[Steve C.]

"That might be the reason Comp had me run 200 on the seat with my 400 lobe lift HR cam and solid roller lifters.Tom"

I'm using a similar 200 lb seat pressure with my current solid roller with 0.701" gross lift at a 6200 rpm shift point, no issues. The smaller Comp XE solid street rollers could get away with less. Crower suggests 180 lbs seat pressure with their small 230/238 solid roller.

[Karch]

I too have the UD HR14/HR15, but on a 112LSA, 107 or 108 ICL, w/ HR lifters, 11:1 eheads 462.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Sure run around a lot of bases just to get back to home plate. LOL.

And the reasons again to put solid lifters with big spring pressure on a hyd roller cam are?

[DiamondJim]

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

Sure run around a lot of bases just to get back to home plate. LOL.

And the reasons again to put solid lifters with big spring pressure on a hyd roller cam are?

OK, I'll bite and then retreat into the fetal position, I feel sort of like Wiley Coyote as he peeks under the box-LOL. I bought my HR cam used at a real good price. I also got a great deal on the solid lifters. My solid flat tappet cam has worked great and adjustments have not been a problem. The solid roller lifters are lighter and should rev quicker. I can run one of the sets of used Comp 995 springs that I have.....hey, what's that under the box.....a fuse...and it's burning! -LOL. OK Dude, whack me. -Jim

[Murf'sDad]

Originally Posted by DiamondJim

OK, I'll bite and then retreat into the fetal position, I feel sort of like Wiley Coyote as he peeks under the box-LOL. I bought my HR cam used at a real good price. I also got a great deal on the solid lifters. My solid flat tappet cam has worked great and adjustments have not been a problem. The solid roller lifters are lighter and should rev quicker. I can run one of the sets of used Comp 995 springs that I have.....hey, what's that under the box.....a fuse...and it's burning! -LOL. OK Dude, whack me. -Jim

Not going to get any flack from this direction Jim (except for the 995's). Good luck with it and let me know how it goes.

Stewart

[DiamondJim]

Originally Posted by Murf'sDad

Not going to get any flack from this direction Jim (except for the 995's). Good luck with it and let me know how it goes.

Stewart

Stewart, I also have a set of 68405 Crowers, I plan to compare them with the 995's at my max lift and decide. Only complaint I have heard about the 995's is they may have higher pressure than speced, which in my case may not be a bad thing. -Jim

[Murf'sDad]

Originally Posted by DiamondJim

Stewart, I also have a set of 68405 Crowers, I plan to compare them with the 995's at my max lift and decide. Only complaint I have heard about the 995's is they may have higher pressure than speced, which in my case may not be a bad thing. -Jim

I don't know your set up but with my cam it was suggested I have 150# seat pressure and 400#, or a bit more, over the nose. The 995's will do that easily but they are a lot bigger in diameter and capable of a lot more lift than my .530". Plus getting an installed height of 1.80"+ is tough with my heads. That's why I hunted for a long time before finding the Crower 68390X2 springs. Close to stock diameter, right rate, my lift is coming closer to coil bind and I can install them at about 1.74" which is almost perfect and gives me just over 400# at lift.

I wouldn't use the 68405's. They are great springs for a flat tappet cam but not near enough for a roller, well, maybe a mild hydraulic roller. Going with the solid rollers on the hydraulic grind necessitates more spring. Not like is necessary for a full solid roller setup though. Sort of half way between the two.

I was recommended and considered the 995's but after reading about some peoples problems I decided against them.

FWIW, Stewart

[DiamondJim]

Originally Posted by Murf'sDad

I don't know your set up but with my cam it was suggested I have 150# seat pressure and 400#, or a bit more, over the nose. The 995's will do that easily but they are a lot bigger in diameter and capable of a lot more lift than my .530". Plus getting an installed height of 1.80"+ is tough with my heads. That's why I hunted for a long time before finding the Crower 68390X2 springs. Close to stock diameter, right rate, my lift is coming closer to coil bind and I can install them at about 1.74" which is almost perfect and gives me just over 400# at lift.

I wouldn't use the 68405's. They are great springs for a flat tappet cam but not near enough for a roller, well, maybe a mild hydraulic roller. Going with the solid rollers on the hydraulic grind necessitates more spring. Not like is necessary for a full solid roller setup though. Sort of half way between the two.

I was recommended and considered the 995's but after reading about some peoples problems I decided against them.

