[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Murf

It will be interesting to see where they place the oil band on the Pontiac spec’ed lifters.

Murf

Probably the same place they already put the oil band on the correct Pontiac "S" lifters would be my guess. Those work perfectly fine.

[mgarblik]

If you look at the "cartridge" closely, it looks like an existing lash adjuster from any one of a million different OHC modern engines. My guess is Comp is buying this "cartridge" from an OE supplier and sticking it in their own lifter body of lesser tolerance where it should still function. It's an innovative and low cost solution to a noisy lifter issue I guess. Time will tell how it actually works in practice. I hope they spent some time on the Spintron testing it.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

If you look at the "cartridge" closely, it looks like an existing lash adjuster from any one of a million different OHC modern engines. My guess is Comp is buying this "cartridge" from an OE supplier and sticking it in their own lifter body of lesser tolerance where it should still function. It's an innovative and low cost solution to a noisy lifter issue I guess. Time will tell how it actually works in practice. I hope they spent some time on the Spintron testing it.

That's something they didn't mention and what I'd be more interested in.

[Tom Vaught]

Nice to see Mark Campbell in the Video.
At one time he worked for Holley Engineering in Michigan many years ago.
For a while he worked for Gale Banks in California. I am sure he has worked several other places over the years but now he is a VP in Comp Cams/Edelbrock.

I was not aware that the Edelbrock group owned Comp cams now.

As far as the "new" lifter design goes, it looks like they built some additional strength into the outer main body and are using
a inner cartridge produced by someone else. Just an assumption though.

Tom V.

[darbikrash]

Its great to hear Comp finally acknowledging that they have a problem with inconsistent bleed down rates- and are apparently doing something about it.

I've had about enough hearing from them that the problem is just assembly lube stuck in the bores due to sitting on the shelf. I've had lifters that range from not bleeding down at all, to near instant bleed downs, this is more than just noisy operation, it can and does affect valvetrain function.

I hope this design change allows the lifter body to be disassembled in the tie bar versions, previous versions you cannot.

What is really interesting to me is that they (finally) have taken to 100% inspecting the bleed down rates, instead of the "old school" method of trying to maintain consistency by using dimensional tolerances.. Very small changes in dimensions of these critical ID/OD's result in big differences in leak down rates, so they are conceding that a new method is needed. It's fine when you are a big OEM, with large enough production volumes you can use dimensional sorting to claw back consistent bleed down rates, apparently Comp does not make enough to use this method.

This looks pretty good to me, I'll will be giving these a try on my next build.

[Murf]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Probably the same place they already put the oil band on the correct Pontiac "S" lifters would be my guess. Those work perfectly fine.

Hi Larry! I still get confused on this . The “Shaver style” are the older ones, right? I took a pic of the lifters I have on hand.

They are the Speed Pro that’s used with the plate system, then what I think is the Shaver style and on the right the newer Comp lifters. Am I all screwed up on this?

If this is correct it would seem to me that the Shaver style would be the most likely to have trouble with a reduced base circle.

Anyone is welcome to help me out with this.

Thanks
Murf

[Murf]

Maybe right now


Well, I’m not smart enough to fix the pic
New style Comp on top, Shaver in the middle?

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Murf

Hi Larry! I still get confused on this . The “Shaver style” are the older ones, right? I took a pic of the lifters I have on hand.

They are the Speed Pro that’s used with the plate system, then what I think is the Shaver style and on the right the newer Comp lifters. Am I all screwed up on this?

If this is correct it would seem to me that the Shaver style would be the most likely to have trouble with a reduced base circle.

Anyone is welcome to help me out with this.

Thanks
Murf

Hey Murf,
I have pics of them side by side, maybe you can compare them to yours and figure this out. These are both from Comp for a Pontiac. The pair on the left are Johnson that Comp used to sell, now sometimes I think they substitute Morels. The pair on the right are the "S" lifter that Tom commonly refers to them. They are Shaver lifters.
As you can see the "S" lifters actually have the correct oil band and are slightly taller overall.
The problem I ran into was that they both (at the time) carried the same part number for a Pontiac from Comp Cam. So I would order these but you never knew what was coming in the box until you opened it. It just depends on what Comp has in stock at the time. I think that's where the problems start for people that buy these things and don't realize there are 2 different bodies floating around. Then the confusion begins.

I got to the point I wanted to make sure I was getting the "S" lifters. I bought the last set from Paul K. on the forum. Great thing about that is that Paul is nice enough to open the box, make sure they are the correct style, and then ship them to me. When in doubt, order from Paul K. They have worked and run whisper quiet for me in the Pontiacs. Tom has mentioned they are made in Southern Cal.

[Murf]

Thanks Larry do the ones on the right in your pic only have the upper part where the link bar is like the ones on the top in my pic? They look about the same to me.

That single SpeedPro in my pic seems to have the band higher than the older Comps and closer in height to the one on top in my pic.

