[JSchmitz]

Also it's not a direct correlation from the stud to the pushrod. There's a little more movement at the pushrod depending on the rocker arm. It's pretty damn close though. Even 3/8-24 is .042"/turn. Which is only .008"/turn difference than 7/16-20.

[Cliff R]

Before you make any sort of adjustments from zero lash down a specific number of turns check the total travel available. I've seen some show up here with a LOT of travel, and others very short travel, so they are/were making changes to the design over the years of production, or using different sources for them, etc.

In theory, IF the plunger to lifter body clearances were correct, and bleed down rates consistent, it really wouldn't matter if you set them at 1/8 turn, 1/2 turn or full turn or more. Based on the premise that a liquid (oil) is basically not compressible any adjustment within the range of plunger travel should yield the same results. or basically they should work the same. In the real World however the tolerances in many of these parts aren't as good as what we used to see and they need to be set deeper in the bodies so you don't get a "ticker" or two when fully warmed up.......Cliff

[JSchmitz]

Other factors are oil viscocity/temperature, oil pressure/flow. I've seen machine hydraulics over-travel when they were cold on start-up because the valves don't shift as quickly in the cold fluid.

[nmoreilly]

Got the Johnson / Hylift installed and they seem to be relatively quiet with 0.025-0.030 of pre-load and no issues so far. Will try and post a video. Now tackling another problem - intermittent miss around 3K on par throttle, no issues with load. Investigation EFI / ignition issues. The motor did sit for a while so it could just be dirty injectors. Holley HP EFI ECU / MSD 6AL box, dual purpose distributor and crank trigger.

[AG]

Originally Posted by JSchmitz

The old half turn adjustment approach doesn't work on Comp Cams 857 lifters. I tried a few adjustments and 1-1/4 worked best. Which is consistent with the INSTRUCTIONS. Lifters require .050"-.100" preload (7/16-20 thread = .050"/turn).

I don't know where those instructions come from, but if you buy new CC 857 HR lifters these are the instructions you get.

[tom s]

I just had my 434 RA V engine on the dyno friday.We did 29 pulls on it with the 857 lifters with no issue.We only pulled them to 6200,made peak HP right at 6000.The builder wanted me to run his 20-50 breakin oil.Ran it for 21 pulls and then put in 1-30 Mobil 1 and a filter change.FWIW,Tom

[64speed]

There seems to me like two conflicting things going on in this whole forum. One post will have you believe that roller is the only way to go and that nothing can beat it and I use the ol faithful or Lunati lobes or comp.....blah blah blah. Then within 3 pages there is a post about lifter tick at least if not outright failure like this post. Are they really selling us that much junk and if so why are we buying it? If my engine ticks a little that’s ok but I plan to drive this car thousands of miles a year. Now y’all have me in fear of a million needle bearings falling into the engine at any given time. It’s a little disheartening cause it makes you think why didn’t I just stick with a HFT.

[tom s]

You made the choice!No one put a gun to your head!Tom

[HWYSTR455]

Originally Posted by darbikrash

The last engine build earlier this year I used Comp 857 rollers. During assembly, I tried something different, I made an aluminum bushing for the distributor hole and rigged up a cheap Harbor Freight drill to run the oil pump hands off while I set the lifter preload.

Nothing but problems with the lifters. I did check the oil band location carefully, and it was fine, at least with my cam (OF 2).

Could not get the all the lifters set properly. So I rigged up a flat steel plate that bolted into the valve cover threaded holes and set up a dial indicator to measure movement on the valve tip while I adjusted the lifters.

With the lifters pumped up (oil pump spinning), you would expect the ½ turn lash adjustment to move the valve stem tip downward as the oil in the lifter body is incompressible and it hasn't had time to bleed down. Something has to move, and it is the valve stem. This means the valve is being held open as confirmed by the dial indicator.

Now, when you turn off the oil pump (drill motor), you expect the lifter to bleed down, allowing the valve to seat.

Watching the dial indicator, most of them did. Some did not. All bled down at different rates, some within a few seconds, other took 15 minutes. Some never did come down- leaving the valve slightly open.

This is tolerance wander pure and simple, and it means these lifters are pretty much junk.

I adjusted them the best I could, hoping that maybe they would clean up with some run time.

On the dyno at Westech, we had more lifter problems with poor valve seating. The “fix” is to adjust the lifter with zero lash so the valve is not held open. Which means it's going to be noisy and tick. Not very encouraging for a new engine.

The guys at Westech dyno hundreds of engines and they said this lifter business is an epidemic. That day, they had a car on the chassis dyno with a collapsed lifter, and another on the next engine cell also with a lifter problem.

They told me that they have tested extensively, and in their opinion the only lifter with acceptable tolerances is the Crane. Which is almost double the cost of the Comp 857.

Same issue here as you and AG had, during adjustment, 5 collapsed. I worked them some and ran the primer 3 times, rotating intervals, 3 came back, 2 didn't. Pulled them, and one even has the spring cup tilted in the body, it's insane. These are the Shaver Comps. Can't see how the cup/body tolerance can be so sloppy that the cup can tilt in there, but it did.

