Ok, I just got back from the dyno with my 496 69 chevelle. I WAS running a Comp Solid Roller 263@50 715 lift. I drive on the street alot and after losing SEVERAL solid lifters decided I am tired of the constant checking to make sure the lash has not changed (which saved my motor more than once!) and the high cost to replace parts. I do go to the track and abuse the car so I do want HP/TQ. Sooo I spoke to Harold (thanks!) and had Custom Camshaft grind one of his for me (Thanks!). I also spent some time with Mike on the phone again and he was GREAT as always. He always has time for you and very helpful on getting what you need and the info to make it work (THANKS!) Well, it is a 251@50 .660 lift 111 lsa. I am using titanium retainers, installed height was set correct, degreed the cam, installed the pushrods and fired it up. Driving around down low feels peppy so I went to the same dyno I always go to (RPM in lewisville--THANKS!) to compare the other runs I made there to this one. The old numbers for motor alone where 501 hp/574 tq at the rear wheels. Welll....this time it was 477 hp/ 560 tq without any tuning. The old setup peaked at 7200 and this one is done by 6100. Parts should last ALOT longer and no more valve lash checks for awhile. The lines looked more flat this time as well. I hope to go to the track on Sunday to see what it will do out of the box. I may need a converter change. But we will see.... Just wanted to let you know you can make power with those weenie hydros and not spin it to the moon. Even if I do not find any more hp I will be happy to cruise any time and not worry about idling in traffic. Next year I hope to go on the power tour for the first time with it and meet some of you up North? Let me know what you think.

Frank,

Congrats on the numbers. Sounds like it will suit your needs well and still makes real good power. Besides, you can always jet the 'ole NX plate up a little if you need some more power.

I'm going to try to get mine back over to RPM in the morning. Still got some work to do yet tonight to get it up and going though.

Not to poo-poo your results, but you did "lose" 27HP and some TQ. But, I do realize there's some tuning that needs to be done. New cam has 12* less duration and less lift so maybe that came into play.

I have a HR too, and I'm thinking about going to where you were, cause I want that 27+HP. But, I guess we need to be honest with ourselves and define what the actual use of the car is. Glad you mentioned how you were always checking things...I would be wacko-anal and always checking for lash changes too, and I really dont need that.

There's always the SR lifter on the HR cam thing I keeping squeaking about...

I am SO with you on this one. Mike (Wolfplace) just finished my "weenie" hydraulic roller 489, I can't wait to install it.

Torque is above 550 lb-ft from 3300rpm to 6000 rpm, and above 600 lb-ft from 3700rpm to 5300rpm. Peak torque 627, peak HP is 634 - but it's such a broad, flat, HUGE torque curve that it should pull like the proverbial freight train in any gear at any rpm.

Given my 99% street use, I couldn't be happier - but I'd be stoked even if this was for the track, given the curve.

Here's the graph:
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/medium/Wolfplace_489_graph-Final.jpg

and here's the chart:
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/medium/Wolfplace_489_dyno-final.jpg

Frank,
That is still a really (and I mean REALLY) respectable rear wheel HP number. Like Jason said, you can always jet the nitrous plate up a bit and sling some rubber. See you in the morning.
Frank F

