[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by rohrt

Is it not as simple as putting a small ruler down the lifter bore and taking a measure from the cam base to the oil hole and comparing to the lifter?

Yes, and this is where you will find the oil band sits below the oil hole while on the base circle. If the oil band was raised high enough to reach the oil hole while on the base circle, you wouldn't be able to run much more than .300" lobe lift before the oil band pokes out the top of the lifter bore.

[pontibeast]

I am going to be right at the edge of that I guess with .389 and .391 lobe lift. It's running Crower Hippo solid's so I am not sure if that is different with the oil requirements.

[ponjohn]

Originally Posted by pontibeast

I am going to be right at the edge of that I guess with .389 and .391 lobe lift. It's running Crower Hippo solid's so I am not sure if that is different with the oil requirements.

No they don't have to pump up. You'll be fine.

[Gator67]

Originally Posted by gtofreek

No. The real problem, I've determined, is the fact that with todays higher lobe lift roller cams, the lifter companies cannot put the oil band high enough to reach the oil hole while on the base circle, otherwise the oil band will stick out the top of the lifter bore at full lift. That wasn't a problem with factory Pontiac cams as they had very little lobe lift by comparison.

My theory on why some are quiet, and some are noisy is this:
I think the quiet ones have more than .002" lifter to lifter bore clearance. The noisy ones I feel are under .002". I say this because in this particular engine that I wrote this thread about, has .0017"-.0018" lifter bore clearance. When I primed this engine with the valley pan off, it just had a very thin, light film of oil coming out the bottom of the lifter[with 10-40 Brad Penn oil]. When I primed an engine that had .0025" clearance, it had a thick, heavy film of oil gushing down out of the lifter bore, completely engulfing the roller lifter and cam lobe in oil[with 20-50 Brad Penn]. This tells me that with tighter clearances, there may not be enough oil volume, when the lifter is on the base circle, to properly refill the lifter in the short period of time the lifter sits there. With more clearance, the oil volume may be just enough to refill the lifter, resulting in quiet operation. On this particular engine, with tight clearance, the lifters refill fine while the engine is just cranking over on the starter, but once it starts running, it slowly bleeds the lifter down, until it's noisy, and it can't refill in time to start opening again.

Will lighter oil help with the tight clearance situation? I ask because I have the older version of the Comp HR lifters in one of my cars, and they're noisy until the engine gets warm, but not during the summer months when the temps are above 100. I only noticed the change this year when I switched from Brad Penn 15-40 to 10-30. I may switch to an even lighter oil...maybe a fully synthetic 5-30...if the clacking returns with the cooler weather.

[tooski]

Originally Posted by gtofreek

Yes, and this is where you will find the oil band sits below the oil hole while on the base circle. If the oil band was raised high enough to reach the oil hole while on the base circle, you wouldn't be able to run much more than .300" lobe lift before the oil band pokes out the top of the lifter bore.

Then how was the 'new' 857s CC roller lifters redesigned to alleviate the noisy lifter problem?

[FrankieT/A]

So bottom line what is the answer to all this? I need to buy HR lifters in the near future... I would like quiet operation. Is this all just a crap shoot? I really don't want to go roller then be PO'ed at myself... I would like to go with the bushed stile as opposed to needles, but anybody's are upward of $1000.00. An expensive learning lesson in my opinion. Does anybody guarantee quiet? The cam I'm looking at has almost .600 lift with 1.5 rockers. Is the trick to go to a lower lobe lift and go to 1.65 rockers to make up the difference?

[tom s]

I will repeat!I have used the new Comp Hyd rollers in my last 3 engines,just replaced a set of solid rollers on a Hyd roller cam with them.My 366 engine made HP to just under 7K.I run 150-160 on the seats.2 of the engines have the 400 lobe lift Hyd roller cams.I run 10-30 moble 1.If I was to build another engine it would have the same setup.Your results could be diff.Tom

[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by Gator67

Will lighter oil help with the tight clearance situation? I ask because I have the older version of the Comp HR lifters in one of my cars, and they're noisy until the engine gets warm, but not during the summer months when the temps are above 100. I only noticed the change this year when I switched from Brad Penn 15-40 to 10-30. I may switch to an even lighter oil...maybe a fully synthetic 5-30...if the clacking returns with the cooler weather.

The engine I started this thread over, did not get quiet with thinner oil. I thought it might help, and so did the guy at Morel, but it didn't stop the noise. Only when we cut a relief to reach the oil hole did it get better.

[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by tooski

Then how was the 'new' 857s CC roller lifters redesigned to alleviate the noisy lifter problem?

I don't know. We don't use Comp lifters. We have seen too many failures with them to use them. Too many axles coming out and destroying engines. A 455 we just fixed had Comp lifters that came apart. Luckily it was caught in time before it ruined the block. The lifter band is still low I'm sure, because like I said, if it was high enough to reach the oil hole on the base circle, it will poke out the top of the lifter bore at .400" lobe lift. On the lifters we raised the oil band .150", they almost come out the top of the lifter bore with only .356" lobe lift. They are .025" away from coming out. The relief cut we made in those lifters just barely reaches the oil hole in the block.

