Team Chevelle banner

UD Harold,Mike,Gary what do I use for roller lifters?

3K views 9 replies 4 participants last post by  383Malibu 
#1 ·
I ordered the lunati hyd roller lifters #72820 and pushrods #80160 to go with the #60212 cam I got a month ago.I was told that those lifters were discontinued and that I needed to order lifter #72431.they said that these were a better lifter but that the pushrods that I was going to order would not work because the cup was in a different position in the lifter.They did not know what length pushrods to use and said I would have to use checking pushrods to get my length and then order the right ones.Does anyone know if this new part # is the lifters for this cam?If I use the checking pushrods how do I measure the length as I don't have a mike that big?Sorry to bother with so many questions but I find its better to ask and avoid possible problems.Thanks Bill.
 
#2 ·
William Hennke said:
I ordered the lunati hyd roller lifters #72820 and pushrods #80160 to go with the #60212 cam I got a month ago.I was told that those lifters were discontinued and that I needed to order lifter #72431.they said that these were a better lifter but that the pushrods that I was going to order would not work because the cup was in a different position in the lifter.They did not know what length pushrods to use and said I would have to use checking pushrods to get my length and then order the right ones.Does anyone know if this new part # is the lifters for this cam?If I use the checking pushrods how do I measure the length as I don't have a mike that big?Sorry to bother with so many questions but I find its better to ask and avoid possible problems.Thanks Bill.
=
Bill,
I personally never buy pushrods with the cam & lifters regardless of what they tell you. About the last part you want to get in my opinion.
Even different rockers can skew length,,

Checking pushrods (you need two for a rat) are real inexpensive & come in calibrated lengths & are .050/ revolution.
You need the 6.8"-7.8" & 7.8" to 8.8" ones Comp #7702-1 & 7703-1.
If you are gonna mess with this stuff just buy the set of four which covers about anything you will ever do. 7705 is the number.
As for lifters, I use Isky but I don't think it makes a ton of difference with hyd rollers,,, Isky, Comp Crane,,,
Just don't buy "bargain" ones,,
 
#3 ·
Due to the BB combo's up in the 700+ HP area and no issues we're keeping the program as-is, with the Comp's 854 High-Energy's and the 928 springs. No problems to 6550 RPM. Your pushrods will come in around 8.500" (exh.) and 7.600" (Int.) assuming you have std. lenght valves installed. But this HAS to be measured on each individual unit. The total of all-around "milling" affects this final number. Lets get that unit done, been a while! Thanks, Gary in N.Y.
P.S. One tip here, we are starting to deliver a few units using 5/16" pushrods, seems to be excellent advantage for weight-saver. The only issue as of now is there are no 5/16" guide plates available from the aftermarket. We order them direct from G.M. And seeing how we use to use them in SB's with roller-spring pressures, we figured to try it here. One unit's been out a few months running at 6500 and appears fine. Any reciprocating weight (in any area of the overall unit) you can keep down to a minimum always improves the RPM range.
 
#4 ·
GOSFAST said:
...P.S. One tip here, we are starting to deliver a few units using 5/16" pushrods, seems to be excellent advantage for weight-saver. ...Any reciprocating weight (in any area of the overall unit) you can keep down to a minimum always improves the RPM range.
With the relatively mild spring pressures required for a hydraulic roller, the 5/16" pushrods probably won't be an issue. But, I disagree with the overall approach offered here. First, many tests have shown that the weight on the lifter side of the valvetrain has little (if any) impact on the rpm range. It's the weight on the valve side of the rocker that needs to be minimized to increase valvetrain stability at higher rpms. Second, the trend in Pro-stock and all of the heads up engine builders is to use MUCH stiffer pushrods to minimize deflection and improve reliability. On the recommendation of many of these folks, I bought 1/2" x .120" wall pushrods for my new sbc.
 
#5 ·
GOSFAST said:
P.S. One tip here, we are starting to deliver a few units using 5/16" pushrods, seems to be excellent advantage for weight-saver. The only issue as of now is there are no 5/16" guide plates available from the aftermarket. We order them direct from G.M. And seeing how we use to use them in SB's with roller-spring pressures, we figured to try it here. One unit's been out a few months running at 6500 and appears fine. Any reciprocating weight (in any area of the overall unit) you can keep down to a minimum always improves the RPM range.
=
On this I have to disagree also.
As Roger said, could be that with lighter springs you are getting away with it but there is more to a pushrod than a stick of steel,,,

Pushrod & roller weight has been found to be a very small issue in regards to valvetrain control from any testing I have seen
The valve, retainer, spring, rocker mass on the valve side is a different story.

Give me a big fat treestump lookin pushrod over some spindly lightweight part anytime :D
Here is some info I have posted before,,

"Consider the pushrod as a piece of spring steel complete with harmonics & resonant frequencies for a moment.
Now consider what happens when your spring goes through it's harmonics & dances clear off the head & retainer.
And at some point in your rpm range I can just about guarantee it does.
An 800lb spring has about 1400 lbs on that little piece of spring steel.