FWIW, Stewart

Stewart, If I am not mistaken, Cliff is running 68405's with solid roller lifters on his HR cam. The guy I bought this HR cam from was running the Comp 995's, according to him, he had run it up to 6000 a few times. If the 995's worked with the heavier HR's it should get the job done with the solids. At any rate, based on where the power is, I will probably shift this cam/combo at 5800. I think the problem is with the 995's as you get closer to their max lift/coil bind the pressure really rises, not necessarily a bad thing with roller lifters. At least that is my take on it. -Jim

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by DiamondJim

OK, I'll bite and then retreat into the fetal position, I feel sort of like Wiley Coyote as he peeks under the box-LOL. I bought my HR cam used at a real good price. I also got a great deal on the solid lifters. My solid flat tappet cam has worked great and adjustments have not been a problem. The solid roller lifters are lighter and should rev quicker. I can run one of the sets of used Comp 995 springs that I have.....hey, what's that under the box.....a fuse...and it's burning! -LOL. OK Dude, whack me. -Jim

Yea I have a hard time accelerating to 6600/7000 rpm with my hyd roller and running 6.30's with pump gas so far in the 1/8th. LOL

Race Hard & have Fun. Do what ya gotta do.

[Steve C.]

Here is what Cliff previously posted about his spring pressure with solid roller lifters on a hyd roller core....
"Our springs are 148 pounds on the seat, not 180...sorry for the confusion.....Cliff"

Unless something has changed my Crower catalog states the Crower 68405 is rated 104 lbs seat pressure at 1.700" installed height.

[tom s]

too Dude and all,when I got my hyd roller cam and kit years ago I called Dean Harvey at Comp and asked him how his co. felt about hyd roller lifters on their 400 lobe lift cam at RPMs above 6500.After a day of confering with others in the co. they wanted me to send my hyd lifters and kit back and they would send me solid rollers and kit.This was what THEY wanted me to do,nothing I came up with.I have continued on this setup for many years.My smaller HR cam in my 428 I do run hyd rollers and lighter springs and am very happy with them.There must have been some reason they had me go that way because of the increased RMPs and lobe lift.FWIW,Tom

[440GP69]

Originally Posted by DiamondJim

Stewart, If I am not mistaken, Cliff is running 68405's with solid roller lifters on his HR cam. The guy I bought this HR cam from was running the Comp 995's, according to him, he had run it up to 6000 a few times. If the 995's worked with the heavier HR's it should get the job done with the solids. At any rate, based on where the power is, I will probably shift this cam/combo at 5800. I think the problem is with the 995's as you get closer to their max lift/coil bind the pressure really rises, not necessarily a bad thing with roller lifters. At least that is my take on it. -Jim

The SD heads He has now do not have Crower springs, They are Made by HRC and are some really nice springs! FWIW Beehives here with Ti retainers and Lash locks, 145 seat 425 open, Hyd roller lifters .670+ lift 6500+rpm Should be No Issue!

[DiamondJim]

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

Yea I have a hard time accelerating to 6600/7000 rpm with my hyd roller and running 6.30's with pump gas so far in the 1/8th. LOL

Race Hard & have Fun. Do what ya gotta do.

Dude, your CV-1's cost more than my entire motor/trans/And 12 bolt rear! Don't be haten the poor!-LOL. The costs so far: $100 4X heads (home ported), $100 Used Ferrea valves, $150 HR cam, $350 Lifters, $50 used Comp 995's, $200 used Eagle H-Beams, $250 NEW SRP pistons from e-bay, $350 455 from wrecked Firebird, $200 TH400 from another board member, $700 12 bolt rear from Craigslist(drove 400 miles to get it). Total cost: $2250, Hiding all this from the wife: Priceless-LOL. Actually I have been selling a lot of my old stuff on e-bay and doing a little side work to make ends meet. It looks like now I am going to have to ask She Who Must be Obeyed for money for machine work. Wish me luck! -Jim

[DiamondJim]

Originally Posted by 440GP69

The SD heads He has now do not have Crower springs, They are Made by HRC and are some really nice springs! FWIW Beehives here with Ti retainers and Lash locks, 145 seat 425 open, Hyd roller lifters .670+ lift 6500+rpm Should be No Issue!

Thanks for the correction. I wish I had the money for the B-Hives/Titanium retainers, sounds like a nice set-up. -Jim

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by DiamondJim

Dude, your CV-1's cost more than my entire motor/trans/And 12 bolt rear! Don't be haten the poor!-LOL. The costs so far: $100 4X heads (home ported), $100 Used Ferrea valves, $150 HR cam, $350 Lifters, $50 used Comp 995's, $200 used Eagle H-Beams, $250 NEW SRP pistons from e-bay, $350 455 from wrecked Firebird, $200 TH400 from another board member, $700 12 bolt rear from Craigslist(drove 400 miles to get it). Total cost: $2250, Hiding all this from the wife: Priceless-LOL. Actually I have been selling a lot of my old stuff on e-bay and doing a little side work to make ends meet. It looks like now I am going to have to ask She Who Must be Obeyed for money for machine work. Wish me luck! -Jim

But check out my combo before the CV-1 3/4 years ago with a hyd roller and 305 cfm E-heads. LOL.

It personally doesn't matter to me what anyone wants to use. I just try and dispel the Automotive Urban Legends about what someone said can't be done from a lot of those people without ANY persona experience. Sometimes Just handed down info. Same deal with beehive springs and won't work. Same deal when I was twisting a 455 to 7600 back in the 90's. Same with making 950hp on spray with a factory block. Blah, blah, blah. Bwahahahahaha.

