S-60 "roller" grind soon to be available from Comp Cams?

https://www.compcams.com/turbo-218-2...-2-2-2-5l.html

It looks like Comp Cams is remaking the s-60 in a roller design? This is the first I heard of it. It is awfully weird they would come out with this now after all these years. IMO, only about 20+ years late! I wonder what is up with that?

The specs are within a couple degrees of the s-60 roller that Simon/TU made that were sort of made, but never really sold in any quantities. Attachments below are when I degreed in the cam from TU. In a nutshell, tighter LSA than the other aftermarket cams from FWDP and TU. Less duration esp. on intake than F4 and R5. Has more duration than the stock turbo roller cams. About the same duration as stock turbo slider camshafts (more or less), but obviously has about .070" more lift than stock slider or rollers.
Very close in specs to the Comp Cams S-60 slider cams that failed so miserably (due to being a slider).
Todd

interesting if it happens

I think the wear problems with the slider S60 cam might be more related to the stiffer S60 springs though

though if one were installed in a 'sposed to be roller cam head without the oiling provisions notched in the cam caps bad things should be sure to happen too

I used the 314 "turbo cams " in a few engines without issues but I used the O-E springs..in slider cam heads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Johny Dodge

interesting if it happens

I think the wear problems with the slider S60 cam might be more related to the stiffer S60 springs though

though if one were installed in a 'sposed to be roller cam head without the oiling provisions notched in the cam caps bad things should be sure to happen too

I used the 314 "turbo cams " in a few engines without issues but I used the O-E springs..in slider cam heads

---

Johny,
IMO, the spring pressures were fine in the s-60 camshafts. The MP springs themselves sucked. If you thought the MP springs were too stiff, give them a few thousand miles, they'll lose a bunch of pressure (lol). The camshafts just weren't hardened enough. The ramps were just too aggressive for a slider design, plain and simple. It was pretty obvious looking at the wear pattern on all those wiped out s-60 camshafts. Changing camshafts more often than changing spark plugs is a problem...:p

i wonder if richard holdener's testing has anything to do with this. if he (or anyone from westech or BTR) reached out and they took a look and saw that there are a few of us still around and thought they might be able to sell a small run.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aries_Turbo

i wonder if richard holdener's testing has anything to do with this. if he (or anyone from westech or BTR) reached out and they took a look and saw that there are a few of us still around and thought they might be able to sell a small run.

Brian

---

Seriously doubt that for any number of reasons. #1 if he wanted a hotter than factory camshaft or even a s-60, there is plenty in the market currently. There are currently bigger camshafts readily available now than the specs for the s-60. There never was enough demand for much of any aftermarket support when these 2.2/2.5's where current, let alone close to 30 years after production ended. However, since Comp Cams did the development work for the s-60 camshaft, and they have the master grind, it would have been a relatively simple solution to transfer it into a roller grind. It is still really questionable why any company would introduce this camshaft to market now. Ask any of our vendors, the party is WAY over for the sale of 2.2/2.5 HP parts or even selling old stock. Anyone getting into these engines are like 30 years late to the party.
Todd

maybe product sales are down .. for any imaginable current reasons .. and maybe they're simply throwing the entire catalog of what they could offer on the table hoping someone buys something...(?)

noted buying parts for my truck over the past few months neither Jegs or Summit seem to have much "in stock" ..everything seems to have a "will be special ordered for you" message posted with their listings..

that says something ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4 l-bodies

Seriously doubt that for any number of reasons. #1 if he wanted a hotter than factory camshaft or even a s-60, there is plenty in the market currently. There are currently bigger camshafts readily available now than the specs for the s-60. There never was enough demand for much of any aftermarket support when these 2.2/2.5's where current, let alone close to 30 years after production ended. However, since Comp Cams did the development work for the s-60 camshaft, and they have the master grind, it would have been a relatively simple solution to transfer it into a roller grind. It is still really questionable why any company would introduce this camshaft to market now. Ask any of our vendors, the party is WAY over for the sale of 2.2/2.5 HP parts or even selling old stock. Anyone getting into these engines are like 30 years late to the party.
Todd

---

Yeah I doubt it too.... but he doesnt typically run big cams on turbo motors... he tends to run 'stage 1' or 'stage 2' (you know what i mean.... not crazy cams) on turbo motors during his tests.