All pushrods deflect & rats are one of the worst offenders with their goofy angles.

In my opinion, a pushrod cannot be to stiff to control valve movement.
If you consider it as a piece of spring steel you can see why the thick double taper ones are the pushrods of choice in most professional hi rpm applications.
Once you see a spintron test & what spring & pushrods do you may never want to build another engine :eek:
I do a 310" engine for a customer that sees about 9300 pretty regularly & it picked up HP just going from a very good .080x5/16 pushrod to a set of the double taper ones. This was with 1.65 Jesels.



On another we do, I did a back to back (A B A) test on an 18 deg 332" small block on the dyno with a roller & there was a 10-12HP difference going from very good 3/8 x .080 wall pushrods to 7/16 double taper ones & these were pretty short pushrods.
Also, the torque curve lost most of the stupid little dips that you would normally attribute to spring surge.
But, this is also a 9500 RPM engine."


 
#6 ·
You guys figure maybe "gravity" lets the lifter float back to the end of the cycle, along with the pushrod and rocker? One hyd. roller lifter weighs 140 grams, a mech. roller comes in at 116, this is with no link bars. There's really no issue with pushrod "deflection" in a retro-roller situation, as the pushrods are relatively short. We do use only 3/8" with "steel" valves, and some do see titanium (valves). And I myself don't consider 160+# on the seat and 400+# open @.740" lift a "mild" spring pressure. We have to use a number of offset intake rockers (on the SB's) to get a "flimsy" (.080") 5/16" pushrod to clear the intake ports (after we port them) on most of these aftermarket heads. There's a prep now for some dyno testing with a pump-gas 400SB (mech. roller) with 1.6 offsets x 7/16 intake rockers and adjustable plates. This unit would never take even a 3/8". Keep in mind, these are 740HP "maintence-free, pump gas, budget builds" on the BB's and 600HP on the 406's (mech. rollers) and zero issues. We've been able to deliver 540+ on a 406" SB 10:1 C.R. 93 octane platform with a retro-hydraulic. Thanks, Gary in N.Y.
P.S. Every unit we do is "hand-built". By this I mean we wouldnt need 400# springs on .580" lift cam, thereby making pushrod selection an individual choice. These are very easy HP numbers to achieve, up to this time, basically using a few hours of porting. We're starting to the attention of the local fire depts. about using these pump-gas units for their racing teams. Also while I'm here, you should do some homework as to the "NEW" bee-hive springs. We use to take them off 1954 Oldsmobile units and put the old "tried & true" dual springs on instead. Buick also used them in the 1980's on their 350's. "New", yea right!
 
#7 ·
GOSFAST said:
You guys figure maybe "gravity" lets the lifter float back to the end of the cycle, along with the pushrod and rocker? One hyd. roller lifter weighs 140 grams, a mech. roller comes in at 116, this is with no link bars. There's really no issue with pushrod "deflection" in a retro-roller situation, as the pushrods are relatively short. We do use only 3/8" with "steel" valves, and some do see titanium (valves). And I myself don't consider 160+# on the seat and 400+# open @.740" lift a "mild" spring pressure. We have to use a number of offset intake rockers (on the SB's) to get a "flimsy" (.080") 5/16" pushrod to clear the intake ports (after we port them) on most of these aftermarket heads. There's a prep now for some dyno testing with a pump-gas 400SB (mech. roller) with 1.6 offsets x 7/16 intake rockers and adjustable plates. This unit would never take even a 3/8". Keep in mind, these are 740HP "maintence-free, pump gas, budget builds" on the BB's and 600HP on the 406's (mech. rollers) and zero issues. We've been able to deliver 540+ on a 406" SB 10:1 C.R. 93 octane platform with a retro-hydraulic. Thanks, Gary in N.Y.
P.S. Every unit we do is "hand-built". By this I mean we wouldnt need 400# springs on .580" lift cam, thereby making pushrod selection an individual choice. These are very easy HP numbers to achieve, up to this time, basically using a few hours of porting. We're starting to the attention of the local fire depts. about using these pump-gas units for their racing teams. Also while I'm here, you should do some homework as to the "NEW" bee-hive springs. We use to take them off 1954 Oldsmobile units and put the old "tried & true" dual springs on instead. Buick also used them in the 1980's on their 350's. "New", yea right!
=
Gary,
"Us guys" have both built a few performance engines & from experience the most important weight is on the valve side.
And just to be clear, I cannot speak for Roger but I do my "homework" & I take nothing for granted.
From speaking with him & knowing a few of his acclompishments I have to assume he does too.

I know enough to ask questions of those I respect the opinion of & even some who I don't.
If I don't agree I want an explanation that makes sense to me.

Yes lifter & pushrod weight play a part but a little common sense will tell you that you have a hell of a lot more effective pressure on the pushrod side of the valvetrain.