I ordered a set of Morels, I run them in the Olds and are fine. Sometimes when it's hot, put it in gear, slight dip in RPM, you get a slight tick or two, but that's it.

I looked at the Johnsons in a friend's engine, and they looked fine, but you really can't tell by looking at them. It is together and running, no tickers.

I've had great luck with the Crower HIPPO solid rollers, have mentioned that several times, 90k harsh street miles and no issues.

.

.

[JSchmitz]

Originally Posted by AG

I don't know where those instructions come from, but if you buy new CC 857 HR lifters these are the instructions you get.

You're correct. I stand corrected. I just checked my supplied instructions. They do say 1/2 turn. The instructions that I posted I found online. These instructions do include 857-16. However, my lifters were quite noisy at 1/2 turn. Much better at 1-1/4. You know, since it's my first hand experience, it's irrefutable!

http://www.manualsdir.com/manuals/67...16-hydrau.html

[HWYSTR455]

Lunatis are reboxed Morels, Spotts told me that's all he uses, and has great results. He's done plenty of them. Aside from the johnsons an cranes, probably the best choice out there.


.

[64speed]

Originally Posted by tom s

You made the choice!No one put a gun to your head!Tom

As usual a fountain of knowledge

[Steve C.]

The issue is the acceleration/velocity rates on the opening and closing ramps, right off the base circle. To make the cams look better in the catalog, Comp has no "Hydraulic ramps" on either side of the lobe, to gently start moving the lifter to the point the hydr unit goes solid, and starts moving the valve. This gives the profile a real short "Hydraulic Intensity" number, for all the yahoos that think that means something. Problem is, without the ramp, the velocity at which the valve leaves the seat, and is set back down on the seat, is as much as 10 times higher then a standard hydr roller profile.
That's gonna be noisy.

Force= Mass x Acceleration

Different lifters, springs or Pushrods aren't going to change the force, at which the valve hits the seat.

Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs



.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by AG

I don't know where those instructions come from, but if you buy new CC 857 HR lifters these are the instructions you get.

That's why I mentioned it earlier. The 1/2 turn is so generic and will yield different results depending on the stud you're using. 1/2 turn with a 7/16-20 stud is only .025"

I generally research the brand of particular lifter I'm using and look for the measured preload suggestion, rather than the amount of turns at the wrench.

The last set of lifters I used, I went just a little past 1/2 turn using a dial indicator for .035" preload, as the information I found was .030-.050" preload. 1/2 turn would not have given me that and most likely would have been noisy.
They are working just fine.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

The issue is the acceleration/velocity rates on the opening and closing ramps, right off the base circle. To make the cams look better in the catalog, Comp has no "Hydraulic ramps" on either side of the lobe, to gently start moving the lifter to the point the hydr unit goes solid, and starts moving the valve. This gives the profile a real short "Hydraulic Intensity" number, for all the yahoos that think that means something. Problem is, without the ramp, the velocity at which the valve leaves the seat, and is set back down on the seat, is as much as 10 times higher then a standard hydr roller profile.
That's gonna be noisy.

Force= Mass x Acceleration

Different lifters, springs or Pushrods aren't going to change the force, at which the valve hits the seat.

Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs



.

Yep, and one of the things that Harold talked about. I spoke with Paul about some of that on the voodoo lobes and how Harold sets the valve down gently, much like the OEM did, so they aren't as noisy.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by 64speed

There seems to me like two conflicting things going on in this whole forum. One post will have you believe that roller is the only way to go and that nothing can beat it and I use the ol faithful or Lunati lobes or comp.....blah blah blah. Then within 3 pages there is a post about lifter tick at least if not outright failure like this post. Are they really selling us that much junk and if so why are we buying it? If my engine ticks a little that’s ok but I plan to drive this car thousands of miles a year. Now y’all have me in fear of a million needle bearings falling into the engine at any given time. It’s a little disheartening cause it makes you think why didn’t I just stick with a HFT.

I don't think the hydraulic roller lifter failure is as wide spread as you may be led to believe on this forum. The biggest issue on this forum with hydraulic roller lifters is the noise which is caused by a couple of different issues. Mainly the internal clearances and bleed down rates making lifter preload adjustments tricky, and the fact that we are playing with an engine that's been out of production since 1981 and the correct lifter bodies aren't made by everyone. Out of all of them I've used, with various brands, and it's been many, I've never had one flat out collapse. I've never had a noisy set either.

Flat out failure with needle bearings everywhere that you're worried about is not a common failure. It does happen, as the OP shows, but it's not a wide spread epidemic. Engine builders see it more often, but they are building 100's of engines a year of various brands, and there is definitely a quality difference among some brands. I think Paul's issue with those lifters in particular the OP is using, is the lifter body breaking at the pin, which looks like what may have happened to the OP.
For hobbyist like us it's few and far between. I'll still use hydraulic rollers in Pontiacs, I'm not worried much about roller bearing failure with a hydraulic. I stick with a good brand recommended by an engine builder that sees this sort of thing on a daily basis, and pay close attention to preload, oil band location if necessary, and lifter bore mods if necessary, and just run with it.

