Yep. Hyd roller cams won't rpm or work. LOL.
 

Yep, Damn those 'HEAVY' Hydraulic roller lifters won't rpm. Can't make power. What's wrong with those damn things. People whining about the performance of those hyd roller cams.

10.16@132 thru the traps at 6800 rpm. shifting at 6500. 3450 lbs, stock suspension, DR's with a Powerglide. LOL.

What's it run with a solid roller? ;)

Careful Dude....

You don't want to anger the archaic gods of Pontiac with the praises of roller cams...It is written, that the only way you can make a Pontiac run is with a 744 and Rhoads Lifters....:-)

Good work on that combo, Dude. We turned similar rpm with a Bullet-ground Hydraulic Roller and only 325 lbs open pressures...Robert

What would it run with a BBC? The question makes about as much sense.............

Hydraulic rollers work best in a large displacement lower RPM motor. Not to say they cant work elsewhere. But that is where they really shine.

Lifter weight? Hogwash!
 

You know, it's funny P-Dude, how everyone is so worried about lifter weight. When we were at PRI showing off our flat roller lifter, just about everyone made a comment about how heavy they were. Our lifter weighed something like 113 grams. A standard Johnson flat tappet weighed like 88 grams or so, empty! When you fill it with oil, it weighs about 110 grams. Our lifter has very little room for oil weight. It really cracked me up how people would say, "it sure is heavy":eek: . Yeah, so! What difference does it really make anyway? Very little. Weight on the cam side of the program doesn't matter anywhere near as much as weight on the valve side of things. Then there's the fact that roller lifters are so much heavier than our flat roller. Noone ever bitch's about how a solid roller lifter is so heavy and my engine won't rpm with them. How many people are spinning over 10,000 rpm with those heavy ass roller lifters? Must be made of some cosmic, lightweight material, right?:pound: Bob Fox, inventer of the spintron, invented it to prove that weight on the cam side didn't really matter. He was dogged about how much his pushrods[Trend Performance] weighed so he made the spintron and took a lightweight pushrod and ran it on the spintron and got some readings. He then took a SB Chevy piston pin[145 grams] and slipped it over the pushrod and welded it in place then ran the test over again and found that the difference was not really measurable. I mean, think about it, when the engine is all assembled, there is hundreds of pounds of weight[springs pressure] on the lifter, essentially adding hundreds of pounds of weight to that lifter! What is adding a few grams of lifter weight really going to do? DIDLY SQUAT, that's what!

We did however redesign our lifter to get it down to the 79 gram range just to make the tire kickers happy!:cool:

I not a Rocket Scientist, LOL, but yes I agree and have been fighting that same point for 4 years on here.

I would worry more about what the rocker has to open then what a roller itself has to roll over on the ramp of the cam.

motor-daddy. The reason I went to hyd rollers is so I don't have the noise or have to adjust valves or even take the cover off. Or big spring pressures. ;)

This is not a race application nor a tricked out combo with sh*t people leave out trying to put up numbers. Pump gas.
Plus i don't have 200lbs over the seat. Just a whimpy 145lbs. :D

Rae Hard & Have Fun

Agreed, hydraulic lifters are more maintenance free, and quieter.

Now, let's get to the real question, which makes more power, a hydraulic roller or a solid roller? When you get that combo worked out for a good strong maintenance free "crate motor," how about you put a healthy solid roller in place of the hydraulic roller (not necessarily the same specs) and see which one is faster?

My money's on the solid roller.

Of coarse the solid roller is faster. It also creates maintenance issues- what Ken's wanting to avoid.

The overall weight of the hyd roller lifter is not as much of a concern to some as the effects of the oil inside. It's eluded to here and in other tech articles that discuss the "lash effect".....

"But hydraulic lifters are far from the best way to make max power. That's because, as engine speed increases, the hydraulic lifter's plunger depresses further into its body due to the increasing forces of trying to accelerate the valve off the seat. The cam begins to act like an aggressive solid design from the lash that's created, but now has a shorter duration as the result. The more aggressive the cam acts, the harder time the valvespring has controlling it. As it approaches max speed, the valve bounces off the seat and oil rushes into the lifter to take up the clearance that's now been created at the plunger. This effectively holds the valve off the seat, (valve float), bleeding off compression and power, and limits the high-rpm capacity of hydraulic designs."


