Solid Roller for Street Duty.
 

I have this guy that wants a Solid Roller for his street car. 69 400, .030, 48 heads, th400, 3.23 gears, Qjet, Performer Intake, stock rockers. . I suppose he's afraid of a Flat Hydraulic Lifter issue. So what cam? He sad he has Crower Lifters 66260, but doesn't know what cam to get. Don't think he wants more performance , just reliability, but if HP goes up, I don't think he will complain about it. I was thinking a Butler RAIV Retro with the solid roller? and ideas? What about Valve Springs? I ASSUME they need to be changed? Don't want to be pulling heads, just a cam swap and new timing chain gears. I don't know what he has for a cam , I dont even think he knows, sounds a little more than stock. He bought it that way.

I would presume the Crower solid roller lifters on hand have the optional High Pressure Pin Oiling (HIPPO). If not my recommendation would be to have them upgraded for this .024" hole that leads from the oil band to the needle bearings. It delivers more oil to critical, high load areas for greatly improved cycle life. Also Crower is now doing it to both sides of the axle as an option.

To aid in the discussion of adequate spring pressure look into and report the actual verified installed height on the specific cylinder heads involved.


.

Butler does not offer a off the shelf solid roller version of the 4 Cam, it’s a hydro roller.

If you do not want to take apart the heads to check some things then to be safe you can’t run a Cam of more then .460” lift at the valve, so even the hydro roller version can’t be used with that .460” limit.

I find it crazy to try and justify the cost of a full solid roller set up if your limited to .460” lift!

And the 3.23 rear gears is another limit to me in terms of duration that can be run.

Here’s a kinda old, but very well though out and tested out guide for Caming from HO racing.

I am assuming that this guys 3.23 rear gears are original, and if that’s the case then the original cam would have been the 066 or 067 cam..

If those 48 casting heads are original to the motor then the factory Cam would have been the 068.

If he wants to run a flat tappet Cam then changing out the springs to Crower 68404-16 will open the door to a bunch more Cam choices, and there a drop in for the factory ones!

Thank you Steve. He doesn't want to get into pulling heads off. I think he has been on a "Hybrid state of mind", with all the Hydraulic issues. According to the chart, they don't like the 041 in a RAIV 400?

Not intended to sway your friend towards a solid roller cam but in many situations a solid roller can provide better driveability on the street over a hydraulic flat tappet cam with the 'same' .050" duration.

Case in point...

About 30 years ago my origional 400 RAIII engine had a COMP Magnum 280H hyd flat tappet cam installed with 230 at .050". For the most part the engine was stock with the origional unported factory heads, factory intake & Q-jet, etc.
But it did have headers, roller rocker arms and a few other minor modifications allowed to run in "Top Stock" class at NMCA events, including the 230H cam. It ran a best of 12.81 at 105.5 mph, nothing to write home out today but OK back then.
Not long after we changed to a Crower 60450 solid roller cam with 233 at .050", rated at Crower as a 'All range camshaft for heavy car'. No major changes were made to the engine except the cam change. There was no significant improvement on the track, but the driveability was a tad bit better on the street. Now with that said, the cost of the upgrade was a hard lesson learned.... and brings up the subject the solid roller needed more duration. The change from 230 degrees duration to 233 degrees had little impact.

Later I gave that solid roller cam to Lee Atkinson, he passed it on to his friend Warren who put it into his 455. I used to call it the "baby roller" but Warren loved it. But he did comment, "In hindsight we might have gone with a slightly more radical cam" brings to mind from that experience I learned that when upgrading from a hyd flat tappet cam to a solid roller that you need to increase the amount of duration. Today I would add at least a minimum of 6 additional degrees of intake duration."

YES I know, the 400 is not apples-to-apples with a 455. Point being here the solid roller uses more duration and it can have better driveability on the street.
Around 2003 it was reported the cam had well over 10,000 miles on it.


.

The no show of a 041 cam recommendation in a 400 or 428 motor in that chart was due to having a street friendly limit of only 10 to 1 compression or under.

This chart is some 30 years old so the gas then could accommodate a 10 to 1 compression with iron heads.

The lash needed with a solid roller or solid flat tappet eats up some duration so to speak , so yes a tad more duration can be used, but you would want to stay close to having the same overlap numbers in dealing with only 3.23 gears I would have to say.

Also since your friend is willing to live with the sound of solid lifters then running Rhoads lifters would be another way to go while getting around is 3.23 rear gear issue with a Cam that’s on the too large side!

I have never had problems with breaking in Rhoads lifters and I bet if you do a search here or else where you will not find problems have been had by others either!

If the friend/customer is set on solid roller set-up, there may be no way to change his mind. It's a big investment because of the more expensive cam, solid roller lifters, different dist. gear and more. Faced with the same concerns about reliability of roller lifters, hydraulic or solid, I decided to go a different route. I am going to run a solid flat tappet cam with the cool face option Crower offers with them. Can make all the power I need up to 6500 RPM + without worrying about cheap Chinese, poorly finished and heat treated needles flying around in my engine ruining everything in site. My entire set-up cost about as much as a set of roller lifters. FWIW

I think more than one company makes tight lash street roller cams.Do it right the first time.JMO,Tom

Checking Valve Spring Install Height & Seat Diameter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM8t9A1e0m8


.

Would very strongly suggest they check and make sure the Crower lifters have the 66260H lifter and not a 66260 that does not have the pin oiling. Exactly what Steve C was referencing. Street car really needs that pin oiling so the needles get lubricated at idle for extended periods. That is what kill the bearings on the street, guys get by with the non pin lube set ups if they are very careful how long they let the engine idle and keep the engine speeded up so the engine throw’s some oil up at the lifters.