Ok, I just got back from the dyno with my 496 69 chevelle. I WAS running a Comp Solid Roller 263@50 715 lift. I drive on the street alot and after losing SEVERAL solid lifters decided I am tired of the constant checking to make sure the lash has not changed (which saved my motor more than once!) and the high cost to replace parts. I do go to the track and abuse the car so I do want HP/TQ. Sooo I spoke to Harold (thanks!) and had Custom Camshaft grind one of his for me (Thanks!). I also spent some time with Mike on the phone again and he was GREAT as always. He always has time for you and very helpful on getting what you need and the info to make it work (THANKS!) Well, it is a 251@50 .660 lift 111 lsa. I am using titanium retainers, installed height was set correct, degreed the cam, installed the pushrods and fired it up. Driving around down low feels peppy so I went to the same dyno I always go to (RPM in lewisville--THANKS!) to compare the other runs I made there to this one. The old numbers for motor alone where 501 hp/574 tq at the rear wheels. Welll....this time it was 477 hp/ 560 tq without any tuning. The old setup peaked at 7200 and this one is done by 6100. Parts should last ALOT longer and no more valve lash checks for awhile. The lines looked more flat this time as well. I hope to go to the track on Sunday to see what it will do out of the box. I may need a converter change. But we will see.... Just wanted to let you know you can make power with those weenie hydros and not spin it to the moon. Even if I do not find any more hp I will be happy to cruise any time and not worry about idling in traffic. Next year I hope to go on the power tour for the first time with it and meet some of you up North? Let me know what you think.
=
Hi Frank,
Thanks, glad we could help :beers:

Very cool, another set of happy Morels,,,, :thumbsup:
I would say that cam works very well, you would almost think Harold knows what he is doing :D :D

I sure wish I had your springs back, I think they are a pretty good choice for a hyd roller & I would have put them on the engine I was playing with had they been here, looks like they worked very well.
Did you add a shim or leave them at 1.950?

It appears to follow the RPM of the one I just did which peaked at 5900 with dual springs 160/390 & 6000 with Beehives.
They were also 160/390
But this is not the whole story ;)
The beehives made 20 more HP & the whole torque curve was up both corrected & uncorrected but I was a bit disappointed that they did not extend the RPM much at all
What they did do was make a sizable improvement across the whole curve & more power up to the point they went belly up
I now wish I had bumped the spring rate to the next beehive but all in all I am pretty impressed.
I wish I had more time with this to play with pushrods & rockers,,,, maybe next time :yes:

LOL, Mike - I think we were both writing at the same time. And yes, the engine I posted on above is the one he is referring to. :thumbsup:

LOL, Mike - I think we were both writing at the same time. And yes, the engine I posted on above is the one he is referring to. :thumbsup:
=
Yep,,, that's the "weanie cam special" :D
It is in a big box waiting for a truck, I think everything is in there,,,,

Geez Mark, your not kidding that Mike "just finished" it, that dyno pull was yesterday.

You'll always want to "one up" your best at the track, no matter what ET you start out with. The fact remains, both of you will have more power on the street than you can practically use. Unless, of course, your satisfaction comes at the expense of your passengers undershorts. I'm thinking of buying stock in FRUIT OF THE LOOM.

What hydraulic roller stuff are you guys using? I know that Frank already mentioned his cam, but I'm curious to the lifters that Harold recommended. I'm really wondering as to Mark's LSA. The chart leads me to believe that it's 112. I'd like to see the same engine with an HR 110LSA, purely to compare where it peaks with the narrower power band. I guess that it would depend a lot on the heads used. Which brings up another watcha got question?

That is great news Frank! :thumbsup:

I can't wait to get my weenie Hyd Roller cammed 496 in my Chevelle! :D

I want to burn some serious RUBBER! :yes:

Hi Rowdy,
They are both Morels
It is 114

Zero in on the 114LSA. Fits right in on the wide powerband that everyone wants.

Unless, of course, your satisfaction comes at the expense of your passengers undershorts.

By George, I think I've got a new hobby!! :D

[QUOTE=Wolfplace;1542311]=
It appears to follow the RPM of the one I just did which peaked at 5900 with dual springs 160/390 & 6000 with Beehives.
They were also 160/390
But this is not the whole story ;)
The beehives made 20 more HP & the whole torque curve was up both corrected & uncorrected but I was a bit disappointed that they did not extend the RPM much at all
What they did do was make a sizable improvement across the whole curve & more power up to the point they went belly up
QUOTE]

Mike,

Why do you think the beehives are making more power even at the low end of the rpm curve. I dont understand what what cause that. I would understand at the top end if she is reving higher w/o valve float, but cant understand why at lower rpm, too. I had mentioned that after just installing my Morel HR lifters and Lunati Pacaloy Beehives, low end torque seemed definitely improved, and I couldn't understand why.

mike

Thanks 69BigBlock,

That was some great direct comparison information from a real world combination. Now you just need to swap your old solid rollers back in and take her up to the dyno for us ;). Seriously good info man, if my solid setup gives me any more trouble I will be taking the same route. I was on the fence during the project the whole time anyway. While 27HP is significant its not earth shattering and goes to show HR and their new combinations have really narrowed the gap ( much like the newer style 4150 vs 4500's ).

