OK, so we have all heard of, read about, perhaps experienced the presumed advantage of the wider Mopar lifter diamater...however, I have to be honest and point out that for quite some time now as I have been looking at various cam listings I have been noticing the Mopar stuff (specific to the small block use - as that is my focus) with much less lobe lift then similar, if not the same, spec'ed cam grinds for the other engine brands.
Case in point, I am focusing on the retro-fit hydraulic roller cam grinds from Comp Cams, here are three examples:
1)
Mopar Small Block - Xtreme Energy Retro-Fit XR292HR-10Adv Dur => 292/300
Dur @ 0.050 => 242 / 248
Lift => .549 / .544
LSA => 110
RPM Range => 2800-6400
2)
Chevy Small Bock - Xtreme Energy XR294HR Retro-FitAdv Dur => 294/300
Dur @ 0.050 => 242 / 248
Lift => .540 / .562
LSA => 110
RPM Range => 2800-6100
3)
Ford Windsor - Xtreme Energy XR294RFHR Retro-FitAdv Dur => 294/300
Dur @ 0.050 => 242 / 248
Lift => .576 / .600
LSA => 110
RPM Range => 2500-6500
Alright...so the Ford grinds in particular are something that almost always lists a higher lobe lift. The Chevy...umm...here and there, but in the case of example we have here it is actually a tad higher, not by much, but it is.
So, is this because of the roller profile? Even then would you not expect the wider lifter to provide more room for a bigger diameter roller wheel and subsequently the ability to handle steeper lobe ramps?
OK, so this is pure theory (reasoning behind why these profiles are what they are), and I feel like too often we (the Mopar fans) like to say we get ignored by the aftermarket, but I find it hard to believe that given the amount of computerized manufacturing the makers like Comp Cams would not design a lobe profile that maxes out the lift.
Oh, and btw, if you say this is due to head flow restriction, while true for stock heads I would venture a guess that anyone running this level of cam has probably moved to heavily ported street heads or aftermarket stuff anyways.
So what gives here?
