[77TA]

This is aimed at those that either made a direct change from one to the other in a similar duration figure or the builders on here that dyno lots of engines. I had a discussion with a friend on this and I don't think the Hyd Roller like we have with the retrofit lifters is worth much if anything over a good flat due to the weight. It looks like they would looking at the lobes and duration figures but the few Ive seen post dyno numbers or track data the ROllers do not seem to actually run any better.
I see the new cars with hyd rollers and durations in the 220's make 500 + hp with about 350 cid Ive not seen anyone post anything like that from a pontiac engine. It just seems like a lot of money for little or no gain in performance. discussion welcomed !!
Thanks !

[Bruce Meyer]

Larry-So your saying that you know more than David Reher??!! You must be a engine building god. You know lately Anderson has been dominating pro stock. Maybe some of the other teams will hire you to build thier motors so they can compete.

[69Goat1]

I am not sure but I think I read that the "guy in Hawaii" had either switched cams already or is getting ready too...

Think He go's by 468Bird...

[Bud Lyons]

I pulled a XE274 out and slid in a Dude custom hyd roller. I also changed from 1 5/8" headers to 1 3/4". Old set up the car ran 11.29@116 New set up best so far [email protected]. I have a 462 and going thru the traps at 5600. The duration of the roller is close to a XE284 but I have .600 lift. I like it.

[Larry Navarro]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Larry, why don't you like the concept and theory of the solid or hydraulic roller cam and lifter?
You run roller rockers and a roller timing chain right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ken, I NEVER said I didn't like the concept and theory! Comparing roller rockers and roller chain to that of a roller cam assembly, is not the argument here.
I merely challenged the misconceptions and opinions of David Reher. He is downright wrong in his analogy that flat tappet cam failures attribute to more money being spent to repair damage from the use of such components. Thats just plain stupid!
In my previous post, I refered to a roller tappet that "went south".....upon investigation, that tappet had NO needle bearings left and the body chewed up the lobe on the cam on which it was riding on.
Now since all this "high-tech" material was circulated throughout the engines oiling system, take an educated guess on the COST associated with getting that particular engine back in service.
Any rocket scientists out there?
If a roller setup is in your budget, then by all means, go with it man!

[Flamin65]

Ok I scanned the National Dragster article and saved it as a bmp file. Now if someone can tell me how to post it I'll be ok. Or if someone would like it in an e-mail give me your address. Mine is [email protected] Thanks Greg

[slowbird]

Anyway you can post that article?

[critter]

No, what you need is education and track time. Sharing knowledge, learning from track experience and building on the mistakes, your own and others, is how we build our abilities and our speed.

I don't think you meant anything by your comments, al, just telling everyone that I'm enjoying this thread and the different viewpoints.

[Steve C.]

JYD- I'd call Tim Cole at Comp and discuss it with him. I believe he is involved with the Beehive springs, if not he can refer you.

Seat pressures are determined by valve/retainer weight, engine RPM and life expectancy of the components before replacement is required. I have seen it written milder solid roller cams require 165 pounds on the seat as an absolute minimum. But 180-200 is most common for most modest performance applications.
Just remember much depends on the weight of the valvetrain parts involved. I suspect the typical Pontiac 2.110 valve might not be as heavy as some of the reccommended valve spring pressures in some catalogs might suggest. But that's opinion.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

If you go to my website and look under Readers rides there is a 500 cu.in. Monti Carlo. Roller cam that has logged over 40,00 miles and run 11.60's on motor, 10.40's on Nitrous. This car weighs 3800lbs, has air and driven daily. It is well know on the West Coast of Florida and is driven 2 hrs to the track and home. Finally building hi a new ATI combo as after 5 years he wanted to retire it before the bottom end let go. This car had over 250 passes on it. Incuding a B & M blower for 6 months.
This was a solid roller.
Actual information that is available to anyone out there.
I have been running roller cams since the late 70's with no failures. Quite a few engine in that time too. Guess I'm lucky?

Current combo has a hyd roller as I felt I could make more power with a flatter power curve....... for the street . With more durability over a longer period of time. Ask Dave to post the hp Chassis dyno results. Figures to over 625hp with a hyd roller cam on pump gas? And no radical head porting either. 310/315 cfm 89 cc E-heads.
As time goes on people will see the advantages of the hyd roller.......but you might have to leave this Pontiac forum and check in the outside other world. LOL.

[Junkyard Dog]

Dude, 140 seat and 380 open seems kinda light. Are hydraulic roller ramps a lot different than solid roller ramps? Comp recommends a much heavier spring for my very mild 288r (244 at .050, .550 lift with a 1.5)

Jim, what if you put 1.65 rockers on the roller, too?

Maybe I should put 1.65 rockers on mine. What's that, .605?

[Bud Lyons]

Steve, I had the heads cut .040 to give me about 10.25 to 1. Thats it. I already had the heads ported and the intake gasket matched. I have no idea what the heads flow. Half-Inch Stud ported them for me. We do know there are no restrictions in the runners. Proved that with a home made flow test. Vaccum and spray paint. This is in my 79 Sunbird drag car. Idle or floored, not much in-between.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Critter, I agree. That's the reason 1.65 rockers were used back in the day when cam profiles were weak and computers weren't available to set up programs with cam designs.
Yesterdays cam grinds are todays RV and truck towing profiles. LOL.
Springs have also contributed to better cam profiles.

Example: Put a 1.6 rocker on an RV style cam for a 350 chevy and 9 times out of 10 it will slow down. Why the heads, etc flow with the grind and combo.
Put a 1.65 rocker on the Pontiac and it usually picks up........ why the port profile is weak and can use the help. faster ramps allow more charge into the chamber. I have stated this before 15 years ago. There is no bowl to hold the next charge, so ya fake the head into believing it's bigger then it is.

I like the Comp XE cams with the faster ramps and still use the 1.5 rocker as the lift is built right in.
Yes, I like 'some' of the hyd roller profiles.
I got one in my 76 500cu.in IA motor and works great. Sorta a good compromise between a roller and a hyd cam. I'm making the same power at a lot lower rpm then I did with a huge solid roller.
Why do you think hyd roller cams came about?
I remember when they first hit the market, a lot of weak RV type of grinds for daily useage. period. Times change and so do cams.
Are they for everyone. No.
If you pick up 1 to 2 tenths would you spend the difference for the upgrade....... your call.
What's is reasonable to spend for one is expensive to another for the gain. That's just the way it is.

And with the limited profiles available in a hyd roller, there isn't always a good choice.

Application and what ya want, determine if it's the right choice in cams.

Trying to compare a hyd roller to a hyd cam with Rhoades lifters and 1.65 rockers can't be done. To different theories.
But is a hyd roller stronger then a basic hyd cam with the same duration, C.L. and L.S. I feel Yes.

[David Holmberg]

Come on Bruce, just type it all out...

[slowbird]

My dads 4250 lb GrandPrix runs 7.80 (should run mid to low 12s in the 1/4) in bad air with a Hyd.Roller (it also doubles as a tow car once in while). My opinion is that they are worth some power if you plan on keep the rpms below 6000. But are they worth the cost compared to the extra power, that would have to be up to the person spending the money.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Why use a 041?
Why not compare milder grinds?
Why not a 068 with Rhoades and a simialr cam in a hyd roller. They aren't made for that application. Even Rhoades will tell you that.

The purpose of the Rhoades it to tame a wilder cam on the botton end but allow it to act like the 240 duration or so in the upper rpm range.

If you want the solid lifter type noise?

[Jim Hand]

Dude,
I like the great array of cam lobes (both duration and style) Bullit offers. It would be very easy to select exactly the cam anyone wishes to have built.

I believe the CC EE cams also have non symmetrical lobe design. That is the difference between the EE series and the older styles they offer. Yes, we have seen EE cams fail after proper break-in and use. CC made them good by replacing cam and lifters.

I like to have full control of my engine at all times, especially when staging at the track. So I use Rhoads to provide that increased vacuum and low end power. I can literally set the stage RPM to within 25 RPM to stage exactly where I want. And the car launches exactly the same each time. And they make normal street driving much easier and smoother. And the reasl bonus is that I can shift at any RPM for test purposes without any concern for lifter pump-up, as well as adding power through idle to 3000 RPM.

Jim Hand

[Lady Dude]

Made <span class="ev_code_RED">501 RWHP</span> with a hydraulic roller and 10.5-1


Depends on the package and combo.

Pontiac Dude.

[Jim Hand]

Dude,
I will make it easier for you to give us an estimate of the actual power difference between a standard hydraulic and a hydraulic roller cam. I have picked a standard catalog mid-range hydraulic roller from the Comp Cams catalog – the XR288H It has 236 degrees intake duration with .520 lift (.347 lobe lift), and the lobe is at 106. The exhaust is 242 degrees with .540 (.360 lobe lift) and is at 114 degrees.

I have selected comparable duration lobes from the Bullet Racing catalog and can have a cam made for $150. This standard hydraulic cam will have the lobes in the same exact positions – 106-114. The intake is 235 with .507 lift (.338 lobe lift), and the exhaust is 242 with .510 lift (.340 lobe lift). They do not have a 236 lobe with decent lift, so I chose the 235 lobe. If you prefer different lobe positions, change them but make both cams the same.

Assume a 462 engine with stock 87 cc E-heads with either an RPM or T-II and appropriate carb (but same on both setups). How much power difference in torque and HP will there be at 3000 RPM, 4000 RPM, 5000 RPM, and 6000 RPM (assuming the h rollers can make it to 6000 RPM)? And assume the Rhoads lifters are used on the standard cam to assure it will easily run to 6000!

And after making that estimate, assume the rocker ratio was changed from 1.5 to 1.65 on the standard cam, making the lift .558 and .561. How do the two cams compare then? Note the same valve springs and related parts could be used with no other changes in cost or effort.

As an engine builder, I suspect you would know this in order to be able to recommend the best power increase for the dollar spent. Thanks.

Jim Hand

[77TA]

No reason just picked the 041 out of the air as its so widely used. I guess what I am asking is if I am running a 236/244 flat hydralic magnum profile lobes from comp cams lift with 1.65 is about .580. If I went to a XR288 from comp cams very simlar duration number 236/242 with about the same lift I think .600 with 1.65's would I see any improvements ? would it be a tenth or more ???

Has anyone did a dyno or track comparasons of any Hyd Cams to Hyd Rollers of similar durations in a Pontiac engine ?????
Just looking for hard Data here is all.