Dyno Numbers vs Cam Selection

[CJ428CJ]

This all sounds like good advice but I'd be curious to hear from people that are running roller cams. To me a roller cam just seems like it would be better. That sounds naive but what I'm talking about is the reduced friction and the ability to get "more area under the curve." The explanation I found here seemed to make a lot of sense: http://www.lunaticams.com/Camshafts/CamSpecs6.html

Besides, is cam 24 really much more aggressive than cam 9? Cam 24 has 222/228 @.050 while my existing cam (cam 9) has 232/232@.050. Of course cam 24 has more lift 584/607 compared to 565/565.

Crane's description of cam 24 is "Fair idle, moderate performance usage, good mid-range hp, mild bracket racing, 2800-3400 cruise, 9.5 to 10.7 compression ratio advised, basic rpm 2500-6000." That sounds about right to me.

Lastly, the Erson catalog (page 100) gives glowing revues to hydraulic roller cams. They claim that the only disadvantages are cost and heaver tappets which require slightly stronger valve springs. They claim the advantages are 1) a quiet and virtually friction free valve train which requires little to no maintenance, 2) more aggressive camshaft lobe profiles, offering more area under the curve for better cylinder filling capability and increased midrange performance, 3) no break-in period required eliminating the possibility of premature camshaft and/or lifter failure due to improper break-in.

All the literature I'm reading makes it sound like hyd roller cams are the way to go.