Brian

Great to hear there will be more options to choose from. We will be out of new R5 camshafts in less than a year. My guess is Comp Cams came across a box of cam blanks and decided to do something with them.

Chris-TU

There use to be a guy name Mike that worked at Comp Cams 20+ years ago
Ed Papp knew him
He was into the 2.2 stuff
made a few custom grind nitrous T1 cams for Ed
I bought from him
also a Super 60 spec cam (still slider cause that's what I had back then) held up great
I heard the same thing as 4-L bodies back then that the MP Super60 cam failures was due to the hardness issue
but I think I remember hearing about a roller Super 60 grind back then too

My original Super 60 cam still looks great after about 20 yrs of service.

Dave Zelkowski stated years back the slider out performed a roller.

I'll be using it again if I live long enough!!

Thanks
Randy



From The Dodge Garage:

"Why do the Super-60 and other high performance cams use slider cam followers instead of roller cam followers? I thought rollers were better than sliders because rolling friction is significantly less than sliding friction. Have I totally missed the mark on this?"

David Zelkowski wrote:

The roller cams were introduced to reduce idle fuel consumption by reducing friction. The roller cam profiles cannot be as radical as the slider because of the small radius of the roller. The radius of the slider is much larger. This is similar to NASCAR using "mushroom" tappets in their engines. The slider is much more stable at high engine speeds.

when I bought my first 314 cam and the sintered D/C followers .. I noted something

the followers , being different from the production use parts reminded me of something..

the EARLY followers used in 1984 and earlier 2.2's..
(cough)
the cams that suffered premature wear and had a service as warranty,.. service bulletin on them..
free new cam & followers..
a buddy bought an 84 lazer back in the spring of 85 .. used .. by mid summer it was at the dealer getting the cam & followers changed out..which is how I came to know this bulletin existed..

I didn't have an issue with the sintered followers and the 314 cam but MAYBE(?) the stock followers might be a wise move with a slider S60..?

and yeah the slider cams are more snotty than the roller ones..

though I always thought the roller cams were much like the nice quoit plastic rad fans..meant to improve sales .. by taking some of the snottyness away..

and slider more stable ... humm.. my one and only roller cam motor spit the #3 exhaust follower..
oh yeah .. THAT's when a 2.5 also becomes a interference fit motor too..
as noted by the cressant shaped piece of piston stuck between the valve n seat .. broken out by the #3 exhaust valve

and that ended a 90 2.5T - NEW Cryco service replacement motor with not a lot of miles

..though I've saved that really sweet block for my "build"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Top Fuel" Bender

There use to be a guy name Mike that worked at Comp Cams 20+ years ago
Ed Papp knew him
He was into the 2.2 stuff
made a few custom grind nitrous T1 cams for Ed
I bought from him
also a Super 60 spec cam (still slider cause that's what I had back then) held up great
I heard the same thing as 4-L bodies back then that the MP Super60 cam failures was due to the hardness issue
but I think I remember hearing about a roller Super 60 grind back then too

---

If it's the same Mike, it is Mike Taylor. He did the design for the cam, he had an 85 GLH Omni and was constantly out testing the designs he was making. Guy was running the IMSA valves long before anyone thought to try it and was running 12s in his car before anyone thought it was possible. He introduced me to the fish tank bleeder and I lost my first motor to his mod. He is/was from Memphis, Comp Cams s also in the area.

Mike went to work for Lotus and Holley, although I don't remember the order and I do not know where he is now. He was a really cool guy to talk to, very soft spoken and really knew what he was doing. It was always fun to hear the stories of how he would destroy the big 8 cylinder cars, but mainly those who didn't know who he was. He had a sleeper until the majority of people realized he wasn't playing around with the boost.