[Steve C.]

Not a recommendation for their use, just a tid bit here. Regarding the fact*Comp's Short Travel lifters have a tendency to be very noisy. In my communication with Steve*Brule*at Westech Performance he has stated the same thing about them, his opinion they are good if you can put up with the noise.*

.

[steve25]

If I have to put up with any level of noise over dead quite then I would just as soon over Cam a tad a run Rhoads lifters or run a solid!

[Steve C.]

Don't some complain of the ticking noise from Rhodes lifters.

According to Rhodes the ticking noise you hear is simply a slightly accelerated valve-closing rate much like that of a solid lifter.


.

[Steve C.]

Regarding Rhodes lifters...

"For a car you drive on the street a lot, I can put up with the noise for the much improved idle and low speed torque. I've had them on two different cams, one is quite noisy and the other was no worse than a solid lifter or maybe a stuck hydraulic lifter would sound. The differences in the two cams were that one has really aggressive ramps (Comp Xtreme Energy) and that's the noisy one, where the other has more moderate, but still fairly aggressive ramps (Comp Magnum). If you have a loud exhaust, you'll barely hear them, but it seems that one man's music is another's screeching nails on chalkboard, so if you can, find someone who has them in their car and take a listen."

Will Baker

.

[P@blo]

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=442900

Truman Fields details his method a long time ago. Man at one time these forums really had some impressive contributors.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Don't some complain of the ticking noise from Rhodes lifters.

.

Yes some do complain. Not sure why. May come from the original Rhoads more than anything else. The new Rhoads you can adjust how much bleed off you want, and tightening them up makes them pretty darn quiet in my opinion. I never found either version to be obnoxious, and for years Rhoads were recommended constantly for Pontiac builds back in the Jim Hand days.


Shucks I run a solid flat tappet cam in one daily driver and I can't even hear the darn thing. Quiet as can be in my opinion.
We used to say a real muscle car engine is supposed to have that sweet lifter sound

Don't want no stinkin' juice lifters

[Formulas]

Some complain not because the noise drowns out anything or is extra loud
To me the sound hits my ears and I immediately think unhealthy engine low oil pressure about to fall apart shut it off and rebuild it

I have used them in the past and MIGHT use them again

[Cliff R]

The noise is a LOT more manageable IF you adjust them with a feeler gauge plungers bottomed out vs just pulling the rockers down to zero lash and going another 1/4 to 1/2 turn or so (common and generally accepted method over the years).

The Rhoads V-Max variety are basically a stock Rhoads lifter with a steel shim added to reduce travel some. They recommend setting them bottomed out with a feeler gauge between the rocker tip and valve. Why not set the standard variety in the same fashion. This way the user controls the amount of bleed down possible, plus noise at the same time.

Personally a light ticking bothers me not in the least. IF you want a scary quiet engine use a HR cam and top it with Crower HIPPO solid roller lifters lashed at .005"!........Cliff

[65CatCoupe]

Am I reading Truman right in that he does the opposite of what everyone else does? Most say zero clearance THEN 1/2 turn PRELOAD. Seems Truman says +.010 CLEARANCE.

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by JSchmitz

Didn't this whole 1/4-1/2 turn after zero lash start a long time ago to help prevent "floating the valves"? Seems like I remember that from back in the day.

Yes. The original question of this post cited how to do this on hydraulic flat tappet cams - and then it seemed to go off track into roller hydraulic lifters, Rhodes lifters, and lifter noises.

The adjustment of the hydraulic flat tappet lifters is often termed "zero lash." This was one of the "tricks" employed by Milt Schornack/Royal Pontiac to get additonal RPM's from the factory hydraulic flat tappet cams. The Bobcat treatment/kit included rocker arm nuts with nylon coated threads in an attempt to provide an adjustable nut versus torquing then down to factory specs. However, they nylon when heated up would soften and allow the nuts to back off, losing adjustment. That's where polylock type rocker arm nuts come in. The later kits used these.

The "zero lash" of hydraulic lifters is an old hot rod trick used primarily on stock engines. You could also purchase aftermarket "anti-pump up" lifters that provided additional RPM's, and once past a certain RPM, solid lifters were recommended/used. Roller cams have been around for a long time and primarily used by the drag racers, as long as the race class allowed it.

