Has anybody did any real world dyno tests on similar solid roller cam, and solid flat tappet cams under the same conditions? If so are the numbers anything like the desk top dyno program or are those numbers greatly inflated. What I need to know is if a solid roller is worth an extra $1000 over a solid flat tappet in a street/drag car with at 6500 redline.

I havent seen two back to back dyno sessions testing rollers against flat tappets that was a fair test. Usually the roller has a bunch more valve lift so the comparisons are not apples to apples testing.

Two of the reasons I would change to a solid roller cams are,

1, the cylinder heads flow to a higher valve lift than the solid lifter cam can reach.

2, the engine rpm range requires more valve spring pressure than a solid lifter cam can tolerate (450 lbs plus open).

Other than those 2 parameters, spending the extra $1000 on the valvetrain, and the extra maintanence a roller requires may not be worth it. For my own stuff, the last 2 engines I built have both had solid rollers because I dont want to deal with the flat tappet lifter issues etc and both engines had really good high lift airflow.

i dont have any dyno test but i took out a solid cam 557 533 lift 264 257 dur and replaced it with a solid roler at 615 lift and 264 dur with no gains at all in the 1/8th mile .i did emty out my pockets though maybe that will pick me up some.good luck.

So why are there so many people using a roller? I cant see spending an extra $1000 for nothing.

I saw an article in one of the car magazines about 3 weeks ago on that comparison, although it was flat tappet vs. hydraulic roller. Can't remember which magazine, but believe the article was by David Vizard. It was not CHP, though. From what I remember, the roller hydraulic only became an advantage once you got above certain lift numbers, and below that number, the flat tappet actually performed better. Hope I got that right, unfortunately I'm too cheap to buy the magazine unless there's an article I'm really interested in!

I have a mag. article that they did back to back test on this and rule of thumb is 30-50 hp depending on head flow and intake choices.

I saw that article and I believe it was a good one. I am a fan of Mr. Vizard.
However, the whole roller not having an advantage when small thing is not entirely true.

The "small roller" they selected in that article had
249 advertised, 198 @ .050, 104 @ .200 and .398 peak lift.

to compare to the flat cams specs of:
250 advertised, 206 @ .050, 117 @ .200 and .432 peak lift.

The above small roller, while it IS considered an xtreme hyd roller lobe was not the best choice for comparison in my opinion.
In most lobe lines they have different levels of aggression.

The lobe I would choose is used in the smallest xtreme hyd roller "shelf stock" cam - part 12-407-8.. with specs as follows.

252 advertised, 200 @ .050 and 122 @ .200
also it has .472 peak lift to compare to the small flats .432

IF you are doing an honest BEST on BEST comparo, then you need to select the best from each category (flat VS roller). The "small roller" they chose had 1 degree less advertised than the flat and gets BADLY beaten. My choice will have a measly 2 more advertised than the flat, and offer the beating while being every bit as streetable, if not more so.

It is entirely true that the roller style accelerates slower off the seat, BUT IT CAN virtually always catch up and surpass.

My son has used both the radical flat tappet and a medium lift roller in a 481" BB and both ran the same numbers. The ZL-1 flat tappet had 1.8 rockers on the intake side and actually had more mid range power than the roller but it also laid over just after it's power peak much faster. The car ran 10.49 @ 128 with the ZL-1 cam and 10.48 at 127 with the 268/272 roller in a 3500 lb. Chevelle. It eventually broke a roller lifter while driving on the street after being installed in a '71 Chevy Truck. He got it shut down quickly and did no other apparent damage to the engine.