This is a hypothetical since I won't be rebuilding the engine for quite some time ( unless i frag it), but its a 427 , L88 botom end, and I have a cam question.

I'll run a solid again for sure cause I just love the noise! The orig L88 is a very looong duration cam, I currently use a Crane mechanical commander. More lift, less duration than L88.

Question: are the manufacturers planning on making streetable ( read - long term use) solid rollers in the future? I also worry about putting battleship springs on my 30-yr old alum heads. But I would consider a solid roller in lieu of a flat tappet.

Any thoughts?

I'm using a solid roller in my 496. I can't give you real world performance since my car is not driveable yet. I've talked to people who have problems and people who haven't with this in a street car. Comp did not see any problems with my combo.

One thing that I hope will help longetevity, is the new Endure-X roller ( http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Flats/8760/pics/endurex.JPG ) from Comp. If you view my engine page, these are what I'm using.

------------------
JeffK ACES #01510
Team Chevelle Gold #72
496 EFI/Richmond 6-Speed
JeffK@chevelles.com
www.athenet.net/~chevelle (http://www.athenet.net/~chevelle)

[This message has been edited by JeffK (edited 10-27-99).]

Those are supposed to be the latest in design, BUT, check out the price. Over $400.00 for a set.

Gene,

Call Mark Engle at Engle Cams (310)450-0806 and he'll give you the straight scoop. He claims that he can build aggressive solid cams that'll nearly match the performance of a roller.

Fellas, here's the deal. I don;t mind running an L88 grind, or something similar like I have now. But it'd be nice to run it as a full roller, just because of frictional losses and slightly better ramps.

From what I've heard about solid rollers, they don't wear well. Most of the grinds I see are borderline for street use, hence requiring heavy springs. My bud used the smallest Crane solid roller for a 509, and it's just right. But that's a 509. I only have a puny 'lil 427.

I'll always run a solid cam in the 427, just like it came with. I thought I'd could add a little 21st century technology is all.

Yes you are right, they don't wear well. A frind of mine with a 468 in a 69 nova, I'm not sure of the cam specs. wiped his out in less than 500 miles and only 4 passes at the track. His was a special grind per his specifications. Like I said, the Endure-x roller lifters are the latest in design for street roller applications but very expensive for something not proven yet. These are so new Summit doesn't sell them yet. I am going to let my friend buy them and try them first before I spend that kind of money for a cam and lifters.
My .02 worth.

Actually, they Endure-X were available last April. I must have bought the only set Summit had.

------------------
JeffK ACES #01510
Team Chevelle Gold #72
496 EFI/Richmond 6-Speed
JeffK@chevelles.com
www.athenet.net/~chevelle (http://www.athenet.net/~chevelle)

I'm running a crower s0lid roller in my 454.I have over 20k on the engine now.I had some valvespring problems at first,have those solvednow.Tool steel springs don't work on the street,you need a pure chrome silicon spring on the street.Crower is extremely high quality equipment.Ishould have used their springs to start with. John

I've got a Comp Solid Roller. It is a street grind though. Checked the lifters at about 6,000 miles and they seem like new. I'm only running about 420 lb open though.

I think a lot of problems are with race rollers with super agressive ramps and lifts that require very stiff springs.

Think about this, Detroit is using hydraulic rollers in everything now. What does that mean? That solids wear out because of the spring pressure and lash required.

Stay mild on the ramps and lift (relatively speaking) and you'll be a lot better off. It just makes common sense that the more spring pressure, the more the needle bearings are stressed.

You also need to set them up properly.
I've also seen people use oil restrictors and valley plugs in street motors with solids, both I feel are going to limit roller longevity unless they rollers are pressure fed.

i am assuming you guys are talking about the need for heavy springs because of the weight of the roller lifters compared to straight mechanical lifters...am i rite??

if so , it seems to me that hydraulic rollers should be heavier than mechanical rollers cuz theres more to them... where is my thinking wrong or if not wrong, why are hyraulic rollers less problems than mechanical rollers??

------------------
Rich
Cocoa Beach, Fla
Team Chevelle #380
wa3men@aol.com
www.chevelles.com/showroom/70_SS_454.jpg (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/70_SS_454.jpg)


[This message has been edited by 70 SS 454 (edited 10-27-99).]

