "chassis Dyno". On an engine Dyno would have be considerably more. Snake I'm going to make a reply later on the carb. thread you posted. It's about "Quench/Squish area. Tom T. ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ---------- An additional note. I've proven without a reasonable doubt that the "Nail" can run given MORE AIR & additional valve lift. Now it's time that everyone who has used "My Rockers" that are now "Your Rockers" what you have experienced & the results you have achieved by using them. Let's see how many POSITIVE reply's there can be so there is NO DOUBT that "My Rockers" have proven to be a influential factor in the "Nails" ability to PERFORM!!!! Tom T.
The HP was an educated quesstament,but for sure with a more modern profile that a flat tappit couldn't be ground to, HP gains could be more than that for sure,depending on the rest of the componets used. It would be nice if TA would have some dyno comparisions between a flat vs a roller for a Nail. I know on my sbc 383 stroker in my 65 Impala that the roller cam made a HUGE differance in performance,and drivability.(low 14s,to low 13s in the Q mile,and gas mileage improved also,mph went from 94 to 101 in the Q):Brow: Jim Wiese is doing a sbb 350 roller cam engine that he will post numbers on soon,the beginning of the thread is a dynoed sbb350 with a TA-212 cam,and the roller cam that he's going to post numbers for is a roller version of the 212,so we'll see how much more a roller is worth.:TU: ---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ---------- Tom,you're right,using a "Roller " cam doesn't eliminate the need for "ZDDP",but it DOES eliminate the need to add it at every oil change. Modern oils STILL have ZDDP in them,just not enough for flat tappit lifters,but,there is enough for non-roller rockers,and piston ring metal to metal. For example,the LS1 line of engines have roller cams,and non-roller rocker arms,without the need to add ZDDP. If it makes people feel more comfortable to add it with a roller cam,it surely won't hurt anything.:Smarty: Derek
your throwing around the 50hp number, if talking street cars with power brakes mild roller, dont forget were talking nailheads here there like 3 dollar bills. we already have nailhead dyno tests with a modern roller vs a flat tappet.. roller 409hp vs 430hp flat tappet.
Didn't see those comparisions,you're saying a roller cam made less power?Is there a thread here with those numbers? If so,can you post a link? I'll try to find it in the mean time.
the roller cam was called 425 dyno test and ams did the motor, and cant find the other it was a pem racing that did the motor, maybe some one can bring it up.
Here's the 425 roller cam thread; http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?250698-425-Dyno-Results&highlight=dyno. Here's the solid flat tappet dyno thread; http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?252689-New-CHI-TOWN-Nailhead&highlight=dyno. I don't think it's fair to compare those two build, as the roller cam they used is very mild, and PEM wouldn't share any details about the cam they used. I do think it's fair to compare the 425 roller cam'd engine to Erik's 425 build though. If I remember correctly, Erik made about 365hp with a cam a little hotter than the roller. Erik had a slightly lower compression ratio, but still, an extra 44hp with a milder cam is a pretty good testament to using a roller. In terms of using the 091 cam, I don't understand the allure of wanting to use a stock cam in a semi-performance oriented build. I'll give it to Doc, it is the hottest stock cam and certainly performs well in a stock build. But why go through all the work that Snake has, in terms of porting the heads, intake, and exhaust manifolds, and then sacrifice upwards of 40hp? Yea, you'll probably give up 15ft lbs of peak torque or so, but you'd have more usable horsepower and torque.
Yeah,I just found and read the 425 thread. Your talking apples and oranges,not the same engine with the 2 different cams,not to mention,I'm sure the profiles weren't even close.Now one of the engines you say is a race engine,while the other one was a street engine for the guy's wife.o No: How is that a roller vs a flat tappit comparision? ---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ---------- :gp: Thanks Andy,I just saw your post,very good points,and 44 HP is very close to the 50 I said earlier,and being that the roller was a little smaller than the flat,looks like my number was close after all.. Derek
Well, lets let ol Doc splain,,,,,:Brow::Brow:When I built my engine and used the 091 cam. it was for a 1964 skylark cpe.... the engine was a 1959 year model 401... stock bore & stroke....capacitive discharge ign,,,, very little head work,,, in a street driven car.... that i had built up by fabricating a cold air intake pkg,,,recurved the distributer,,, and using a 950 cfm holley three barrel, on a unmodified stock intake,,, M/T tube headers, switch pitch th 400, 4.11 posi. gear out back.... lightened the car up as much as possible,,,, air lift air bags, basic stock suspension,,heavy duty shocks and wide tires on stock 14 in.wheels....and,,,, in that car... the 091 cam did run extremely well and lasted untill I pulled the engine out of it to put a stage 2 in it.... I could not ask for a better cam that was appropriate for that car.... I do not ever ''overcam'' a engine that I am building,, did that once... wont do it again.... I would rather slightly ''undercam'' than over cam.... on the street 99% of the power used is right at the start,,, and at the strip,, most of the race is done at the starting line.... and the car ran true to that form.... I would put such a hole shot on the other car that it would take further than a qtr to catch me..... The original statement was; tell me about the 091 super wildcat cam,,,, FOR THE MONEY, I could not get better,,, the cam was a Duntov grind, affordable, reliable, and would take the engine all the way up to the rpm limit for a nailhead.....and pull strong all the way.... beat a lot of cameros, corvetts, ford cobra jets, chrysler hemis.... it was the era of muscle cars at the time.... there was exactly 2 cars that beat that car... a 57 chevy that had a unknown engine in it,,, he train lengthed me,,, and a 1970 dodge challenger with a 440 six pac in it.... raced him 3 times he beat me by 2 ft. all three times.... and I could not keep him from doing it..... I will stick by my statement,,, I wish I had a truckload of 091's:laugh: The engine had enough power that I wrung both rear axels off right even with the carrier one night when I hammered it, running against a corvette.... :laugh:
Doc,I think we all agree that was a good street cam and for what you had set up it took advantage of everything. As for Eriks build and the roller build, The roller might make more power but I think one thing that might of helped Is we know the roller engine used a 2.00 intake valve and was ported. I don't recall Erik ever saying his heads were really worked over ecept mabey the 3 angle valve job. I could be wrong on that. I guess we will wait for the next nail roller cam to pop up and see what happens:grin:
You are correct. I just went through Erik's thread. They were ported, however he did go with stock sized valves. I thought he went larger, so that was my mistake.
lets sit back and look at the facts. 300sbb, your saying the pem cam is not a flat tappet, i think it is, Andy, your saying pems engine is a race engine, in the thread the guy says idles nice, plenty of bottom end torque,power brakes and 14lbs of vacuum. both heads flow the same cfm. yes pems cam is 2 sizes bigger than the roller cam, so make his 2 sizes smaller on the solid the hp would go down and his torque would go up on pem. the two cams would be real real close. now erics build, why not compare to Bobs (gsconv) engine which has the same flow heads as AMS and PEM, Bob engine 400hp@ 4650 rpm small flat hydr tappet cam idles at 650-675 rpms. now i only see 9 hp difference with the roller. wow nice to see some action on the nailhead site with with docs 091 cam and talking roller cams. doc am an old mopar guy and you can keep up with a 440 that 091 cam is good for me
The PEM engine has a solid flat tappet cam. I'm not saying it's a race engine, I'm simply saying that since the builder wouldn't post the cam specs, how can you accurately compare it to the roller cam'd 425? I don't remember seeing dyno info for Bob's engine, got a link to the thread?
Andy, I am glad you went back and looked. I was going by memory which is getting a little shady here once in awhile Getting back to the OP. I was thinking if I remember right when I went to the posten cam way back when and was still useing my stock rockers I had to use adjustable push rods I think. That might be something Snake might have to look into with the new cam. Andy, did you need defferant push rods with your thumper? The roller might mack some extra power, I think for sure it makes TQ the way the 2 dyno sessions went with the roller and solid flat. Although the roller had ported 1x4 with 2 inch spacer, That will make more TQ. The PEM built solid did have a ported eelco 2x4 which I would think would make a little more HP up top. At least it did when I went to the chassis dyno and copared the 2 a few years ago. Anyway another good cam thread, long over due:beer ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ---------- Andy Just seen your post after I posted. Sorry there is no link or post on that.
Sorry,but still this is apples to oranges again,because the flat tappit is a solid grind which is more agressive for higher rpm HP,if it was a solid roller cam,then the compaision would be more fair,and the 2 sizes up thing could be taken into consideration. No need for paying to have someones engine dynoed,unless you want to run 2 different cams in it that are both hyd.,or both solid,with similar profiles,but one is a roller,and the other is a flat tappit. Then that would be a fair comparision,I would even be willing to chip in a little to see that. I would volunteer my Nail Head for that,but I'm not ready to take it out of the car yet. An 091 flat tappit,and a 091 roller would be a great shoot out! (trying to stay on topic)LOL
I agree! :TU: It was dead in here for a long time... Would you mind posting the solid cam specs? I found it odd that the builder was so tight lipped about it in the original thread. Also Bob, what are your cam specs?
gsgtx,I certainly don't have any hard feeling towards you,and I probably worded what I wrote about a roller vs a flat tappit,I should of wrote; Up to 50HP, maybe more,with a similar profile if both of them are a hyd or both are solid. Those cam specs don't matter,because they're not relevant to a hyd. roller comparision. I'm not always right,and I hope I'm not coming off as a "know it all",you were right to call me out on the way I worded what I wrote. Don't be saddened,this was a very informative discussion,and I for one welcome your posts,and you don't post too much. I loved reading about your Nail Head stroker,don't stop posting because of me. When you read something some times its hard to tell what the tone from whoever writing it is,if we were talking in person it would be more clear that I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I do know with most engines that when they have a roller cam performance and driveability,and mpg is greatly inhanced,wheather that is the case with the Nail Head or not Is something I would want to know,for when I stroke my Nail Head. And I would like to appologize for my spelling,and if you thought in any way I was personally attacking you,because that was not my intention. Derek
Thank you for all your words of wisdom guys, my goal was to get a little performance better than stock but with economy in mind. The RV cam, freeway gears, Q-jet is what I upgraded the ported heads and intake & manifolds were freebees in my opinion, but since I had everything apart might as well do it right and fagetaboutit! Same with the tranny it was rebuilt so I just added a 300 12" converter and shift kit. Had the engine bay painted two tone also so since the engine and tranny are out I painted the frame hammer finish black. I think the the cam will be OK with my mods, and if I get tired with it later down the line I can swap the bump stick for another or just add Toms Roller rockers.
Derek, thanks but nobody needs to appologize, if anyone i need to appologize i do try to get the topic going but not to be mean sprited just to get back and forth feed back to learn something, i do post a lot and brag a little but am really into cars performance and nailheads maybe too much.i have learned a ton from this site and the (old timers) lol. i will keep posting but not much for me to say on this subject, like to give you and the other members there say, i will learn something then. theres a lot plus to the roller dont get me wrong.
