Quote:
Originally Posted by Natchamp
Boom, all good points. If the roller was the same rockwell as the cam or the stock rocker, wouldn't that negate the compatability issue?
Sherwood, sounds like a plan, let us know what the total start up cost is and the retail cost for a set is 
|
I had that thought after I posted and the answer is I just don't know. I can tell you that in my industry I have seen setups where they try to use bearings as wheels on machines where a winder shaft is removable. Two bearings on the bottom per side that the shaft rests on then a third bearing clamshelled on top, the result is always a badly worn shaft. In one case however this did not happen and they where using a hardened shaft. Based on that and my intuition I'd say equal hardness would work fine. I'd also guess that thee factory cams are harder than a hydraulic type cam since they have to take the hammering abuse of valve lash. I suppose you could machine press on covers for the bearing shells that were equal in hardness to the factory cam. They would have to be precision ground however.
__________________
Email me about 911 exhaust stud repair tools, rsr911@neo.rr.com
1966 912 converted to 3.0 and IROC body SOLD unfortunately 
1986 Ford F350 Crew Cab 7.3 IDI diesel, Banks Sidewinder turbo, ZF5 5spd, 4WD Dana 60 king pin front, DRW, pintle hook and receiver hitch, all steel flat bed with gooseneck hidden hitch. Awesome towing capacity!
|