Thanks for sharing the info man!

Shawn

The low end power claims are supposedly due to the higher seat pressures bleeding down duration at low RPM. This may very well be true for any install where higher seat pressures are involved. My own motor saw a noticeable increase in power everywhere when we went from 125/340 to 150/405 open/cosed pressures.

To Mike (Wolfplace), the Behive install, what lift are they seeing. Absolutely can not get straight info on the baseline 26120's if these will handle ..600 lift or higher.

GRN69CHV,

The max lift recommended for the Comp 26120's is .590". These springs run into coil bind at .121". The Lunati Pacaloy Beehives are the same spec spring as the Comps, but I highly recommend the Lunati/PAC spring over the Comps in terms of quality. The Lunati 75820 beehives are rated to .600" lift with the same coil bind. When I set up my springs at roughly 1.85 installed height, I did not have much room for locators/ springs while leaving enough clearance for coil bind, and I run a lot less lift. I think it would be difficult to get more than .600" lift.

Thanks for the lifter bleed down info. I added ~35 pounds more seat pressure on the intakes, averaging 175 pounds to keep the intakes closed when the boost builds. Maybe that is why the engine sounds so different at low rpm. Actually sounds very different.

mike

I am SO with you on this one. Mike (Wolfplace) just finished my "weenie" hydraulic roller 489, I can't wait to install it.

Torque is above 550 lb-ft from 3300rpm to 6000 rpm, and above 600 lb-ft from 3700rpm to 5300rpm. Peak torque 627, peak HP is 634 - but it's such a broad, flat, HUGE torque curve that it should pull like the proverbial freight train in any gear at any rpm.

Given my 99% street use, I couldn't be happier - but I'd be stoked even if this was for the track, given the curve.

Here's the graph:
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/medium/Wolfplace_489_graph-Final.jpg

and here's the chart:
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/data/500/medium/Wolfplace_489_dyno-final.jpg


Those are some awesome numbers from an HR motor!

What are the specs on the motor? (cam size, heads, etc...)

Some of the specs are top secret - actually, the specs are what Mike put together for me based on my street needs, it's more mild than he would have done.

Basically, the cam is 114LSA, low-to mid .600's lift, and around 250 duration if I remember them correctly. As with any engine combo, it's having the right mix of parts that really makes the difference. I'll let Mike spell out more if he's willing, but again this is what worked with my combination.

Heads are Brodix RR Ovals - I wanted stock header locations, and the RR's have them. Intake is a Performer RPM.

I swear, I'm like a kid in a candy shop right now, I must be driving my wife nuts waiting for this engine to arrive.

I may be all wet but 501 minus 477 is only 24 H.P. isn't it? I'm old and sometimes misread things though.

IMO a HD roller is the way to go on the street. Unless you are racing or actually enjoy doing a hot valve lash check, a solid roller I guess is worth it. I had two HD rollers and now have a solid roller (which is too big for that low-end throttle "feel") but given the use of the car.. I would not care if I was a high 11 or low 12 car with very lousy 60's. If that is your case, I suspect you may want a hyd roller instead. There is nothing wrong with them and they make very respectable power. Just for a comparo, my over-cammed, over-heade(ead)? 461 puts out 461/440 (hp/tq) on a dynojet. When I do it again, a smaller hyd roller is going back in. I had a traction issue in the first place, why should I have cared about the HP, and I don't like to have to wait until 2800rpm to "feel" the cubes (cam choice/application, again).. I am assuming b/c of the wrong cam choice, it is odd an x-pipe gave me a bigger hp increase.

