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.