What I find interesting is looking at all the OEM's on the roads with 100's of thousands of miles using roller cams. When I was into the LS engines we'd stab camshafts in 100k mile engines and just reuse the lifters and go another 100k miles. My sons little 5.0 mustang still has it's stock rollers in it with 246,000 miles now. Whisper quiet to 6,000 rpm.

[Cliff R]

It is best to measure the amount of pre-load as different version of these lifters are sold depending on the manufacture and date of manufacture as they have made changes to the travel of the plungers over the years.

I refuse to use anything but Johnson or Crane for HR's, and Crower HIPPO's for solids for street engines. ZERO issues with any of them to date.

Every single time I've assembled and dyno'd an engine when the customer bought everything and just hired us to build it we've ran into noise issues with the Morel's. Also ran into high RPM issues with them even with adequate spring pressures. They were still fine to 5800rpm's so not really a big deal, but a similar engine build, same cam and Crane HR's (for example) will spin right past that RPM with the same springs on it and not "shut-off" power abruptly due to lifter "crash".

I've discussed this deal many times with other engine builders and they all pretty much concur that the Comp (and most other supplied HR's) are OK but not really making the grade nor to they work nearly as well as the Johnson's. It wasn't a week or so ago that I was discussing dyno issues with an engine builder and we concurred that the issues he was seeing was with the Morel HR's. He removed them and installed Johnsons instead, didn't touch the springs or anything else and the engine pulled fine to a much higher RPM w/o any issues...FWIW.

The other difference is cost, Johnsons, Crane/Crower will be considerably more expensive, but worth every penny.....IMHO......Cliff

[Steve C.]

If interested, some older material posted by Harold that Larry mentions here and that Paul Carter has eluded to on PY before, and as he stated Harold improved with the Voodoo lobes.....


"I do all my cam designs as unsymmetrical cam designs. Although I design my hydraulics just like I do my roller profiles, The information I will give applies just to my hydraulic flat profiles.
Using Harvey Crane's Hydraulic Intensity formula, ALL my .842" tappet designs have an Hydraulic Intensity of 53.88 degrees.
This is the duration at .050" subtracted from the duration at .004", where the SAE has decided that hydraulic durations begin and end.
This Hydraulic Intensity of 53.88 is considered to be very aggressive, yet the cams do not have that 'sewing-machine' sound to them.
The opening side of the cam has a 45.26 degree equivalent Hydraulic Intensity, and the closing side is 62.50 degrees Hydaulic Intensity. The SEATING velocity of the valve is only 37% as fast as the OPENING velocity. This seating velocity is only slightly faster than GM uses on all their engines. At UltraDyne, I have had many hydraulic, as well as solids, go over 100,000 miles on the street. I keep the edge of the tappet about .018" away from the point of contact between the cam and tappet.
That 'sewing-machine' sound is caused by the valves hitting the valve seats too fast. The original High Energy cams, which I designed, produced that sound. I was shutting the valve at .0007"/*, only .0002"/* faster than GM. After hearing about the noise, a little thought made me realise the .0002"/* was only 40% faster than GM.
You do not have to shut the valve faster to keep the charge from getting out.
You have to design the cam so the charge, or inertia ram, is still filling the cylinder when you shut the valve.
Every cam I design, hydraulic, hydraulic roller, solid, solid roller, is designed using the same theory I have used for the past 29 years, and they all make excellent bottom-end torque for their duration."

UDHarold



.

[Steve C.]

"What I find interesting is looking at all the OEM's on the roads with 100's of thousands of miles using roller cams."

From Paul...They do it with mild lobes, and they only run about 80-90 lbs. of seat pressure, and just over 200 lbs. open. That's how they get away with it. Performance cams will not run very long with these spring pressures.

And related to "splash lube" in conjunction with any low rpm idle issue. It does not effect OEM hydraulic roller lifters or aftermarket hydraulic roller lifters. It's a solid roller lifter concern.


.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

"What I find interesting is looking at all the OEM's on the roads with 100's of thousands of miles using roller cams."

From Paul...They do it with mild lobes, and they only run about 80-90 lbs. of seat pressure, and just over 200 lbs. open. That's how they get away with it. Performance cams will not run very long with these spring pressures.

And related to "splash lube" in conjunction with any low rpm idle issue. It does not effect OEM hydraulic roller lifters or aftermarket hydraulic roller lifters. It's a solid roller lifter concern.


.

Yep, I'm speaking of the hydraulic roller lifters specifically. Solids are a whole different ball game with much more spring pressure.

Speaking of spring pressures, we'd swap the springs with those cam swaps as well, although I neglected to mention that I thought it went without saying. The performance cams weren't going to spin 6500 rpm without a spring change to go with it