[Jay S]

Originally Posted by 68WarDog

IO= 9

IC= 45

EO= 57

EC= 5

Overlap = 14

Those numbers are at .050”

[grivera]

What are your thoughts about the Evolution lifters with 145# on seat, 380# on the nose, on a 236/245 HR, .630’ish lift (with 1.65 rockers)?

[Formulajones]

As far as seat and open pressures on a mild hydraulic roller like that, especially a pontiac, 150 or so on the seats is pretty normal, and usually close to 400 open just for the simple reason the valvetrains are heavy in these engines, it takes a decent amount of spring to control it. Don't know why a hydraulic roller wouldn't be able to handle that unless they are cheap lifters with horrible bleed down rates.

I guess the Johnsons are okay, I know that is what Butler is selling now because the Hylift Johnson hydraulic rollers which are known to be superior are almost impossible to get and people don't want to pay the price for them either. In fact on Butlers site I believe it says call for price and availability. Just make sure your sitting down, lol.

I just installed a set of the Hylift Johnsons on a Bullet .620 lift hydraulic roller, the lifters alone were $1140 6 months ago, they are now currently $1800 on their site. They are the short travel with pin oiling. They are completely quiet and this engine has 140 on the seats and almost 400 open on a sbc.

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by Jay S

Does it have a prefix to say what journal it was ground on?

Usually you don’t want to run a ST on something you’re going to drive a lot. I would have picked a limited travel PR for that, especially if you kept with 1.5 rockers.

Only modifier I see on the cam card is an "s" suffix against the lobes. 13547s/13551s

Car isn't a daily driver. 5ish thousand miles a year if I don't have it down for some reason.

When it's driven, it gets beat on. Count on it.

The QNI lobes seem to have a decent amount of seat timing for their .050 numbers, which would make sense on something like a magnum love, save for the fact that they are nearly a .4" lobe lift.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by grivera

What are your thoughts about the Evolution lifters with 145# on seat, 380# on the nose, on a 236/245 HR, .630’ish lift (with 1.65 rockers)?

I can’t really say without knowing what profile it is. If the profile has to much acceleration early in the profile the seat pressure combined with the spring rate will work together to compress lifters plunger more as the cam gets more aggressive. There is more too it than just looking at pressure numbers and the lift. 145 seat and 380 max is pretty normal numbers though, that shouldn’t be an issue with most street profiles for most HR lifters, I wouldn’t think it would be a problem for evolutions either.

I think the design of the Evolution lifters have potential to be an outstanding lifter with an aggressive cam and beehive springs that run less spring pressure. They should have a quicker response rate, run quieter with an aggressive cam, and work well with the less mass and spring pressures of a beehive setup.

I did see Hylift Johnson (HLJ) appears to be back in stock at Butler’s. The standard HLJ is about $190 more than an evolution. I accidentally quoted a price for HLJ standard lifters instead of Johnson PRs. The Johnson PR lifter is about $120 more. The HLJ get really price when you get the S lifter and pin oiling.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by JLMounce

Only modifier I see on the cam card is an "s" suffix against the lobes. 13547s/13551s

Car isn't a daily driver. 5ish thousand miles a year if I don't have it down for some reason.

When it's driven, it gets beat on. Count on it.

The QNI lobes seem to have a decent amount of seat timing for their .050 numbers, which would make sense on something like a magnum love, save for the fact that they are nearly a .4" lobe lift.

The S means it is ground with a smaller diameter small block journal, that is what I thought it might be. It will likely make quite a bit of extra sowing machine noise with ST lifters, smaller base circle, and the acceleration the profile has. They softened up the profile a little bit for the small base circle (base circle was designed for small for SBC long rod strokers), but they did not soften it much. Running ST lifters on that small base circle with almost .4” lift is probably a good idea. It should run hard.

[grivera]

Originally Posted by Jay S

I can’t really say without knowing what profile it is.

This would be for Magnum lobes - the original SD “old faithful” grind.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by grivera

This would be for Magnum lobes - the original SD “old faithful” grind.

Evolutions should be able to handle that. They can likely handle more aggressive profiles like an XFI at those pressures, but I think something like an XFI might be getting on the edge of what they are probably good for without switching to a beehive spring. I think that when you run modern spring packages is really where the evolutions may prove to be the best choice.

I still really like HLJ lifters like Larry does, and think highly of HLJ. Hylift Johnson and Crane at one time had the best of the best HR lifters. But when Johnson lifters worked with Isky a few year back to make the HPx silver and needless HPx gold lifter I think there was a changing of the top spot for lifters. Between the changes the HPx has too it’s valving and needless bearings, there simply isn’t a lifter that matches up too those yet that I know of. Right now I think Johnson makes the best lifter. Too bad they don’t make the HPx for a Pontiac, because they are quiet operating short travel lifters that are rated for 185 seat and 530 max pressure, and can handle those pressures up too 7500 RPM. Morel has some expensive short travels are able to run pressures for Chevies, but they are very noisy. Johnson makes nice lifters.

[Formulajones]

I went with the HyLift Johnsons that are short travel with pin oiling in a little 327 we are putting on the dyno in a couple weeks. The idea of that was to spin this hydraulic roller pretty high, as these lifters tend to act more like solids.
I have the engine running and ready for the dyno, and the lifters are perfectly quiet with one full turn (.050") preload on an aluminum head.

[68WarDog]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I went with the HyLift Johnsons that are short travel with pin oiling in a little 327 we are putting on the dyno in a couple weeks. The idea of that was to spin this hydraulic roller pretty high, as these lifters tend to act more like solids.
I have the engine running and ready for the dyno, and the lifters are perfectly quiet with one full turn (.050") preload on an aluminum head.

Thanks FJ, wasn't aware of the pin oiling feature for a hydraulic roller similar to the Crower solid roller lifters I'm running in the 70. I went with these lifters, site just wasn't clear whether they're std or short travel. I'm assuming std. since they're less than $1k.