Reading the recent threads on roller lifter failures, I have a couple of observations / questions. To the best of my knowledge, none of the hyd roller lifters have pressurized oil lube to the bearings, this includes the factory lifters. Is this correct? Read an article on the Comp website - in short what I got out of it was that the increase in windage control and pan evac systems has led to increased roller lifter failure due to a lot less splash. If I am correct about the factory hyd rollers ( and even the aftermarkets for that matter, have Comp 854's in my motor now) not having pressure lubed bearings, then it would make sense.

Is it probable that roller lifter failure is most likely to occur as spring rates approach a certain limit - say 500+ open?

Considering the low/none failure rate of hyd roller lifters, I am guessing the longevity of such may be from a couple of reasons, lower spring pressures and constant contact of the roller with the cam due to preload.

For the guys that have had failures, it may be beneficial to know the cam specs, spring specs and if a rev kit was installed.

Interesting you raise some good points , I suspect the hydraulic roller has better life because of spring rate and preload ..........however will be interesting to see if a common theme with these failures of the solid roller .....windage control and pan evac .could be something to that

I would like to know if these failures came from engines that were idled or driven at low rpm alot ?? also what about lash specs , do tight lash cams have less failures than traditonal .024-.028 cams ??

Will be pulling the intake soon to check my Isky Red's .no issues but now want to know how they doing assume remove and check roller for any roughness

I will also be pulling my intake and checking the red zones. I am not pulling the intake just for that purpose, I think I have a sealing issue. Anyway I will report my findings. I only have about 90 1/8th mile passes so they should be like new.

Without question a rev kit is a good idea on a solid roller for the street.
Only problem is there are so many people running without them it is a hard sell & hard to argue it is a necessity.

As for spring pressures, with a solid roller the worst thing you can do is to run too little
I would always err on the heavy side of spring on a solid roller.
There is no question that the lobes have gotten more aggressive & this contributes to the problem both in pressure needs & in the pressure the roller sees when being raised.
If you look at almost any roller cam you will find the most wear on the flank of the opening side.
The reason is this is where you have the highest pressure angle or fastest rate of acceleration.
You are literally trying to push the lifter out the side of the lifter bore.
Now, at this point you are not seeing total spring pressure so the argument of spring pressures alone causing lifter failure are not really valid but it for sure has to be part of the problem.

There is no question that more spring & higher rates of acceleration put more load on the needles, the guys that are running 4-500 on the seat & 1200+ open are changing lifters damn near every weekend & there was one builder I know of for a fact that was not getting more than a few runs be it on the dyno or track without damage no matter what he was using.

I have heard the Pro Stock guys are changing lifters very frequently too & most are using Jesel or LSM $2500+ lifters..

You cannot compare a hyd roller lobe to a solid lobe in terms of aggressiveness though both are getting more-so.

There is a lot to be said for running the old "soft" lobes on the street but you are going to be giving up some power. How much I can't say.

I think the bottom line is it all depends on what you are wanting & if you are willing to accept the fact that a solid roller while very "cool" is not a stick it in the engine & forget it piece.
It will take more maintenance & is something you have to be willing to do.
If not it is probably not something you should be entertaining.

The deal is for each one that has had an issue with good parts there are a ton more that have had nothing but good results.
You have to look no further than the advertisements on the testing done on Red Zone lifters by Isky
They have been tested at "back to back" 1000 miles at about 9000 RPM, not 50,000 miles at 5000 RPM,,
And this is still one of the best lifters out there but certainly not indestructible,,

All that said, I am cautiously optimistic that the new "needleless" Red Zones will be as good as they appear.
The next place to be looking is at the Schubeck if he can get the delivery issues sorted out along with any "new part glitchs" I can see this being be a killer deal too.

I've brought this issue up here in the past, "warning" many that contrary to what the manufacturer's AND the aftermarket seller's of ALL these "bullet-proof" components are "raving" about, that they ALL still have their pitfalls! If you call on the mfr's, their response is "we have no issues". We're fed up totally with hearing this phrase. You have to put things in perspective here. If these fairly new "pressure-fed" lifters were a so-called cure for failure I can say that is merely some more "manufacturer's rhetoric", period. You wouldn't see many people, like Schubeck and others, trying to still solve the problems.
They MAY have extended the time frame for now, but they didn't cure it!

I have what I consider to be high number of "failed" pieces lying around here. And these include the "big-names". Remember here in N.Y. we have a 100 or more builder's here right in this area and get tons of feedback. Most out there never get a true picture of what's really happening!

And to take input from the mfr's./vendor's is really a stretch! I don't ever remember hearing "oh yea, that's a bad piece we make"! That'll be the day!

The rest of this issue is kind of important. From a builder's standpoint, you simply try to evaluate as much of the available info we do get from them, the rest we evaluate from our own R & D programs. Only here we can rely upon it to be the truth!

There's a "line in the sand" so to speak where you're high-horsepower unit is really a "race-only" unit that you simply choose to street drive. I "battle" with
many customers of my own here over this very issue. You wouldn't attempt to drive a "Pro-Stock" unit on the street? (I don't think!)

Now having cleared that up, there's a few things we've come to realize working basically with BB's only. Let me list them one at a time here.

1-The single most important area with respect to these failures is valve springs, period. Problems here will literally destroy the best lifters available.

2-To extend component life you MUST use the lightest parts available. Many of our own "street" units have Titanium valves. Either with inserts or lash caps. EVERYTHING "lives" longer with these valves.

3-DO NOT use springs with dampers, use actual "triples" on these type units, when possible. The "titanium" that gets peeled away from the constant contact between the retainer/damper will destroy the rollers/axles fairly quickly right along with the needle bearings in the rockers as well!

4-For street use, we prefer not using "girdles". (This depends solely on the working spring pressure here. I would expand on this part if this wasn't so long here!) The "old-style" standard rockers, again when possible, or the shaft mounts will actually let you use an "on-the-car" tester to "pull-down" the springs. This should be done with just about every oil change. By the way, while I mention oil change, LOOK at the oil and LOOK inside the filter, very carefully cutting it open, EVERY oil change.

5-No shims under the springs, cups/locators only! Shims go under the cups if necessary.

6-BB "street-units" have huge benefits from "rev-kits", this we've known for some years now. I personally believe this is extremely important for survival, the constant "pounding" on the lobes from the lash leads to premature failures.

7-Absolutely NO gear drives with solid rollers, the drive-line harmonics will also "eat" these lifters, very similar to "detonation", also very destructive to the valve train.

8-THIS IS CRITICAL: If you have ANY substantial changes in the unit, STOP immediately and if you must, TAKE IT APART!!!!!! (Specifically lash changes, this is an indication of an impending issue that IS going to surface! If it's an across-the-board" deal, you're probably OK, if it's a single, you're probably a "dead-duck" at that point.)

9-There are many more you can add on your own here, but to this very day, we have "zero" issues with "solid" rollers!

Hope some of these "tips" hit home, in my opinion, you can never be too careful! Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. My own reasoning for using and concentrating on the hyd-roller platform for the street is directly related to these issues showing up here. I have some units that have been in service for over 5 or 6 years now that have been back for "maintenance" (read that as freshen-up) and in every instance have reused the hyd-roller lifters. These are the units, BB's, making between 730 and 760 HP and are "totally" comfortable "drivers". These consist of the 854's like GRN69CHV (Vince I believe) mentioned above. Not a single wheel/axle gone "south" to date. I even have them on the "cast" blanks, although we've changed that now. "Steel cam/cast gear" combo's the way to go.

Double P.S. Just to give some more insight to what we see during the year, this past week (before Christmas) was spent testing a N/A SB with 2 cam changes using 400# seat pressure and almost 1400# open pressure. These are NOT inflated numbers. And this was still using "babbitted" BB cam bearing journals, no rollers here yet. It was stripped twice for inspection and not a single issue! I do rely heavily on Comp Cams to keep things together. And no
"pressure-fed" oiling here! I do understand the limited use!

DO NOT use springs with dampers, use actual "triples" on these type units, when possible. The "titanium" that gets peeled away from the constant contact between the retainer/damper will destroy the rollers/axles fairly quickly right along with the needle bearings in the rockers as well!

Having seen this a few times myself, I have a question: Are there any problems with simply pulling the damper out ?

Do you actually use triple springs with the Hyd rollers? and if so what PN/Brand ? I`d be interested to know.

I`ve been pro hyd roller for some years now :thumbsup:

I`ve been pro hyd roller for some years now :thumbsup:

After some of the recent threads, I am too.

Having seen this a few times myself, I have a question: Are there any problems with simply pulling the damper out ?

Do you actually use triple springs with the Hyd rollers? and if so what PN/Brand ? I`d be interested to know.

I`ve been pro hyd roller for some years now :thumbsup:

Hi Steve, we haven't used "triples" on any hyd-retro's and probably never will. Comp's been still bugging us to test with the "bee-hives", so far we don't need them. We may get there but not yet! I had a discussion with Carmen at the "The Vette Doctors" a few weeks ago and they were having issues also with getting the RPM's they needed from some new Vettes. They went over to the "bee-hives" and it totally solved their problem! These are "late" Vettes, "street-cars", running in the 7's & 8's (1/4 mile) now. These "bee-hive" springs helped get them there.

