[grandville455]

Going to get rid of the hyd lifters, and going to the crower hippo setup, have some questions, I seen a graph earlier from Harry K testing before and after install and track times. What I would like to know by looking at the graph would the car run faster if it had more convertor,and shifted higher than the previous setup. It looks like if the conv was close to 42-4400 the solid would be ready to start pulling away the whole rpm's all the way to the shift point of 6000 or higher.The graph is below, Obviously I have a Victor and dom, and a 4200 conv, Compared to what this test car has, My gut says it would run quite a bit faster. Would like some opinions of what u guys think.

[grandville455]

Here's the Torque Curve of Harry's Dyno Test too. Remember this is not my car , just using it as a reference to the change from hyd to solid lifter's

[Steve C.]

Unless I'm mistaken that graph indicates the differance in the power curve with no reflection regarding the torque curve. I'm I not correct the info gained here will be more helpful in discussions of the shift rpm (?).

Regarding the torque converter, I'll presume it will be more usefull to the converter company to know if there were significant changes to the torque curve with the change to solid roller lifters.

Related, it was my understanding Dave Bischopp was going to do some engine dyno testing between the hyd rollers and solid rollers on the same hydraulic roller lobe. To date I've seen nothing on that, as with other projects he is probably too busy.

( Edit. I was typing as Darby posted the torque graph )




.

[grandville455]

Yes It will be interesting to see how this effects my setup for E.T and Mph. Being that I have enough conv and gear I think it will perform very well especially up top where I believe my car was not performing as well as it could have, as I was very close to coil bind with my current 1.65 rocker's and cam, It worked in the grand, but this car accelerates so much faster, that it started to show itself. Being that I am switching to 1.5's and stiff wall .116 pushrods, and upping the spring pressures it should all work well together.

[ponjohn]

Darby-

Do you plan on apples to apples by leaving everything else alone. ie-timing etc.

I'll be interested to hear how seat of the pants feels.

Had you considered the EZ roll lifters?

[grandville455]

Originally Posted by ponjohn

Darby-

Do you plan on apples to apples by leaving everything else alone. ie-timing etc.

I'll be interested to hear how seat of the pants feels.

Had you considered the EZ roll lifters?

John
Will not be changing anything other than obviously taking some lift away by using the 1.5's. I couldn't afford those EZ Roll least not now anyways. I will even plan on shifting the same on the first run 55- and then 5800 just to get a good comparison, will leave at the same 2000 grand also, Then I will shift it higher and see what happens

[blueghoast]

Ciurios what compression is your motor?

GT.

[grandville455]

Originally Posted by blueghoast

Ciurios what compression is your motor?

GT.

10.7

[mysticmissle]

Do you have a lifter bore brace? Or is the cam still in the safe zone? Or is it needed on A hr to sr conversion with the hr cam slowing the lifter acceleration vs a sr grind. Never had this type of power like you in a stock block. Just curious

[grandville455]

Originally Posted by mysticmissle

Do you have a lifter bore brace? Or is the cam still in the safe zone? Or is it needed on A hr to sr conversion with the hr cam slowing the lifter acceleration vs a sr grind. Never had this type of power like you in a stock block. Just curious

No Brace here, My .200 numbers are only like 164 -169 I think. I do run a stud girdle tho. I have not seen mention here that a brace is needed with this setup, nor as Dave said anything to me either, so guessing it is not needed.

[Steve C.]

Comp lobes 3122B & 3120B, they are listed with 160 and 151 degrees at 0.200" and .3800"/.3830" lobe lift. No lifter bore bracing necessary.




.

[grandville455]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Comp lobes 3122B & 3120B, they are listed with 160 and 151 degrees at 0.200" and .3800"/.3830" lobe lift. No lifter bore bracing necessary.




.

Steve I use the road paver tho, I think they are 3115B , 3116B, with .400 lobes

[Steve C.]

Opps, thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten about the change. Still no need for a lifter brace

[harry k]

"I didn't pay much mind to Harry K's testing nor do I care to"

as far as i am concerned,you were gonna stay off this board for a some time & go play with your dog but you can't help yourself & come start friction again.

Darby if you need info about this dyno & track test, contact me direct.

[Steve C.]

