[TCSGTO]

How many have seen the new Engine Masters episode where they swap lifters on a 500HP SBC? Nothing new for those of us that have done it but interesting none the less. They must have had some good hydraulic lifters since power didn’t go up that much and the curve looked identical after they swapped the solids on. I have a feeling the Comp HR’s I’m running are holding my engine back a bit at higher rpm since it was done at 6k rpm on the dyno but should have pulled higher IMO.

They zero lashed their solid lifters which makes sense. When I ran solids on a hydro roller I used to try to lash it with a paper thin feeler gauge and it was not fun. I would generally see up to .007-.009 lash increase on hot days when running the car hard. So much so that at the track on a really hot day I’d here valve train noise on the return road for a minute or two after a pass until things cooled down a bit and the lash closed up some.

They did have a point about not knowing what you are getting with the current crop of hydro-roller lifters. Even from the same vendor quality varies from batch to batch.

[RocktimusPryme]

I watched it with interest since I have considered going solids. Ive been meaning to watch it again to see if they mentioned going with oil restricted pushrods when they swapped. All the solid lifters on Butlers site say oil restriction is a must.

[tom s]

I used to run solids on my hyd roller cams.Since the Shaver lifters from Comp I changed to them.My 366 V engine made HP to right at 7000 RPMs with 160 0n the seats.Im building a 428 V engine right now with them.Comp had me set my solids at 6 thou on the hyd roller cam.I think they told me you loose about 8 degrees of duration when you go to the solids and they want 200 on the seats with the solids.I dont think I would ever go back to solids unless it was on a true solid roller camshaft.Tom

[krisr]

I used to run solids on my hyd roller also, but man setting lash sucked with an 0.003" feeler so in the end I just went proper solid roller like Tom and set my junk at 0.012" cold. Reasonable spring pressure and periodic lash checking, my 400 runs like a clock!

[RocktimusPryme]

Originally Posted by tom s

I used to run solids on my hyd roller cams.Since the Shaver lifters from Comp I changed to them.My 366 V engine made HP to right at 7000 RPMs with 160 0n the seats.Im building a 428 V engine right now with them.Comp had me set my solids at 6 thou on the hyd roller cam.I think they told me you loose about 8 degrees of duration when you go to the solids and they want 200 on the seats with the solids.I dont think I would ever go back to solids unless it was on a true solid roller camshaft.Tom

I have considered going to solids because Im not sure I have the good Comp lifters. I know I have Comps. By the time I knew to ask if I had the right ones Joe up and passed away. Im not sure when the bad ones stopped being for sale. Mine were bought in 2016. My lifters are noisy, but I dont feel like I lose any power so I probably have the right ones.

[ZeGermanHam]

Yep, watched it. For a street engine, it makes the hydro rollers from Crane look quite compelling.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Cliff R]

Correct, they used the best of the HR lifters made which are Crane. Crane, if they are still available were about $250 more than the Morel or other "knock-offs" they have been selling for our Pontiac engines. I believe the Crane HR's were made by Johnson, but not sure. They are easily identified as they are scalloped where the lifter bars attach where all the others are solid all the way to the top.

I've been on the dyno plenty of times with HR's, and they all have done fine thru about 5800rpm's, so for the big 455 builds we've done not really an issue. In all these years I built one engine that used the Crane HR's and it just happened to be a 428 build. On the dyno it zipped right past 5800rpm's without a hint of slowing up.

I'll also add here that I've noticed many changes made to the HR lifters being offered for our engines. They obviously know some versions weren't making the grade. I've noticed stiffer springs added under the plungers, and less travel as well. I know one very experienced engine builder that tells me that they still vary considerably in plunger to body clearance and leak down rates vary too much for his liking so he woln't use them.

Also consider the build that they used was a SBC, so lighter components as the pushrods and other items used aren't quite as heavy as what our Pontiac engines use. Weight is a big deal with these things and SBC's have always had an advantage in that department.

In any case I've been running the "hybrid" set-up in my current engine for over 10 years now and it's been flawless. I set the lash at .005", and it's the quietest engine that's ever set between the fenders of my Ventura. I've also spun the big 455 up past 6000 and even past 6500rpm's on a few occasions and it's never grumbled once..........Cliff

[steve25]

The valve control issue above 5800 rpm is a real reason to run Beehive springs Titainum retainers and if you can afford it Titainum Intake valves if you have a real serious built with a Hydro roller set up.

[Steve C.]

A fwiw comment for related conversation. This from Mike Jones / Cam Designer when I asked him about spring pressure, however the reason for my comment here, note what he states after about aggressive hydraulic roller lobes:

"I don't know enough about the ramps used on those Comp lobes to be able to tell you what seat pressure you need. If they're gentle, 150# might be fine, if they're aggressive, it could take 180# on the seat. Some hydraulic roller cams have an opening ramp that's too aggressive to run with a solid roller lifter. You'll need to check with Comp, so you don't run into any issues."