The Crower lifters are going to take longer pushrods than stock. We’ve have ran smaller solid rollers with stock pressed steel rockers though in lower lift applications.

There are solid cam and hybrid cam options for what they are wanting to do. If they have the pin oiling lifers already the cost won’t be that excessive. They don’t exactly give away the cool face lifters or the Rhoads with the super lubed either. But the billet cam core for the roller cam is 300-400 more than a flat tappet.

Bullet racing cams has a HR profile that would work as a hybrid deal with the stock RA3 springs. IRC it is 285/291 228/234 with a .278” lift lobe. I would still put new spring on it though, and pick a cam with more lift (closer to .5” at the valve). to help justify the expense.

Bullet has quite a few different grinds that do well as tight lash solids. I can think of some examples that would work from compcams too. I would much rather deal with Bullet.


I agree with though on the solid flat tappet with the face oiling, overall I think that is tougher than most roller set ups.

"I would much rather deal with Bullet"

X2

And consult with Tim Goolsby at Bullet.

.

When youbguys say tight lash roller lobes, how tight we talking?

First tight lash solid roller cams have been around for ever. In the late '60s I ran an Engle solid roller cam in a SBC that called for 0.012" Intake and 0.014" Exhaust lash that was with 1.5:1 rockers.

Stan

.006” -.012” on well designed solid roller on a HR design profile

.012”-.018” on a good tight lash SR profile. Most probably have to much lift and are designed more for pro street type stuff though. Would work ok, might be some other options that are better fits on something stock.

JMHO, on a ultra mild long lasting SR profile, to find something that would work better and live as long as possible for the street most cam grinders are going to suggest at least a .017” design lash ramp (.025” lash), then suggest running on the tight side of the lash, probably suggest lashing it around .018” to minimize some abuse on the lash ramp. More selection of the bigger lash SR’s, and less overall acceleration than a tight lash solid roller profile. Performance wise, the better pick is with a tighter lash SR profile.

Does your buddy really understand what's involved with running a solid roller camshaft, the expense, and the issues that have arose using them on the street long term?

To me, and from my experience doing this, that's just as dicey, if not more dicey than running any hydraulic roller profile or worrying about any hydraulic flat tappet camshaft deal.

Jay explains very well some of the finer details, and you're going to have to talk to the cam manufacture you choose for a proper spring package to work with the heavy valvetrain in a Pontiac, and hopefully come away with something that doesn't kill the lifters long term. That's always been an issue with these things. As Jay explains, maybe with a soft lobe profile and a tight lash setup you could get away with it. But that's a lot of expense out of pocket to go this route and then start cutting off it's potential to make it live on the street long term. Personally I reserve the solid rollers for all out performance minded people that don't mind a little maintenance. For your buddy that has what sounds like a mostly stock setup, it wouldn't be my recommendation.

Either run a hydraulic roller and forget about the very few stories you hear of hydraulic roller problems. However that's still a big expense for a stockish engine.
I'd run a hydraulic flat tappet, with Rhoads and the lube face option, or go with a solid flat tappet, again with the lube face option.

I've been running one engine with a tight lash solid flat tappet, using Comps EDM lube option for the lifters and so far have 50,000 miles on that engine. The lash hasn't budged since break in. It's been a perfect setup.

Great data point.

When I read "don't want to pull heads" and "want to run a solid roller cam" in the same post, it makes my head hurt.

The whole point of a solid roller is to get those valves open as fast and as far as possible. I don't even know if you can find a solid roller profile small enough to work with stock installed spring height, and I don't know what springs you could find that would install at that height that would have the appropriate pressures.

maybe there's something out there with tiny lobes that can use low spring pressures, but then you've totally defeated the purpose of a solid roller.

Either pull the heads and set them up properly for a roller cam (either solid or hydraulic) or go with a solid flat tappet.

There is nothing about a solid roller that implies "reliable" or even "low maintenance."

When I made my decision to go with a solid street roller I knew darned well I'd be pulling the valvecovers on a regular basis to keep an eye on things.

Methinks the person you're working with really doesn't understand what's involved with what he wants.

NOT a recommendation, just a tid bit for conversation here...

Bullet Racing Cams has a solid roller lobe with 230 degrees duration at .050" tappet lift and 0.2900" lobe lift. Using a 1.5 rocker ratio that's only 0.435" valve lift before lash. A 1.65 ratio for 0.4785". Lash at the lobe is 0.012"
The lobe is dwell nose. Dwell lobes are often used when there is a lift rule, such as NHRA stock classes. Dwell lobes are usually not well suited for higher RPM applications.

Also their foot not related to the tight lash comments...

Valve lash numbers are given at the lobe and have to be multiplied by the rocker ratio to give the valve lash at the valve. Lobe lash numbers of less than .012" are considered "tight lash" and tend to be more aggressive lobes.


.

I would probably try to talk the guy into doing a hybrid at first just so down the road when he realizes this is a PITA he can put HR lifters in an not change the cam. HA!


We have a Pontiac solid roller that only has a .316 lobe, 252@.050, by the time the lash is take out it barely has .450” lift. Lol. Keeps getting benched for flat tappets that have more lift than it.

Lash on my SR race cam is 0.012"/0.016", CC lobes.

I’ve run .005 on my Comp/Crower hybrid now for nearly 10 years. Last couple of times I ran the lash proved to be a “feel good” thing, more than anything. Much quieter than the hyd roller lifters I took out.