Cliff, I don't fully understand the comments. I understand the why regarding the solid roller on the hyd roller lobe. I was simply trying to point out that Harry's testing seems to me to validate ( or support ) your comment about 4500 rpm and up. No critisism intended.



.

[rod cole]

The other thing not taken into consideration is you are still pounding needle bearings although to a much less exstent than a dedicated solid roller setup. Which will require roller check ,replace process although I do not know when that would be miles wize. Also the pushrods will need replaced because the solid is like .100 shorter. Scorpion sells the high rev hydro rollers but I do not have the funds to try them and have not seen any test data. My roller hydro self limits at 6100 with 3 year old springs. 10.75 at 125mph So i am content and maybe saving me from blowing up.
Rod

[grandville455]

Lets not get off track here guys, The only reason I POSTED Harry's graph cause its the only thing i found that someone had done back to back dyno and showed the power difference from just a lifter change. I am trying to figure out if My car being more set up for drag than harry's test car was, if it will infact run quicker being I am adding some power, and i won't be loosing that duration and lift at higher rpm's .Plus I have enough conv to make up for any lost that will be down low, but i leave at 2000 and it flashes to 4200, so i am pretty sure i won't feel any of that lost torque down low anyways. I am also pretty confident that it will pick up in the mid and top even more than it already was. Pulling hard to 6000 grand with ease! It will be back together sometime next week and plan on hitting the next race which is next sunday, the weather looks to be warmer than the last times i have been out so well see what it has, my gut says I will be smiling!

[Cliff R]

In theory a tight lashed hydraulic roller lifter would run like a solid roller lifter, if it was designed from the start as a limited travel lifter, and one ran it down till the plunger bottomed out, then backed it up to provide about .010" plunger travel. I've been wanting to try this deal out, and may on my next engine. The small amount of oil trapped, even when tight lashed would provide the "cushion" and constant roller to lobe contact that isn't present when running solid roller lifters on the HR camshaft.

I still don't think it will rev quite as well as the HIPPO's, as they are considerably lighter, but one could always use more spring pressure, or lighter retainers, or even beehive springs/retainers etc, to make it even more effective.......Cliff

PS: we've made it to page 2, and not one question yet as to how to run the valves, and what lash to use, etc. I have built/tested three street/strip engines to date using the "hybrid" set-up, logged hundreds of runs with them and many thousands of street miles, ran the lash all over the place, checked them hot, cold, split the settings, etc. We have them on two of Dave's cams, the Old Faithful and the Road Paver....FWIW..

[Steve C.]

I know its been discussed here many times, about .006" lash is not uncommon.


The more aggressive the lobe, the tighter the lash needs to be. The tighter the lash, the more thermal expansion problems must be taken into consideration. For example, Comp Cam's older Magnum hydraulic-roller grinds usually run fine with solid lifters at 0.012-0.014-inch hot lash. But its newer, much more aggressive Xtreme Energy hydraulic rollers get very noisy over 0.010-0.012 hot lash, so Comp recommends 0.006-0.010 lash settings. When lashing the valves, set them at 0.004 inch cold, then warm up the engine, and recheck it hot. Fine-tune lash settings within the preceding recommendations if the valvetrain is too noisy. Once satisfied, let the engine cool down again and recheck the lash. In the future you can accurately cold-lash the motor.
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/techfaq/hrdp_0...#ixzz1uWGXm6Yx



With the advent of hydraulic roller cams, the question has arisen whether or not it's safe to run solid roller lifters on them. The answer is as readily disputed as most new forms of technology are today, but in a pinch you can do it. You must run very tight lash, .005 to .006, because of the lack of a clearance ramp on the hydraulic lobe design and running too much lash will quickly kill solid lifters on a hydraulic lobe.
Read more: http://www.popularhotrodding.com/eng...#ixzz1uWHMENsP

Anyone want to tackle the subject of what is adequate spring pressure with a solid roller lifter on a hydraulic roller lobe ?



.

[tom s]

Steve,the first RA V engine I built about 12 years ago,Comp told me to run 200 on the seat and set at 6 thou with solid rollers on their 400 lobe lift hyd roller cam.Dean Harvey was the guy.This was WAY back then.Im told that I can run the hyd rollers with high seat pressures on the hyd rollers.Am going to try it soon.Tom