And note my Comp Cams rep at the time mentioned the same thing regarding that specific subject.

Some of the more aggressive hyd roller profiles have velocity/acceleration rates up to 3 times higher then similar sized mechanical roller cams, because they can rely on the dampening of the hydraulic lifters to control valve bounce. If you try and run one of these hydraulic profiles with mechanical lifters, it can actually be much harder on the valvetrain, and require more spring pressure then a comparable mechanical roller
profile.

The roller is under constant load with the hydraulic, and is constantly loading and unloading with the solid. Even that small lash has an effect on loads seen by the roller axle and bushing/bearing. And related, not running adequate spring pressure is a potential killer of solid roller applications in street use.



.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by TCSGTO

How many have seen the new Engine Masters episode where they swap lifters on a 500HP SBC? Nothing new for those of us that have done it but interesting none the less. They must have had some good hydraulic lifters since power didn’t go up that much and the curve looked identical after they swapped the solids on. I have a feeling the Comp HR’s I’m running are holding my engine back a bit at higher rpm since it was done at 6k rpm on the dyno but should have pulled higher IMO.

They zero lashed their solid lifters which makes sense. When I ran solids on a hydro roller I used to try to lash it with a paper thin feeler gauge and it was not fun. I would generally see up to .007-.009 lash increase on hot days when running the car hard. So much so that at the track on a really hot day I’d here valve train noise on the return road for a minute or two after a pass until things cooled down a bit and the lash closed up some.

They did have a point about not knowing what you are getting with the current crop of hydro-roller lifters. Even from the same vendor quality varies from batch to batch.

Doesn't surprise me your engine was done at 6,000 with 517 cubes and the road paver cam. That's only 246/252 @ .050 Not really that big for an engine of that size. And a hydraulic roller lifter doesn't give up at 6000 as long as you have the right spring pressure to control things. Going with a solid lifter and figuring in some lash it actually makes the cam smaller. Diminishing returns.
We ran a hydraulic roller 254/262 @ .050 in a 455 with the same 330 cfm heads and that engine was done at 6200 on the dyno and that was a bigger cam than you have in a 517ci.. Your engine being bigger just soaks that cam up like it's not even there.
Another more extreme example with a solid roller setup is my fathers 571. It was 269/279 and a tight .014" lash. That engine was all finished on the dyno at 5700 rpm. So much for solids. It now has a hydraulic roller that is 261/265 which actually acts very similar and maybe a little bigger if you figure the duration lost from the solid roller. The engine still zings up to the rev limiter before you can move the shifter. Engines this size with boat loads of torque there isn't much need to spin them up higher.

Personally I'm with Tom, I like solid cams but prefer the solid stick to go with it. I've never had issues with hydraulic rollers in Pontiacs and had a few different brands here.

[Steve C.]

"Doesn't surprise me your engine was done at 6,000 with 517 cubes and the road paver cam."

Example. There is one gentlemen here on the board that has used the "Road Paver" in a .030-over 455 with solid roller lifters and on the dyno it made peak power at 5800 rpm with 300/306 cfm KRE d-port heads and a Torker II intake.


.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

"Doesn't surprise me your engine was done at 6,000 with 517 cubes and the road paver cam."

Example. There is one gentlemen here on the board that has used the "Road Paver" in a .030-over 455 with solid roller lifters and on the dyno it made peak power at 5800 rpm with 300/306 cfm KRE d-port heads and a Torker II intake.


.

And that's in a smaller 455. So TCSGTO hydraulic rollers appear to be doing the job.

[TCSGTO]

I was advised to use a HR cam with around 260 @.050" on the intake but thought it would be too much for a street car. Maybe I should have listened. It does drive around and cruise really nice though.

[Steve C.]

My point was to agree with the thinking the larger cubic inches "eats up" duration. Anyway, a 6000 rpm 517 would be a nice street combo

( my 505 with a 255 degree solid roller w/ .022 lash makes it's peak power at 6000 rpm. That was with a Victor intake and HP950 carb )


.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by TCSGTO

I was advised to use a HR cam with around 260 @.050" on the intake but thought it would be too much for a street car. Maybe I should have listened. It does drive around and cruise really nice though.

I agree with Steve. I don't think there is anything wrong with your combo at all. Power to 6000 rpm with a 517 and I'll bet it has a table top torque curve too. Sounds like a great street engine to me.

Dad's 571 peaked at 5700. It carries the power to 6,000 but doesn't make anymore of it. What I like about it though is that it makes over 700 ft lbs throughout most of the curve and feels like a locomotive at any rpm. Matter of fact, he set the rev limiter to 6200 and he was all over that at the track. You don't feel the engine lay over at all, and he can't see the tach well enough, it gets up there so quickly before you know it, he's bangin the rev limiter. LOL

[Cliff R]

It's important here NOT to confuse hydraulic lifter "issues" at high RPM's with the engine reaching peak power with any particular camshaft.