[This message has been edited by 70 SS 454 (edited 10-27-99).]

Solid rollers need more spring pressure because typically they are only used in all out race applications which mean two things. Lots of rpm and the most aggressive ramp profiles possible both closing and opening. Also lots of valve lift. Both of these things require a lot of spring pressure to keep the lifter on the ramp of the cam and to stop valve bounce.

Solid roller lifters really don't weigh much, some are pretty light.

The problem with hydraulic roller cams is that yes, the lifters are very heavy and this causes early valve float, the problem is that you can't run stiff springs because it will cause the lifter to collapse.

So, hydraulic rollers have a lot of compromise. They don't have as aggressive of ramps as a solid and can't turn much rpm. That is why they don't take that stiff of a sping and that is whey they last in an oem application.

What about the new roller-lifter design that dosent actually roll at all? I have seen it in some magazines, and it looks like a roller lifter, but the roller and needle bearings are eliminated, its just solid stock with an edge thats rounded like a roller. Seems it would wear the cam more but you could use the aggresive roller type ramps and still use heavy springs.

------------------
66 Big-Block Chevelle Houston, TX ACES#3321

Re: your concerns about using roller springs in old aluminum heads; it seems that the older heads should be work hardened and tougher than the same head-new. Anyone agree?
Also, you don't necesarily have to run spring pressures quite as high as recommended. All you'll give up is some RPM in the extreme-and scary-upper end, right?
Lastly, what about reduced ratio rockers to lower the lift of a given grind? I'm not a BB guy, but it seems that these are ideas that would apply to ANY engine.
My .02, Bryan

I have about 20,000 miles on an Isky solid roller in a 502 with Merlin heads, with no problems and no wear. It is a small roller with .602" lift and 250° duration at .050" so huge valve springs are not required. I have the Isky springs that they recommended for street use. I highly recommend the Isky roller lifter for street use. I have had problems with other brands and the Isky lifters solved the problems (even used them on other manufacturers cams). The same can be said for the Harland Sharp roller rockers, they have lived a long life where others have failed. Go for it, the roller is the way to get the most out of your engine and Isky will custom grind you a street roller (like they did for the 502) for no extra charge.

Bob, your cam specs out very close to what I;m looking for. The L88 grind runs something like 265 degrees at 0.050 ( whoa), my Crane runs 238/248. I was thinking of something with 240-250 ( aren't roller's duration figures slightly different than mechanicals?) duration and .600 lift ( I have .544 and .560 now and have the 0.050 extra in clearance). Isky huh?

Question my assumption fellas, will a solid roller give me much more than a solid mechanical or am I just peeing in the wind?
8

Bob, I think I saw you mention that grind before. I was thinking of 240-250 duration with more lift than I have now (.544/.560). I'll keep running the 1stGenL88 alum heads, but the exhaust ports aren't all that hot, so a bit more lift would help. So something with 245 and .600 would be perfect. I want to keep the rpm band from 3500/3800 to 6500/6800. Isky huh?

Am I correct in ASSUMING that a solid roller will give me something more than a solid mechanical?

Oh and Bryan, my heads were salvaged from a roundy round racer. One needed to be welded to be salvaged. The welding was done right by a mettalurguist pro ( weld, oven , weld oven, etc, etc), but I don't want to horse on the them. I shouldn't need wicked springs to run to 6800 anyhow. The more aggressive ramps on the rollers require a bit more pressure, but....

Here's the bottom line... do you fellas think I'll get 35-50 hp over a solid mechanical?

Sorry guys I keep posting and not seeing them. What the....????

Gene, I've got a great article from Hot Rod titled "The Lash Word". It goes through the power increses noted with each type of cam. I'll scan it tonight and let you know where to find it.

------------------
JeffK ACES #01510
Team Chevelle Gold #72
496 EFI/Richmond 6-Speed
JeffK@chevelles.com
www.athenet.net/~chevelle (http://www.athenet.net/~chevelle)

Awesome Jeff, I'd really appreciate it. No rush, this rebuild won't take place until next year.

BTW, I once saw a great pictoral on why the different types of lifters allow different cam profiles.

[This message has been edited by Gene Chas (edited 10-28-99).]