[JSchmitz]

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

Yes. The original question of this post cited how to do this on hydraulic flat tappet cams - and then it seemed to go off track into roller hydraulic lifters, Rhodes lifters, and lifter noises.

The adjustment of the hydraulic flat tappet lifters is often termed "zero lash." This was one of the "tricks" employed by Milt Schornack/Royal Pontiac to get additonal RPM's from the factory hydraulic flat tappet cams. The Bobcat treatment/kit included rocker arm nuts with nylon coated threads in an attempt to provide an adjustable nut versus torquing then down to factory specs. However, they nylon when heated up would soften and allow the nuts to back off, losing adjustment. That's where polylock type rocker arm nuts come in. The later kits used these.

The "zero lash" of hydraulic lifters is an old hot rod trick used primarily on stock engines. You could also purchase aftermarket "anti-pump up" lifters that provided additional RPM's, and once past a certain RPM, solid lifters were recommended/used. Roller cams have been around for a long time and primarily used by the drag racers, as long as the race class allowed it.

Yep. Sounds familiar. Good memory an history lesson!

[Chief of the 60's]

Engine Masters (on Motor Trend) is doing dyno pulls with different lash adjustments right now.

[Formulas]

Seems to me that adjusting a rhoads lifter plunger near bottom with a feeler gauge is just limiting the available plunger travel to reduce noise and limiting plunger travel is hamstringing what a rhoads lifter does in the first place rendering them less effective so what's the use of running them at that point ?

[Dick Boneske]

I've used the Royal Pontiac procedure on many Pontiacs beginning in 1064 with my first GTO. I use polylocks and adjust until there is audible clicking, then turn the polylock 1/4 turn tighter. This allowed me to run up to 6,000 rpm without the valve float That I had at about 5,200 rpm with "normal" settings.

I have never had a hydraulic lifter keeper fail. I've done this with factory cams, factory springs, aftermarket cams--Lunati, Engle, General Kinetics, Sig Erson, aftermarket valve springs.

This is what nearly all Pontiac racers did in the '60's, '70's, and '80's. I realize that today there are solid and hydraulic rollers, the Comp Cams Extreme Energy solid flat tappets that run .006" clearance with virtually no noise.

It seems there are more problems with valve trains today than we had in the "old days!" What am I missing?

[Cliff R]

The answer is yes. There are a few things going on today that make things more difficult when it comes to this topic.

Right to start with cam manufacturers have been tightening up duration (seat timing) and at the same time increasing .050" duration numbers. This alone lifts and drops the valves much faster, so the intensity of the lobes throws a monkey wrench into the ability of the lifters to follow the cam right to start with. Those quick opening/closing specs require more seat and open spring pressures to keep things in check at high RPM's.

I found this out early on and discussed it with Jim Weise, owner of the Buick Board and engine builder. He tried the "new" technology (Comp XE lobes) in his engines just like I did when they first came out. He discovered that past 5000rpm's he ran into what we call "lifter crash", or a point where the valve springs could no longer handle the increased seating velocities and the engine quit revving and making power on the dyno. It was so bad in Buick engines Jim told me, that it actually broke a few rocker arms. He also mentioned that the cams were showing good potential right up to the point where this happened.

Coincidentally at almost exactly the same time I tried an XE268 cam in a 400 build and it showed me similar problems. Not being overly impressed with that build and not knowing why it wasn't working out I went back to what I'd been using.

Jim pulled the XE cams out, went back to the T/A cams he'd been using. Power cam right back and any and all problems associated with high RPM operation went away.

So as it relates to what we are seeing here super quick ramps and strong spring pressures required to effectively use them can cause problems with hydraulic lifters. Another problem thrown into the mix is quality. Lifter body to plunger clearances are NOT nearly as consistent as the EXCELLENT lifters we had to work with back in the 1960' thru 1990's. With all of this outsourcing, companies going out of business, etc, lifters started coming in from Mexico, China, etc and they just aren't nearly as good as what we used to use in these engines.

