| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Social Groups |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I know, grease the wheels but there seems to be no magic retrofit bullet. And then the added cost… |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Most guys here don't even spin their Pontiacs above 5500, and many others don't make power much above that. It's the street section. With a proper spring valve train control is not an issue with these things. If you want to save weight on the valvetrain then look at retainers and valves and don't worry about link bars. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Singleton,
For the guy that wants to keep the "EGR" valley pan, there are no other hydraulic roller choices I am aware of. It would definitely be for the "mild" build setup. It's just a spit ball idea. Not in it to make a business. It's just a hobby and I like a challenge. Here's to the "you can't fit a finned aluminum timing cover under the water pump on a 409" so I made my own. It was marketed for a few years by a buddy until he retired. I have the knowledge and ability, and he had the CNC mill. Thanks, Stan |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Any reason why you want to keep an EGR valley pan?
Just thinking out loud but it seems it would be easier and much cheaper to just modify the EGR pan to work with retro lifters rather than reinvent the wheel trying to design a lifter to fit the pan. There has to be a way to make the pan fit with a little time spent....??? If it were me I'd ditch it for a regular valley pan anyway. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Formulajones For This Useful Post: | ||
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Skip Fix 1978 Trans Am original owner 10.99 @ 124 pump gas 455 E heads, NO Bird ever! 1981 Black SE Trans Am stockish 6X 400ci, turbo 301 on a stand 1965 GTO 4 barrel 3 speed project 2004 GTO Pulse Red stock motor computer tune [email protected] 1964 Impala SS 409/470ci 600 HP stroker project 1979 Camaro IAII Edelbrock head 500" 695 HP 10.33@132 3595lbs 1964 Corvette Coupe 327 4 speed |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Skip Fix For This Useful Post: | ||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I’m still working that out for options, but the fallback will be the modified ford spider.
|
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stan65 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
So what's the max lift this thing will support?
That's really the deal breaker for me and why I had to ditch the idea of using the factory roller setup on a Gen V BBC and convert it to link bar, it was all finished at .350 lobe lift which meant I couldn't even get a cam in there with more than .600" lift at the valve and that wasn't going to get the job done. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't have the answer, but from another thread from someone that is using them, "To use the HT2148 lifters, cam base circle must be at least 1.135” diameter".
If that is the case, anything less than 1.135" base circle would allow the lifter oil feed hole/band to drop out of the bottom of the lifter bore. Lifter oil feed hole protruding out of the lifter bore at the top at full lift shouldn't be an issue unless the top of the lifter bore has an excessive chamfer from the factory.
__________________
66 GTO, 495, M22, Strange S-60 w/4.10 Sold new at Royal Pontiac (Dealer# 07-679) 70 Formula 400/auto |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Singleton For This Useful Post: | ||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
ALL,
I just measured out everything in my setup so people can reference for their own purposes. Once again, this is with MY BLOCK You can see the lifters work well. My cam measures.... Base Circle 1.191 Lobe Lift .344 Journal Diameter 1.899 This means my lobe is .010 under the journal radius as expected. One caveat!...... THE OIL HOLE IN THE LIFTER NEEDS TO FACE THE OIL HOLE IN THE BOSS THE GET OILING ON THE BASE CIRCLE! PM me if you want a copy of the DWG file. Last edited by Stan65; 12-01-2024 at 04:19 PM. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
cool...following
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|