How much HP is a roller cam really worth?

[Jerryl]

According to COMPCAMS, a roller cam is worth 60 HP over a similar FT cam.
Anyone have real life data? :smile:

 

[Boost231]

wow if that was the case i would switch mine out today.

 

[SouthernCal GN]

Roller cam isn't worth too much hp by itself...now, add a little head work, and you'll wake that thing up b getting rid of flow restrictions.

 

[Jerryl]

wow if that was the case i would switch mine out today.

My sentiments exactly!
Maybe over a worn down / flat lobe FT cam .......

Roller cam isn't worth too much hp by itself...now, add a little head work, and you'll wake that thing up b getting rid of flow restrictions.

Understand.
This is based on same set-up and same heads, no other changes.
Their calcs must be "Sales/Marketing Oriented", which is my I posed the question to the experts.

 

[SouthernCal GN]

I'd go roller in any case, with today's oils the way they are.

As far as comp's data- they probably judt "selectively forgot" to add the rest of the components to make that 60+hp....

 

[boostingbuick]

Roller cams offer steeper ramps and less friction. Both add horsepower, but I would not think 40 to 60 hp. But how much is your lower end worth when you FT cam goes round? I swithed after the loss of 2 lower ends.

 

[Nick Micale]

According to COMPCAMS, a roller cam is worth 60 HP over a similar FT cam.
Anyone have real life data? :smile:

Sounds reasonable on a slightly modded GN.:smile:

Doubt that you would see that much on a stock set-up engine, but one that has better breathing than stock and the stronger valve springs, the increase in shift RPM and better cam profile will make the difference.

Based on many cars that we have re-done with roller cams, the performance increases would equate to about that HP figure.

 

[Jerryl]

Sounds reasonable on a slightly modded GN.:smile:

Doubt that you would see that much on a stock set-up engine, but one that has better breathing than stock and the stronger valve springs, the increase in shift RPM and better cam profile will make the difference.

Based on many cars that we have re-done with roller cams, the performance increases would equate to about that HP figure.

Nick,
Thanks for the response. So, just o be clear:
If you switch from a 206/206 FT to a 206/206 Roller (Same LSA), you can expect 50-60 HP increase on a slightly modified engine?

Edit:
If you shift both cams at 5300, will there be that much of an increase?

 

[turbo nasty]

Nick,
Thanks for the response. So, just o be clear:
If you switch from a 206/206 FT to a 206/206 Roller (Same LSA), you can expect 50-60 HP increase on a slightly modified engine?

Edit:
If you shift both cams at 5300, will there be that much of an increase?

I say no way the that you would get that much with the only changing would be the follower type.
The roller cam does have the benefits of steeper lobe grinds/profiles but with the same style dur & lift I would think it would help but maybe 8-10 hp max if that.

Nick what you think??

 

[Nick Micale]

I agree, to get that performance gain, you need more lift and duration than a 206/206.

We go at least to a 214/210 cam when doing roller tappets. With the hydraulic lifters, shift points should be at 56-5800 RPM. With solid rollers [and the right springs], power band [and HP!] will move up ~1000 RPM.

P.S. The idle difference between a 206 and a 214 is hardly noticeable. A local GN I am doing went 10.29 a couple weeks ago with a 214/210 hydraulic roller cam.

 

[Turbo1dr]

... went 10.29 a couple weeks ago with a 214/210 hydraulic roller cam.

Years ago I went a 6.53 at 107 in the 8th mile with a 214-210 cam with home ported iron heads and 2 and a half STOCK intercoolers. I think that's a mid to low 10 also.

 

[LOLGN]

Trying to dig deep into when I was into 5.0 mustangs, I seem to remember reading the roller cam was worth something like 5-9 hp over a flat tappet from friction reduction which is why the factory went with it in the first place. Like was said earlier in the thread, the real benefit with a roller is that it allows for much faster opening of the valves.

 

[Jerryl]

So, in summary;
A roller cam with supporting mods, can very well give 60 additional HP with supporting mods in a well designed “system”.
No talking about flat lobes, oils, injectors, turbo, chip, HW, pump, DP, IC, Alky, WB, scantool ……… Yadi yada.
Those things need to be in order and are not the purpose of this thread.

It takes a complete SYSTEM to get the significant HP benefits of a roller cam.
A roller cam just by itself has minimal HP benefits on a stock set-up, and may in fact (without supporting mods) have negative effects.

Supporting mods to take advantage of the roller are;
Heads (Typically rated around 40 hp)
With the better flowing heads, increased RPM and duration, you get 60. :wink:
(Valve Springs etc are just a requirement for installation)

IMHO, and NOT based on facts, you can expect:
+40 HP - Ported Heads
+30 HP - Increased RPM's
+10 HP - Cam Friction reduction
+5 HP - Increased valve lift
+5 HP - Increased valve duration
-10 HP - Increased spring rate
-20 HP - Increased friction with RPM

So there you have it - Net 60 HP :tongue:

 

[Blown&Injected]

Why -10 for increase spring rate?

When the stiffer spring gets compressed, there is another equally stiff spring releasing its energy in to the system.

 

[Jerryl]

Why -10 for increase spring rate?

When the stiffer spring gets compressed, there is another equally stiff spring releasing its energy in to the system.

Why not "-10", and what number do you think it should be?
The "other springs" do not significantly aid in rotational energy as compared to the one in compression.

 

[bison]

Similar grind to similar grind id bet ts not more than 10hp. Like a 212-212 FT vs. a 212-212 roller with 853 lifters. It takes a lot more spring to run a hydraulic roller than a FT on the similar grind. The roller lifters are heavy. If you were talking about the potential in an engine that could take advantage of a solid roller vs. a hydraulic cammed roller or FT in the same engine it could be a huge difference. Like 200 hp or more. Rollers have been proven more reliable than a flat cam in these engines when you go much above stock on cam selection. Not that a flat wont work. Its just that rollers seem to work every time and a lot of flat cams are failing these days for various reasons.

 

[Blown&Injected]

Why not "-10", and what number do you think it should be?
The "other springs" do not significantly aid in rotational energy as compared to the one in compression.

I think it should be a wash.
Where does the energy go?

 

[UR50SLO]

There's less resistance than a flat tappet cam but as mentiond by others and the reason I'm switching this year is the over the counter oils.... Every one of them have been stripped of the additives that keep flat tappet cams alive. Buick's are not known for being great with cams anyway.
I'm putting one in mine just because I worry about rounding off a camshaft and I realy don't want to put 5.00 a quart Brad Penn oil in my engine every 1-2000mi.
There's alot of other ways to add 60hp. Cam's not the cheapest way to add 60hp. Do it for wear reasons and the ability to run regular 10-30 or lighter oils.
~Scott

 

[vacuum 6]

Ok so I just want to make sure I got this correct. To take advantage of a roller cam (I have a 212/212) you need to shift the car at ~5800?

 

[Jerryl]

I agree, to get that performance gain, you need more lift and duration than a 206/206.

We go at least to a 214/210 cam when doing roller tappets. With the hydraulic lifters, shift points should be at 56-5800 RPM. With solid rollers [and the right springs], power band [and HP!] will move up ~1000 RPM.

P.S. The idle difference between a 206 and a 214 is hardly noticeable. A local GN I am doing went 10.29 a couple weeks ago with a 214/210 hydraulic roller cam.

Ok so I just want to make sure I got this correct. To take advantage of a roller cam (I have a 212/212) you need to shift the car at ~5800?

According to the experts (No pun intended), Yes.
So you have to build a motor to handle that RPM, at least, that is my understanding.