Cam/lifter life - flat vs roller?

[xb-60]

Originally Posted by xb-60

....a hydraulic roller cam, and only lost 14hp between 6 and 6-8?
Wow, that's impressive
Cheers,
Glen

Originally Posted by blykins

Which 347? The one on page 1 of this thread? It was dyno'd and delivered a long time ago.

Well, probably is that one.
I thought there was more information to come. So....lost only 14hp from 6 to 6-8? Surely that's not typical? I'm still impressed.
Cheers,
Glen

[blykins]

Not too typical for a hydraulic roller with readily available off-the-shelf parts.

Going off of memory, but I think it made 430 hp @ 6000 with 411 lb-ft of torque. With a cooler water temp, it made around 442 hp @ 6000.

[timsullivan]

Originally Posted by olddog

I'm just a guy who reads and fantasizes about engines. I did build a few many years ago, but an expert I am not. That said I have an opinion.

Flow through the engine is what makes power. The heads, intake, exhaust is where most of the flow comes from. The better these components are the less aggressive the cam profile needs to be. I would put my money in the heads and intake to get the power I wanted, and stay with a nice hydraulic roller that lasts and lasts and does not have to have the valves adjusted all the time.

To me a solid roller cam is for an engine that is raced and needs every last fraction of power. These engines get pulled down frequently and checked, so longevity is not an issue.

They can be ran on the street, but why go to all this trouble when it just isn't necessary? On the street, who can tell the difference between 500 hp and 550 hp by the seat of their pants?

Excellent points Olddog, excellent points.