This may be the only way to go, but as I said, we don't need them at the moment. We can make above 730 HP minimum @ 6100+ on the dyno as it is now with the 928 Comp (dual) springs AND even with the chrome-moly retainers still. This is on what we call our "base" 540 pump-gas unit using under a 9.75:1 C.R. We are able to get to 6600+ RPM to date. We do have a number of units out using the "titanium" retainers and don't see the "wear & tear" on them as much with the hydraulic-rollers as you find with the solid-rollers.

You should not simply remove the dampers, they are an incorporated part of the spring design to make it function correctly as a single unit! Sort of a "control" piece for lack of a better word. Controls the harmonics!

The springs we use on most of the solid rollers are the 943's, the 947's, and the 948's. The only issue I have with Comp is they don't have the locators for the 1.625 triples, I have to use Manley's (locators) here. Many of our own spring combo's are also ordered "piece-meal" by us as individuals. We've done this for years now. Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Most of this info pertains to the BB's with the exception of the 943 springs. Also, some of that "wear & tear" with the retainers is simply unavoidable, it comes with the territory and MUST be checked occasionally. But like I stated above, on all these solid-rollers, if they can be built without the "dampers", why not? Removes one more "pending" issue!

Kind of went from roller lifter discussion to spring discussion, which I know is interelated, but, I was hoping for more response from anyone who has had roller lifter failure to post what their application was (lifter brand, cam spec, spring presure, lift, lash, rev kit installed or not) so we could get a feel for some trend. Also, I would lke to validate whether I am correct regarding the lack of pressurized oil to the roller bearings on hyd roller lifters - maybe I'll just call Comp and ask (hope I get someone to answer the call that even has a clue what I am talking about).

I do wonder/suspect that there is a greater correlation between higher spring pressures and lack of a rev kit. Much in the same way rod bearings get hammered in a motor that detonates regularly, I would suspect the initial impact on the bearing would be severe on a high seat pressure application due to the loading/unloading. This may be the reason hyd rollers live for several hundred thousand miles, despite having just spash lubrication.

You almost wonder if installation of a rev kit on a hyd roller motor may be the answer to valve float. With a billet core cam, you could add 100+# on the lifter body itself and take that load off the plunger. Although I will note this is impractical due to the rev kit spring having to sit on the snap ring. A realistic application could be employed by redesigning the top of the lifter body to have an external land when machined to act as a spring seat.

Trying to absorb all this and learn something here...

Solid Roller with 300/500#, Crower severe duty rollers, Jesel SS system.
Not to hijack, but my machinist insisted on restrictors so the valve cover area doesnt get too much oil pumped up there if I understood him right. Others say to remove them. I have a Milodon 7 quart pan with the trays...Do I have anything to worry about (havent fired it yet)?
Using Comp Nextek springs fwiw.

You should not simply remove the dampers, they are an incorporated part of the spring design to make it function correctly as a single unit! Sort of a "control" piece for lack of a better word. Controls the harmonics!

I figurered that`s what you`d say, oh well...I`ll just round off and polish the edges of the damper on the retainer end.
Thanks

I firmly believe that the cam design itself has alot to do with longevity in the valve train. That and spring pressure of course.

Kind of went from roller lifter discussion to spring discussion, which I know is interelated, but, I was hoping for more response from anyone who has had roller lifter failure to post what their application was (lifter brand, cam spec, spring presure, lift, lash, rev kit installed or not) so we could get a feel for some trend. Also, I would lke to validate whether I am correct regarding the lack of pressurized oil to the roller bearings on hyd roller lifters - maybe I'll just call Comp and ask (hope I get someone to answer the call that even has a clue what I am talking about).

I do wonder/suspect that there is a greater correlation between higher spring pressures and lack of a rev kit. Much in the same way rod bearings get hammered in a motor that detonates regularly, I would suspect the initial impact on the bearing would be severe on a high seat pressure application due to the loading/unloading. This may be the reason hyd rollers live for several hundred thousand miles, despite having just spash lubrication.

You almost wonder if installation of a rev kit on a hyd roller motor may be the answer to valve float. With a billet core cam, you could add 100+# on the lifter body itself and take that load off the plunger. Although I will note this is impractical due to the rev kit spring having to sit on the snap ring. A realistic application could be employed by redesigning the top of the lifter body to have an external land when machined to act as a spring seat.

Trying to absorb all this and learn something here...

Solid Roller with 300/500#, Crower severe duty rollers, Jesel SS system.
Not to hijack, but my machinist insisted on restrictors so the valve cover area doesnt get too much oil pumped up there if I understood him right. Others say to remove them. I have a Milodon 7 quart pan with the trays...Do I have anything to worry about (havent fired it yet)?
Using Comp Nextek springs fwiw.

I figurered that`s what you`d say, oh well...I`ll just round off and polish the edges of the damper on the retainer end.
Thanks

I firmly believe that the cam design itself has alot to do with longevity in the valve train. That and spring pressure of course.

Let me take this one at a time here.

1-GRN69CHV-My personal opinion is the fact that the roller never leaves the lobe adds "big-time" to the overall life of the entire roller setup. Good reason for the rev-kit here (on solids)! But, don't believe a rev-kit on this HR setup will have any effect on the RPM range! And just you try to get ANY engineer to redesign an already "engineered" item, GOOD LUCK on that one!

2-67T56Elky-(2 part) Spring pressure (500#) sounds a little light?
First, with respect to the Nex-Tec springs I have an issue about Manley always dropping a part and then substituting it with another, that issue troubles me most times! Makes me wonder if there were problems with the original number.
Secondly, and most important, oil restrictors serve no purpose in street cars and actually cause premature spring wear/failure. It's the oil, that gets up to the valve area, that gets to "carry" the heat from the spring. Nothing else "cools" the spring except the oil! You may want to "kick" this around with your builder but make certain you read my P.S. below!

3-BigRed-L72-This procedure, deburring/polishing, should be done to EVERY valve spring you install, this is actually an "old-school" rule. Don't know too many however following that rule today! Excellent idea!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. NEVER get into a debate with your machinist/builder, a discussion is fine but he's the last guy on the planet that you want to argue with while he's building your unit!

I hear you on the discussion with the machinist, hes kind of cut and dry, dont wanna pizz him off in case I need him in the future....Has a pretty good rep. The spring pressures are approximate, EXACT I cant remember, they were set up a few years back.
Just dont want to fubar this motor,(I could never afford to replace it) but dont want to undo someone elses work that has lightyears more experience than myself. .....
Thanks for the response.

Admittedly, my search is in its infancy, but I don't see a lot of offerings in the BBC Rev kits. Isky website is all over praising their laurels, as it should, since Ed Iskendarian patented them nearly 50 years ago. However, they only make them for SBC's.

The solid roller bounce, has to be the leading candidate in their destruction. Regardless of the method of oiling, anytime there is a seperation between any drive and driven component, the driven (roller in this case), must catch back up to the speed of the drive (cam lobe). Inevitibly, one or more areas, initially limited to the lead in ramps, will be subject to slippage as the lobe accelerates the roller. Considering the aggressiveness of todays ramps and the increased spring pressures, it's easy to imagine an oscillation type bounce, albeit limited to the +/-.020" lash.

Now, on the purely speculation side of things, relate the roller slippage, as it initiates contact with the lead in ramp, with what is experienced with wheelhop (or to a lesser extent, open wheel racing tire to tire contact). Repeated "dribbling" the roller on any part of the base circle or ramp will eventually result in scuffing of either the roller or lobe or both. This scuffing, basically traction between the surfaces, would progressively worsen the condition. Eventually, surface "cupping" would totally destabilize the valvetrain. Opening the door for all kinds of crazy sh!t to start breaking.

Although hypothetical, it's a theory that, at the very least, could be plausible.

The proven durability of hydraulic rollers, would tend to support the importance of continual roller contact, however, the very engineering that is responsible for this characteristic, has it's own inherent limitations. The first being the incremental variation of the camshafts specifications themselves (preload). To a greater extent, the rpm "ceiling" associated with hydraulic lifters in general.

If it were as simple as that, I'm sure that there would be rev kits in every product line. My own experience, almost contradicts everything mentioned
above. I'm reffering to the Lunati solid rollers with the spring loaded cross bar. In an earlier thread, I had mentioned successfully running the Lunati rollers for several thousand miles on an already thoroughly beaten on 427, then re-using them following a complete rebuild for 4 more years without incident. The contradiction, I incorrectly associated these with promoting continuous roller contact. The fact is, the spring is responsible for doing the exact opposite. Notably, their purpose is to physically lift the follower off the cam to permit cam change without removing the manifold.

I could research the exact spring pressures, as I am a pack rat, and am certain that I still have all of the information. But, this really is not necessary, since there would be considerable difference between those (.595/.612 lift) and my current springs (.714/.714 lift).

