1969 L36 - Roller Cam
I'm rebuilding my original L36 motor. Long story short - I'm changing the pistons in my motor as the currents ones are far too big (-36.30cc) and going back to smaller pistons to support my oval ported heads (-16.80). I didn't want to put rectangular ported ones on. The heads from my motor have been machined, have bigger 2.19 valves, and have been cc'ed at 106cc.
My machinist has suggested a hydraulic roller cam rather than going with a flat tappet. I'm open to the idea and realize I'm looking at around a $500-600 incremental vs. buying a new flat tappet if I go the roller route. I'm trying to get the compression ratio down to 10:1 (Currently 11.25:1). Car would be used to cruise around and go to shows - Not racing this thing at all. Ideally, I'd like a cam with a bit of lope that gives me some power but nothing radical or unmanageable.
Based on the above, what would you guys suggest I take a look at?
I rebuilt the all original L36 in my 69 and wanted it stock looking right down to the smog pump. I also wanted to run a roller cam instead of flat tappet so went with a Comp XR270HR. It doesn't have a lope but has a bit of a choppy idle. I also upped the initial timing to 17 degrees and run 17 centrifugal. The original mechanical advance on the L36 was 26 degrees. With the original MS360 vacuum advance can it produces another 12 degrees so with that much initial (no ported vacuum in 69) it hides any lope there might be with a lower initial advance. I am very pleased with the cam and the performance and use Mobil1 0W40 European Formula without having to worry about blowing a cam lobe.

One thing to remember is that with the kit you get rockers, springs, pushrods, the roller lifters and cam. It sounds expensive at first but when doing a build you have to buy all that stuff anyway so just the camshaft to camshaft price really isn't much of a difference.
Last edited by CanadaGrant; Jun 8, 2018 at 11:12 AM.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-k11-242-3
Heres the hydraulic roller kit which is around $600 more than the flat tappet kit above:
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-k11-422-8





you are not realistic if you think it is not up to a couple thousand to do a quality full roller setup
Last edited by gkull; Jun 8, 2018 at 11:42 AM.
And used this timing cover for my BBC, https://www.summitracing.com/parts/clo-9-231/overview/
you are a dumb *** if you think it is not a couple thousand
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
I went with the Lunati 20010711 which is probably too mild for what you are looking for, but the table is a start for comparing cams. Note that if the DCR reads 9.62, I did not calculate it for that cam.
One thing that is rarely talked about is the dynamic compression ratio. From what I have read, this is supposed to be around 8 or the enigne is sluggish. With my 9.62 CR, running the lunati at 6 degrees advanced got me close.
I bought a gen IV cam for my gen IV engine, but from what I have read recently, the Gen VI will work without much effort IF your engine has the threaded bosses at the first cam journal, which mine does. Otherwise you will have to get those machined into the engine. If you can use the Gen VI cam, you eliminate the need for the cam button.
I am in the process of building the engine now so I can't tell you how it will run.
Thanks, Gary in N.Y.
P.S. A complete retro-hyd-roller kit WITH some lightweight tool-steel retainers can be had for between $1200.00 and $1300.00 depending on the chosen springs! We sell them all the time, Comp's cam/springs/retainers and Morels lifters. No issues to date! We use the Comp's "-8" cams for 100% stock-appearing builds, they are compatible with the OEM dist gear and fuel pump rod. Have some Vette builds out over 15 years now!
Last edited by GOSFAST; Jun 9, 2018 at 06:14 AM. Reason: C





I have had a comp cams roller cam get a flat lobe after breakin. They are just mush metal. So I only use billet steel sleeved dizzy gear cams. So you have to use a poly or roller tip fuel pump rod. I also use manley race or pro flow valves stainless steel valves because they are lighter weight. Then you are actually exceeding $2000 just in parts.
I've just seen so many crappy parts fail over the past 30 years. Lifters and cheap aluminum roller rockers. Cheap double roller timing sets that are stretched out in just a few years. Cheap dual springs that loose 25 pounds of seat pressure.
I'm a firm believer in you get what you pay for. Labor is so expensive to fix things down the road. Why not build it the best the first time and not have failed parts
For a mild cam I wouldnt bother with a roller, opinions may vary. Noones putting 50k miles on them?
Last edited by cv67; Jun 9, 2018 at 03:08 AM.
In all reality it will probably take me in the realm of 15ish years to put 50k miles on this car. I’d say it will probably get in the ballpark of 3-4K miles per year. I don’t have to have a roller - just exploring all my options since now would be the time to make the change.
That is exactly why I went to a roller. I have a 69 350 that I bought in 79. It turned 50,000 on the way home. I got it cheap because it ran badly. It had wiped the cam. I have about 22,000 on it in 39 years. I am constantly pulling the distributor on it to prime it because i left it set too long without starting it. I have to find high zinc oil. Protecting the cam in it is just a pain.
I got my 73 in a box (some assembly required) with 78,000 on it and........a wiped cam. I hope to have this one running by the end of the year, and I hope to drive both a lot more now that I am retired, but I see both sitting all winter in the northeast. I am assuming the roller will be more forgiving.












