|
|
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Westfield Mass
Posts: 529
Likes: 370
Liked 425 Times in 56 Posts
|
![]()
For those who can't remember back when we used to have to meet overlap and duration with the cam and spring pressures were checked we were still wiping out camshafts. That's why the schubeck lifters were such a hit when they first came out. And now with the cost of today's engines it would be nice to bulletproof them so they do not come apart.
__________________
Gary Parker 1617 STK |
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#2 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,506
Likes: 3,613
Liked 7,865 Times in 1,750 Posts
|
![]()
Even if Stock were put back to "Stock", this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ will never happen.
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS I'm not spending 100K to win 2K |
![]() |
![]() |
Liked |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Jersey
Posts: 213
Likes: 195
Liked 869 Times in 165 Posts
|
![]()
I apologize if this comes off a bit standoffish, especially coming from a 19 year old "kid", but there are more ways to control a radical camshaft than throwing heaping amounts of valve spring pressure at it. At least with flat tappet stuff, I don't see why you couldn't build a good stocker engine with, for example, a 150lb on the seat valve spring rule. I know it probably means nothing to the average A,B,C stock racer, but the 6 cylinder engine I built last winter was quite happy with about 100lb on the seat, and that cam is by no means "soft" in any way.
__________________
1189 F/SA Defunzalo Racing Enterprises |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|