Some 5.9 roller cam help from y'all please

-
TrailBeast

TrailBeast

AKA Mopars4us on Youtube
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
22,404
Reaction score
11,876
Location
Arizona
Engine is a 9:1 factory bottom end 1996 5.9 magnum.
EQ heads with 192/16? valves and Hughes 1110 springs.
LA Edelbrock dual plane Performer
Edelbrock 1406 (600) cfm with electric fuel pump.
1 5/8 tube headers and dual 2.5 inch exhaust through Flowmaster 40's.
Stock converter stall.

This car will remain a freeway car and have tall gears.
It will run 99% in the idle to 5000rpm range, so torque is the goal here and not top end.
Do not want to go the regrind route unless I have to
I need a good roller cam upgrade for it, and a little lope is fine and it needs to stay below a .500 lift.

So much information out there, but almost all of it is for top end, and I'm thinking I need to stay more in the towing range of cams for what I want.

Thanks all.
 
Can't help you... I have not had much success in finding low RPM, torque-oriented roller cams. I'll be interested in what comes up; like you, I find mainly just higher RPM, high HP rollers. Lunati shows some cams that look close.
 
I'm running comp cams 210/220/ @50 512/512 on a 5.2 magnum haven't started motor yet but also set up similar to yours should have strong bottom end ,will be another month before it runs.
 
Don't rule out a regrind. I had mine done by Oregon camshaft and it makes tons of torque off idle. I called them and gave them an overview of my car and goals and they recommended a profile (they have lots). I think it was $120, all said and done. Lots cheaper than a new roller.
 
subcom said:
Don't rule out a regrind. I had mine done by Oregon camshaft and it makes tons of torque off idle. I called them and gave them an overview of my car and goals and they recommended a profile (they have lots). I think it was $120, all said and done. Lots cheaper than a new roller.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, a rethink may be in order.
And then of course new pushrods, correct?

Thank you
 
Rhoades Lifters...

We used them on our 91 360 build...
 
They have been around since the 70's at least.... they do what they say: reduce duration at lower RPM's. Just noisy from all I have ever read.....

The Rhoads lifters will not help your lift so I am not sure if it will actually make what you have into a torque cam and it won't increase overall 'poop'...... Do you have the stock cam? Can't see it doing what you want at all really......

http://www.rhoadslifters.com/Pages/OriginalFT.html
 
looking at the stock cam with .410" lift and peak power at 4000 rpm, look at Crane 708501, 264*/272* and .467"/.482" , 2200-3000 cruise and 1600-5600 range
 
A friend has Rhoades lifters in his 318, and it had great low and mid range torque.

If I can afford them, I'll run them, and my build should be similar to yours.
 
Something like 218/224 ground on like a 112 for good vacuum signal and nice manners. Oregon can do a nice job.
 
Lelo Dart said:
How about the 300hp 5.9 crate camshaft?
Click to expand...

Stock 5.9 Magnum grind,already has it... ( why bother with Rhodes lifters here? He's looking for a small roller. Driven the car,met the guy.He likes daily driving, not quarter mile). RRR's & Subcom's pretty close. I do know you run a short diameter tire,& driver gears. I recommend something in the 205-210@ .050" range,.480"-.500" lift ,112 lobe centers.(Call Oregon....!)
 
rumblefish360 said:
No, to the Rhoades question.

Why must it be under a .500 lift?

Just over .500 lift. -> http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=3175&gid=289
Click to expand...

Well for one I cant see changing a bunch of stuff I don't need, so a mild lift not requiring higher performance parts on a high geared car it seems to make sense.
Pretty much a torque (towing grind) cam with a little lope to it at idle would be perfect, but I don't know enough about cams to make the decision on what I need for specs to get it.



nm9stheham said:
They have been around since the 70's at least.... they do what they say: reduce duration at lower RPM's. Just noisy from all I have ever read.....

The Rhoads lifters will not help your lift so I am not sure if it will actually make what you have into a torque cam and it won't increase overall 'poop'...... Do you have the stock cam? Can't see it doing what you want at all really......

http://www.rhoadslifters.com/Pages/OriginalFT.html
Click to expand...

Kinda what I was thinking also, and why I asked when he posted it.
(Although came out a bit sarcastic I couldn't help myself)


Marcohotrod said:
looking at the stock cam with .410" lift and peak power at 4000 rpm, look at Crane 708501, 264*/272* and .467"/.482" , 2200-3000 cruise and 1600-5600 range
Click to expand...

Thank you, I'll check some out along that line of specs and see what the results are.
Also going to call Hughes on Monday and see what they think about what I'm after.


jos51700 said:
A friend has Rhoades lifters in his 318, and it had great low and mid range torque.

If I can afford them, I'll run them, and my build should be similar to yours.
Click to expand...

The problem there is I'm sure it's not just the Rhoads lifters, but what went in with them.


RustyRatRod said:
Something like 218/224 ground on like a 112 for good vacuum signal and nice manners. Oregon can do a nice job.
Click to expand...

Though I don't really know the differences, this seems to be the range of specs I seem to be leaning towards.
Is it the duration that gives the tell tale performance cam sound, the overlap or a combination?
I guess I want the best of a few worlds I don't have a clue about how to get there.
Nice sound, good mid throttle power and not trashing fuel economy is how I can explain it best.


Abodybomber said:
Stock 5.9 Magnum grind,already has it...
Click to expand...

I believe this is true, and was considering the older 380hp crate motor cam, but I figured that was a few years ago and there might be something better out there now.
Starting to think a tractor pull cam with a light lope would be what I want. :D


winstoninwisc said:
just run the mag stock its all you need
Click to expand...

I so would because for the most part you are right, if my younger Brother would be ok with it.
Sounds kinda weird but he is financing part of it and asked only for a bit of lope to the idle in return.
It's a thing he has from long ago that he feels needs to be made right, so I let him.
He joyrode and trashed one of my trucks when we were growing up. :D
I told him I wrote that off a long time ago to little brother's sucking, but here we are.

Ok, enough with the personal BS.
 
Here is my direct torque cam experience in my old 351C in a Ranchero. (NA, carbureted engines of this ear work pretty much the same...)

Your use description if very close to this case. Here is info So you can compare to your planned use:
- It was a car that would pull hard from below 2000 RPM and to over 6000 RPM.
- I used it for old time street drag racing up in the old days in Chambersburg PA (a cool place to be a gearhead in the 70's).
- It also was my daily driver for many years and was a good performer in mountain driving with the wide RPM range.
- 19 mpg on the interstate at 65 MPH. No overdrive or locking TC to help.
- I flat-towed a 2600#rally car all over the eastern USA with it with spare parts and tires in the bed.

Setup:
- Used the stock TC and C4 trans (kinda like a 904), and the rear axle was 3.08.
- Vehicle weight was around 3400 lbs.
- A 10+ SCR helped the low RPM torque too so that added to the cam used at the bottom end. I don't know if you plan to have that high a SCR.
- The mildly ported 351C 2 bbl heads heads breathed significantly better than the Mopar stock equivalents of the day. Your EQ's are even better than the 351C 2 bbl heads.
- Used 1.78" headers with long collectors for the low end, and the older Torker single plane intake.
- The heads and intake/exhaust made the engine better at high RPM than you would expect for the cam used.
- 600 cfm Holley vac sec 4 bbl, model 6619 calibrrated from the factory for improved economy.

CAM USED:
An old fuel crisis era Crane hydraulic economy cam (HE grind). It is somewhat like the Lunati Voodoos and embodies what is normal in a torque/economy cam: short durations, as high a lift as you can get with the usable cam profiles, and wide LSA.
Duration: 190/200 at .050" (for real!)
Lift: .445"/.471" (This takes advantage of the higher 1.73 rocker ratio on the 351C)
LSA: 114*
Cam timing as built: Installed straight up
Advertised RPM range: 1600 to 4200 RPM (Keep in mind that Crane advertises RPM ranges conservatively and for stock breathing engine parts. The same cam would probably be advertised as 1300-5000 RPM by most other mfr's)

In the above engine, the top end was enhanced by the better breathing parts (mild ported head, intake and large header). You look to have roughly equivalent parts with the EQ heads, and headers and good intake, so any RPM range will likely be well extended above the advertised numbers. So if you had a 4800 RPM max advertised cam RPM, I'd expect it to pull well up into the upper 5000's range or even over 6000.

The bottom end above was pretty much set by the cam and the larger breathing parts probably compromised it by a few hundred RPM at most, based on actual driving experience. I think you will end up the same if you keep the minimum advertised cam RPM range down in the low 1000 range.

In a Mopar, you can't use quite such a low duration cam with hydraulic lifters as the rocker ratio is 1.5, not the 1.73 of the 351C. So, you need to go with somewhat higher durations than this old 351C cam to get into the .450-.500" lift range. But staying in the 200-212* at .050" range is the highest I would go in your application. Keep the LSA to 112 or greater and go for as much lift as you can without too much risk for lobe/lifter damage from too high contact pressures. A roller cam will get you a lot closer to this type of profile.

BUT, if you have to have the lope, then more duration or narrower LSA. (They kinda go together...) Expect less economy and a more compromise of the low end torque.

BTW, we did not have enough letters in the alphabet to spell 'dyno' back then, so sorry, no dyno numbers. HP should have been in the 300-325 HP range and torque up in the 350-375 ft lb range. I never had it on the strip but it ran low-mid 14's based on my own rough timing in a measured 1/4 mile.

Sorry for the long post; I just wanted to be complete. Hope it helps! Your brother story is funny LOL
 
The factory .410 cam is a turd in more ways than one, first is it leaves a bunch of torque on the table all while getting crappy mpg.

I would suggest a cam we have that I worked with Jim at Racer Brown to design. Unlike hughes and most big cam guys, we dont use a split duration, we feel its not needed in smaller cams with magnum exhaust ports.

By the sounds of what you said, I would recommend 212*@.050" with .510 or .520 lift. This should be ground on 110 for carb. If you want it in a regrind, it would have to be turned on a GOOD 5.2 core with only 112 LSA as the 5.9 cam is too small to get that our of the .410 core.

We sell regrinds from Oregon for $179 but they are our own proprietary grinds they wont grind for anybody but us as we own the "card".

Look us up online, call or pm for more info on magnum roller cams....we have been working with them since magnums came out.

The hughes 1824 would not be a good choice as it peaks too high and doesnt make good torque before 3000-3500 rpm. You want torque as close to 2300-2500 as possible to get good mpg and power with taller gears and freeway driving.
 
Lift is GOOD!!!

Run something in the 210ish range and 500-520 lift and cut it on a 108-110 LSA. No need for a wider LSA on such a short duration camshaft. It's going to idle fine. The stock 1.6 rocker ratio works well here.

You already have a valve spring that will hold up. No crazy parts required.
 
magnummopar said:
The factory .410 cam is a turd in more ways than one, first is it leaves a bunch of torque on the table all while getting crappy mpg.

I would suggest a cam we have that I worked with Jim at Racer Brown to design. Unlike hughes and most big cam guys, we dont use a split duration, we feel its not needed in smaller cams with magnum exhaust ports.

By the sounds of what you said, I would recommend 212*@.050" with .510 or .520 lift. This should be ground on 110 for carb. If you want it in a regrind, it would have to be turned on a GOOD 5.2 core with only 112 LSA as the 5.9 cam is too small to get that our of the .410 core.

We sell regrinds from Oregon for $179 but they are our own proprietary grinds they wont grind for anybody but us as we own the "card".

Look us up online, call or pm for more info on magnum roller cams....we have been working with them since magnums came out.

The hughes 1824 would not be a good choice as it peaks too high and doesnt make good torque before 3000-3500 rpm. You want torque as close to 2300-2500 as possible to get good mpg and power with taller gears and freeway driving.
Click to expand...

crackedback said:
Lift is GOOD!!!

Run something in the 210ish range and 500-520 lift and cut it on a 108-110 LSA. No need for a wider LSA on such a short duration camshaft. It's going to idle fine. The stock 1.6 rocker ratio works well here.

You already have a valve spring that will hold up. No crazy parts required.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm going to answer you both at once here.

FIRST, thank you so much for all the info (I lOVE info) :D

Now here's the deal and my possible solution.
The EQ heads out of the box only support a max .470 lift (bummer):D
Stock magnum cams have about .410 so there is a little gain there.
In order to do anything usefull about that I would have to change to a longer stem valve, with the accompanying retainers locks and springs, and I am definitely not doing all that for .030-.040 added lift. (which most available hydraulic rollers cams are .480 and above.)

What if I were to get a good torque grind cam and simply have them take some of the lift off to about .460 and a LSA and duration to get what I want out of it, but at a slightly lower lift?
That would get me everything I want without having the huge expense of re valving brand new complete heads wouldn't it?
That I could get down with if there isn't some reason I don't understand yet that it cannot be physically done.
Seems a simple solution even with my limited knowledge on cams and profiles.

Thanks again guys, as I know this must get old after 10,000 times. :D
 
Don't worry. I can't remember chit anyways.
 
Trail, you can just order the heads with upgraded springs if you get them from us, ootb with 120#@1.66 300# at 1.16 which will work for up to .550+ lift.

In your case, without getting a bunch of expensive parts like stall converter and gears, stick with my recommendation of the 212 520 with a max of 215 .533
 
The only reason I recommended duration as high as I did was because you said you wouldn't mind if you had some rumble. 218/224 would do it and being on a 112 would help give it good manners.

I feel sure the one magnummopar suggested will probably make more bottem end torque, but would not have the same sound.......it wouldn't be a difficult choice for me, because I choose power over sound every time.
 
RustyRatRod said:
The only reason I recommended duration as high as I did was because you said you wouldn't mind if you had some rumble. 218/224 would do it and being on a 112 would help give it good manners.

I feel sure the one magnummopar suggested will probably make more bottem end torque, but would not have the same sound.......it wouldn't be a difficult choice for me, because I choose power over sound every time.
Click to expand...

He has that unique exhaust,home built with an x pipe and flow Masters.The 318 is/was quite "burbly" with it. Add 42 inches,mostly stroke, real world compression and more camshaft,he will get his sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top