Remarking '63 cam gears for use on 2.4. LOOK!

[steel_3d]

The distance doesn't matter, but since you have to make up for the distance by increasing the number of teeth on the belt by an integer amount, you could end up with a situation where you need to be between two teeth.

It's debatable what the ideal cam and ignition timing should be for a stroker, but I doubt that's what the factory was trying to do. Us 2.3 guys run 2.0 timing (at least out of the box).

 

[Locke]

Are the dowels indexed the same for the 2.4 cams as they are for the 2.0 cams?

If you are using a 2.0 head, with 2.0 cams, and 2.0 cam sprockets, then aligning the factory marks on the head will place the cams in the exact same position, every time. With the 2.0 top end by itself, on a 63 block, or on a 64 block, the cams will always be placed in the same position to each other, when aligning the cam marks.

If the tooth count of the belt between the crank and intake sprockets on the driven side become non-integer when the 63 head is placed on a 64 block, then it will be impossible to time correctly without adjustable cam gears. The only solutions for that would be shifting the position of the idler, setting the locating holes on the gears or cam at a different degree, or changing the centerline of the cams. There are how you would get a solid integer tooth count.

I will speculate that the 2.4's cam sprockets either have their locating holes slightly offset to those of the 2.0, or the 2.4's cam centerlines are ground offset to the 2.0, of the dowels are at a different degree.

I hope you guys follow. It is 2.30am.