As I contemplate rectifying my current dilemma (wasted #6 exhaust solid roller and cam lobe), I have already determined that a rev kit will be incorporated. For the most part, the damaged components will simply be replaced with like pieces (Isky custom ground billet cored solid roller/Red Zones), however, dialog has already been initiated with Mike Lewis to pursue the possibility of being another Guinea Pig for the needleless Red Zones, despite the fact that I do not believe that they have actually been released as of yet. Furthermore, I am conceeding my bull headed insistance to run a gear drive. Hopefully, a suitable belt drive will be in the cards, not that I am anti-timing chain, but if engine harmonics transfering to my valvetrain are even remotely responsible, I vow to eliminate them.

This is some great reading and scary now that I'm installing a solid roller. The guy that re-did my heads likes lots of spring pressure (Looks like thats a good thing). I don't know the exact numbers but can find out.
This is a smallblock build but I guess it all still pertains ?
I am going to be running a XE series Comp Cam and Lunati SR lifters and have my fingures crossed.

Anything I should watch for ?

Admittedly, my search is in its infancy, but I don't see a lot of offerings in the BBC Rev kits. Isky website is all over praising their laurels, as it should, since Ed Iskendarian patented them nearly 50 years ago. However, they only make them for SBC's.

The solid roller bounce, has to be the leading candidate in their destruction. Regardless of the method of oiling, anytime there is a seperation between any drive and driven component, the driven (roller in this case), must catch back up to the speed of the drive (cam lobe). Inevitibly, one or more areas, initially limited to the lead in ramps, will be subject to slippage as the lobe accelerates the roller. Considering the aggressiveness of todays ramps and the increased spring pressures, it's easy to imagine an oscillation type bounce, albeit limited to the +/-.020" lash.

Now, on the purely speculation side of things, relate the roller slippage, as it initiates contact with the lead in ramp, with what is experienced with wheelhop (or to a lesser extent, open wheel racing tire to tire contact). Repeated "dribbling" the roller on any part of the base circle or ramp will eventually result in scuffing of either the roller or lobe or both. This scuffing, basically traction between the surfaces, would progressively worsen the condition. Eventually, surface "cupping" would totally destabilize the valvetrain. Opening the door for all kinds of crazy sh!t to start breaking.

Although hypothetical, it's a theory that, at the very least, could be plausible.

The proven durability of hydraulic rollers, would tend to support the importance of continual roller contact, however, the very engineering that is responsible for this characteristic, has it's own inherent limitations. The first being the incremental variation of the camshafts specifications themselves (preload). To a greater extent, the rpm "ceiling" associated with hydraulic lifters in general.

If it were as simple as that, I'm sure that there would be rev kits in every product line. My own experience, almost contradicts everything mentioned
above. I'm reffering to the Lunati solid rollers with the spring loaded cross bar. In an earlier thread, I had mentioned successfully running the Lunati rollers for several thousand miles on an already thoroughly beaten on 427, then re-using them following a complete rebuild for 4 more years without incident. The contradiction, I incorrectly associated these with promoting continuous roller contact. The fact is, the spring is responsible for doing the exact opposite. Notably, their purpose is to physically lift the follower off the cam to permit cam change without removing the manifold.

I could research the exact spring pressures, as I am a pack rat, and am certain that I still have all of the information. But, this really is not necessary, since there would be considerable difference between those (.595/.612 lift) and my current springs (.714/.714 lift).

As I contemplate rectifying my current dilemma (wasted #6 exhaust solid roller and cam lobe), I have already determined that a rev kit will be incorporated. For the most part, the damaged components will simply be replaced with like pieces (Isky custom ground billet cored solid roller/Red Zones), however, dialog has already been initiated with Mike Lewis to pursue the possibility of being another Guinea Pig for the needleless Red Zones, despite the fact that I do not believe that they have actually been released as of yet. Furthermore, I am conceeding my bull headed insistance to run a gear drive. Hopefully, a suitable belt drive will be in the cards, not that I am anti-timing chain, but if engine harmonics transfering to my valvetrain are even remotely responsible, I vow to eliminate them.

=
Rowdy
Crane has a Rev-kit that should fit the lifters
Comp has one that should fit too but both may need some slight modifications

I have stated before I will again, a Rev-kit is almost always a good idea on any endurance application & this includes street use.

In my opinion the major reasons for a rev kit are to keep the roller in contact with the lobe so it does not "skip" or slide at the end of the clearance ramp.
This in turn should tend to take out any "shock" at the end of the clearance ramp.
In a well designed cam there should be no shock here as this is what the ramp is for but everything does not always go as planned.

So your hypotheses is pretty much correct :thumbsup:

A secondary & also valid reason for a rev kit is that if you should lose a rocker or pushrod the lifter will be retained in the bore.

I do not feel you can compare hyd rollers to solid rollers with regards to lifter life at all.
Hyd rollers do not have the aggressive opening (or closing) of a solid & therefore do not need the springs of a solid to control them.
The spring pressure in itself is not what kills the rollers & needles, it is the enormous pressure that is developed by the acceleration of the roller up the ramp of the lobe.
You are trying to push the lifter out the side of the bore & it does not make it happy.
The more aggressive this action is the more force you are putting on those little needles.
Again, this is not the spring pressure, if that is all there was the lifters would probably live forever,,
The springs sole job is to keep the valvetrain stable which includes keeping the lifter in contact with the lobe in most cases (there are exceptions)

Now, for more specifics,,
The new lifters are available.
The lobes we use we can discuss.
I would like to see you upgrade your pushrods to at least a .135 wall 3/8" which would entail no work to the heads or to 7/16" single or double taper which would probably entail some grinding.
I would like to see the gear drive go but this is not a requisite, your call.
If you are to continue closing on 8000 RPM I feel you need to address the standard spring, you are probably leaning on it a bit.
Titanium retainers are in your future, or possibly the new Isky lightweight steel ones. ;)

This is some great reading and scary now that I'm installing a solid roller. The guy that re-did my heads likes lots of spring pressure (Looks like thats a good thing). I don't know the exact numbers but can find out.
This is a smallblock build but I guess it all still pertains ?
I am going to be running a XE series Comp Cam and Lunati SR lifters and have my fingures crossed.

Anything I should watch for ?
=
Yes, more spring is better than not enough on a roller.

I do hope you are having it ground on a billet core??
I absolutely refuse to use any cast core roller cam in any application.

My preference in solid roller lifters in order is
Isky Red Zones
Morel
Crower with the HPPO
Possibly the new Comp lifter but I do not have enough info on it yet.
I do know they now have true pressure oiling to the needles
I also know they have upgraded the axle to a new "Tool Steel" because of failures.

Just to add, my preference in a hyd roller is the Morel ;)
This lifter has been tested & shown to handle 160+ seat & 450+ open with over 200 used in some applications with a few added modifications.

=
Rowdy
........
If you are to continue closing on 8000 RPM I feel you need to address the standard spring, you are probably leaning on it a bit.


still don't get why a "daily driver" engine NEEDS a solid roller and revs to 8000 rpm! things coule be simpler with much better results, just my opinion...

still don't get why a "daily driver" engine NEEDS a solid roller and revs to 8000 rpm! things coule be simpler with much better results, just my opinion...
=
Umm,, not to speak for Rowdy because he really doesn't need anyone to speak for him, does a reasonable job his-self,,, but,,, how about because that is his prerogative & we live where we can,,, ;)

Some like Honda's
Some like Rice Rockets
Some like Bicycles,,,,,


And then some like rather large 8000RPM engines & Hawgs,,,,, :cool:

You know, whatever floats your boat
Or blows your skirt up,,,, :beers:

Why does my street solid roller from Comp reqiure .018 lash, wouldn't say .008 lash be easier on the lifters? Why do they want so much clearance?

Great reading.

I'm suddenly hearing a lot about rev kits for solid roller BBCs. I remember, about 10 years ago, they were pretty popular with the 5.0 crowd trying to get their heavy hyd. rollers to rev but, I haven't heard much about them again, till now.

With the mention of these rev kits and the use of dampers in the springs I am wondering, now, if my small solid roller will have an issue seeing limited around town driving on the weekends. I thought I was safe.

Here's what I have:
Cam: Comp grind .640"/.647" lift, 236/242 @ .050, 108 sep., .016/.018 lash
Lifters: Crower Severe Duty with Pin Oiling.
Springs: 939s About 170 #s open/470 #s closed.

Sounds like you guys are talking about much bigger cams. Is the info is relevant?


Thanks,
Jim

Rowdy: I'll be more blunt than Mike. Dump the gear drive!!! They make noise and use power. Go with one of the timing belt setups if you can afford it. If not, a GOOD chain and sprocket.

PRO67CHEVY: Unless I'm missing something, you need bigger valve springs. I would want more than that on a SB. Another opinion, please?

The Chevy engine blocks are made from some of the crappiest cast iron ever to be used in the manufacture of engines. It was selected solely to make the tooling last as long as possible. When you bore a Chevy, you get powder instead of chips. The same powder producing cast iron makes a poor wear surface for lifters THAT DON'T SPIN. It would be nice if the lifter had a chromed sleeve to ride in. ( Or AMPCO 21 bronze!! ) Some manufacturers have tried chroming the lifter bodies, but that is not where the problem lies.

I also believe that lifter bores should be honed to about .0005" clearance and receive full oil pressure, and that the springs should have a separate oil supply for cooling. Maybe a two stage oil pump: one for high pressure where needed and a low pressure pump for cooling oil for the valve springs with it's own cooler so they could be flooded with COLD oil, relatively speaking. Would have to be a move in the right direction.

The use of a rev kit does eliminate roller "skating". I've seen cams with small dents from lifter skate, and that small dent turns into an area that greatly increases the sideways load on the lifter body.

I mentioned in a previous post that hotrodding is not for people who are not willing to take a gamble with their hobby. Even with the best machine work and the best parts available, things break. If EVERY part isn't Rockwell tested and neutron x-rayed, you can't be sure it won't fail. We all know that would cost a fortune; only NASCAR can afford it.

From what I've learned from this forum, I would never get a hydralic roller cam that was not ground on a 8620 steel core and properly heat treated. Just isn't worth the gamble!

Lots of good info, as always.

=
Umm,, not to speak for Rowdy because he really doesn't need anyone to speak for him, does a reasonable job his-self,,, but,,, how about because that is his prerogative & we live where we can,,, ;)

Some like Honda's
Some like Rice Rockets
Some like Bicycles,,,,,


And then some like rather large 8000RPM engines & Hawgs,,,,, :cool:

You know, whatever floats your boat
Or blows your skirt up,,,, :beers:

uh?

Speaking of Rev Kits: My CC Kit plates were NOT very pretty when I purchased them 10-15 years ago. The plates were cast with no machining done to them. I spot faced all the spring seats so the springs would have a flat spot to sit on. Hope they are making those better now.

My standard answer, "If you have to ask, you've already missed the point". Usually in response to mileage inquiries, but just as relevant here.

Even with all of their resources and technology, NASCAR engines fail regularly. As much as 10% failure rate, this within 500 miles, with a maximum expectancy of 600 miles (although that does translate to over 2000 1/4 mile passes). Like Dan Patrick (ESPN) says, "you can never expect to stop it, you can only hope to contain it" (albeit in reference to football or basketball).

For the record, my original game plan revolved around 7000 max rpm. Considering that my horsepower (753.8) peaked at 6700 rpm, I'd say that things came together pretty much as planned. The MSD 6AL was installed with a 7K rev limiter chip. I found myself constantly in the limiters stutter while runing out 1st gear tire spin. Experimenting with 200rpm increases, I settled on 7600 chip. There is practically no noticeable nosing over of power, while allowing the tires to dig in and catch up. I found this to be a much more efficient method (lower E.T.) of compensating for the deficiencies of my chassis set-up, than the alternative, which would be short shifting. I prefer the frenzy of lots of metal spinning furiously out of control, rather than the anxiety of pushing the go pedal through the floor while engine grunts back into the sweet spot of the powerband. Before any of you smart a$$es divert this thread towards the obvious, the chassis is/has been on the Darwin fastrack. As a matter of fact, HRparts was the planned recipient of the cash that will now be directed elsewhere, most likely Isky. Categorically, an unscheduled delay is all.
Priority #1: PROPULSION
Priority #2: Anything that controls it.
Number one is the center of the universe. A justification of number two.
Number two might as well be a coffee table without number one.

Ken,
Mine is a Dart Big M block.

Mike,
I recall a conversation about swapping the AFR's steel retainers for the originally specified titaniums. Paperwork also states "AFR TIT 10 deg". Which is correct? Above post or Spec sheet? Oversight is completely understandable, I would like to think that you have fondled a considerable number of engines since mine.

I'd kinda like to see UDHarold chime in here. I'm curious to his opinion on the Isky lobes (R-565/R-535) 267/273 @ .050 714/714, 112 lsa. With his involvement in developing the Lunati VooDoo program and their supposedly "softer" opening and closing characteristics, I have to wonder whether his current offerings include a similar profile, while incorporating comparitively friendlier ramping. Just a thought.

Rowdy, is the Isky cam you're currently running considered a "street" roller? Comp has a tight lash grind in their Extreme Energy "street" roller line that has similar duration at slightly lower lift. That said, I suspect not all cam suppliers use the same criteria for classifying a given lobe as a "street" lobe. It would be telling to have Cam Doctor files for all these cams so we could actually compare ramps.

I ran a rev kit previously, albeit with different lifters, and still munched a roller. This was several years ago using a Comp lifter. I'm not currently running a rev kit, primarily because they are not compatible with the Crower Cutaway Severe Duty lifters.

Does anyone have any experience w/ Performance Research Ball Roller lifters? Their approach has similarities with the Schubeck Roller-X. From their website:

BALL ROLLER LIFTERS NEW!
Performance Research ProXtreme ball roller lifter is designed for the ultimate in performance and reliability. A spherical roller is suspended in oil. The body of the lifter is machined to match the diameter of a special ball roller allowing it to float freely. There is always 100% contact between the surface of the cam and the lifter because there is no shaft restricting the movement of the ball. Our .875”diameter lifter with a .750” diameter ball will carry more load than a conventional roller with a half-inch diameter pin. A DLC coating is applied to the body of the lifter and the ball roller to allow it to move freely and not gall until oil pressure can build up. In addition to having a longer service life than conventional rollers this lifter can also be rebuilt. Roller lifters are available in .875” , .935”, 1.00”, 1.035”, and 1.060”.

http://www.thevalvetrain.com/pages/products.html

Mark

still don't get why a "daily driver" engine NEEDS a solid roller and revs to 8000 rpm! things coule be simpler with much better results, just my opinion...

I don’t think anyone “needs” a solid roller big block daily driver, but you could extend that to just about anything above a high mileage 4-cylinder basic transportation econo box. Do you “need” a V8? Do you “need” headers or an aftermarket cam and intake? Some like to live closer to the edge. Vive le difference!

This entire "problem" has been AND will be around for a long time. Some of it, this destruction, is considered "normal" in this business. Comes with the territory!

You can only take the proper precautions to extend the time frame between events.

BBC roller units are tougher ones to make work for any length of time ON THE STREET! You MUST follow some basic rules. Many of these rules come down to us through ALL the dyno AND track feedback we take in and record for our own purposes.

I'll put this here one more time: you CANNOT build a "track-only" style unit and then expect it to be a "daily-driver" and go 50,000+ (exaggerated) miles. It's NOT gonna happen!

BB solid roller's for street use, remember we're talking about that very specific platform here, the higher HP units, MUST use Titanium retainers, MUST use a 1.625 spring, and MUST be "watched/checked" regularly. Use a "real" triple spring on these, no dual/dampener setups. The 3 spring setup will absorb much more abuse than any duals.

Most important info we've gotten from ALL our testing is the sole fact that Titanium valves work, period. They solve many of the issues showing up here. Some units we build with Stainless valves only get a season, if that much, on a set of springs. We see sometime 2 to 3 seasons using the same spring part
numbers when these extremely "light" valves are used in the package.

I recently had a customer using a set of BB "XXX" heads that came the door with both a steel retainer AND a set of 1.550 springs. That crossed our own "line-in-the-sand" rules. He was told, not asked, TOLD, to cahnge to the Titanium retainers AND the 1.625" springs. He was told by the head mfr. that the 1.550 Nex-Tec's were fine to use as were the steel's. He was ready to leave with the heads but decided to change the retainers over. We agreed to the "retainer-only" deal and built his unit. Another story here, but he already has in the past months changed to the 1.625" springs AND another set of Titanium retainers.

Look, I can only pass along what we've learned here, nothing more, but we have no "unattributable" lifter failures at all. Don't read this as a bunch, occasionally we see some because the customer gets "lazy" or just "cheaps" out and tries to extend the spring life!

My customers use NO synthetic oils, and ALL are instructed to use only the
"straight-weight/racing only" oils. Absolutely no "MULTI-WEIGHT" oils on these units. This is my rules AND these are "etched in stone". You don't listen here and you are 100% on your own. Most stay with the Valvoline-Race, we got "hooked" on this many years ago working first-hand with a Funny-Car operation. Hope you all get something of value here.

Don't want to "harp" on one of the issues here, but "gear-drives" eat solid roller lifters for breakfast! On one more important note here, before you pick out a belt drive, any brand, for street use, I would recommend doing some
"in-depth" homework here. As per Jesel's phone converstion, they were totally against using one of their's for one of my own street units.These belts are considered a maintenance item and are subject to a limited number of passes. Another reason against them here in this arena! Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

This following sentence is a reply to many who e-mail me questioning the fact why I refuse to by ANY preassembled heads: "Much of what's going on here can be avoided by "picking" your own components for your own personal use with your individual unit, period!"