Tell me this. What is the gain going to a supposedly lighter solid roller on a hyd roller profile if you use a steel retainer or just using a hyd roller and a titanium retainer.

Tom. I don't know why they wanted you to do that. Just because they run a cam company doesn't make them GODS. LOL
Isn't Harvey dead by now? You did state................. years ago?
Maybe we need to junk all these high performance hyd roller engines from manufactures and engine companies (including Reher & Morrision with their BBC 850hp Pump gas hyd roller combo) built since 1987 and the LS engines because those hyd roller don't work?

Run what ya want, Party on.

Shooting for the "QUICKEST hyd roller street car & QUICKEST powered real 93 OCTANE pump gas N/A Pontiac" on the Planet.

Any Challengers????????????????????????????

[Mr. P-Body]

Relax, Ken. Myth and superstition abounds in this business and you know it!

All this garbage started when Rick Holladay's engine "ate" a hydraulic roller lifter. It didn't hurt the cam. When Tom Worral's did it, too, with a bit smaller cam, Rick refused to put hydraulic rollers back in it. Comp said using solids on his XR294HR cam would be fine if lash was kept "tight". We set it at .008/.010. He picked up .2 seconds in 1/4 mile, no other changes. Lash adjustments are once a year. In the third full year of competition this year, zero negative issues.

Cliff and I talked about it at length while he was preparing his "new" engine, and since he had already bought his hydraulic cam, he decided to do the same thing. It works just fine. Somewhere in the communications, Cliff failed to emphasize the point that he had ALREADY bought the cam, and didn't want to throw an additional $350 down the toilet. Now, you would think it was a "new" idea (we put solid flat lifters on 041 cams in 1971...). The real reason was to prevent the need to buy another cam. There is no substitute for buying the CORRECT cam to begin with. While we have no "back to back" tests at our disposal, it is logical to assume a cam originally designed as a "solid roller" will outperform one that's designed as a hydraulic roller when equipped with the solid lifters.

Of the five engines I built using hydraulic rollers (all Comp), three of them are still out there, happily zingin' along. None of those three are serious performance engines, though. The other two are mentioned above, and are pretty serious performers for their "level". Tom's engine DID damage the cam when the lifter disintegrated, so it now has a "real" solid roller" in it.

Jim

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-Body

Relax, Ken. Myth and superstition abounds in this business and you know it!

All this garbage started when Rick Holladay's engine "ate" a hydraulic roller lifter. It didn't hurt the cam. When Tom Worral's did it, too, with a bit smaller cam, Rick refused to put hydraulic rollers back in it. Comp said using solids on his XR294HR cam would be fine if lash was kept "tight". We set it at .008/.010. He picked up .2 seconds in 1/4 mile, no other changes. Lash adjustments are once a year. In the third full year of competition this year, zero negative issues.

Cliff and I talked about it at length while he was preparing his "new" engine, and since he had already bought his hydraulic cam, he decided to do the same thing. It works just fine. Somewhere in the communications, Cliff failed to emphasize the point that he had ALREADY bought the cam, and didn't want to throw an additional $350 down the toilet. Now, you would think it was a "new" idea (we put solid flat lifters on 041 cams in 1971...). The real reason was to prevent the need to buy another cam. There is no substitute for buying the CORRECT cam to begin with. While we have no "back to back" tests at our disposal, it is logical to assume a cam originally designed as a "solid roller" will outperform one that's designed as a hydraulic roller when equipped with the solid lifters.

Of the five engines I built using hydraulic rollers (all Comp), three of them are still out there, happily zingin' along. None of those three are serious performance engines, though. The other two are mentioned above, and are pretty serious performers for their "level". Tom's engine DID damage the cam when the lifter disintegrated, so it now has a "real" solid roller" in it.

Jim

Bwahahahahahaha. I'm always relaxed............ until it's time to start the car and head into the water box.

Yes, a solid roller better outperform a hyd roller. A hyd roller is nothing more then a hyd cam with a roller allowing a SLIGHLY more agressive lobe without all the higher spring pressure associated with the healthier grinds if done in a solid profile. And also not having to worry about wiping out a cam with todays oil compounds. And a maintainance free deal as a lot of customers don't even want to get into taking the covers off. checking this and checking that. Same as to the reason they ran a hyd cam before. Same as buying a high performance factory car and not screwing with the engine. This could go on for pages. LOL. I just wanted to dispell the rumors of rpming, heavy lifters affecting acceleration and rpm limits in the 5000 rpm range. Have you ever bought a set of those Herbert solid roller lifters. I drop one and broke the concrete.

Like I said. Don't care.
There is always gonna be somebody wanting to put a............. square peg in a round hole as long as the combos are available. LOL. .

Race Hard & Have Fun. I do.

Now Jim, get back to work. I have too.