New hyd lifters from Comp Cams
 

Thoughts?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KJwpIBVX8kI

The body looks like the Shaver body.The inside is the big dif I think.Will touch base with my guy at Comp.Tom

Thanks for posting slowbird - Interesting concept. Spendy at $670 for Pontiac...https://www.compcams.com/evolution-r...set-of-16.html

Nice to see some innovation in the lifter market.

I don't see how they can optimize the oil band when cam base circles differs so much. I would like to hear more on that if they really make a Pontiac retrofit lifter in this style.

Thanks for posting that. Jmho, but overall it appears like good improvements. Easier to mfg also, kind of similar to how Delphi flat tappets are made in that the body and valving body start out as separate parts so that the valve body machining is more precise. I like cartridge setup and the longer valve body, not sure if the smaller diameter of the plunger will act better for running a lot of spring pressure. It should react faster on start up like was indicated, but I don’t know of many that complain about noise at start up, don’t think start up is what kills them, failures are likely more from the noise issues that occur from inconsistent bleed rates. That usually shows up after the engine is heat soaked and operating. If they get the bleed rates narrowed down it should be a big improvement, that longer plunger might help a lot just in itself.

Lifter Price just gotta come down in time to afford a Roller setup. Went Flat HYD with the Spare engine.

I did not like the roller wheel oiling feature that uses "edge orifice" metering. Should have used the oil band to roller route like on their solid rollers.
I could not see a plunger spring under the cartridge , which is needed to take up lash.
I don't see how the lifter can be taken apart for cleaning, considering they use a link bar system, unless the lifters are taller than std. rollers.
I would like to see a break down or schematic of the plunger cartridge,
As far I know, this is an unproven system.

I feel stupid for asking, but how do these circumvent the need for a link bar?

I don’t think they do- the video just indicates they come in link bar and no link bar application

I have no issue with the price if it doesn't take a new build out.

Ah, that makes more sense. But with that said, am I wrong to be fearful of roller lifters with link bars? It seems that there are endless stories online showing the link bars failing. Sometimes the internet can distort reality, so maybe it's not as big of an issue as it seems, but still... The lifter internals is what they've addressed here, but the link bar issue will always remain.

Link bars have been used for decades in both OE and aftermarket applications. It’s the internet distorting reality. Not too many people hop on to say their link bar lifters are great. Those people are out driving.

My lunati branded morels have been reliable for going on 30k miles now. They’re just really loud.

I’m going to watch these though, I’m intrigued by the idea.

I think link bars started in the 50s by a guy in Anaheim CA.Chet Herbert.Pretty much the same today as back then.Dont fear them fear the internet.Tom

Agree, internet has run the horror stories in the ground for such a small percentage.

I like the idea of these, and wouldn't be afraid to try them on the next build.

So we can't get clearances correct so let's double the amount of parts inside and it will be wonderful. Why not just thicken up the body of the existing lifter to use the parts that will be in the cartridge if decreasing diameter of the plunger is a cure-all? If you can't hold a .842" inch cylinder to precisely machine how does making a separate cylinder with a much smaller outside diameter help the milling process?

I think the advantage for them is the cartridge will be common across all the lifters. Potentially resulting in better tolerances for the hydraulic parts because of improved manufacturing processes possible with the higher volume. Maybe. Sloppy tolerances in the main lifter bodies should be less important.

I agree. Also the cartridge does not move within the lifter body, so the tolerances are not so critical (between cartridge and body) as its just there for the ride.

Either way, it looks like a cost effective solution to be able to build rollers for most engine families at lower volumes as most the cost is spent on the cartridge portion.

My question would be about the potential added weight to the valve-train... I dont recall them touching that topic. Will these add more weight to the valve-train or decreased weight?

SPEED SAFE, NICK

It will be interesting to see where they place the oil band on the Pontiac spec’ed lifters.

Murf

I doesn’t make much sense to me that the variations in lifter cause issues in quality control versus a OEM making millions of something and having better quality control. JMHO… That sounds like bean counters limiting the time to finish machine to a std to produce XXXX / hr of product. Probably why better lifters cost more. Lots of GM lifters are just SBC bodies, not exactly one or two of something. My guess is cartridge is likely a different metal than the lifter body, easier and more precise to machine during mfg for closer tolerances and less time to machine. Win win for comp, hopefully better on our end too.

What I also see is that in the future if there is a problem with leak down on one of the lifters, it's a whole lot cheaper to just swap in a new cartridge rather than replace the entire lifter. Better for the end user.

Probably the same place they already put the oil band on the correct Pontiac "S" lifters would be my guess. Those work perfectly fine.

If you look at the "cartridge" closely, it looks like an existing lash adjuster from any one of a million different OHC modern engines. My guess is Comp is buying this "cartridge" from an OE supplier and sticking it in their own lifter body of lesser tolerance where it should still function. It's an innovative and low cost solution to a noisy lifter issue I guess. Time will tell how it actually works in practice. I hope they spent some time on the Spintron testing it.

That's something they didn't mention and what I'd be more interested in.

Nice to see Mark Campbell in the Video.
At one time he worked for Holley Engineering in Michigan many years ago.
For a while he worked for Gale Banks in California. I am sure he has worked several other places over the years but now he is a VP in Comp Cams/Edelbrock.

I was not aware that the Edelbrock group owned Comp cams now.

As far as the "new" lifter design goes, it looks like they built some additional strength into the outer main body and are using
a inner cartridge produced by someone else. Just an assumption though.