So quality plays a role here and if you run the plungers deeper into the lifter bodies you simply allow LESS room for inconsistent bleed-down rates to produce troubles on the other end of the lifter.

Hardly a day goes by we don't read about someone having issues with valve train noise, incorrect oil band location, "scrubbing" a lobe on their new cam, etc.

Most of or all of it is related to the quality of the components. Leak down rates, which are directly related to lifter to plunger clearances are all over the MAP on these new parts and why it is common to end up with a few "tickers" in the bunch after you have fired up and broke-in your new engine.

We next to NEVER had any of these issues with engine builds dating clear back to when I first got into this hobby in the 1970's. The standard $34 set of USA made lifters could be set at zero plus 1/4 turn, 1/2 turn, 3/4 turn or the "traditional" one full turn down from zero lash (or bolt them down and forget them like most Pontiac, Olds, Mopar engines, etc), then go on to worry about something else. Those engines NEVER had any valve train noise, or munched any lobes either. We also did NOT have to run really high seat or open pressures because the typical aftermarket camshafts, like a Crane Fireball or Blazer, for example had tons of seat timing without a lot of .050" duration or a lot of lift either, so relatively "gentle" for opening/closing specs to the cams we are seeing these days.

I lost track of how many very successful SBC engines I built back then with stock 80-110lb on the seat springs on them and they would rev to the moon and never, ever, not one single time did I run into any noise anyplace, or any lobe failures. We didn't even pay much mind to "break-in", just fire the thing up, run it for a couple of minutes on fast idle, shut it down, check fluid levels, fire it back up, set the timing and done with it.

So IMHO, it's not one simple thing causing the issues here, it's a combination of many things. I didn't even go into different parts being used above the cam lobes, heavier lifters, rocker arms, pushrods, retainers, springs, etc, etc.......Cliff

[P@blo]

Originally Posted by 65CatCoupe

Am I reading Truman right in that he does the opposite of what everyone else does? Most say zero clearance THEN 1/2 turn PRELOAD. Seems Truman says +.010 CLEARANCE.

Here is another forum member posting a portion of an article regarding this subject.

"Hydraulic Lifter PreLoad- Hydraulic lifters are intended to make up for valvetrain dimensional differences as well as providing a self-adjusting method of maintaining valve lash, or rather the lack of. By setting the valvetrain so the lifter plunger is depressed slightly, the lifter is able to compensate for these differences, making a convenient hassle-free valvetrain set-up. For performance applications, lifter preload is not needed or wanted. As rpm's increase, the lifter has a tendency to bounce over the back of the lobe as it comes back down from the maximum lift point. The pressurized oil fills the lifter body to account for this bouncing. Eventually, after several engine revolutions, the oil can completely fill the lifter body and the plunger will be pushed up to its full travel (pump-up). Higher oil pressures can amplify this problem. With the lifter pre-loaded, this can cause a valve to run off it's seat and can cause piston clearance issues if and when pump-up occurs. By setting the valvetrain at 'zero' preload, lifter pump up is eliminated and in most cases, the cam will rev higher. Ford tech articles in late 60's actually urged 'stock' class racers to run .001-.003 lash on hydraulic cams."

http://www.wighat.com/fcr3/confusion.htm

[ponjohn]

Pontiac Dude said he figured it out and ran HR rollers to 6500 rpm. I know he used Beehive springs - any other secrets?

[Steve C.]

Ken had a few different higher rpm hyd roller combos. His 535 made around 625 HP with 300 cfm Edelbrock heads on pump gas. All in by 5800 rpm and a flat to 6200 rpm. It used a 1050 Dominator. Not positive but I think he used Comp Xtreme Marine High lift Hydraulic roller lobes on that build with Harland Sharp 1.65 rockers and a stud girdle. With 110 LSA at 108 ICL. About 0.640" lift. His Beehive springs were 145 on the seat and 410 open pressure.


.

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by Dick Boneske

I've used the Royal Pontiac procedure on many Pontiacs beginning in 1064 with my first GTO. I use polylocks and adjust until there is audible clicking, then turn the polylock 1/4 turn tighter. This allowed me to run up to 6,000 rpm without the valve float That I had at about 5,200 rpm with "normal" settings.

I have never had a hydraulic lifter keeper fail. I've done this with factory cams, factory springs, aftermarket cams--Lunati, Engle, General Kinetics, Sig Erson, aftermarket valve springs.

This is what nearly all Pontiac racers did in the '60's, '70's, and '80's. I realize that today there are solid and hydraulic rollers, the Comp Cams Extreme Energy solid flat tappets that run .006" clearance with virtually no noise.

It seems there are more problems with valve trains today than we had in the "old days!" What am I missing?

Correct. But this issue today is that most all feel they need 500HP and roller cams/lifters. All you have to do is first look at the design ramp of a flat tappet cam versus a roller cam. The flat tappet lobe is obviously egg shaped and gradually reaches its apex and then gradually closes while the roller cam can almost appear to run straight up to its highest most lift then hold it longer, then drop nearly straight down. Some manufacturers try to push the limits of the flat tappet cam lobes like the XE, and these have aggressive lobe opening/closing ramps in an effort to provide more "under the curve" advantages.

But what happens is the lobe is so aggressive that it sets into motion the energy stored into the weight of the components, pushrods/rocker arms/valves, that it can throw the parts open, called lofting, and the valve springs cannot overcome this action and valves hang open momentarily or bounce off seats at the higher RPM's.

Few look at the weight of their components. How many just have to have .080" wall pushrods (or more) because of deflection due to heavier rated valve springs - or don't even need them but install them because "such and such said I need them," or "Hot Rod build up said I need them," or "my machinist only uses these."? What difference is the weight from stock stamped steel factory rockers and the others? How about valves, what are the weight differences from stock to aftermarket? All this can add up and add to the "lofting" problem.

So without the correct valve spring pressures, now you have a problem because of "lofting" brought on by aggressive cam lobe designs found in roller cams, and those flat tappet cams having aggressive opening/closing ramps. You can use a recommended valve spring, but does it really work for the application? Maybe on most engines and at a specific RPM. But go past that RPM, you realistically need a spring with even more pressures to keep valves from flying off the seats or bouncing.

Then there is oil weight, yes, viscosity. How many of you are aware that some lifter manufacturers recommend a lighter oil, like 10W-30, when most of you insist on 15W-40 or 20W-50? Wrong viscosity means lifter plungers that are not doing their jobs - they can be kept pumped up as the oil cannot quickly drain as it should? So now you have valves being held open and you're thinking the valves are floating because I need stronger springs - wrong.

Poor quality parts? Maybe, but if you buy from a reputable company, most sell good quality parts. Many times the problem is "new & improved" that so many buy into and yet these parts have not been tested enough out in the "field", or "real world" by guys like you and me who will more often than not, find the weak points in the "new & improved" parts that the factory testing on an engine stand will not.

Using "new & improved" parts that the Pontiac engine was never designed for. The engine was NOT designed as is for roller cams/lifters without adding the lifter bore brace - period. You can say it depends on the aggressiveness of the roller cam profile as measured against the lift at "X" that applies side loading to the lifter bore which determines how "safe" the roller is that can be used. BS in my book as how many go through all that to figure those side loads out? So the brace should always be mandatory, period. Hmmm, which factory Pontiac block and application added the bracing in the lifter valley? Maybe the Pontiac engineers knew the limits of the block?

So the bottom line is that the stock engine at stock HP levels had no issues like we find today because most want 500HP or more engines with stoker kits, roller assemblies, aluminum heads, and other components that Pontiac engineers did not design their blocks/heads/ and other components for. If you keep the build closer to stock, you don't have issues - it is the people who have the "gotta have bigger" mentalities and have to have all the non-Pontiac aftermarket items to build more HP than the engine was designed for that seem to have all the issues. So is it really the poor quality parts excuse, or the over building of an engine with mismatched components due to the lack of mechanical physics knowledge and how parts work together at various RPM & power levels?

[Cliff R]

Jim, there are some pretty poor quality parts out there, and some of them relate to this topic.

Below is some info about it. It's a little dated but describes part of the reason why things aren't they way they used to be with these things:

"The major U.S. manufacturers of hydraulic flat tappet lifters are now Johnson Tappet, Hylift-Johnson, a division of Topline Inc., and Delphi.

The major 'offshore' producer of lifters is currently Eaton with plants in Mexico, India, Turkey and a new plant in China.

Be advised that Johnson Tappet DOES NOT make a Pontiac specific flat tappet lifter. Johnson tappet DOES make a universal, high-band lifter that will work in some Pontiacs, under part 4114, but it is NOT a Pontiac specific item.

IF you are buying a 'Johnson' Pontiac lifter, it is NOT made by Johnson and is a counterfeit, or re-boxed Eaton lifter - period.

This was confirmed by Johnson Tappet's Product Manager Joe Lewis.

Comp's 852 is currently a Delphi lifter, according to Comp's Scooter Brothers and David Butler. This is said to be a quality lifter and is Pontiac specific in its configuration. However, Comp recently announced they are dropping Delphi as a supplier and are yet to announce their new supplier.

Hylift-Johnson does make a Pontiac specific hydraulic flat tappet under Part #A-0951 and #A-0951R. Hylift-Johnson is the source for Summit and Jeg's house brand hydraulic flat tappet lifters. These seem to be a good lifter and are 100% U.S.A. made from U.SA. materials.

Topline, who owns Hylift-Johnson, has recently discovered knock-off versions of their lifters in circulation, complete with counterfeit packaging and phony SKUs. Out of 30 recent returns of Jeg's lifters, none were Hylift-Johnson's and all appeared to be the result of the practice of 'rebox rotation' by consumers, substitutig stock used and 'Brand-X' lifters due to Jeg's liberal return policy.

Hylift-Johnson maintains that the big lifter "problem" first began when Standadyne started using "offshore raw materials" around 2006 and thus all the failed lifter bodies were blamed on reduced Zinc levels in the oil, which wasn't the problem at all.

All of this was confirmed by Topline's General Manager, David Popp, who also advised that Hylift-Johnson is the source for all of Rhoad's component parts; a fact later confirmed by Rhaod's.

According to several of my industry sources, the Eaton lifters should be avoided, but it's not quite that easy and definitely not the end of the story.

My problems started when I ended up with a set of 'L-951' hydraulic lifters, which turned out to be an Eaton product. Eaton makes them for Melling, Federal-Mogul, Sealed Power and Engine Tech at their plants in Mexico, India, Turkey and most recently, China. Most of these lifters carry the 'L' designation in their part number, but the same lifters are also marketed under part numbers JB-951 and HT-951.

While many folks do claim good luck with the "Hecho En Mexico" Eatons, and I do not doubt that some of these lifters are providing good service, I had some real problems with the set that I obtained.

Of interesting note, Hylift-Johnson has offered to perform an autopsy on these L-951s and provide a full written report as to their findings, but here are the preliminary issues I experienced.

PS: this is an old post, since then Jegs and Summit have went to offshore production lifters, or so I have been told.
Besides lower quality materials, the internal clearances of the offshore parts is all over the map."


One good point you make is that one can make EXCELLENT power with these engines without going to a roller set-up. I confirmed that over 15 years ago now when I back to back dyno tested some camshafts. Going from a Crower 60919 cam topped with Rhoads lifters and high ratio rockers I was only able to make 3hp/4ftlbs more power with a very well chose HR cam.

The cam I tested the Crower against was a custom grind from Comp, 284/296 @ .006", 230/242 @ .050", .361" lobes and 112LSA. It actually quit 200 RPM earlier than the Crower cam did, making peak HP at 5400rpm's vs 5600. So for sure we don't need to go to a HR to make great power.

I also compared drag strip numbers on both cams. The Crower cam ran 11.70-11.85 around 113-114mph for most runs, with a best ever 11.64 @ 116mph. The roller cam was a solid tenth quicker average ET and 1-2 mph faster with a best ever 11.52 @ 118mph.

One needs to ask themselves if it's worth spending over $1000\ more on the build for 3hp/4ft lbs and just a little over a tenth improvement at the track a couple MPH faster?........