P.S. A "handful" of the units we build, both SB and BB combined, only get some 10/20 passes on a set of springs. I realize these are "dedicated" race units but it puts the picture in perspective. You shell out over 600.00 for a set of these springs and after 20 runs (maybe) their in the dumpster! EVERY one of these units has Titanium intakes AND exhausts.

Double P.S. Back to these units, the BB's, solid roller's, 750 HP or better, 275# springs or higher, more street use than strip, and owners with "lead" feet, "bite-the-bullet" and put in BOTH Titanium intake and exhaust valves NOW! It will save much grief later. This area we've done extensive testing with over the years! When you want your street unit to act like a race unit, it better have the race parts to back it up!

.
My customers use NO synthetic oils, and ALL are instructed to use only the
"straight-weight/racing only" oils. Absolutely no "MULTI-WEIGHT" oils on these units. This is my rules AND these are "etched in stone". You don't listen here and you are 100% on your own. Most stay with the Valvoline-Race, we got "hooked" on this many years ago working first-hand with a Funny-Car operation. Hope you all get something of value here.

I understand the principle behind most of what you are trying to make a point about. ..and I understand not everyone has to follow these "exact rules" to achieve the same result, but could you please expand on this comment above. Not sure I understand your reasoning.

Jim

My standard answer, "If you have to ask, you've already missed the point". Usually in response to mileage inquiries, but just as relevant here.

Even with all of their resources and technology, NASCAR engines fail regularly. As much as 10% failure rate, this within 500 miles, with a maximum expectancy of 600 miles (although that does translate to over 2000 1/4 mile passes). Like Dan Patrick (ESPN) says, "you can never expect to stop it, you can only hope to contain it" (albeit in reference to football or basketball).

For the record, my original game plan revolved around 7000 max rpm. Considering that my horsepower (753.8) peaked at 6700 rpm, I'd say that things came together pretty much as planned. The MSD 6AL was installed with a 7K rev limiter chip. I found myself constantly in the limiters stutter while runing out 1st gear tire spin. Experimenting with 200rpm increases, I settled on 7600 chip. There is practically no noticeable nosing over of power, while allowing the tires to dig in and catch up. I found this to be a much more efficient method (lower E.T.) of compensating for the deficiencies of my chassis set-up, than the alternative, which would be short shifting. I prefer the frenzy of lots of metal spinning furiously out of control, rather than the anxiety of pushing the go pedal through the floor while engine grunts back into the sweet spot of the powerband. Before any of you smart a$$es divert this thread towards the obvious, the chassis is/has been on the Darwin fastrack. As a matter of fact, HRparts was the planned recipient of the cash that will now be directed elsewhere, most likely Isky. Categorically, an unscheduled delay is all.
Priority #1: PROPULSION
Priority #2: Anything that controls it.
Number one is the center of the universe. A justification of number two.
Number two might as well be a coffee table without number one.

Ken,
Mine is a Dart Big M block.

Mike,
I recall a conversation about swapping the AFR's steel retainers for the originally specified titaniums. Paperwork also states "AFR TIT 10 deg". Which is correct? Above post or Spec sheet? Oversight is completely understandable, I would like to think that you have fondled a considerable number of engines since mine.

I'd kinda like to see UDHarold chime in here. I'm curious to his opinion on the Isky lobes (R-565/R-535) 267/273 @ .050 714/714, 112 lsa. With his involvement in developing the Lunati VooDoo program and their supposedly "softer" opening and closing characteristics, I have to wonder whether his current offerings include a similar profile, while incorporating comparitively friendlier ramping. Just a thought.
=
Rowdy, you are correct, you have Titanium retainers, sorry about the mind lapse :(

Just for info as there seems to be a bit if ongoing misinformation here about the "XXX" heads,,,
THE STANDARD SPRING IS A 1.625 POLISHED CHROME SILICONE SPRING not a 1.550, has been for about 3 years now.
Another running change for the better by this company.

Now if they as well as Brodix would use cups or locators,,,,, :mad:

It is not a Tool Room, It is not a PSI or Nextek but it is a reasonably good spring.
As far as dampers, I do not disagree that they are a "necessary evil" in a lot of cases & are hard on retainers,, but case in point.
Isky Tool Room springs including the RAD series are considered by most that know what they are talking about as one of a of the best springs on the market. There are others but this is one.
Of the 15 or so part numbers only one does not have a damper.
I use these springs in some pretty hi end stuff & they have solved a lot of problems.
One particular combo was tried with another spring of equal quality without a damper.
It lost springs damn near every race & these were not cheap springs.
Turns out the spring in question was not happy at the RPM this engine was at for extended periods, the spring with a damper was.

This is just one example, I could site more but in endurance engines you do not see 1200+ spring pressures. & you almost never see triple spring packages.
For one in a lot of cases, they won't fit. Hell, in the above case you have to put the heads on now without the ex springs on,,

With the double spring packages a lot are going to use a damper in the endurance lines which is what I consider street rollers to be.

Now when it comes to drag race applications in most classes you can get away with things that would destroy an endurance engine in less than a lap when we are discussing valve trains.

All springs (with the exception of "Beehive" types) , pushrods etc have resonant frequencies at a certain RPM or multiple of this RPM
If you zip through this RPM as in drag racing it is not a big deal.
If the RPM happens to be say 7200 & this is where you end up for any extended period of time what do you suppose is going to happen??
I can tell you it is not good :sad:
Dampers help to stabilize this
Double springs have different natural frequencies so this would be better than a single
Triples have three different natural frequencies.
Springs without dampers are also wound in opposite directions & this tends to help.

Anyway, do I like dampers,,, not really
Do I use them?? Yes in a lot of cases I do ;)
And I live with the retainer damage.

Yes, dampers eat at Titanium retainers, so do the springs to some extent. Fact of life.
The deal is why are the pieces that are getting scrubbed off not entrapped in the oil filter?
In my case I see little if any bearing, lifter or other damage due to the retainer "issue"
Granted, some is going to end up in places you don't want it due to splash but so is a lot of crap, not just retainers.
You cannot believe the crap that ends up in the oil from the valve train, timing,,,,, the list goes on.

This is why I am a firm believer in blocking it the stock bypass in any performance engine

My opinion is there are very few people that are going to the trouble of building an engine like this that are not going to maintain it which includes changing the filter on occasion.

The bypass is simply there because there are some that do not have sense enough to come in out of the rain let alone maintain there vehicle so GM made it "dummy proof" And dirty oil is better than no oil LOL,,,

Ok, I have rambled on enough here

Happy New Year everyone :beers:

.


I understand the principle behind most of what you are trying to make a point about. ..and I understand not everyone has to follow these "exact rules" to achieve the same result, but could you please expand on this comment above. Not sure I understand your reasoning.

Jim

Hi Jim, just to follow up here, I'm able to take the results of ALL our own testing and analyze each individual unit on a per/unit basis as to ALL the components utilized AND combine these "statistics" along with the results of other's that I test for. This includes the oil we run, whether or not filter's been by-passed, etc.! After a time you get a sort of "pattern" of the units that have issues and those that don't.

Let me clear that up some. We use ONLY straight-weight Valvoline in the units we're discussing here, BB, solid-roller, 800 HP (give-or-take), and most important, street-driven. From the input we've accumulated to date we've found what SEEMS to work best, at least for us here, in these very units. NO units leave here with the filter by-passed. If you want to change that after it's through the test period and gone, I have no problem with that!

As I try to cover all the info here it seems as though each reply raises more questions, which is OK. Just difficult to keep track sometimes!

Like I've said, we have NO issues to date, but I'm not certain what we do here is going to solve anything for others. I would hope the info helps, but I can do no more than pass it along.

I have another of my own theories here but I cannot prove it at this point. I believe when you shut down a "just-run" hot unit, much of the oil actually drains off many of the internal components until the point where the engine temps are stabilized equal to the ambient readings. It's at the point of the first re-start that much of the "wear" starts to occur and MAY become the "launch-pad" for future issues, as I said I can't prove it, yet! I've been looking at this area for some time now and have some ideas to try, but the time factor is not available just now. I barely have time to build these units once, I do not have time to do them over!

(Add) In a any standard engine there's a time frame where none of the components that are inside are anywhere near the original "dimensions" cold that the same unit sees at operating temps. The "stresses" inside are so minimal that basically no damage occurs, now take a roller lifter with 750# spring pressure and start it "cold" and try to imagine what that roller feels like or is seeing!!! Basically the lobe is somewhat "oil-free" so to speak from the last shut-down! It will take a few seconds to get oil pressure up but the lifter "sees" the load pressure immediately. The first 1/2 rotation, or less, while cranking starts that much of that pressure at the valve train. I hope you understand what point I'm trying to get across here!

Thanks Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Rowdy, I hear you mention Isky for a possible cam choice. If you get time "cruise" over to the "Speedtalk" site and I'm sure you'll find some input on Isky's cams. I have read about them over there and am in total agreement with what was written. Isky is years behind still! This is with respect to cams
only! Harold up here may be able to explain it better, but that's how I read it!

Gary, what do you think of the new Comp solid lifters?