Take this with a grain of "disgruntled (sp) solid roller owner" salt.

matt

The low end power claims are supposedly due to the higher seat pressures bleeding down duration at low RPM. This may very well be true for any install where higher seat pressures are involved. My own motor saw a noticeable increase in power everywhere when we went from 125/340 to 150/405 open/cosed pressures.

To Mike (Wolfplace), the Behive install, what lift are they seeing. Absolutely can not get straight info on the baseline 26120's if these will handle ..600 lift or higher.

=
The 26120 has a coil bind of 1.190 measured
The springs are set up at 1.860 & the lift is .620
Pressures are 160 & 390 & the retainers are Titanium
The springs they replaced were 160/390 too
I have the computer printout for the springs if you want it.

One issue with the Comp retainer is the way it is designed you lose about .060 installed height from a standard Comp Titanium retainer, I ended up with one .015 shim under the intakes
I would have preferred to use locators.

I cannot explain the increased power at lower speeds except to say valvetrain control is all important & a beehive is a "variable rate" spring which essentially has no resonate frequency it keeps changing.

I had been told by some pretty sharp folks ( including Joe Sherman) to expect this but I would not have believed it had I not done the testing & checked the raw uncorrected numbers to be sure I was not getting some goofy corrections due to weather or something.

If I were doing it from scratch I would most likely use the PAC springs, they are without question one of the best spring manufactures out there but not real cheap ;)
These are the folks that make the Pacaloy spring
Comp used to use PAC as a supplier but most of the stuff now comes from Associated among others
http://www.racingsprings.com/ (http://www.racingsprings.com/)

Secrets,,,, we ain't got no stinkin secrets,,,, we are on the other coast,,, :D :D
Basic engine specs
Chev 489
Brodix RR, CNC chamber, ovals 270cc w/Comp 26120 Beehives
Ede Perf RPM
Pro Systems HP1000
86/94 - 6.5 Pwr vlv in front
Hyd Roller
Comp 3018/3039 HR114
243/246 - .621/.615
LRE aluminum 1.7 rockers
Ign Mallory HEI/MSD module 36° @ 3500
Comp 10.3
Fuel 91 pump
Plugs Autolite 3924
2" dyno headers 3.5" collector 6" ex

Mike (Lewis).. based on the numbers you mentioned for setting up the springs, you have 1.86-1.19-0.62-0.015 = 0.035" clearance before coil bind. I am just trying to advance my knowledge a little and would like to ask if you feel that is acceptable. Many cam manufacturers say you need at least .08 to .09", that you can get away with less if you set it up carefully, but never less than .06". What do you feel is the minimum clearance?

thanks,

mike

ps..I second the Pacaloy beehive springs. In the last few years I have tried the AFR (I think Rev), Comp and Manley springs. I got the enhanced version of the Pacaloys and just looking at and handling them you can notice the superior quality of the wire.. however.. rather pricey. I was afraid to try the single spring beehives for fear of dropping a valve.. but with these springs, I feel a bit more confident running them. I was hoping to try them out at the track today, but with heavy rain, the track closed. Only a few more weekends before Englishtown closes for the winter.

Mike (Lewis).. based on the numbers you mentioned for setting up the springs, you have 1.86-1.19-0.62-0.015 = 0.035" clearance before coil bind. I am just trying to advance my knowledge a little and would like to ask if you feel that is acceptable. Many cam manufacturers say you need at least .08 to .09", that you can get away with less if you set it up carefully, but never less than .06". What do you feel is the minimum clearance?

thanks,

mike

ps..I second the Pacaloy beehive springs. In the last few years I have tried the AFR (I think Rev), Comp and Manley springs. I got the enhanced version of the Pacaloys and just looking at and handling them you can notice the superior quality of the wire.. however.. rather pricey. I was afraid to try the single spring beehives for fear of dropping a valve.. but with these springs, I feel a bit more confident running them. I was hoping to try them out at the track today, but with heavy rain, the track closed. Only a few more weekends before Englishtown closes for the winter.
=
Why did you subtract the shim?
The installed height is 1.860
I use .050 a lot but I do not recommend it unless you are willing to check every spring with the parts you are going to use in the postion it is going to be used
Coil bind can vary & it will bite you if you are pushing the number ;)

LOL, Mike - "Top Secret" means "I don't know". :D I figured you'd post. NOW I know the cam, but since you just finished 2 days ago I didn't get that info yet. Your spec sheet from the email has the old cam specs, and I don't expect to get your info package for a week or two.

I figured it was just a matter of time that more "hot-rodders", especially up here, would "wise-up" and be coming around to the hydraulic-roller platform, especially on the BB's.

We've been "churning" these out since the 1998/1999 era with some exceptional results.

We actually started before that when "Harry Krummery" was the "engineer" at Wolverine's "Blue-Racer" headquarters. We had a bunch of WG5111's and WG5103's (SB retro cams) on the shelf back in 1994 and had already begun testing these on the 383" platform. We were delivering above 450 HP with some straight-plug 184 Brodix's back then!!

Welcome aboard guys!!!!!

Now, having said all that, I'll pass you a "tip-or-two" here.

I would be very, very, careful choosing the "Bee-hives" still, remember, no matter how good they seem, they are still a "single" spring and one of the "locals" on Long Island who does nothing but "high-end" new Vettes, turbo-charged 7 and 8 second "rides", warned me to be careful getting involved with these springs! To date we DO NOT need them, we are at 6700/6800 safe (BB's) and at or above 750 HP and 700 torque all under 6200. Nice package, our guys are finally enjoying "driving" the cars instead of keeping up with "maintenance". Most of my guys, like myself, are just too old to "hang" under hoods with wrenches!

For you BB guys, you've got to "shoot" for .700"+ lift on the intakes, nothing leaves here under .700", it's the "magic" number!! Don't care about the "cubic-inch" platform, you've got to have that number.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Our biggest issue at the moment, we can't get "big" enough lobes to get to the "800" number on the 10:1 540" retro builds. We aren't too worried at this time, as "750" seems quite acceptible. You can forget about most "legitimate" street tires, 700 ft.lbs makes 'short-order" of these!!

Gary, what's the secret to 6700+ HR's? I have 11/32 valves, 150/440 spring pressure, and Crane lifters. I'm starting to lose power by 5600 rpms. Titanium will not get me another 1000 rpms.

Maybe a wider LSA???

GOSFAST,how did you determine that a .700 lift on the intakes is the "magic" number regardless of the cubic inch platform ?? What about lobe design,duration @ .050,lobe seperation angle,etc... ?? Not trying to be a smart ass,just curious.From what I have read,there is a lot to camshaft science,but I always like to learn more.
Guy

Gary, what's the secret to 6700+ HR's? I have 11/32 valves, 150/440 spring pressure, and Crane lifters. I'm starting to lose power by 5600 rpms. Titanium will not get me another 1000 rpms.

Maybe a wider LSA???

Hi Vince, if there's any "secrets" here I'm not aware of them. And as I said with the lifters, not using other brands, I can't say with any certainty there's an "edge" here or not. I did get some calls recently about the "other" brand, but I gave them the same info, I've never used them, therefore, NO feedback. As far as why you're "falling-off" at 5600, don't know why but I would suspect some other issues, again, not being familiar with your combo, the reasons would be pure speculation on my part. I can't tell you how many of my own customers end up finding "other things" causing their own problems. The two biggest contenders being fuel AND timing.

One item I'd really be interested in is the weights, of the lifters themselves, of all the other brands. But again, I don't have that as an issue at the moment. IF I had any valve float condition I would be addressing it! We are OK there for now! I never got around to testing any units with the "titanium-valve" program because of the same fact, till now, no issues!! That all could change and then we'd go on the offensive.

