[Hardkor455]

I cant seem to find anyone who has rhoads lifters for Pontiacs. Are they still in business?

[Joe's Garage]

Here you go:

https://rhoadslifters.com/Pages/index.html

[Joe-Touring]

I’ve got a set of the originals p/n 9518 that I could part with. Pm me if interested

[Trailercamp]

I just got a set from Rhodes in January.
It took a few phone calls to get ahold of them.
They were "in stock" when I ordered them and received them in a week or two,
Good luck

[Old Goat Racer]

I have a good used set for $100.

[Jim Moshier]

I was wondering why only the Pontiac communities embrace Rhoads lifters nowadays. I have read about anyone using them in a build in years. When I went to Westech to have my engine dynoed he said oh yeah that's a Pontiac thing.....or that was a Ken Crocie thing, nobody else runs them. What are your thoughts and are they still relevant in today's cams?

[rtanner]

i run them in pontiacs, and had especially good luck in them in over cammed 454 chevys, since a big chevy will turn 6500-7k, i9 put a big cam in and can still run a/c pdb, using rhoades

[steve25]

I am sure that Rhoads does not make a living off of just Pontiac lifters!

People who do not use them and have over Cam’ed motors are some of the other brands that we blow into the weeds with our motors.

[Bill Eveland]

I've used the Comp Magnum lifters before, does basically the same thing, they are called Pro Magnum now

https://www.jegs.com/i/COMP-Cams/249/863-16/10002/-1

[Joe-Touring]

Originally Posted by Jim Moshier

I was wondering why only the Pontiac communities embrace Rhoads lifters nowadays. I have read about anyone using them in a build in years. When I went to Westech to have my engine dynoed he said oh yeah that's a Pontiac thing.....or that was a Ken Crocie thing, nobody else runs them. What are your thoughts and are they still relevant in today's cams?

I’d say it’s a culture thing. I believe Jim Hand ran em, and when I first got my car, lots of guys recommended to get his book. Pontiacs seem to be unique in that there’s a big desire to run factory parts: Qjets, iron intake manifolds, ram air manifolds and until recently, iron heads. I’ve only been on the scene for 6 years, but I’d wager it was due to lack of aftermarket support back in the day.

I picked up a set for a possible 455 build. Cliff has said that a 9.5-10:1 CR 455 is a great match for a Crower 60919(very close to an 041 cam) and Rhoads. He went on to say it gave up very little compared to a hyd roller that he dynoed.

So I suppose with the proper cam selection and Rhoads you could have similar performance to a roller, for less coin.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by Jim Moshier

I was wondering why only the Pontiac communities embrace Rhoads lifters nowadays. I have read about anyone using them in a build in years. When I went to Westech to have my engine dynoed he said oh yeah that's a Pontiac thing.....or that was a Ken Crocie thing, nobody else runs them. What are your thoughts and are they still relevant in today's cams?

H-O track tested them back in the day and pushed them hard because they worked as advertised.. I recall all makes seemed to use them back in the 80's before the great "flat lobe" debacle. Many companies tried to copy them but none worked as well. Crane was the first and basically assembled their lifters with loose clearance so they would leak internally. Comp just used the Johnson R lifter and allowed them to work as advertised. Since they have been changed.

Btw.... No one seemed enraged when all the other lifter companies tried to copy the Rhoades lifters like they are about SM.

[Formulajones]

Rollers became more and more prevalent in the aftermarket late 80's early 90's and most hot rodders were simply going that direction, that's one reason. Others would complain about the noise of the original rhoads, as many do here, that's another reason.
Quite a few of the die hard Pontiac guys I was around never ran rhoads and didn't show much interest in them. These days since they use Johnson lifters to start with and also offer a super lube option makes them more attractive in my eyes. Plus new versions (technically been out for years now) can be lashed pretty tight to a point they are pretty quiet but of course that's a trade off as it diminishes what they were designed for.

[Scarebird]

One thing that surprises me is Rhoads does not offer a lifter for the LS Series - had they it may be an option for gen V builds that delete the DOD.

[67Lemons]

What’s also interesting to me since I’m still on the fence about what HFT cam & lifters to purchase is that you never hear about a flat tappet cam failure with Rhoads lifters but that might be because not many folks use them now a days.

[Formulajones]

They use Johnson bodies which is good quality to start with. And with the lube option it's about as good as a flat tappet gets. Nitride the cam on top of that and it's a pretty solid setup. I don't even worry about it.

Hard for some to get past the noise though.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by Jim Moshier

I was wondering why only the Pontiac communities embrace Rhoads lifters nowadays. I have read about anyone using them in a build in years. When I went to Westech to have my engine dynoed he said oh yeah that's a Pontiac thing.....or that was a Ken Crocie thing, nobody else runs them. What are your thoughts and are they still relevant in today's cams?

The first set of Rhoad’s I recall locally was in a SBC Nova back in the late 80s. Rhoad’s had several patents. Some attempted “back doors” to get around the patents, and they didn’t work. Rhoad’s first patent was in the late 60s, they filed many more patents over the years. I think even into the 1990s. Lost track after that. I don’t know if anyone has copied that groove on their lifter yet. Probably because there is a patent protecting it somehow.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3304925A/en

On the V series, the way they are shimmed off the bottom the lash gets rid of the hydraulic cushion most hyd lifters have. Most HFT lifters for high rpms the lifters have to be set at the top of the travel, they still will collapse some though. The original collapse a lot also unless you bottom them out. On the street I like the V series Rhoad’s with set the lash tight. Most of the bottom end and vacuum gains come early when the profile is slower which happens most at the low lifts. With the lash set tight they can be quieter than a normal lifter, and rev like a SFT. That is the apps I usually use them for. I usually set them at .006” to .008” lash.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by Scarebird

One thing that surprises me is Rhoads does not offer a lifter for the LS Series - had they it may be an option for gen V builds that delete the DOD.

Actual they have V pro lifters that will fit in a Gen V that gets rid of the DOD, they just are not listed for that cause they don’t drop straight in. IRC it takes a .050” longer pushrod to make them work, plus an adjustable valve terrain. I have a set.

Gaining 3” to 5” of vacuum is pretty huge when you have a bigger cam and need to pass a sniff test.

The down side is if your concerned with lifter noise, with aluminum heads they are not the easiest to set, they much louder once the engine is hot.

Aluminum headed Pontiac’s can be loud with the V series flat tappet lifters also once hot. People set them at .020” cold like the Rhoads instructions say then end up running .026” to .030” hot. They get loud fast after .020”. Probably adds some abuse on the valve guides too.

[Johnny406]

Nothing but Love for Rhoads lifters!! I've been running their V-Max lifters with the biggest Lunati Voodoo HFT cam for years. It's been a great bracket and index combo and has certainly surprised/upset many "faster" cars no prep heads up racing as well.

[Formulas]

they do their job well

i am seriously considering them for my 1977 350 C20 truck build it has 4.10 gears so i want the engine to have some legs but i also want all the torque possible at stock converter pull from a dead stop

[track73]

I've been using Rhodes since 1987 and never had a problem on the 4 engines I used them on.