GENE,
You could run spring cups under your springs,if you aren't already.That might save on them getting tore up at all.My crower is very similar in specs to Bob's:626 lift,251@.050, 281 adv. on a 110,it is very streetable.Ithink in the future I would go to a little wider lobe seperation for better vacuum etc. John

John, what's the cam's power range? I should check the lobe separation on my current cam. It's mint, holds 15" steady at idle. ( althoughn I ain't got power nothin'!) And it seems to run up to the "mechanical limit" of my bottom end at 6800 or so. It cuts out about 6600 power wise. Nice range. I'd like to keep it( similar duration ) with more lift, especially on the exhaust side in case she ever gets the bottle. ( I've got lots of space in the trunk and a driveline that should take it. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Gene Chas (edited 10-28-99).]

Gene...you gotta be one of my TC heros...keep building that rat stronger!!!

------------------
Rich
Cocoa Beach, Fla
Team Chevelle #380
wa3men@aol.com
www.chevelles.com/showroom/70_SS_454.jpg (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/70_SS_454.jpg)




[This message has been edited by 70 SS 454 (edited 10-28-99).]

Roller cam duration numbers are more forgiving than a solid flat tappet. A 250° roller will idle much better than a 250° flat tappet cam. The roller cam ramps open and close the valve more quickly so a roller with 250° at .050" may have 280° advertised duration and the flat tappet would have like 310°. (the numbers are totally made up, to give an example). Just remember you can get a cam exactly the way you want it, you don't need to buy an off the shelf roller. I know Isky ground the roller for the 502 (thier recomendation after talking to the machine shop who was doing the Merlin heads) and shipped it to my machine shop in about 5 days for the same price as an off the shelf roller cam.

Bob, yes that was my impression on the duration specs. I'd like something close to L88 specs, a little less duration ( hey, it's a Chevelle, not a Corvette, that's worth 350 lbs) and more lift. Lift yet to be determined after the engine is torn down and measurments are made.

Hey Rich, hero - NOT. I screwed up buddy. I bought my old L88 back from a friend, and after pulling the pan and #1 rod and main to check the bearings, I decided not to rebuild it and just stick it in. Whoops. Moves oil. The cyl walls looked OK, but I guess I didn;t know what I was looking at. Flow is about 1 qt every 400 miles. It was way worse with synthetic. So, the moral is, should've done it right the first time, and I had the time and $$.

The upshot is, I think I'll have a slightly better motor if I can tweak a few things ( like the camshaft ). It's next years job, this winter is the paint, but thanks fellas, it seems I can just call the cam manufacturers and have them cut me a shaft. I thought 20,000 miles would be OK since this is not my daily driver.

Thnx once again.



[This message has been edited by Gene Chas (edited 10-29-99).]

Following along with this topic, I have not read of any mention of a "rev kit". Are these still used in a roller application? Could you use one, and run a bit saner valvespring pressure?? Or is this outdated technology??

OK Guys, here's the article I was talking about. http://wcs.winder.com/jeffk/cams.htm

I hope you have a fast modem. These scans are pretty large. If you just want to read the summary of the tests, it's on page 6.

This was one of many articles I've read on cams that helped my decision to choose the 288AR solid roller. I also modeled my 496 after a "Lingenfelter" motor which uses the same cam.

------------------
JeffK ACES #01510
Team Chevelle Gold #72
496 EFI/Richmond 6-Speed
JeffK@chevelles.com
www.athenet.net/~chevelle (http://www.athenet.net/~chevelle)

I have read in several books that if the lifter bores are a little out of alignment the lifter doesn,t roll properly on the cam and that can lead to premature lifter failure. it is not much of an issue with flat tappets because the lifter doesn,t ride on it perfectly so the lifter can rotate.

Jeff, great article. As I read I thought, man, that's with a 10:1 oval port, how about an 11:1 rect port motor. The 288 and 300 rollers probably would've given more than 7% or 10% respectively. For a 10% increase, and the streetability that Bob mentions, it merits strong consideration.

Oh, and I love it, " we choose a big block becuase guys who run big blocks usually want the last once of performance and are more apt to consider a roller" ( paraphrase).

Yeah Buddy ! Thnx Jeff and y'll.