Need a Camshaft

t77911s

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2004
400
0
I need a cam for my 95 3.9 SWB. Stock engine, and I just want to go as cheap as possible. Anyone have a known(verified) good used one?
 

t77911s

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2004
400
0
kk88rrc said:
You can get a new one for under $200 from D&D Fabrications.
Why go through all the work to put a used one in.

Yeah, I know, talked to Mark this am, and that's what I'll probably end up doing, just wanted to hear any other ideas...
 
B

barefoot

Guest
yup, it is a lot of trouble to put a used on in there that will probably fail.

this is not a part you want to go used with. the fact that you are asking for a used cam makes me wonder how you know you need a new cam to begin with?

you aren't going to get a cam in there cheap. you will also need: front cover gasket, valley pan gasket, a can or 2 of right stuff, lifters, new gear and chain if you go with marks set up, oil and antifreeze.

marks kit at around $500 is cheaper than buying everything oem.
 
Last edited:

MUSKYMAN

Well-known member
Apr 19, 2004
8,277
0
OverBarrington IL
get a crower 50229 I am running that in my 3.9 and its a great cam that produces great low end torque.

I just installed a 50230 into a 4.2 and allthough there will be people that tell you its better thats not what I found. the cam dosent make as much low end torque and right as the thing really starts making power the trans shifts:( In the end I think that for a otherwise stock motor its just a bit to much cam.

Mark at D&D is a great resource on these cams.
 

92rrrandall

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2004
316
0
69
Cary NC
Correct. The 50230 falls into the catagory of fast road cam. The 50299 falls into the catagory of high torque cam.

You would be hard pressed to find a cam that is better matched to a RRC than the 50229. This would include hot rodded versions of the 4.6 engine. The only exception would be that the Crower cams do not have a shoulder for using the cam retaining plate that is probably on your 1995 3.9 engine. I cut my own retainer shoulders on a lathe.

I would only consider the 50230 for a vehicle that weighes less than 3000 pounds and has a manual transmission. This cam in a RRC will cause your throttle to be less responsive and fuel consuption to go up almost all the time. This cam is also prone to rapid wear(of the entire valve train) because it's lift rate is intense.

t77991s:
You placed a lot of emphasis on the cost of a cam. The wrong cam or a used cam is going to cost you a lot more in the long run.

Randall
 

t77911s

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2004
400
0
Just bought a crower from D&D, one that Mark recommended. Cam is already out, just waiting on the new one to install.
 

92rrrandall

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2004
316
0
69
Cary NC
You can run the engine with the 230 cam. It will be louder and even worse gas mileage. Should run pretty good between 3000 and 4000rpm.

You should get the double roller timing chain and set cam in the "0" position. The stock chains wear out quickly and allow an unretained cam to move lengthwise. This just causes all the lobes and lifters to wear out quicker after one lobe changes shape.

Rocker shaft supports are for race cars only. They will not hurt anything, but serve no purpose below 6000rpm. I have them, but not in a Land Rover.

Randall
 

MUSKYMAN

Well-known member
Apr 19, 2004
8,277
0
OverBarrington IL
rover4x4 said:
Its interesting how in this interest of trucks and engines one question gets at least for answers.


I dont follow?

I think there is one pretty clear answer...if you are looking for a stockish replacement for the RRC cam get the 50229 and upgrade the chain set.

anything over that is overkill for the RRC.
 

rover4x4

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2004
5,228
45
41
North Carolina, Raleigh
Well I ordered the 230 per D&D and what Ive read on here. Lots of good things on the Crower "230". I dont know that I am "upgrading" the chain set but I did order a new chain set.
 
rover4x4 said:
your posts sold it to me.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet!

REally, I've simulated EVERY camshaft for which I could find internet published profile data. The 230 showed the greatest performance, ceteris parabus.

What did Mark have to say when you told him you were debating between the 230 and 229? He and I argue on many topics, but not camshafts!
 

MUSKYMAN

Well-known member
Apr 19, 2004
8,277
0
OverBarrington IL
ptschram said:
Don't believe everything you read on the internet!

REally, I've simulated EVERY camshaft for which I could find internet published profile data. The 230 showed the greatest performance, ceteris parabus.

What did Mark have to say when you told him you were debating between the 230 and 229? He and I argue on many topics, but not camshafts!


simulated?

You know Paul I installed that 230 because you said you had done a number of them.

never the less the thing has way less low end torque then my 50229 and its in a 4.2 so I have to argue this point. The 50229 really makes great torque and torque is what you want in a heavy offroad truck.