Part of what is screwing me up is that people are talking a lot about base circle on the Speed Pros but I don’t remember much talk about it with the older lifters with the lower band. How’s that for a run on sentence? 😀

My

[tom s]

The Shaver lifter is the one that looks like a solid roller.They are made by Ron Shaver racing in So Cal.Have not got any confirmation if they are using the Shaver body.I have run them on 400 lobe lift Comp cams.Tom

[PunchT37]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Hey Murf,
I have pics of them side by side, maybe you can compare them to yours and figure this out. These are both from Comp for a Pontiac. The pair on the left are Johnson that Comp used to sell, now sometimes I think they substitute Morels. The pair on the right are the "S" lifter that Tom commonly refers to them. They are Shaver lifters.
As you can see the "S" lifters actually have the correct oil band and are slightly taller overall.
The problem I ran into was that they both (at the time) carried the same part number for a Pontiac from Comp Cam. So I would order these but you never knew what was coming in the box until you opened it. It just depends on what Comp has in stock at the time. I think that's where the problems start for people that buy these things and don't realize there are 2 different bodies floating around. Then the confusion begins.

I got to the point I wanted to make sure I was getting the "S" lifters. I bought the last set from Paul K. on the forum. Great thing about that is that Paul is nice enough to open the box, make sure they are the correct style, and then ship them to me. When in doubt, order from Paul K. They have worked and run whisper quiet for me in the Pontiacs. Tom has mentioned they are made in Southern Cal.

I`m running the Johnsons on the left. 400 lobe cam. 3/4 turn preload on 7/16 studs. No problems. Quiet. Have been to 6500 twice and 6000 many times.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Murf

Thanks Larry do the ones on the right in your pic only have the upper part where the link bar is like the ones on the top in my pic? They look about the same to me.

That single SpeedPro in my pic seems to have the band higher than the older Comps and closer in height to the one on top in my pic.

Part of what is screwing me up is that people are talking a lot about base circle on the Speed Pros but I don’t remember much talk about it with the older lifters with the lower band. How’s that for a run on sentence? 😀

My

I believe it is the same as your pic Murf. I have a couple pics of them I'll have to fish for and see if I have a back side shot.

LOL I understand what you are saying. I don't recall any discussion about base circles years ago with the older lifters. Oddly enough the short set on the left of my picture about 15 years ago were run in a 455 with a 254/262 @ .050 hydraulic roller that was around .600 lift and those things were perfectly quiet.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by PunchT37

I`m running the Johnsons on the left. 400 lobe cam. 3/4 turn preload on 7/16 studs. No problems. Quiet. Have been to 6500 twice and 6000 many times.

Nice to hear of another example, I just got done posting that those very lifters were in a 455 we ran years ago on a 254/262 @ .050 cam that was pretty rowdy and they were quiet. Dad would shift that one at 6000 quite often, had a 6300 pill in the box.

I think the Johnsons just have better internal parts and less bleed down hence they don't have problems with noise even though the oil band is a bit low.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by tom s

The Shaver lifter is the one that looks like a solid roller.They are made by Ron Shaver racing in So Cal.Have not got any confirmation if they are using the Shaver body.I have run them on 400 lobe lift Comp cams.Tom

Tom we really need to collaborate our pictures, and others on this subject and make a sticky about it. Lay all this to rest.
Seems this subject comes up all too often and everyone is confused about which is an "S" lifter, which is a Shaver and is the "S" lifter referring to Shaver, which one is a Morel or a Johnson and how the oil bands differ among all of them.

Maybe then everyone can get on the same page and know what they are looking for before they buy. Might hear about this issue a lot less.

[PunchT37]

I also don`t care for the half circle for the link bars on the "S" lifters.

[tom s]

They are so EZ to spot as the body does not extend pass the roller bearing shaft.Look like pretty much like everyones solid roller.Comp has not used the S for years now I think.Did that when they came out.Tom

[FrankieT/A]

Originally Posted by AIR RAM

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

Weight on the lifter side of the rocker arm has been proven to be of less concern than the valve side.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by tom s

They are so EZ to spot as the body does not extend pass the roller bearing shaft.Look like pretty much like everyones solid roller.Comp has not used the S for years now I think.Did that when they came out.Tom

I just bought a set of "S" Comps, couldn't have been more than a year or year and a half or so.

Either way, Steve C sent me this from Butler that has a nice explanation with pics.

https://butlerperformance.com/n-1349...formation.html

[Murf]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I just bought a set of "S" Comps, couldn't have been more than a year or year and a half or so.

Either way, Steve C sent me this from Butler that has a nice explanation with pics.

https://butlerperformance.com/n-1349...formation.html

Thanks to Steve C & Larry for that. That’s very helpful. I just wish they’d have given the measurement to the pushrod cup also.

Very good info though.

Thanks
Murf

["QUICK-SILVER"]

Originally Posted by Murf

I just wish they’d have given the measurement to the pushrod cup also.

Second line, under first set of pictures, gives seat height.

Clay