I'll add this for what it's worth since it has been mentioned: The greatest way to wear out any engine in a hurry is to remove the thermostat. The reason brakes fad when they are hot is, the warmer things get, the less friction there is between them. An engine that has a constant coolant temperature of 100 degrees will wear out about 40 times faster than one with a coolant temp of 180 degrees. Oil needs to be at least 220 degrees to keep the condensation boiled out of it. On many large machines, plain automotive type bearings are clearanced so they will run at 180 degrees to provide the longest life.

Synthetic oils have a higher boiling temp than fossil oils. Most cam companies do not recommend them for cam break-in. There is probably a message there. I believe Crower specifically says to avoid all synthetics. The jury is still out on oil bases. I think the two filter setups, one full flow, and the other by-pass are a good thing to have.

In theory, the roller lifter with the 3/4" ball should last at least as long as a ball point pen: it's the same principle. With all the oil being squeezed out by high spring loads during shut off periods, it doesn't sound like a long lasting solution to me. Looks like something that would benefit from a pre-lube device. Cams could be ground with a taper face like FT to give the lifter a spin. It might work. I wouldn't buy the first set!

Now I understand the synthetic Vs. dino lubes and all but if syn. oil is better at protection,longer time between oil changes,better at controlling temps due to more lubricity (part of the additive package) Why wouldn't you want to use it at break-in ? Rings seat fairly quick and protection of the bearings other moving parts are Necessary,and don't forget the temps we see at break-in. Now on a roller setup I would think we would like this ?

Roller bearings heat up during run-in as I see this on equipment all the time. Temp will peak given a short time and then come down to running temps in a short time... this using syn.220 Mobil grease... I would guess something similar happens in a motor (bearing seating).

Gary, what do you think of the new Comp solid lifters?

I'll I believe Crower specifically says to avoid all synthetics.

To 69-CHVL: I assume we're still talking solid roller's here. I have a number of sets out now but it's kind of too early to get feedback. I don't really expect any issues on these for the same reason's as posted above. I don't have any bad lifters back at the moment. Remember, we use a high number of roller lifters WITHOUT the pressure-fed setup. They just don't make any of this type for many of our builds. We use many rollers with the .180" offset seats. These solve a bunch of clearance issues. (If you do mean the standard solids, not rollers, these are Johnson's, which we use already from Johnson by the trays).

To Ken: In the past we've tested a number of synthetic oils on units that were already on the dyno and finished. We did the Amsoil "Race" on the last one a while back. It just followed suite with all the previous tests. We were instructed to change both the oil AND their filter together. I assume they didn't want the oil left in the filter to "mix"! No problem. Unit had entirely different "sound" on fire-up. Anyway, to keep it short here, the power was down approximately 40 HP. Unit was a 327 SB making 531 HP, with the Amsoil the best we could do was 491, that was it! Flow-meter skyrocketed, "probes" (exhaust-temps) went "ice-cold". Oil WILL not work with this specific ring combo! Put the drained Valvoline AND filter back in, went straight back to 531 HP AND original "sound" returned. The "synthetics" may have improved since but being we will NOT use them, to me it's non-issue! Maybe Crower knows something he's not saying! As to your comment about the pre-oiler, this is definitely along the lines I'm thinking with respect to the "cold-starts". Just to add here, with the oil going directly to the bearings now, this may make a huge improvement in the life expectancy of the lifters. Fresh oil at cold(er) temps, read that as "heavy" oil, getting right to the load area of the lifters BEFORE cranking the unit I believe would be tremendous benefit. This theory would have to be tested!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

I want to wish EVERYONE here a healthy and "Happy New Year", Gary.

P.S. One more item I haven't mentioned here concerning solid-roller setups is the fact I send out ALL roller cams with between .001"/.003" endplay AND always a "true-roller" button up front. I have run them looser in the past with no problems either. That's all the end play I leave now, and I have no issues here either. Have never "galled" a thrust surface with the cams this tight. I do use a number of "ridgid" (cast aluminum) covers except on the stock appearing resto's that have hyd-rollers. We must use the factory "tin" here!

To 69-CHVL:
To Ken: In the past we've tested a number of synthetic oils on units that were already on the dyno and finished. We did the Amsoil "Race" on the last one a while back. It just followed suite with all the previous tests. We were instructed to change both the oil AND their filter together. I assume they didn't want the oil left in the filter to "mix"! No problem. Unit had entirely different "sound" on fire-up. Anyway, to keep it short here, the power was down approximately 40 HP. Unit was a 327 SB making 531 HP, with the Amsoil the best we could do was 491, that was it! Flow-meter skyrocketed, "probes" (exhaust-temps) went "ice-cold". Oil WILL not work with this specific ring combo! Put the drained Valvoline AND filter back in, went straight back to 531 HP AND original "sound" returned. The "synthetics" may have improved since but being we will NOT use them, to me it's non-issue! Maybe Crower knows something he's not saying! As to your comment about the pre-oiler, this is definitely along the lines I'm thinking with respect to the "cold-starts". Just to add here, with the oil going directly to the bearings now, this may make a huge improvement in the life expectancy of the lifters. Fresh oil at cold(er) temps, read that as "heavy" oil, getting right to the load area of the lifters BEFORE cranking the unit I believe would be tremendous benefit. This theory would have to be tested!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.


=
So Gary,
With all due respect,,,,
Are you saying that every NASCAR team, every F1 team, every Pro Stock team, almost all Comp, SS Stock,,,, the list goes on are all wrong or that their testing is flawed?
Add tons of circle track, SCCA,,,, you get the idea I am trying to convey here with respect to Synthetic oils.

And 40HP with an oil change? Maybe if you went from zero weight to grade 60 with too much in the pan,,
Now if you had said 4HP or 10HP I would not question it much but 40?
This sounds like a bad TV add for Uncle Ben's magic elixir :D
I am afraid this I would need to see to believe no matter who stated it.

As for 'pre-oilers, they have been around for years.
Called Accusump among others & are used in a lot of endurance venues
Work excellent both as a pre-oilier as well as any time a momentary loss of oil pressure might happen.
http://www.accusump.com/ (http://www.accusump.com/)

http://moroso.com/catalog/categorydisplay.asp?catcode=13600 (http://moroso.com/catalog/categorydisplay.asp?catcode=13600)

And Happy New Year to you as well as everyone else on this site too :beers:

Mike, with all due respect, just slow down some,

(quote) Oil WILL not work with this specific ring combo! (end quote)

1-I was asked by the Amsoil rep to do the test!!! Wasn't my idea! Warned him about ring pack/wall finish. Told me "It don't matter". Well, I helped him take his foot out of his mouth after the test! Didn't utter a word!

2-Well aware of Accu-Sump. If you "poll" a hundred, maybe even a thousand street-cars, about how many Accu-Sumps would you expect to find? None maybe?

Personally I believe this would be an avenue to persue, but I doubt anyone is going to want the "decades-old" particular design in their "ride". Maybe a different type, but who knows?
Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. You normally see me agree with you many times (well sometimes, well maybe once in awhile) on many issues, but rings and finishes are something we get real serious about. Would have never recommended "gapless" rings until leaving the dyno room last weekend. There may be a "niche" for them in one single, very isolated, area. Now having said that I doubt it would be of any concern to even one single individual up here. It actually will be of little value to me and my present path I'm traveling. I haven't had time to do any homework on this issue this week with most businesses closed or working limited hours. Most up here would have to see a block we've honed to understand where I'm going here. We're still honing these units with "cork"! I know you get that!

Something about oil: Some years ago, I tried 100:1 oil mix in my dirt bike after running 32:1 for years with no trouble. The oil maker claimed 100:1 mix of their synthetic oil would not contribute to excessive ring wear. And it didn't! But the bearings fell apart in no time. From what I gather, synthetic oil works great for sleeve bearings and piston rings, but it is not the best for the cam/lifter interface. It must have something to do with the spinning and the splash oiling. I don't know. I do know that the cam people recommend Pennsylvania over Texas, and fossil over synthetic for flat tappets. (I don't know if there is still any Penn. oil left.)

Oil in a rod or main bearing is pressure fed and creates a wedge of oil that the bearing floats on. Oil on a flat tappet is splash fed, and the very action of the cam turning tries to wipe the oil from between the cam and lifter: the exact opposite of the action in the bearing. So you REALLY need two different kinds of oil in your engine: one that shears easily, so the rings don't skate over it, and one that is like grease with a very high shear strength, to separate the cam from the lifter.

Which brings us back to that age old position: Compromise, an oil that works reasonably well in both places. I have to disagree with GOSFAST! Numerous dyno results have pointed to increased HP with synthetics. Lots of high priced cars come with syn in the crankcase and it's covered by warranty, and most of those cars have have roller tappets. I agree with GOSFAST about using straight weight oils. Straight 30 weight has a much higher load carrying ability than 10W30.

Which makes me draw the conclusion: Synthetics are great if you have a roller cam! If you have the old slip/n/slide, go with fossil.

I still think lifter bore prep is important. I'd like to see lifters made .005 over so the lifter bores could be honed for an accurate fit or some oversize that would allow fixing leaning bores without sleeving. I've seen some VERY rough finishes on factory lifter bores.

I must stress, these are my opinions as of today. They may change tomorrow if I learn something new.

I can't believe I missed this thread!!

And I gotta say one way around all this crap is to do JUST WHAT THE RICERS HAVE DONE FOR YEARS!!

Install 4-valve heads and be done with it!

http://www.araoengineering.com/Chevy/chevybb.htm

I say this b/c they work for the ricers b/c 4 small valves are easier to control at rpm, plus will flow a darn sight more air than two!!

This way we don't get into when our solid roller lifters are going to fail b/c spring pressures are so much lower due to the smaller valves being actuated!!

Think about this for a bit and MIKE, you were right, there's alotta good info in those links you mentioned...

pdq67

Good though - right up until the $20,000.00 price tag.

But, that wasn't the intent of the thread. Intent was to discuss who has had failures and what the application was with the intent of defining some commonality of installations.

Just an update on my Isky Red Zones, other than the normal minor scuffing on the lifter bodies, they look and feel like new. Only about 95 1/8th mile passes so far though. One other thing, I don't run 800#'s open pressures. Only about 675 open, and 250 seat. I run the Isky tool room springs. One of the reasons I wanted to check the lifters. So far so good.

GRN69CHV,

Sorry, I didn't realize how deep this stuff has gotten when you throw in SOTA valve train tech. and Oil Tech. together. And right, $20,000 is alotta money but I bet the price would come down big-time if they were mass produced by GM!!!!!!!

How much is a SOTA NASCAR/NEXTEL or whatever they are called valve-train worth nowadays?

9,000+ rpm capability, TI valves, TI keepers, locks, super high lift cams and 1200 pound just 500+ mile springs, ( I think I have this right??), and such compared to a $20,000 4-valve head set-up????

And they aren't allowed to use SOTA roller lifters that are to me REALLY PRICEY now aren't they??

And everybody knows my views on Synthetic oils.

PA crude is supposedly made of a different carbon chain base than TX crude if I remember right. Something about it being of a parafinnic base vs aliphatic base IIRC??

I will have to ask my Budy at work.....

Please carry-on and I will gladly read right along and learn more about this.

Thanks guys for putting up with me,

pdq67

Here's what I can't figure out. Hyd roller lobes are supposed to have quicker seat ramps than solids and solid rollers have softer ramps than hyd rollers. After that, the acceleration rates change and it is solid rollers all the way. Seems to me that for lower RPM intentions (say less than 6500), and a lot of street use, it may make sense to run the newer solid roller lobes with the newer hyd roller lifters ran at "0" lash or possibly 1/4 turn preload. Essentially, you end up with an agressive lobe and a lifter that is in contact with the lobe at all times.

Am I missing something?

As good as the 4 valve setup looks, it is still a pushrod engine! Thay have a special class for pushrod engines at Indy, which allows them to run more cubic inches than overhead cam engines. That's why Harley prostocks can run 160 ci and Suzuki can only run 92 ci. (Did you ever notice that they don't allow 2 strokes in that class?)

If we had an economy that fostered conservation instead of consumption, maybe Detroit would have given us 4 valve, OHC years ago. Europeans and Japs have tried to build efficient engines to offset the prices of expensive fuel that we have become so accustomed to.

If we had an economy that fostered conservation instead of consumption, maybe Detroit would have given us 4 valve, OHC years ago. Europeans and Japs have tried to build efficient engines to offset the prices of expensive fuel that we have become so accustomed to. I don't mean to take this thread off-topic,and I know that most of us here are very much into old muscle cars equipped with V8 pushrod engines, but aren't you forgetting the Ford 4.6L V8 engines? They're 32 valve DOHC motors. No, I'm not a Ford Loyalist, but I just sold a 2003 Mercury that I had a small supercharger in, that had a DOHC V8 32 valve engine. I had it for 3 1/2 years. Those motors rev real good, but compared to the 4.6L 16 valve SOHC engines, they seem to have less low end power, but at about 4,000 RPM and up, they take over. I still like pushrod motors better though.

Anyway, this is a fantastic thread. You guys have some serious knowledge about all this stuff! It's been a great read so far. Thanks!!

Here's what I can't figure out. Hyd roller lobes are supposed to have quicker seat ramps than solids and solid rollers have softer ramps than hyd rollers. After that, the acceleration rates change and it is solid rollers all the way. Seems to me that for lower RPM intentions (say less than 6500), and a lot of street use, it may make sense to run the newer solid roller lobes with the newer hyd roller lifters ran at "0" lash or possibly 1/4 turn preload. Essentially, you end up with an agressive lobe and a lifter that is in contact with the lobe at all times.

Am I missing something?
=
A few things,, :D
A hyd roller lifter will not tolerate a ton of pressure for control that the aggressive lobes need.
And, the hyd roller lifter is going to be heavier than a solid.

An aggressive solid roller cam accelerates the lifter (valve train) much faster than a hyd & the pressure that is generated at this high pressure angle is way more than any spring generates on the roller.
Have you ever noticed that the first place a solid roller tracks is on the opening ramp?
This is not where the spring pressure is the greatest, it is where the positive acceleration is the greatest.
You are trying to push the lifter out the side of the bore.

The negative acceleration on the other side is where you need a spring to control what happens
This along with the lifter trying to come to a zero acceleration state & reverse as it comes over the nose is why you need a lot of spring.

Harold could probably give you numbers but they are huge & I would think go up with RPM.

Another huge issue is you have clearance ramps on a solid so if you run it at zero lash you have just created a cam with seat timing that grows by probably 20-40 degrees depending on the ramp design,,,,

So, running solids on a hyd is one thing, doing the opposite is not going to work

=======

PDQ
No, the Cup guys do not run a zillion pounds of pressure, they run flat tappet cams & give or take 500 lbs last I heard but they are not noted for giving out information freely ;)
They are Billet core cams & Tool steel lifters & are good for one race,,,,
Cost on a cam alone is about $2000

Mike: I believe that the Cup Chevys were allowed to run an .875 Ford lifter so the Chevys would not be at a disadvantage in the cam department. Have they allowed larger lifters, now that Chrysler is back in the race? I don't follow NASCAR closely either. I think they outlawed mushroom tappets in Chevys years ago. I believe the timing on the 293 Chevy mushroom cam exceeded what could be done with a solid roller. (Area under the curve.)

Even Chevy roller cams are compromised because of the small roller diameter, as are some overhead cam designs, which are flat tappet designs and do not use the design benefits of curved followers.

Harold: How does a 1 inch mushroom tappet compare to a 3/4" roller? If we could get equal performance out of a mushroom, would you make them? Aside from slight block prep, and the replacement difficulties, what is the disadvantage? (I can see Mike is already thinking about where he is going to buy those reverse facing counterbores.)

Also Harold: How are inverse flanks ground? Is the inverse on the closing side? If so, wouldn't that cause more reversion? If on the opening side, more lifter wear? Something I've wondered about for a long time.

I'm still partial to the OHC design on the old 6 cylinder Pontiac.

Ferrari makes a really neat 5 valve head!

Ooooooh!!

I gotta bring this back up!!

Too much good stuff here to let it die!!

And I've asked Harold about mushroom lifters when I talked to him about making a solid cam counterpart to CC's good old 288AR solid street roller b/c I won't run a solid roller on the street for fear of eating a lifter.

Harold came through too and created it!!!!!

pdq67

I believe they used mushroom lifters in 50's Fords. Not a new concept.

There will be a new hyd. roller lifter introduced sometime this year by the guys at Morel. This lifter is a hyd roller designed to run at 7600 rpm all day long with pumping up. It has been in testing for the last 12 months in the field. In some testing in house Morel found some "issues" with std hyd rollers. In addressing these issues they were able to come up with a new oil metering system that is stable at high sustained rpms.

You will be able to run higher seat and open spring pressure on this lifter to control the enertia at the higher rpms without colapsing the lifter. Pricing has not been set but I would have to assume a set will be around $675 a set.

I believe they used mushroom lifters in 50's Fords. Not a new concept.

There will be a new hyd. roller lifter introduced sometime this year by the guys at Morel. This lifter is a hyd roller designed to run at 7600 rpm all day long with pumping up. It has been in testing for the last 12 months in the field. In some testing in house Morel found some "issues" with std hyd rollers. In addressing these issues they were able to come up with a new oil metering system that is stable at high sustained rpms.

You will be able to run higher seat and open spring pressure on this lifter to control the enertia at the higher rpms without colapsing the lifter. Pricing has not been set but I would have to assume a set will be around $675 a set.

Hi Ken, I'm not sure how aware you are of ALL the truth's in that statement, let me add some there:
1-Just delivered a 1920 Buick, 6 cylinder, an "awesome" build. Came from the factory in 1919 with "headland" rings. Ring any bells?

2-(Ken) Did 2 Fords, last year back to back, a '55 T-Bird, 292" and a '56 T-Bird 312". Both considered "Y" blocks. You must install those "mushroom" tappets BEFORE you install the cams!

3-This I'd placed up here before, "Bee-Hive" springs appeared on '54 Oldsmobiles, maybe earlier, and on most intake valves, I think, maybe it was the exhaust's, on the mid '70's V-6 Buicks. Wire's new, technology's old!

4-"Center-counterweights" on the crankshafts in the Flathead Fords. Block uses only 3 main bearings. We "drew" on this one about a year ago when we couldn't get another builder's unit through the dyno room with a 5.500" stroke. We changed the crank to a "center-counterweighted" one and proceeded to deliver it. No more issues!

(ChrisS)-The lifter's you mention, the H.R.'s, we already have at 7500 with slightly higher pressures than the "standard" retro's. BUT they do not function as the "standard" hydraulic's. Comp calls them their "Pro-Magnums". I wont use them in street cars. AND the "wheels/needles" issues are certain to follow the path of the solid-rollers if you go with "higher" spring pressures than required now on these hydraulics! See the P.S. below!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. IF "Morel" is building MOST of these lifters, you may want to mention 2 specific issues that would really be a great improvement over what they have now, first, get whoever assembles these pieces to learn about a "drop" of
"Loctite" on the rivets, not an "oil-can" shot, and second, most importantly, make them able to be disassembled for cleaning! They put enough "Loctite" on them during asembly that the excess drips into the plunger area and it becomes a "solid" hydraulic roller. I've returned many over this issue. You
would attempt to adjust the valves and the plungers would go into a state of
"lock-down by Loctite".

(ChrisS)-The lifter's you mention, the H.R.'s, we already have at 7500 with slightly higher pressures than the "standard" retro's. BUT they do not function as the "standard" hydraulic's. Comp calls them their "Pro-Magnums". I wont use them in street cars. AND the "wheels/needles" issues are certain to follow the path of the solid-rollers if you go with "higher" spring pressures than required now on these hydraulics! See the P.S. below!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. IF "Morel" is building MOST of these lifters, you may want to mention 2 specific issues that would really be a great improvement over what they have now, first, get whoever assembles these pieces to learn about a "drop" of
"Loctite" on the rivets, not an "oil-can" shot, and second, most importantly, make them able to be disassembled for cleaning! They put enough "Loctite" on them during asembly that the excess drips into the plunger area and it becomes a "solid" hydraulic roller. I've returned many over this issue. You
would attempt to adjust the valves and the plungers would go into a state of
"lock-down by Loctite".

Gary,
Morel makes 1 lifter for Comp and that is the Fuel lifter with the double axle exhaust. Comps hyd rollers are not Morels.

Morels lastest generation has been in live marine testing. Contiuous rpm levels of 7000 plus for 20 and 30 minute runs. I know of no hyd roller lifter that can do this.

The std Morel hyd roller BBC lifter sees seat pressures now of 150# to 190# by engine builders with no issues what so ever. Their HLT ( Limited travel) I have sold to many street and marine customers. This lifter is a hyd but treated like a solid. Set at Zero lash and then forget about them.

The use of "needle" bearings for roller lifters will be over in the next 5 to 6 years I would guess...just my opinion. Morel developed "needless" solid roller lifters back in the '80's for the McClaren Buick Indy team. Morel patented the material and process back then. They brought this to aftermarket back then but were laughed at. Hmmm, times change.

On the Loctite, I don't know who's lifters your using but they are not Morels. It is a staked rivot on their lifter with NO LOCTITE.

If you need some REAL Morels I have them on the shelf, PM me a ship to and I will send you some.

Mushroom lifters in the old 239, 256, 272, 292 and 312 Ford "Y"-blocks. Oiled through the block to the rocker shafts that usually got dirty and plugged up!

That's why you see them with copper oil lines on top of them..

This is fascinating about the needle-less lifter designs!!

Please carry-on.

pdq67

I was just looking through my 1982 Isky cat. and came across their ad for "rev caps", anybody ever use them or know of anybody that has??

Isky say's that they were originally designed for BB's and Hemi's b/c their inherently severe pushrod angles prevents the use of their original design "Ultra Rev Kit"...

Seems they are big dia, thin steel caps that are placed between the valve tips and the rockers and use big outer springs to keep pressure on the rockers, pushrods and lifters at all times..

I'd call them a "rocker arm rev kit".......................

pdq67

PS. Isky patented this kit too!

I commend you on having a 1982 Isky catalog. And I thought that I was a pack rat. I probably have one also, but after moving nearly 10 times since then, I have no idea where to look. I like to keep an inventory of catalogs from SEMA and replenished it this year.

I like the idea, but question the durability of the lash caps, as well, I can't actually picture the confiuration. Where would the spring seat on the valve itself? Could it possibly seat on the retainer? I guess that it could, the "Rev" spring wouldn't have nearly enough pressure to unseat the retainer/locks. Does the catalog offer any kind of illustration?

Yes, there's a pic of it on a valve!

Page 14..

The rev cap spring surrounds the other spring(s) and the retainer on the outside of them and it only contacts the rev cap which then pushes up on the rocker arm is how it's made..

Neat idea to me..

I wonder if Isky would still supply a set??

I figure you'd have to cut a seat for the rev cap spring, but that's no big deal...

pdq67

Chris, thanks for the info. Prior to reading your input on the Morel HLT (limited travel), I swear to you, I had the same idea. Talking about hyd rollers on solid cams got me thinking about it. If for the sake of discussion, Morel machines in .015 travel in the lifter and it gets ran at "0" lash without any change in lash due to pump up, this would allow you (in theory) to run that lifter on any solid roller lobe designed to run .015 lash. Would like to see what the actual machined travel is.

Going one further, I could see this taking a new direction where you get a set of lifters with the lash in the lifter itself (.015, .020, etc.), then adjust for "0" lash.

But won't the hy-roller lifter still pump up to the .015" of built-in travel and begin to float??

I guess I mean, what's the use of running a hy-roller lashed to zero and then including .015" extra travel to still allow it to bang around UNLESS I'm missing something here.

.015" of extra travel to me would just equate to a solid-roller lifter lashed to .015" so why bother with the heavier hy-roller lifter???

Please explain this better to me, would you please...

pdq67

pdq67,

Could you post a the pic of the "lash cap rev kit"?

Lash built into the lifter is also an interesting concept, although on the surface, I have to agree with pdq. Done so on a hyd, almost seems counter productive. Still present, the weight of the hyd and the rpm limitations.

That said, it brings up the possibility of having built in lash engineered into a solid lifter. Something along the line of the pushrod seat spring loaded within the solid lifter body. The lifter bodies of the Red Zones are already tall enough to incorporate something along those lines.

It would seem that a "rev kit" of this type, or that of the type mentioned by pdq above, have characteristics superior to those offered now. Both of these control the lash from the "end" of the articulating mass of the valvetrain, albeit opposite ends. Either way, the pushrod would remain seated and clearance subjected to components more capable of controling it, whether that be the tip of the rocker or a purpose built special lifter. Regardless, the roller and lobe would remain in contact.

It's an interesting concept, I'm curious as to the forthcoming responses. There are sure to be some naysayers and I'm sure there will be reasonable explainations as to why this wouldn't work.

Just talking out loud here. The hydraulic pressure behind the plunger would be equivalent to the seat pressure of the spring, but overcame by the high rate exerted on it by the valve springs. IE., if you have "0" lash but a 200# seat and the hyd pressure behind the plunger is rated for 100#, the plunger is not seeing the 200#until the lobe gets on the ramp. The added 100# forces the plunger down taking up the clearance. This is essentially what happens with a hyd lifter when it sees a lot of spring. Difference (if I have it correct) is the new Morels are calibrated and machined to operate with those high seat loads and never pump up.

pd67's infamous "Snoopy-Art"....


............__
.......___l..l___
...__/__/l...l\__\__
....l..l....l...l....l..l
....l..l....l...l....l..l
__.l..l....l...l....l..l.__
...\l_l....l...l....l._l/
......l__.l...l__.l
..........l....l
........./.....\......

The valve stem is right in the middle with the lash-cap on top and it's spring the first and last vertical "lines" then the second and second to the last vertical "lines" are the valve spring..

The retainer is right under the cap..

Hope this helps..

It's an easy concept to see to me..

pdq67

That's the impression that I had after your second post, but was thinking more along the lines of a regular picture. It all seems reasonably practical, but there would likely be clearance issues under the rocker arm. Without actually machining a relief in the rocker itself, it would appear that the "cap" would require some kind of "dip" or space below the rocker.

It looks like there is plenty of room around the valve spring.

Rowdy,

I just revised my "Snoopy-Art" pic so please go back and look at it.

The cap apprears to be made out of only .030" to maybe .040" thick stamped sheet steel that I figure is spring tempered tough. It also appears to have at least one hole in it so that probably oil can get under it to lube/cool the stuff under it.

Sorry I don't know how to create a pic, much less know how to post it..

pdq67