( I'm not necessarly agreeing whole hardely with this material, again it's just fodder for conversation. And this is at least 4 year old info, much has changed and higher rpm operation is becoming more commonplace. Especialy with new valve spring tecnology )

Funny, but I don't see this question anywhere in Kens first post.;)

Maybe because that isn't the reason he started this thread in the first place.............

Did someone doubt a hydraulic lifter is more maintenance free or more quiet? Did someone doubt a hydraulic roller would run OK?

So it appears the only doubt is which is faster, as everyone agrees hydraulics are more maintenance free and quieter. Sure they'll run, but how fast is the question? The rest is agreed on.

did someone say lifter noise?
My old UD solid flat tappet had virtually no noise compared to the COMP hydraulic flat tappet in a previous engine. I set the solids one time after break-in and never had to re-adjust them.
I tried 3 or 4 times to set the valves on the hydraulic to get rid of the noise until I read the PY threads about COMP and "fast acting" ramps causing lifter noise on their flat hydraulics.
Of course hyd. roller lobe design is different than hyd. flat lobe design so the noise may not be an issue.

Yeah, Harold's lobes slow the lifter down at the end so it set's the valve down gently. Unlike the Comps. I've had some Comps that were just real noisy and nothing we did would quiet them up. Hyd. cams that is. Even with duration as mild as 210° @ .050. New lifters, 1 even 1 1/2 turns of preload, still noisy. We recently ran two Pontiacs with UD cams, both solid rollers on the dyno, one with .022" lash and the other with .026" and you can't hear either one of them. They're quiter than Comp Hyd. cams. I also like the broad, flat torque curves of the UD's.

I NEVER said a solid was faster.

This is the Street section right?

What I am saying is that a hyd roller will take more then most on here can dish out to it and live. No need to put a soild on a hyd profile. & without all the excessive spring presures, wear, noise, be able to run knock sensors, checking adjustments. blah, blah, blah. LOL.

So if i can run 9's on real pump gas with a hyd roller and not have to worry about the wear on the roller, etc in a 3450lb stock suspension car, Why would i need to go to a solid?

If hyd roller were that great. Line & Anderson would have them. LOL. But then again........... this is the Street section

Dude's got a point there MD!

Running 9's is not your everyday average Grandma mobile. :D I'm pretty sure the car was built for speed, otherwise it would have a 4 banger in it to get good mileage, correct?

I agree a hydraulic roller is a pretty much install, adjust, and forget type of deal you need as a builder, trying to keep the customers happy, and I applaud that. But there is a difference in bulding an engine for dependability and building an engine for all out performance. As usual in this field it's a compromise. Where you draw the line is an individual choice. Making the most power is a fact. ;)

But you have to look at the ability of the average driver/customer. They want to drive it and not worry about it. They can change the oil and the spark plugs but don't want to mess with the motor.

And I agree. I like Dude's offerings as far as a 9 second maintenance free "crate motor." Maybe he could offer a solid roller version as the more powerful crate motor than the hydraulic roller model? :D

I just don't have any desire to adjust tappets anymore. I chose a UD lobe profile for my latest hydraulic flat tappet for dynamic stability and ease of maintenance...Robert

Why? Look at the crap NHRA is making 9.90 or quicker cars do now. Then you have the price of Race gas.

Oh, I'm not done. There are more hyd roller cam profiles I'm working with.

Working on after this with a cam only change. Nice thing about a hyd roller no need to replace the lifters with the cam. ;)
If I can make 700hp with a hyd roller, unported CV-1 heads and over the counter BASIC parts ..................... why would I need a solid roller for street use and 93 True octane available to anyone on PUMP GAS?

RPM!

Motor daddy. Here's one for ya. You like to do the math deal.

How much faster would my car be going from a 1.80 powerglide to a T-400.

3450lbs with stock suspension.

The engine really lugs down on the shift. Leave at 4200 (on a prepped track) 3800 on a decent track. Shift at 6500 and drops to 4800 and then holds at 5000 till it drives thru the 10" tight nitrous converter.

"Holds at 5,000" is not a good thing. That's a lower HP than you could be "holding at."

Ask Lynn how he does it, he'll tell ya. HP is what wins races. Your engine should be making more power at 6500 than at 5000 RPM. Why would you want to "hold it" at the lower RPM of 5,000?

If performance is the goal may I suggest more gear and more RPM? (a set of solid rollers would go nice with that extra RPM ;) )

He said it stays at 5000 until "it drives through the converter" In other words, the conerter is stalling to 5000 rpm, when car speed exceeds what 5000 rpm will run it at, the engine will start gaining in rpm[driving through the converter].

Quote:

"Your engine should be making more power at 6500 than at 5000 RPM. Why would you want to "hold it" at the lower RPM of 5,000? "

He needs a different converter not more rpm or a different cam, MD.

Tom V.

its waiting for those heavy lifters to catch up

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

Didn't i see you on Jay Leno? :D

Agreed, a converter change would help his situation, but overall, REAL performance gains will be realized by keeping the engine in the highest average HP range. Ken's Power range with those CV1's and what, 515 cubes? What do the heads generally flow? Tom, how many HP are Ken's heads capable of producing?

"10.16@132 thru the traps at 6800 rpm. shifting at 6500. 3450 lbs, stock suspension, DR's with a Powerglide. LOL."

Ken, nice runs, what is the cid of the engine and do you have dyno numbers for it?

Just curious as Rich Roup's 505 runs 10.18 @ 132mph at the same weight. The engine is a high compression KRE block with high port heads (unported), with a pretty big solid roller cam.....Cliff

535cu.in. CV-1 unported heads. flow around 380 max. Unported out of the box intake. Started porting the intake this afternoon. Have picks posted somewhere on here or PZ very very restricive. Hyd roller in the 260 range with .650 lift.
Gonna find out what the intake clean up does.

I think if i went back to a T-400 and the right converter with no other changes it would dropped right into the 9's.

It was also 94 degrees and muggy that Thusday early evening when i made those passes. Going home at 10 pm it was 84 degrees. It's been brutal lately. And only May!!!!!
From the combo and ET/mph, weather with a miss matched drivetrain left over from my nitrous days. Figure around 650hp. 93 Sunoco pump gas.

Did ya get that other carb? I need it .......... yesterday. LOL. :D :D

Ken, that's a pretty close estimate. Rich's motor just dyno'd at 660hp. Carb is in the works someplace.....Cliff

would anyone other than us consider 6800 "RPM-ing" ? HA. Ken how are you with turbo profiles? your reputation speaks for itself with nitrous and SC cams but have you dabled with turbo grinds? im trying this 2802 on for budget reason but a hyd roller is def an upgrade for the fall.

From my math the heads are capable of 810 hp. Good work Ken those are some impresive times!


Be Cool,
Ace

And according to Wallace racing calculator:

"Your ET / MPH computed from your vehicle weight of 3450 pounds and HP of 810 is 9.44 seconds and MPH of 141.90 MPH."

Ken havent you run 9s already with a hyd roller? For some reason I thought you had, maybe with N2O you did or I could be wrong?

Imagine some dyno tuning and testing here, holy crap !


Running just shy of the 9's right out of the box is pretty impressive for a pump gas car in crappy conditions, these CV1 heads are badass! I say good job PontiacDude!

What carb are you running ?
With that many CFM, am I the only one that thinks it's time for something like a really well tuned 1250 or 1350 CFM dominator, that torque monster needs fuel, right ? !

And good luck getting it to hook too :)

Don't expect monumental ET gains from a carb swap. Ken has been at this game for a while, and if you saw over a tenth with just a carb alone, I'd be really surprised. Cripe, I've got customers in the low 9's with the early small cfm q-jets.

I agree the ET/MPH is impressive, but again, I'm not the first bit surprised. I would fully expect Ken to be able to put together a 650hp engine in his sleep, and set up a car to effectively use the power.

We assembled Rich Roup's KRE supplied 505, and in Rich's warmed over 3400lb street car it went 10.18 @ 132 right out of the gate. That's with unported high port heads, and a very "basic" spinning assembly, Star Galaxy forged crank, Crower rods, Ross pistons, 270 something solid roller, Victor/Dominator, nothing exotic anyplace.

My crystal ball tells me Ken's going to show us some runs well into the 9's when he gets the whole deal ironed out!.......Cliff

I believe Ace's 810 HP estimate is darn close to what the heads are capable of producing.

According to Wallace racing calculator, Ken is making 652 HP at 132 MPH at 3450 lbs.

Again, the heads are capable of going [email protected] MPH at 3450 lbs. I can make over 800 HP on a dyno sim with the CV-1 heads stock flow.

I'll believe in them once I see people putting 80,000-100,000 street miles on them. I put at least 15,000 on my car every season.
My 60919 with Johnson hyd's works just fine.... I've never been to the track but my set up must be running good because I totally dusted a new GTO at the local street races this week. Aren't those cars suppose to be fast? :confused:

Just wondering how many E heads, KRE D ports, KRE High Ports have 80-100,000 street miles on them???

New BONE stock non blueprinted no convertor 04 (less HP than 05-06s) runs 13.66 @ 101. I don't know of too many BONE STOCK including exhaust Stock convertor early GTOs that weight 3850 lbs running that. Theg 60919 drops you out of that group.

Cool deal Ken!!

Why wouldn't they go 80,000-100,000 miles? Fords, and Chevies have been doing it for more than 40 years. If there was a geometry issue with them, it would show itself pretty much right away. Hell the Crysler Hemi had a way more complicated valve train and look how they use them things. I don't see a problem at all with the CV-1 heads running a long time. It's not new technology, only new for Pontiacs.

I believe the comment was in reference to the hyd rollers, and just to say, I've heard people having failures using them. Those I've talked to all have mentioned that failures occured at higher RPMs, which I too question their' longevity.

As for factory hyd rollers, and why they don't see the failures, I would say most likely due to RPM being limited by the grind, and maybe some due to the design (suspect the Pontiac aftermarket hyd rollers are a bit behind the curve).

As for maintenance, I'm not clear as to how or why many feel solid rollers are high maint. In my experience, the solids that I've run, maybe every 25k or so I'd check them, but have done so pretty much just for piece of mind. The previous 455 solid roller engine I had in the 'bird I got about 220k miles out of, with only a valve job at about 120k.

I recently had the choice of hyd roller or solid on a 'street' engine, and chose solid, because I felt more comfortable with the longevity factor. I'm betting in time the hyd rollers will prove themselves, and my next chose may include them. Until then, think I'll stick with the solids.

OOOPS!
 

I'm sorry, I don't know why I thought he was refering to the heads. :noidea: :o

Maybe because the thread was about his CV-1 combo. I agree about the lifters. We'll see what happens.

Pontiac Automotive urban legends.

Where are you people getting your info?



HWYSTR455: I doubt you put 220K on a set of solid roller springs and make any power. I doubt you put 30k on a set.


I have them in SBC strokers. BBC street engines. Pontiacs, 572 cu.in BBC Merlin Jet boat. Thousands of Offshore marine engines use them. All aftermarket and running strong.
I give up. This is like the aluminum heads topics of the 90's when Pontiac people trashed the E-head when it was coming out. The posts are out there. I guess Pontiac people just want to keep their heads in the sand. Not my deal.

But people, don't trash or make statements about what you haven't messed with.

I'll be at VMP end of the month, driving my cart around in the pits watching all the Pontiac racers checking their lash over the weekend or **relaxing** between passes. :D

Just finished gasket matching & porting the CV-1 Intake. Stop by and take a look at the NEW Canted Valve CV-1 heads with a hyd roller, running I hope into the 9's on 93 octane pump gas.

There ya go.
But been around for 4 years. Been building them for many many years before that. :D :D

I have been answering the same negativity in posts now for 3 years. LOL.

[QUOTE=PONTIAC DUDE] Pontiac Automotive urban legends.

Where are you people getting your info?


I give up. This is like the aluminum heads topics of the 90's when Pontiac people trashed the E-head when it was coming out. The posts are out there. I guess Pontiac people just want to keep their heads in the sand. Not my deal.

Dude, Are you sure THAT is where their heads are??!!:rolleyes:

PHILLYGOAT

LOL. :D

Pretty Good Dude. Can you do that with Flat HYD lifter?

And make power? The reason I use the roller hyd is maintaince and the ability to Ramp up quicker thus fill the cylinder quicker without all the issues of spring pressures. Seen the same negativity about beehive springs too on Pontiac baords. Why? I don't know. I run them too.

Off shore BIG Engines have been using them for years. 5000 rpm plus for hrs. :D

Life is good. Race Hard & Have Fun.