When you have an engine on the dyno with HR lifters, and they aren't going to make the grade, for whatever reason, you'll see significant "spikes" in the graph and it may just quit revving all together like a built in rev limiter.

My first 455 did exactly that with HR lifters, it was like turning the key off right at 5800rpm's. Up until that point it revved very quickly to and right past peak HP at 5400rpms and no sign of falling off or giving up till right at the point the first of the HR tappets could no longer keep up.

With solid rollers on the same cam, for example, there will be no indication at all the engine is done making power, and it will rev right past where it makes peak HP and continue to pull till you move the shifter.

My current engine is like that, it will spin past where it makes peak power, or around 5800rpm's and spin to and past 6500rpm's so quickly you can barely move the shifter quick enough to keep it from revving that high. What we have to realize here as it doesn't matter what brand the lifters are, there are limitations with these things simply based on the design. When you run a solid lifter set-up, whether it be flat tappet, solid roller, or "hybrid" (solid rollers on a HR cam), the RPM limiter leans more toward the springs being able to keep things in check.

What I like about the hybrid set-up is that it basically takes the hydraulic action out of the equation, and it is just about dead quiet far as valve train noise goes. For whatever reason my own engines with hydraulic lifters have always had at least one "ticker" in the bunch. What I don't like about it is the difficulty involved with running the valves. With my car I have to remove the wiper motor, and really need to remove the power brake booster as well, and even then it's somewhat of a PITA to correctly set the lash on the #7 valves......Cliff

[Steve C.]

"My first 455 did exactly that with HR lifters, it was like turning the key off right at 5800rpm's. Up until that point it revved very quickly to and right past peak HP at 5400rpms and no sign of falling off or giving up till right at the point the first of the HR tappets could no longer keep up."

Cliff, what what hydraulic roller cam and how much valve spring pressure involved ?


.

[Cliff R]

The cam was a custom ground HR from Comp with their XFI lobes, 284/296 @ .006", 230/242 @ .050", 112 LSA and .361" lobes. I was also running high ratio rockers on it. Springs were (going from memory here) around 130-140 on the seat and 330-340 over the nose. I even stuck some .030" shims under all of them after the first couple of pulls to bring up the spring pressures and it made no difference whatsoever, the engine was DONE at 5800rpm's either way.

I'll add here that the engine came off the dyno and went on to live a nice long life in my Ventura with zero issues anyplace. I made sure to never take it much past 5500rpm's on the street or at the track........Cliff

[Steve C.]

Thanks.

[Cliff R]

Steve, if you look at what's going on with that deal the current engine shows no indications whatsoever of slowing down or giving up anyplace in the RPM range. It has a slightly larger cam so will make peak power about 400 rpms higher, or around 5800, but it will rev to and past 6500rpm's without any lag anyplace.

So even when these engines make peak power around 5800, it doesn't mean that they will not rev much higher than that w/o falling on their nose.

Another thing that really helps the current engine is that it has much lighter internals, crank, rods, pistons, etc, and the heads are CNC ported and larger camshaft.

The old 455 had heavy Crower rods and TRW forged pistons in it, so not the most ideal configuration for high RPM use. After removing it from the dyno and putting it back in my car I "proof" tested it on the street a couple of times and it absolutely REFUSED to rev past 5800rpm's for any reason, just like you turned the key off. No big deal it's 400 rpm outside where it made peak power so I never much worried about it, but I did keep it in the back of my mind when I built the current engine.

So during the build I decided to use Crower HIPPO lifters (tight lashed) instead of HR's. Back in 2009 the manufacturers were all over the map with HR's anyhow as they knew about the issues and were making changes to them to produce a better product (my opinion). I say this because we were using mostly Comp, Lunati or Morel HR's, and when I mocked things up to find the best geometry I noticed that changes made to them in several areas. The amount of plunger travel was one place, and how strong the springs under the plungers were another. We also had one customer hire us to assemble/dyno his engine and he supplied a Crane HR cam and lifters. I immediately noticed that the Crane HR's were different both internally and externally. They also showed no indication anyplace on the dyno of giving up at high RPM's. I remember checking pricing on them and they were nearly double what I could get the Comp or Lunati HR's for so we never ended up using any after that.

Here we are over ten years later and we're still hearing about issues with HR retrofit lifters. So I'm still not convinced the aftermarket has sorted everything out with that deal. Coincidentally I just had a discussion about this with a very knowledgeable engine builder with decades of experience and he avoids Morel HR lifters for his engines. He told me they still don't have the plunger clearances close enough on them and the leak down rates are all over the place.......FWIW.......Cliff