As for your comment about 54 Olds springs this is about as absurd a comparison as I have seen as is the Buick one.
Do you really think the new generation of beehives have anything in common with what was made 50 years ago besides the basic shape? :(
Different material, different wire shape,,,, different spring,,
Besides, who said anything about beehives in this post anyway??
And I have never said they were a cure-all just posted the results & have personal knowledge of.

And if you think there is no deflection in a hyd roller setup or in most any other pushrod engine system & especially in a Rat apparently you have never seen a spintron test.
Don't believe it,, call your friends at Comp & ask what goes on regarding pushrods.

Tell the cup teams they don't need the pushrods they are using in small blocks.
Tell me why with no other changes in a back to back test an 18 degree small block with dead straight very short pushrods picks up 10+HP going from a very good 3/8 pushrod to a double taper 7/16" one.
& this is a pushrod that is only about 6.250" long,,,
 
#8 ·
I have no argument with the technology change, and I don't doubt for a minute the springs, lifters, cams, etc. are all better today, but the "theory" is none the less identical. If we can produce the proper power, we dont care how much "abuse" the parts see, as long as they fill their intended purpose and don't quit. As I said above, right now, Comp's combination of the 854's, 732's and the 928's "fills the bill". I sleep good at night knowing there's a PAIR of springs keeping all the valves where they belong, and if one single coil fails my customer won't have to kiss his unit good-bye. It gets the job done, I believe with less expense than the "single" springs, and it stays this way for now. Everything is open to change. Bill asked about lifter choice, but I feel it wouldn't be fair not to include the spring info here only because they're incorporated in the entire combo that we use, the same combo that's taken us into the 6600 RPM range (with steel valves) with a hydraulic cam. Thanks, Gary.
P.S. We don't "see" many of the issues that others up here have, if any of them can pull info from these posts, then that's good. It took us over 40 years to get here, but that's OK, we are going to start winding the program down a notch or two.
 
#9 ·
GOSFAST said:
I have no argument with the technology change, and I don't doubt for a minute the springs, lifters, cams, etc. are all better today, but the "theory" is none the less identical. If we can produce the proper power, we dont care how much "abuse" the parts see, as long as they fill their intended purpose and don't quit. As I said above, right now, Comp's combination of the 854's, 732's and the 928's "fills the bill". I sleep good at night knowing there's a PAIR of springs keeping all the valves where they belong, and if one single coil fails my customer won't have to kiss his unit good-bye. It gets the job done, I believe with less expense than the "single" springs, and it stays this way for now. Everything is open to change. Bill asked about lifter choice, but I feel it wouldn't be fair not to include the spring info here only because they're incorporated in the entire combo that we use, the same combo that's taken us into the 6600 RPM range (with steel valves) with a hydraulic cam. Thanks, Gary.
P.S. We don't "see" many of the issues that others up here have, if any of them can pull info from these posts, then that's good. It took us over 40 years to get here, but that's OK, we are going to start winding the program down a notch or two.
=
That's all well & good & information is a good thing but do not assume you are the only person who "does their homework"
If I misread your post I apologize but the tone was very condescending when you imply we do not know the difference between 50 year old technology & today's or that we have not tested a few combinations over the years too.

And just for info if you have read my posts, I have stated I do not have direct knowledge of the beehive spring except from customer feedback in a few cases.
I still normally use dual springs on almost everything I do but this does not mean I am going to flatly dismiss something that seems to be showing promise in a lot of cases as you have seen fit to do.
As a matter of fact I can site one LS1 combo that went to hell with the beehive springs when tried,,
but,, this does not mean they have no merit,,, as you stated, "technology changes"

=
Bill,
Sorry & I hope I answered your questions in my first posting before wandering off into "diatribe land" :D

I be done for now,,, :rolleyes:
 
#10 ·
GOSFAST said:
...There's really no issue with pushrod "deflection" in a retro-roller situation, as the pushrods are relatively short. ...And I myself don't consider 160+# on the seat and 400+# open @.740" lift a "mild" spring pressure. We have to use a number of offset intake rockers (on the SB's) to get a "flimsy" (.080") 5/16" pushrod to clear the intake ports (after we port them) on most of these aftermarket heads. ...Also while I'm here, you should do some homework as to the "NEW" bee-hive springs. ...
Gary - I already agreed that the typical springs for a hydraulic roller would probably not cause a problem. And, when you consider the range of spring pressures used for flat tappets and solid rollers (up to 1200+#), I think you have to agree that 400# springs are mild. As for the 5/16" pushrods not clearing without using offset rockers... that's all part of the research and design when putting together a high performance engine.

For clarification, my intent in stating my disagreement with your original "tip" was to point out to those readers who haven't had the need or spent the time to research this area that your opinion/experience in this area does not necessarily represent the consensus.

Regarding the bee-hive springs... not seeing any relevance here, I have no comment.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top