[shermanator2]

First I would like to thank 68hotbird and everyone else for providing some very good information here and on the other two threads on the same subject. I am very intrigued by the possibility of using factory designed roller lifters in a Pontiac. Not because of the cost, which is not high on my priority list, but because of the reliability. All of the aftermarket companies, hobbyists, and racers cannot put the resources into developing reliability that GM can. I personally have had a very nice engine taken out of service by a link bar pin failure on a lifter from one of the top cam companies.

I would like to comment on lobe lift and its effect on oil band location. Any optimally designed cam will have the nose of the cam at the same height (radius from cam shaft centerline) regardless of lobe lift. The difference between a high lift cam and a low lift cam will be in the radius of the base circle, not the radius of the nose. The nose radius should be just less than the radius of the cam bearing journals (just allowing the cam to be installed down the tunnel). Sure, you can design a cam with a smaller base circle and smaller nose radius, but in doing so you are either increasing side loading on the lifter or reducing the ramp rate, or both.

My point in bringing this up is that we should not be considering the lobe lift when determining if the oil band or oil hole relief notch come out of the top of the lifter bore. All proper cams should be the same and essentially the oil band should be inside the lifter bore when the roller is at the radius of the cam journal. If we had a concern about the oil band coming out the bottom or covering up the oil feed hole while on the base circle, then we would need to talk about lobe lift. That seems to not be the case here, or at least has not been brought up yet.

[Singleton]

Originally Posted by shermanator2

Any optimally designed cam will have the nose of the cam at the same height (radius from cam shaft centerline) regardless of lobe lift. The difference between a high lift cam and a low lift cam will be in the radius of the base circle, not the radius of the nose. The nose radius should be just less than the radius of the cam bearing journals (just allowing the cam to be installed down the tunnel). Sure, you can design a cam with a smaller base circle and smaller nose radius, but in doing so you are either increasing side loading on the lifter or reducing the ramp rate, or both.

My point in bringing this up is that we should not be considering the lobe lift when determining if the oil band or oil hole relief notch come out of the top of the lifter bore. All proper cams should be the same and essentially the oil band should be inside the lifter bore when the roller is at the radius of the cam journal.

Thanks for posting this information. I must say, after reading this I was a little skeptical. So I measured an old 066 cam I had laying around. Placed a straight edge across the cam bearing journals, and the nose of the lobes were almost exactly the same height as the journals, (I could slip-in a .010 feeler gauge).

[tempest1964]

Pictures really do say a thousand words.

[JC455]

I just posted a new video for Pontiac V8’s with hydraulic roller lifters.
I have a new/better option!!

Apologies to GTOFREAK- Paul Carter. I referred to you as Paul K... I was thinking of Koerner Engines from your signature.

https://youtu.be/n5Gb_adlG-Q

And a HUGE thanks to Tempest1964!

[Qball]

Watching now!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dick Boneske]

What do you all think?

[tempest1964]

I definitely like the fact that the oil fill holes are in the groove area, not the OD of the lifter. I also like the way the lower lifter is clearanced for the roller wheel, as applies to quick ramps and scuffing. I don’t think there will be any structural integrity issues. I guess an engineering load test would be the only way to tell for sure.

[JC455]

Tony-
Good thing about LSx parts: We have tens of thousands of torture-testers out there beating it up for free! 😂

[Half-Inch Stud]

Nice clear video. That shows an unshrouded Roller. Think i would prefer the shrouded Roller body.

The Longer body and oil ports are better.

[Formulajones]

Yes and just to be clear, Paul prefers the encased roller, which is how the Johnson roller lifters come. Paul has used the unshrouded rollers, which is how the Comp S lifters for Pontiac come, and he had some issues a few years back of the legs breaking and losing the rollers, which turned into a very expensive repair.

Since then Paul has stuck exclusively to the Johnson roller lifters with the completely encased rollers, there is no interference even with .380 lobe camshafts. Just simply do the lifter bore mod for those worried about oil band heights. Although I will say I've run both the Johnson and the Comp S lifters for Pontiacs without the lifter bore modifications on several engines and have never had issues with any lifters, no broken wheels, no noisy lifters.

[JLMounce]

I definitely like this lifter over the sealed power unit for this purpose.

Considering these lifters wouldn’t be using a link bar, I don’t thing having the fully encased roller is as big of a deal. When I’ve seen those fail it’s because a link bar broke and the roller turned in the bore.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by JLMounce

I definitely like this lifter over the sealed power unit for this purpose.

Considering these lifters wouldn’t be using a link bar, I don’t thing having the fully encased roller is as big of a deal. When I’ve seen those fail it’s because a link bar broke and the roller turned in the bore.

Might want to contact Paul, I don't think that was the case in the failures he was seeing.

Link bars aren't a deal breaker for me.