Tom V.

Its great to hear Comp finally acknowledging that they have a problem with inconsistent bleed down rates- and are apparently doing something about it.

I've had about enough hearing from them that the problem is just assembly lube stuck in the bores due to sitting on the shelf. I've had lifters that range from not bleeding down at all, to near instant bleed downs, this is more than just noisy operation, it can and does affect valvetrain function.

I hope this design change allows the lifter body to be disassembled in the tie bar versions, previous versions you cannot.

What is really interesting to me is that they (finally) have taken to 100% inspecting the bleed down rates, instead of the "old school" method of trying to maintain consistency by using dimensional tolerances.. Very small changes in dimensions of these critical ID/OD's result in big differences in leak down rates, so they are conceding that a new method is needed. It's fine when you are a big OEM, with large enough production volumes you can use dimensional sorting to claw back consistent bleed down rates, apparently Comp does not make enough to use this method.

This looks pretty good to me, I'll will be giving these a try on my next build.

Hi Larry! I still get confused on this . The “Shaver style” are the older ones, right? I took a pic of the lifters I have on hand.

They are the Speed Pro that’s used with the plate system, then what I think is the Shaver style and on the right the newer Comp lifters. Am I all screwed up on this?

If this is correct it would seem to me that the Shaver style would be the most likely to have trouble with a reduced base circle.

Anyone is welcome to help me out with this.

Thanks
Murf

Maybe right now


Well, I’m not smart enough to fix the pic
New style Comp on top, Shaver in the middle?

Hey Murf,
I have pics of them side by side, maybe you can compare them to yours and figure this out. These are both from Comp for a Pontiac. The pair on the left are Johnson that Comp used to sell, now sometimes I think they substitute Morels. The pair on the right are the "S" lifter that Tom commonly refers to them. They are Shaver lifters.
As you can see the "S" lifters actually have the correct oil band and are slightly taller overall.
The problem I ran into was that they both (at the time) carried the same part number for a Pontiac from Comp Cam. So I would order these but you never knew what was coming in the box until you opened it. It just depends on what Comp has in stock at the time. I think that's where the problems start for people that buy these things and don't realize there are 2 different bodies floating around. Then the confusion begins.

I got to the point I wanted to make sure I was getting the "S" lifters. I bought the last set from Paul K. on the forum. Great thing about that is that Paul is nice enough to open the box, make sure they are the correct style, and then ship them to me. When in doubt, order from Paul K. They have worked and run whisper quiet for me in the Pontiacs. Tom has mentioned they are made in Southern Cal.

Thanks Larry do the ones on the right in your pic only have the upper part where the link bar is like the ones on the top in my pic? They look about the same to me.

That single SpeedPro in my pic seems to have the band higher than the older Comps and closer in height to the one on top in my pic.

Part of what is screwing me up is that people are talking a lot about base circle on the Speed Pros but I don’t remember much talk about it with the older lifters with the lower band. How’s that for a run on sentence? 😀

My

The Shaver lifter is the one that looks like a solid roller.They are made by Ron Shaver racing in So Cal.Have not got any confirmation if they are using the Shaver body.I have run them on 400 lobe lift Comp cams.Tom

I`m running the Johnsons on the left. 400 lobe cam. 3/4 turn preload on 7/16 studs. No problems. Quiet. Have been to 6500 twice and 6000 many times.

I believe it is the same as your pic Murf. I have a couple pics of them I'll have to fish for and see if I have a back side shot.

LOL I understand what you are saying. I don't recall any discussion about base circles years ago with the older lifters. Oddly enough the short set on the left of my picture about 15 years ago were run in a 455 with a 254/262 @ .050 hydraulic roller that was around .600 lift and those things were perfectly quiet.

Nice to hear of another example, I just got done posting that those very lifters were in a 455 we ran years ago on a 254/262 @ .050 cam that was pretty rowdy and they were quiet. Dad would shift that one at 6000 quite often, had a 6300 pill in the box.

I think the Johnsons just have better internal parts and less bleed down hence they don't have problems with noise even though the oil band is a bit low.

Tom we really need to collaborate our pictures, and others on this subject and make a sticky about it. Lay all this to rest.
Seems this subject comes up all too often and everyone is confused about which is an "S" lifter, which is a Shaver and is the "S" lifter referring to Shaver, which one is a Morel or a Johnson and how the oil bands differ among all of them.

Maybe then everyone can get on the same page and know what they are looking for before they buy. Might hear about this issue a lot less.

I also don`t care for the half circle for the link bars on the "S" lifters.

They are so EZ to spot as the body does not extend pass the roller bearing shaft.Look like pretty much like everyones solid roller.Comp has not used the S for years now I think.Did that when they came out.Tom

Weight on the lifter side of the rocker arm has been proven to be of less concern than the valve side.

I just bought a set of "S" Comps, couldn't have been more than a year or year and a half or so.

Either way, Steve C sent me this from Butler that has a nice explanation with pics.

https://butlerperformance.com/n-1349...formation.html

Thanks to Steve C & Larry for that. That’s very helpful. I just wish they’d have given the measurement to the pushrod cup also.

Very good info though.

Thanks
Murf

Second line, under first set of pictures, gives seat height.

Clay

Thanks Clay! I guess I was looking at this a little too early this morning!🙂

Off topic tangent: Edelbrock Group owns Comp, FAST, TCI, and Russell. Let the great consolidation commence!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk