#1  
Old 03-14-2020, 03:52 AM
Omni Omni is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Wauseon, Ohio
Posts: 6
Default Hydraulic Roller Cam Schooling

Good Day All

Toying with the idea of installing a roller cam in a 1966 Tri-power.
Basic info: Stock Tri-power
.040 389 with dished pistons
Stock four speed
3:55 gear (may be converted to a 3:08)
670 Heads
Stock Exhaust
Used for cruising

I'm considering this due to the head change as the stock pushrods/rocker assemblies need to be changed.

Admittedly, my eyes cross when it start looking at the specs : I don't have a clue what all of that means.

What I'm looking for is:
What all needs to be changed
What am I looking for as far as specs
Any machine work needed
Not looking for anything radical, just dependable
If more info is needed, let me know.

Thanks to all who respond

Omni

  #2  
Old 03-14-2020, 09:46 AM
tom s tom s is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: long beach ca usa
Posts: 18,764
Default

Figure to spend about $1000.Cam,lifters,and springs for sure.Depending on the cam you might need some machine work on the spring seats and if you have not upgraded the studs that should be done at the same time.Tom

  #3  
Old 04-24-2020, 12:35 PM
Dick Boneske's Avatar
Dick Boneske Dick Boneske is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Winneconne, Wisconsin
Posts: 5,387
Default

Some builders do not like retrofit roller lifters. What did you decide?

We're on the fence now with a 428 deciding between Comp Cams 8022SP Hydraulic roller vs. Comp Cams Xtreme Energy flat tappet EDM series solid lifters. Engine builder claims the solid flat tappet lifters are as quiet as most hydraulic lifters. Either cam would be a modern version of the RAIV cam with more lift and more duration, wider power band.

What do you think?

__________________
BONESTOCK GOATS

'64 GTO Tripower Hardtop (Wife's Car)
'64 GTO Tripower Post Coupe (My Car)
'99 Bonneville SE Sedan
  #4  
Old 04-26-2020, 08:45 AM
61-63's Avatar
61-63 61-63 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sour Lake, Texas
Posts: 2,394
Default

I've not yet used a hydraulic roller. Nor have I had a flat tappet go flat - yet. But I've only built a couple of engines. However I'm going to put hydraulic rollers in both of the Pontiac engines I have left to build and already have the cams. Will also put one in an FE Ford engine if I get around to building it. All or almost all modern oem engines made use hydraulic rollers and that says it all IMHO.

  #5  
Old 04-26-2020, 09:43 AM
tom s tom s is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: long beach ca usa
Posts: 18,764
Default

I just built a 428 RA V engine with a custom Comp hyd roller cam and their lifters.Have put about a hundred miles or so on it now with no issues.FWIW,Tom

The Following User Says Thank You to tom s For This Useful Post:
  #6  
Old 04-26-2020, 12:09 PM
OCMDGTO's Avatar
OCMDGTO OCMDGTO is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Ocean City Md
Posts: 1,194
Default

Nothing wrong with a HFT, my builder talked me OUT of a roller on this engine & no regrets here. I had a HR in my old 400 and loved it, too. HFT could free up some $ for you

__________________
Chris D
69 GTO Liberty Blue/dark blue 467, 850 Holley, T2, Edelbrock Dport 310cfm w Ram Air manifolds, HFT 245/251D .561/.594L, T400, 9" w 3.50s 3905lbs 11.59@ 114, 1.57/ 60'
The Following User Says Thank You to OCMDGTO For This Useful Post:
  #7  
Old 04-26-2020, 10:30 PM
Old Man Taylor's Avatar
Old Man Taylor Old Man Taylor is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Escondido, CA, USA
Posts: 6,945
Default

I switched to a hydraulic roller, and I'll never look back. I was tired of engine break-in and proper oil. I have a 0.030" over 428 with 670 heads and a '66 tri-power. I went much larger than you should because I run nitrous. The cam is too large without nitrous, and too small with it. But I was getting tired of messing with the tri-power with a big cam. I used to use a 253/260 HFT. I now run a 242/248 HRT. Both of those are measured at 0.050". Net valve lift is about 0.600 with 1.65 rockers. I'm probably 1-2 sizes too big for a "normal" street engine, and you'd need to drop one more size due to your smaller stroke. Save your self some trouble and get a recommendation from the Butler's.

  #8  
Old 04-27-2020, 01:02 AM
Dick Boneske's Avatar
Dick Boneske Dick Boneske is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Winneconne, Wisconsin
Posts: 5,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Man Taylor View Post
I switched to a hydraulic roller, and I'll never look back. I was tired of engine break-in and proper oil. I have a 0.030" over 428 with 670 heads and a '66 tri-power. I went much larger than you should because I run nitrous. The cam is too large without nitrous, and too small with it. But I was getting tired of messing with the tri-power with a big cam. I used to use a 253/260 HFT. I now run a 242/248 HRT. Both of those are measured at 0.050". Net valve lift is about 0.600 with 1.65 rockers. I'm probably 1-2 sizes too big for a "normal" street engine, and you'd need to drop one more size due to your smaller stroke. Save your self some trouble and get a recommendation from the Butler's.
Thanks, Jim. We're building a 428 for a '68 Firebird with Kaufmann 72 cc heads, Butler lower end. As I mentioned, the builder wants to use a Comp Cams Xtreme Energy solid flat tappet grind--the one with the .016" holes EDM'd into the lifter bottom. The grind, he says, is a modern version of the RAIV cam with more lift and wider power band.

Butler suggests the Comp Cams 8022 SP hydraulic Roller with Johnson Lifters. This is also described as a modern RAIV cam with more lift and wider power band.

What do you think?

__________________
BONESTOCK GOATS

'64 GTO Tripower Hardtop (Wife's Car)
'64 GTO Tripower Post Coupe (My Car)
'99 Bonneville SE Sedan
  #9  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:11 AM
Old Man Taylor's Avatar
Old Man Taylor Old Man Taylor is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Escondido, CA, USA
Posts: 6,945
Default

I like Butler's suggestion, but I'm prejudiced. It will be healthy, and certainly not too small. I'm not that familiar with the Kaufmann heads, but if they keep flowing better up to 0.600" lift then I would consider using 1.65 rockers on the Butler cam. Assuming the valve train can handle a total lift of around 0.560".

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM.

 

About Us

The PY Online Forums is the largest online gathering of Pontiac enthusiasts anywhere in the world. Founded in 1991, it was also the first online forum for people to gather and talk about their Pontiacs. Since then, it has become the mecca of Pontiac technical data and knowledge that no other place can surpass.

 




Copyright © 2017