[JC455]

Best price I’ve found on the new lifter (Gaterman) is from Brian Tooley Racing. He’s not trying to relabel them as his stuff. That’s what Howard’s is doing... I started searching and found BTR.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by JC455

Best price I’ve found on the new lifter (Gaterman) is from Brian Tooley Racing. He’s not trying to relabel them as his stuff. That’s what Howard’s is doing... I started searching and found BTR.

Be cautious with Tooley. Do an internet search. He was having both business and personal issues not long ago.

[JC455]

Ideally, I’d rather have this Johnson 2110 lifter, but the LS7 oil port kills it.
If only we could get them to NOT machine the oil port that way, but to do it like Gaterman does.
While we’re at it, machine the upper oil band .100” taller!
I can wish, right?!

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by JC455

Ideally, I’d rather have this Johnson 2110 lifter, but the LS7 oil port kills it.
If only we could get them to NOT machine the oil port that way, but to do it like Gaterman does.
While we’re at it, machine the upper oil band .100” taller!
I can wish, right?!

If you don't like the Johnsons or don't want to do the lifter bore mod, then why not look at a set of the Comp S lifters? The oil bands are in the correct location and come recommended by Paul K. In fact I bought a set from him almost 2 years ago and dropped them in a Pontiac, they have been working flawless since.

Comp seems to send different manufactured lifters in the boxes depending on the time of month, lol. Paul was nice enough to order them, check the box to make sure they were correct before shipping them off to me. I'd deal with Paul K any time.

[JC455]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

If you don't like the Johnsons or don't want to do the lifter bore mod, then why not look at a set of the Comp S lifters? The oil bands are in the correct location and come recommended by Paul K. In fact I bought a set from him almost 2 years ago and dropped them in a Pontiac, they have been working flawless since.

Comp seems to send different manufactured lifters in the boxes depending on the time of month, lol. Paul was nice enough to order them, check the box to make sure they were correct before shipping them off to me. I'd deal with Paul K any time.

I’m after an inexpensive, drop-in lifter for street driven Pontiac engines.
The Johnson’s have a robust lifter body that arcs together over the roller vs. a notched design- seems stronger to me.
The Gaterman’s have a few advantages over the Sealed Power HT-2148’s that I covered in my last video. I was just pining for an OEM that met the wishes I listed- unrealistic? Yes, but I’ve been doing these videos to show what’s out there that we can make work.
The 2148’s will work, but the Gaterman’s have some nice features.
I’m only aiming this at street cars- racers have their own set of parameters to operate under.
Linked lifters seem to be the choice there, but I like the individual, easily serviced single units that’ll go over 100k miles in OEM engines.

[Formulajones]

Shucks I use the link bar retro fit stuff in street cars all the time, have been for going on 30 years without a failure. That's all we had decades ago and I haven't found a reason yet to stop using them.
Only time I deviated from that was a recent 351 windsor build I did for a customer. And the only reason I deviated is because Ford makes it so easy to convert the old (69 351 in this case) blocks to the modern roller lifter with spiders. The holes for the spider are already there in the old block, just have to tap them and everything drops in, but that's another discussion.

I think the OEM zero failure rate is directly related to 2 things, and it's not really the quality of the lifter. It's the very lazy lobe profiles they use and the fact that most all of them run with as little as 70-80 or maybe 90 lbs. seat pressure.

But I've gotten great service and longevity out of hydraulic rollers running 120-130 lbs. seat pressure and these days most recommend about 150 lbs. seat pressure for any decent street type lobe profile. Will that go 100k miles? Don't know, but the last few I've put together are running those pressures. Don't see a reason to worry.

I understand the budget thing though...

[Formulas]

One thing that caught my mind is

Doesn't the LSX engines operate with less spring pressure's than race Pontiacs?

Maybe mild street roller Pontiac spring pressure's are on par with race LSX engines?

Could be a long term reliability here?

Yeah I know many many miles on LSX engines but you take a part out of a successful environment and put it in another environment doesn't always mean success

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Formulas

One thing that caught my mind is

Doesn't the LSX engines operate with less spring pressure's than race Pontiacs?

They operate with less spring pressure than a "street" Pontiac in stock form!!

For starters, The very low mile LS engines I've done camshaft swaps in have stock beehive springs in them that were lucky to check just over 90 lbs. seat pressure, which is why those rollers live a long happy life. You can't even successfully run a decent flat tappet camshaft in a Pontiac with those springs pressures. So we don't even have to talk about race engines here.

When upgrading the camshafts in them years back, we went straight for a double spring with about 130 lbs. on the seat. The valvetrain in the LS engines are much lighter than Pontiacs, so they work well with a little less spring pressures on aftermarket camshafts than what you would typically see today, especially in engines with heavier valvetrains. I've run those engines like that for another 80,000 miles with the original lifters still in place without a problem, and spin them near 7000 rpm.
In a Pontiac with a pretty heavy valve train you are looking at 150 lbs. on the seat and somewhere around 360-380 open on a fairly mild hydraulic roller to control the valvetrain, even at lower 5-6000 rpm levels. I've had no issues with this either. My BBC has been together for the last 20 years with those springs without failure.