Admittedly my Camaro wasn't a daily driver, but did see plenty of use (and rpm) almost every weekend.
With the solid flat tappet, the valve springs were in the 140lbs seat / 450 open range, and when I removed the cam, the lifter bases were somewhat concave. That is the lash I was taking up. (New lifter bases are convex). The wear is completely normal and is accelerated with the use of heavier valve springs, and definitely a lack of zinc (which today, is probably worth mentioning).
On a roller, there is practically no lobe wear, so the need for lashing is even less. However, rollers do need (much) heavier valve springs to control their additional weight and accelerated valve motion (mine are now 260lbs seat / 650 open) and that can play a huge part in lash consistancy if your parts are not of high quality. Imagine the poor rocker studs trying to hold the rocker arms still while they push and release 650lbs at 7000 rpm.. So, I had to fit a stud girdle that ties them all in together and gives them a real chance at surviving. (Jesel shaft mounted rockers will be what I eventally do.)
Without the girdle, I would expect rocker stud failures, lash constantly all over the place as well as lifter and pushrod failures too.
(It's a 454 that made 580 with the roller.)
Now that I am aware that this is a relitively low-moderate rpm, 4x4 application, you wouldn't need to go to any of that excess.
Therefore, I think the cam you are going to use is a reasonably good choice.
I was really pointing out that the "zip" you are wanting is not really found in hydraulic cams and thought is was going into a Camaro that might see some Revs.