[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

[Cliff R]

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

Going to the HIPPO lifters and thicker wall pushrods will show some additional power at high rpms. the engine will make about the same power thru about 4500rpms. From there on up the engine will rev faster with no associated power loss like we see with HR lifters.

We,re not talking about tons of additional power just none of the losses that are associated with the hydraulics involved with the HR's.

I've been running the "tight-lash" HIPPO set-up for several years now,with zero issues anyplace, and next to zero maintenance.

The biggest difference that I notice between this engine and my last one, is how quickly and easily it spins right past 6000rpms with no indication anyplace of wanting to stop pulling. The old engine,in contrast would act like it was going on a rev limiter by 5800rpms.....Cliff

[Steve C.]

Cliff, you feel the engine will make about the same power thru about 4500rpms. From there on up the engine will rev faster. Unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly, it's interesting to note the horsepower graph from Harry's testing appears to take effect around 4500 rpm as you suggested.



.

[Cliff R]

Steve, a tight lash solid roller lifter used on a HR cam is like having the perfect anti pump-up lifter. It will run just like a solid lifter at high rpm's, because it is one. The slightly amount of duration/lift lost by the lash would only be noticed at low rpm's where the HR's do a fine job of following the lobes and delivering all the movement provided by the lobe to the valve.

The key to getting this deal to work, is to run very tight lash, as the lobes of the HR camshaft are designed much differently than solid roller lobes. Using too much lash can really kill what actually happens at the valve and when it happens.

I couldn't make any sense at all of the testing you mentioned when I glanced at it back when it was first posted. I would also add, that there is a list of folks on this board who would have busted my nutz pretty hard for such testing. Just look at the pile of crap thrown at me recently from some DIRECT testing on back to back runs with some intake manifolds.

I'd get laughed completely off the boards for even thinking of doing a test days or weeks apart in different DA and track conditions, etc.

Enough on folks getting their panties all wadded up over such things.

The "hybrid" set-up as it's being called here simply works fine on the particular lobes we are using. It takes some critisism in different camps. All I can tell folks reading this is that it works just like it's supposed to, allowing use of "mild" HR camshafts and lighter spring pressures while eliminating any potential high rpm's problems that can be associated with the hydraulic action of the HR lifters. A BIG added bonus to this deal, is that the valvetrain is extremely quiet, pretty scarey to me personally, since with my luck I've never once owned an engine with any sort of hydraulic cam/lifter set-up that didn't have a few "tickers" in the bunch.

I'm down now to lashing the valves once a year, they hold their settings, the engine runs all year long with zero issues, and very, very quiet valvetrain operation......Cliff

[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

[SergeF]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

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

Going to the HIPPO lifters and thicker wall pushrods will show some additional power at high rpms. the engine will make about the same power thru about 4500rpms. From there on up the engine will rev faster with no associated power loss like we see with HR lifters.

We,re not talking about tons of additional power just none of the losses that are associated with the hydraulics involved with the HR's.

I've been running the "tight-lash" HIPPO set-up for several years now,with zero issues anyplace, and next to zero maintenance.

The biggest difference that I notice between this engine and my last one, is how quickly and easily it spins right past 6000rpms with no indication anyplace of wanting to stop pulling. The old engine,in contrast would act like it was going on a rev limiter by 5800rpms.....Cliff

It needs to be aproved by one and only mr Cliff to be a valid test!