[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Bruce Meyer

I don't get it. Looking at the prices of running Hyd Roller set ups (cam, lifters, pushrods, block mods, etc etc) you don't get much bang for the buck. They seem to be unreliable on top of it all. Don't you guys realize you can make big power with solid flat tappet cams? Even HFT can make big power. At a FRACTION of the cost. Money that could be better spent on other things like upgrading heads.

Flat tappets tend to knock the lobes off the cams with todays oils and poorly machined lifter faces

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Bruce Meyer

I don't get it. Looking at the prices of running Hyd Roller set ups (cam, lifters, pushrods, block mods, etc etc) you don't get much bang for the buck. They seem to be unreliable on top of it all. Don't you guys realize you can make big power with solid flat tappet cams? Even HFT can make big power. At a FRACTION of the cost. Money that could be better spent on other things like upgrading heads.

There is a lot of truth in that statement.
One reason why I am staying with the HO 044 high lift Hydraulic flat tappet camshaft and Rhoads lifters. I will give up 20 HP to get solid usage out of my 455 engine. And Luhn Performance proved years ago that a basic 455 engine at 5300 rpm and 13 psi of boost could make 862 HP.

This Hydraulic Roller stuff has been a very expensive learning curve for some Pontiac guys.

Tom V.

[catc]

Here's a couple more photos

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by catc

Here's a couple more photos

If you have time, try contacting Paul Carter. This is the exact issue he's preached about with these Comp lifters and why he's never recommended running them. If I remember right he's told me this dates back several years so this isn't a new issue.

He goes by GTOfreak on the forums here but he doesn't post much. He's part owner of Koerner Racing Engines and sees this stuff on a daily basis.

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by ponjohn

... Who makes the Crane HR lifters?...

Do you know that Crane doesn't? It's probably been 14-15 years ago, but I believe they made their own HR lifters back then that I'm very happy with- six years of street driving so far, never a single 'click'.

Something I don't really understand, is why everybody(?) wants a lifter's oil band to align with the boss's feed hole when on the cam's base circle. I've built at least a couple dozen engines (half of them Pontiacs) with the lifters starting to move before uncovering any of the hole. Many OEMs are designed this way, and it's NEVER caused a problem for me.

[wbnapier]

I'm about to put comp cams lifters in my new motor. These threads scare the hell out of me. I can't imagine grenading this thing a year down the road.

I've been reading on other forums about the tie bar pin failure causing catastrophic failure. There's no way to inspect or test for that beforehand...

[Formulajones]

That's interesting. A tie bar failure I have not seen. I could only imagine what that would do to the cam when that roller turns sideways.

The OP's issue with the lifter wheel support breaking is not something I have seen myself, I've used a few sets of these, but I've been aware of that issue for quite a long time.

It seems to be a hit and miss type of thing. Most never see it, but when it happens it's a big deal.

[Steve C.]

Potential of not having the oil band exposed to the lifter bore feed hole 100 percent of the time. I know the base circle of the cam has a impact as does the lifter oil band location and/or width. If using them, it can have a impact on the Hi-Pressure Pin Oiler (HIPPO) system on Crower roller lifters because the small 0.024" hole that feeds oil to the needle bearings is located within the oil band. That means it is not getting 100 percent oiling thru that hole.
In some instances the lifter must raise quite a distance before oil starts flowing to the needle bearings thru the small hole. I have no specific number but it can equate to quite a few degrees of cam rotation before it does.

Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoU_hUgq4O0&app=desktop
.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Potential of not having the oil band exposed to the lifter bore feed hole 100 percent of the time. I know the base circle of the cam has a impact as does the lifter oil band location and/or width. If using them, it can have a impact on the Hi-Pressure Pin Oiler (HIPPO) system on Crower roller lifters because the small 0.024" hole that feeds oil to the needle bearings is located within the oil band. That means it is not getting 100 percent oiling thru that hole.
In some instances the lifter must raise quite a distance before oil starts flowing to the needle bearings thru the small hole. I have no specific number but it can equate to quite a few degrees of cam rotation before it does.

Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoU_hUgq4O0&app=desktop
.

Did the lifter that had an issue on your engine have the oil band in the correct location?

There is a lot of oil being tossed all over the place in a running engine. The same oil that lubricated the lifter and lobe on a flat tappet cam is still provided to the bearing and cam on roller set up regardless of where the oil band and oil hole are.... It provides quite a bit of oil.

[Steve C.]

I've had two separate solid roller lifter failures that involved one lifter each time, both with the same .4300" lobe lift w/1.65 ratio and same Crower Cutaway Severe-Duty roller lifters with HIPPO pin oiling. One had needle bearings and the other bushing-style. We did not suspect either failure had anything to do with the lack of 100 percent oil flow thru the HIPPO system. Regarding that situation some suggest no issue if the needle bearings don't get oil flow 100 percent of the time under pressure, including the opinion of Crower when I called them years ago regarding the subject. That said, Crower tends to cover their ass on many issues. Agree, lots of oil splashing that is commonly called 'splash lube' but it was Mark at Luhn Performance who commented on the subject with a car at idle in a street application.

And a fwiw, after the first failure we modified the lifter bore with the groove like Paul Carter does so my lifters involving the second failure did see 100 percent oil flow to the bushed bearing thru the HIPPO system.


.

[Dick Boneske]

Regarding the failure of the hydraulic roller lifter in Pontiacs. Isn't it true that the aftermarket hydraulic rollers for Pontiacs today are actually GM LS engine lifters--which is why the oil band is too low for Pontiac engines?

If it's true that these are LS lifters, it seems odd that there are actual failures of the lifter body itself. Most LS motors run well beyond 200,000 miles without lifter failures. Why do they fail in Pontiac engines if the problem is not lack of oil flow while the lifter is on the base circle of the cam?

I have heard that hydraulic roller cams for Pontiacs today have a smaller base circle than OEM cams had, by significant amount, worsening the problem of the low oil band.

I'm concerned about this because we're having a Butler 468 stroker built now. The engine shop wants to use Comp Cams solid Extreme Energy flat tappets because of the trouble he's seen with retrofit hydraulic rollers. I just can't see the logic in using a solid flat tappet cam in a street engine. The 20 HP gain means nothing compared to the noise, need for adjustment, and risk of cam failure as so many see with flat tappet lifters, solid or hydraulic.

Help me understand this right way to go.

[i82much]

Originally Posted by Dick Boneske

Regarding the failure of the hydraulic roller lifter in Pontiacs. Isn't it true that the aftermarket hydraulic rollers for Pontiacs today are actually GM LS engine lifters--which is why the oil band is too low for Pontiac engines?

If it's true that these are LS lifters, it seems odd that there are actual failures of the lifter body itself. Most LS motors run well beyond 200,000 miles without lifter failures. Why do they fail in Pontiac engines if the problem is not lack of oil flow while the lifter is on the base circle of the cam?

I have heard that hydraulic roller cams for Pontiacs today have a smaller base circle than OEM cams had, by significant amount, worsening the problem of the low oil band.

I'm concerned about this because we're having a Butler 468 stroker built now. The engine shop wants to use Comp Cams solid Extreme Energy flat tappets because of the trouble he's seen with retrofit hydraulic rollers. I just can't see the logic in using a solid flat tappet cam in a street engine. The 20 HP gain means nothing compared to the noise, need for adjustment, and risk of cam failure as so many see with flat tappet lifters, solid or hydraulic.

Help me understand this right way to go.

I mean honestly, there's no perfect answer right? I lost a solid flat, lost a solid roller, now I have a hydraulic roller with the Comp lifters. So far the hydraulic roller has held up better than the first two, but then again the current engine was built by a different shop than the first two.

It's hard to say what approach is going to be most reliable because you've got so many different variables when you read these threads. If you see a broken lifter from one guy and another guy says he has 50k trouble-free miles with the same lifters, is that dumb luck? Spring pressure? Oiling issues? Cam bore alignment? Lifter bore clearance? Proper valvetrain geometry?

[Formulajones]

There is no real need to worry about flat tappet cam failure or even periodic adjustments on a solid flat tappet.

If everything is built properly, good oil, correct springs, geometry, etc... a flat tappet works perfectly fine.

I have 2 of them in daily driver service and one is a solid. I've put just over 30k miles on the solid flat tappet engine in the last 3 years. At first I checked the lash 2-3 times the first year and it never moved, so I Iet it go a full year. Checked it again, It was perfect. Another year went by and I checked it last fall, again perfect. We'll drive it all summer, and throughout next winter and into next year before I'll even consider pulling the valve covers for another check. It's just not a big deal.

It's a tight lash solid flat tappet, and I took extra precautions with nitriding the camshaft as well as using Comps EDM hole on the face of the lifters to squirt oil directly onto the lobes of the camshaft. I run a good set of Crower roller rockers with poly locks as well, and always run Amsoil with the added flat tappet cam protection they offer in their hotrod oil. It's been an excellent setup. I don't know if it's one or two things I've done here to make this behave as nice as it does, or if it's a combination of everything, but the old wives tail is just that. If everything is happy they don't need to be adjusted every few thousand miles.

Engine builders like the solids because they tend to make a bit more power than a hydraulic, in similar comparisons. So you'll see the push towards that scenario if they are into squeezing power. But nothing wrong with hydraulic if you don't care about that.

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by Dick Boneske

Regarding the failure of the hydraulic roller lifter in Pontiacs. Isn't it true that the aftermarket hydraulic rollers for Pontiacs today are actually GM LS engine lifters--which is why the oil band is too low for Pontiac engines?

If it's true that these are LS lifters, it seems odd that there are actual failures of the lifter body itself. Most LS motors run well beyond 200,000 miles without lifter failures. Why do they fail in Pontiac engines if the problem is not lack of oil flow while the lifter is on the base circle of the cam?

I have heard that hydraulic roller cams for Pontiacs today have a smaller base circle than OEM cams had, by significant amount, worsening the problem of the low oil band.

I'm concerned about this because we're having a Butler 468 stroker built now. The engine shop wants to use Comp Cams solid Extreme Energy flat tappets because of the trouble he's seen with retrofit hydraulic rollers. I just can't see the logic in using a solid flat tappet cam in a street engine. The 20 HP gain means nothing compared to the noise, need for adjustment, and risk of cam failure as so many see with flat tappet lifters, solid or hydraulic.

Help me understand this right way to go.

I think it is like all things, everyone has an opinion, experience, "knows a buddy who....," read it in a book, or googled it on a forum.

I don't know why people complain about solid lifter noise/tick, but are OK with headers and/or a loud/performance exhaust. I've had 1 engine with solids and don't recall much ticking with the hood closed, but then again, I ran a 3" exhaust system with Corvair turbos and the car had a very choppy idle to begin with and was loud.

As pointed out, once set-up, you do not really have to be adjusting them all the time. Maybe if you used self locking nuts as found on a Chevy which can back off, poly-locks seemed to work. The factory 3/8" bottleneck studs from what I read have a bit of a crown and not the best for keeping poly-locks locked down - maybe that plays into the problems people speeak about in always adjusting them. If you replace with the BB aftermarket ARP 7/16" rocker studs, they have a flat top and hold the set-screw in the poly-lock far better. You also have to develop a "feel" to using the poly-lock and I am sure some don't snug it up enough fearing they will break/strip out the set-screw, and maybe some do do this. I never had an issue. The poly-locks also come in differing lengths. Wonder how many purchased the wrong length and where too short and did not grab as they should and didn't hold or were too long and bottomed out before tightening and didn't adjust as they should. Just something to think about.

Using a Crower flat tappet in my 455 because I want one and like the sound of solid lifters as anyone who is a car enthusiast and knows engines, knows what that sound is and recognizes the engine is "built." If you are not a car enthusiast or know much about engines, then you would think the lifters are noisy, but so would the loud exhaust. In my book, a solid lifter/sound carries a bit of respect for the car because solid cams in my time meant horsepower.

With solid lifters, you may read that they allow more oil to flow to the top end than what is needed. So it can be recommended to tap the lifter oil feed holes and use the oil restrictors. It may have worked back in the day, but with today's oil, which has gotten a little better for us older car owners, the restricted oil flow to the lifters and lack of zinc may have been responsible for taking out the lifters/cams. I believe you can get too crazy with oil control and lose the needed lubrication for the cam/lifters by using the valve lifter restrictor and even an overly designed windage tray and/or crank scraper. I WANT some oil mist/oil slinging around the interior of my engine to aide in lubing the cam/lifters. I am willing to give up some HP due in part to slinging oil as I will be running more under 3,000 RPM's than I will be screaming it to 6,000 RPM's in a race where tenths of a second count.

Crower offers a solid lifter that has the oil feed to the pushrod restricted to keep the oil down. I feel this is a better choice over galley restrictors. Another option is a pushrod with a reduced hole to restrict oil flow which are available. Have read that restricting oil flow to the top end doesn't provide enough oil to flow over the valve springs to help draw off the heat and keep them cool. But, which brand of engine/heads, street/strip/road race or Nacar, RPM range, HP level, etc. are they referencing?

Pontiac has oil drippers both in the earlier 400CI bolt-on style or the valve cover designed drippers. My opinion, use some form of oil drippers on the top end. Buying aftermarket valve covers might look good, but you may be giving up something the Pontiac engineers put into place for a reason. And again, how hard am I going to work my street/strip engine where I have to be concerned about my valve springs getting that hot that oil is needed not only as a lubricant, but as a coolant? Maybe I need an oil cooler too for the street.

Windage tray, does it help or hurt. Pontiac thought they were good, but eventually went with a shorter version and baffle in the pan. Milt Shornack used to add an additional drain hole in his windage trays and open them up to 1" so they drain better. Better might be to get a deeper oil pan/pick-up and fill with your usual 5 quarts to keep the oil level lower and below the crank so it does not whip up the oil from out of the pan. The Mopar engineers when giving pointers to engine performance building stated that the oil level should have a distance of 6" between the crank and oil level in the pan to prevent crank windage from whipping up the oil. Don't know what the distance is in a Pontiac, but I am going to measure when I get ready to assemble my engine - just so I know out of curiosity. I don't plan on using a windage tray, but an using a crank scraper along with deeper pan/oil pick-up. My opinion, I want some oil whipping around to lube the cam/lifters, but yet still have some control so it is not excessive.

Long and winded, I know. My opinion as well. If you use a good cam lube that is more of a paste that sticks when you first fire up the engine, I feel this may be a better choice. I wonder how many guys use a thinner cam lube that is more like molasses, assemble the engine, then wait 3 months or more to fire it up? Wonder how much is still on the cam and how much had slowly dripped off leaving minimal protection upon fire-up? My feeling is that if you are not going to fire-up the engine anytime soon, leave the intake off, and just before getting ready to fire, then lather those lifters, cam lobes, & oil up the pushrods,and rocker arm balls/cups, and valve stems up. Pre-oil the engine, then follow the break-in procedure.

IF you put a little thought into your engine build and throw in some assembly procedures to protect the cam/valve train, then I see no reason not to use a hydraulic flat tappet, or in this case, a solid flat tappet. And, the solid cam does have that "cool" factor and you will see that when someone who knows engines hears that you are running a solid cam.

So I say go with the solid cam and hang on.

[i82much]

I dunno about what type of cam will live best, but I do know that if I ever lose another cam or lifter I am switching to the laziest old-school lobes I can find.

[Formulas]

Well the trend for a while is open the valve as fast as you can and close it as fast as you can without bouncing, happens to nearly coincide with reformulation of motor oils and off shore parts and failures

I like cam profiles of the late 70's early 80's faster ramp design's than stock but didn't seem to be as failure prone as today's profiles, who knows but I saved a few of them

[64speed]

This thread scares the hell out of me too. I am running the lunati rollers in my engine on a voodoo cam that GTOFREEK spec’d for me.

[lust4speed]

Looks like maybe the pin came loose and the total load on one side of the lifter killed it.

Haven't had an outright roller lifter failure, but have put up with some tapping lifters and several sets were replaced under warranty and in every instance the second sets were quiet. Even had three bad sets of the new design Comps which had plungers stick and freeze in place - definitely a quality control issue with clearances, but at least they replaced without question. Last eight months the sets ordered have been fine.

Now here's the frustrating part. I was one of the first in line when the aftermarket HR lifters were introduced. Placed my order and waited a couple months for production to ramp up. Ended up with one set of Comps and one set of Cranes because that was what came in to the local speed shop (back when Summit wouldn't sell to California residents). Both sets were, and are, dead quiet which must be 20 years and many thousands of miles later. Never a problem with either and they were good past 6,500. Fast forward to today and every manufacturer is shooting themselves in the foot and struggling to produce a workable product.

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by 64speed

This thread scares the hell out of me too. I am running the lunati rollers in my engine on a voodoo cam that GTOFREEK spec’d for me.

I have the same lifters running on a comp roller. While mine are a bit noisy and sometimes inconsistent, I've not had a single reliability issue with them in over 10,000 miles.

When I talked to lunati about the noise, their response was that they coat the product in a rust inhibitor and that due to EPA mandate, that inhibitor is water based.

So when it mixes with oil you can get a sludge buildup that can hamper functioning of the lifter.

His recommendation was to run some sea foam through the engine oil right before an oil change, then re-adjust the valves and first carefully bottom out the plunger to push and of that sludge out of lifter body, then set pre-load followed by an oil change.

Their installation instructions say nothing about cleaning, but it's pretty obvious here that these things need to be cleaned well before they are put into service.

If you haven't put them in the engine yet, I'd take them apart and clean them thoroughly in solvent before installation.

If you've already installed them, try the fix above. I've not done that yet on my engine, so I don't know if it works of not. Considering others here and in other threads have mentioned the same issue, I feel it holds some weight.

[AG]

I took the clattering CC HR lifters from my brother's motor and decided to give them a thorough inspection. The CC directions say to not immerse them in solvents to clean, they recommend to just wipe the exterior prior to installation and especially to be careful of the lifter wheel that is pre-packed with grease. When I installed the lifters, the plungers of all the lifters would not move. I could press as hard as I could with a PR and there was no movement, I thought that was strange. Fast forward to two days ago and I decided to remove the retaining clip, which is a spirol lock similar to a piston pin but much smaller. I got the lock out and removed the PR cup and flat disc below it and tried to push doen the plunger and it would not budge. I placed the lifter in a jar of fresh toluene and started to pump the plunger. After a couple minutes I got the plunger to move easily and bottom out, then did the same to the entire set of lifters. There was so much gunk that came out of the lifters that it turned the jar of toluene black. Now all the plungers easily depress and bottom out, all the spring tension is consistent except two of them were slightly stiffer than the rest. Anyone who has a new set test if you can depress them, I have a brand new set and they will not depress at all. After thoroughly they can be depressed like they should. The Crane HR lifters I put in my brother's motor depressed easily and worked flawlessly on first start-up. Apparently the lifters need to be thoroughly cleaned before use despite what CC says, there was so much gunk that they wouldn't depress which blows my mind. I forst soaked them overnight in toluene and tried to depress them but they wouldn't budge, the PR cup gad to be removed to clean them.