[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by FrankieT/A

So bottom line what is the answer to all this? I need to buy HR lifters in the near future... I would like quiet operation. Is this all just a crap shoot? I really don't want to go roller then be PO'ed at myself... I would like to go with the bushed stile as opposed to needles, but anybody's are upward of $1000.00. An expensive learning lesson in my opinion. Does anybody guarantee quiet? The cam I'm looking at has almost .600 lift with 1.5 rockers. Is the trick to go to a lower lobe lift and go to 1.65 rockers to make up the difference?

You need to elongate the oil hole like we did in post #263 on the previous page. We made that modification, and used the Hylift-Johnson hydraulic roller lifters, and it was nice and quiet.

[tom s]

Paul,Morels like many Hyd roller lifters are SBC like many other mfg.They confirmed that with me,just diff link bars.SBCs have been a problem with both HFT and SFT forever depending where their oil band is.As Dave posted pics back on a early page the diff of the early 857 and the current 857 is much diff.Tom

[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by tom s

I will repeat!I have used the new Comp Hyd rollers in my last 3 engines,just replaced a set of solid rollers on a Hyd roller cam with them.My 366 engine made HP to just under 7K.I run 150-160 on the seats.2 of the engines have the 400 lobe lift Hyd roller cams.I run 10-30 moble 1.If I was to build another engine it would have the same setup.Your results could be diff.Tom

I'm guessing your engine has more than .002" lifter bore clearance and that is why they work. Without raising the oil band, I don't see how the new lifters can be any better than the old ones, except for maybe they did something to retain the axle better. We still won't buy them because of past issues we have seen. Makes you gun shy, you know.

[tom s]

Paul,they changed their builder.I know the engine I just put them in is way tighter than 2.As I said I was worried about it was just tired of working on it and wanted to drive it.I put it together with the outer solid roller springs which had me worried after some told me what happens if you break one.Had a friend do the change over to duals in his shop as I was too lazy.160 lb at a 1.920 IH.Have put a lot of miles on it now with extended trips.I guess after 4 sets with no issues I have faith in them,enough to to put a lot of street miles on them in a virtually erreplaceable 366 NASCAR RA V engine.Tom

[gtofreek]

Well hopefully they have them figured out now. I wonder who makes them. Do they oil good to the rockers? Have you actually checked to see if the oil band comes out of the top of the lifter bore? Also, have you measured any of the oil band heights, and compared it from the cam lobe to the oil hole to see where the top of the oil band sits? I'm just curious of these measurements for more knowledge and understanding of what's going on here. My theories, are just that. Theories based off of the measurements I got off of the few blocks I have here. I do not have a RAV 366 block to check. Maybe they are significantly different in these areas than a stock block. After all, those blocks were designed for NASCAR use, so they may have modified oil hole placement, and lifter bore heights to accommodate NASCAR type cam profiles. I just don't know about that as I have never even seen a RAV 366 block in person, let alone measured lifter bore specs from one. :^]

[69 Limelight]

Page # 8 of this thread, post # 143.

[gtofreek]

Yes, I saw that, but the picture doesn't tell me where the oil band sits compared to the oil hole, at base circle, or if it comes out of the top of the lifter bore at full lift on a .390" or .400" lobe. According to my measurements, if the oil band is in the oil hole at base circle, the oil band will poke out the top of the lifter bore at full lift on lobe pushing the .400" lift mark. Maybe my measurements where wrong. I will double check them when I get to work.

[tom s]

I did not do the builds on the engine.The engine I just did the swap I did check to see if it came above the block and it did not.It is a generic 4 bolt 428 block.As I said under 2 thou.Had oil around the lifters,plenty up top and carries 35 plus at 1100 RPMs hot idle.The pump has been in the engine for 18 years.This cam is not the 400 lobe lift,touch under as I recall.The 366 was not the 400 either.The 400 was in a the weak block,557? And the other is in a generic 2 bolt 69 block.In the last 18 or so years the only valve train issues I have had was with a set of Isky solids on a Hyd roller where the needles were going away.caught it in time,had the rebuilt and just removed them from the engine I made the switch.The other was with the lash caps going away on the same engine,caught that it time also.Tom

[rohrt]

Paul this may be a dumb question but is there any reason a person could just grind a small 1/4 channel like you did with a dremel? They make some nice small round bits that seem like they would work.

[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by rohrt

Paul this may be a dumb question but is there any reason a person could just grind a small 1/4 channel like you did with a dremel? They make some nice small round bits that seem like they would work.

Sure, that's all we did, only we used a 1/4 head porting die grinder.

[rohrt]

I spent hours studying this thread and taking notes. There is really some good information here. Great job for bringing this information to light Paul.

I don't think I saw what lobe lift exceeds the cam journal?

I also didn't see what lift would cause the oil band to come out of the bore? I'm sure it would depend if you were using the new Comp Cam HR with the 1.7 oil band height or the morels (as I understand it they have their oil hold at 1.56)

On a side note I talked with my engine builder and he has been changing the old Comp Cams with Lunati(Morels) with great success. He may not know about the new Comp Cam lifter by Shaver Specialties.

I plan on calling Comp Cams on Tuesday and see if there is anything they can do for me. I have had mine in for 5 years now with lots of startup ticking.