Until they come out with a total "physical" cam change, I believe we are in a "stall" condition. We may have reached the limits as of today, with my particular platform, the 540", 9.75:1, retro-hyd, and single 4 brl. Initially I didn't want to build these around the "dragstrip" parameters, if my guys want to "race", they'll do it with solids (rollers), not hydraulics. We have some of these retro's driving around here on 87 octane with not a single issue with ALL the timing, 34*/36*, up front.



GOSFAST,how did you determine that a .700 lift on the intakes is the "magic" number regardless of the cubic inch platform ?? What about lobe design,duration @ .050,lobe seperation angle,etc... ?? Not trying to be a smart ass,just curious.From what I have read,there is a lot to camshaft science,but I always like to learn more.
Guy

Hi Guy, I should have said this is our "magic" number. Of a number of other units we've tested with less than that .700" lift, we've seen measurably less HP. I've always been a proponent of opening the valve as much as possible BUT maintaining a level of longevity. You can get a lot more air in with the "canted valve" platform, than with the "in-line" deal. Personally speaking for myself here, I would take the smallest possible intake runner that is capable of passing 375+ CFM and build on that. I would seriously like .800" lift on the intake just for testing. The biggest issue with "chasing" HP on these retro units is it becomes too costly, which really kind of "offsets" the goals of a "maintenance-free/long-living" unit. If you stray from this program, you may just as well go back to the solid-roller setup and change the lifters once a year. I do have these guys to deal with also!!!

These posts always "stray" from the original issue!!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Even you guys making the "crossover" from solids to hyd's should remember two most important issues, with ALL these roller lifters, first, there must be NO detonation occurring whatsoever, over time this issue will "eat" roller lifters in short order, and second, you've got to "isolate" the entire valve train from the drivetrain! The drivetrain "harmonics" also will destroy the rollers over time. I'll say it again here, some of my highest dollar (street) builds have a "nylon" timing gear up front, another point of contention/conjecture for many up here! One of my closest customers is doing with this 30.00 "plastic" gear what others are doing with some $800.00 "belt-drives". Many up here simply go "over-board" with the "mandatory" parts they THINK they need, when in reality they just don't have the overall combo correct. Besides, the "plastic" is worth 10+ "ponies" upstairs!

Gary,

Have you tried the "new" Morse chain drives yet? I believe part of the HP and improvement you see in the Nylon toothed sprocket is due to the Morse chain, not the Nylon teeth. The design of the Morse silent chain lends itself to harmonic damping. I have always felt the Morse set up was better than anything else. I feel that the true rollers are more advertising hype than performance. Just my opinion. The silent chain is also a high velocity chain, the roller is not.

Gary, the Crane lifters I'm running are about the same weight as the GM roller lifters I pulled out of the motor, maybe a touch lighter.

Maybe the lobes your using are more RPM friendly.

Gary, the Crane lifters I'm running are about the same weight as the GM roller lifters I pulled out of the motor, maybe a touch lighter.

Maybe the lobes your using are more RPM friendly.

We are presently using Comp's largest lobes available! Usually lobe #"s 3116 and/or 3117. Can't help much with the Crane weights! Read on!


Gary,

Have you tried the "new" Morse chain drives yet? I believe part of the HP and improvement you see in the Nylon toothed sprocket is due to the Morse chain, not the Nylon teeth. The design of the Morse silent chain lends itself to harmonic damping. I have always felt the Morse set up was better than anything else. I feel that the true rollers are more advertising hype than performance. Just my opinion. The silent chain is also a high velocity chain, the roller is not.

Hi Ken, since this is still pertinent to the post, roller lifter life, I'll follow up here.

Let me just give some insight how we arrived at this scenario. It is not new by the way, Bill Jenkins and other's including myself here, had been using these years ago. They knew back then about the "power". Now we've turned that issue around and did this strictly for
"drivetrain isolation" rather than the added power. The added power, simply put, is a "plus"!

This one particular customer, new at the time, around 1985, started with this setup on my recommendation, ran it for a few (3?) years and found "stress" risers in the "nylon" gear. He got "cold feet" and we installed a 9-3110 Cloyes Tru-Roller. This unit had 300# seat pressure and 800# open on a solid roller.

First time out, still not sure why and didn't really care, most likely a "one-time" issue, the chain literally "exploded" through the traps at 8200. So much for his "cold feet" issue! I did learn one extremely important lesson from his ordeal, NEVER use any valves other than the "Ferrea's". Upon stripping the unit, we had 14 bent, not a single broken one, and 2
"survivors". Inside the unit looked like a "hand grenade" went off, chain links and rivets stuck in the aluminum timing cover!!!!

We put it all back together WITH the "nylon" setup back then and he has it in there today. It gets changed on every freshen-up. I'll add here however, these parts have been long discontinued, and I'm constantly searching for "old-stock". I purchased 15 cam gears some months ago! These were the hi-perf timing sets used in G.M.'s original hi-perf units.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not too concerned which component "allows" the power gain, but I still haven't lost a solid roller lifter in some time with any units running these gears/chains.

I am running out of them however. Have some 15-20 sets left!

One drawback to them is you must "ream" the gear's center hole to accept the roller cam button diameter. We machine all the ones we have in stock as we recieve them.

If you are going to spend much time at the dragstrip you would be best served still with a solid-roller platform.

One item still missing from the aftermarket is an available rev-kit for the retro's AND the
"race" blocks with the "inner" head bolt bosses. Until this arrives I can't "see" any substantial RPM gains being made with the retro program. ALL roller's react better, are more stable, AND seem to live longer when they do not have the opportunity to "leave the lobes". This is my opinion.

There's probably more than 100 grams, per pair, add'l weight with the retro's over the solids. That's 50 grams+ per lifter. I always hear the "debate" over the "lightweight" components are more important on the valve side, but I would simply ask you, what exactly is "forcing" the lifter to "go down" after it goes over the "toe"??? Remember, there's about 2 oz. per lifter add'l to control now with the retros! You're adding to the reciprocating valve train weight overall, whether it be on the lifter OR valve side, but decreasing the overall spring tension for the retro setup.

The last statement I believe MAY be the "key" to taking the retro's into the "stratosphere!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Remember, there is ALWAYS a budget involved no matter how deep any single customer's pockets might be, there is always a "line drawn in the sand" so to speak even with the affluent! Below here is a "shot" of the above mentioned unit, but as it was a few weeks back, almost ready to deliver! It has since made some 9.20 passes and has it's magazine coverage on the way. By the way, this unit's "ride" is "on-the-scales" at 3800#+!!
And that "plastic" timing set is IN the unit now running! Most would not believe the "build cost" for this unit!

http://thumb8.webshots.net/t/62/562/2/99/10/2634299100044112208HfxpQK_th.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2634299100044112208HfxpQK)

Thanks Gary as always for the elaboration.

Gary, the Crane lifters I'm running are about the same weight as the GM roller lifters I pulled out of the motor, maybe a touch lighter.

Maybe the lobes your using are more RPM friendly.
=
Vince,
Here is some outstanding info from some of the very best engine builders in the country
You might recognize some of the names :D
I am not going into HP & torque numbers or anything else again here, been there done that & most have made their own decisions ;)

So, spend some time looking some of this over, some applies to hyd rollers & some to solids but all in all some really good info.
http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7231&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4031&highlight=psi+valve+springs

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2474 (http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2474)

Thanks for the input. I took it on a 200 mile cruise Saturday (with idling in traffic) and it was nice not to worry about if the lifters survived. I was going to race on Sunday but the fence needed mending (read honey dooos). Replaced some fence posts that had broken off at ground level. I found another use for that old roll bar halo and trailer straps. Place the halo over the hole and wrap the strap around the old post (had to dig a little around it). Then use the strap/winch to pull the post out. They were 4' deep and stubborn.

Mike, I did use .030 shims. Installed height before was 1.95 to 1.96.

Frank, Chris, Shawn, Jason (let me know how you do), thanks...

The weather looks good for a track day this Friday night so we shall see.....