[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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...

[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.

[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

[JLMounce]

I’m no LS expert but my understanding is that they don’t really start to look at lifter upgrades until things start getting pretty wild.

The sloppy stage 2 type cams usually get something like a pac1219 installed with them. Pretty basic 5.3 or 6.0 cam swap there and they run about 150-160 on the seat and about 350 open.

Those are pressures that are fairly similar to the hyd roller stuff being run in Pontiac engines, and the LS stuff doesn’t seem to have a high failure rate on their parts at this level.

[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.

[blueghoast]

So how ya keep them from spining?

GT.

[JC455]

If you look at my previous video, it was referencing Jim Lehart's original plan of using the Ford roller 302 parts, but modified.
There are a few posts and video links here from other users about his setup;
There's a plate system being brought to market;
I'm working on my own setup for retaining them too, but it's taking more time than I anticipated.

[GoatZillaRacing]

One area you don't hear about with the drop in Hyd Roller Lifters is the lifter body going below the oil feed hole in the lifter bore. The measurement is 2.000 from the base circle of the roller cam to the top of the oil feed hole in the lifter bore. This measurement is based on a 1.080 base circle cam.
Using our big .400 lobe lift cams, the Gaterman 1012 lifters still have a little room to spare as pictured in the first two pictures. The Sealed Power HT2148 lifters will expose the oil hole and spurt oil when the cam is on the base circle.
Our .377 lobe lift cams have a 1.135 base circle and work fine with either lifter.
Test your setup prior to firing it up by installing the cam and just placing the lifters in the bores. Keep the valley pan off and use your oil priming tool to prelube the engine and you'll see if it's losing oil. Some oil seepage around the lifter body is to be expected but if it looks like the Clampet's striking oil on the Beverly Hillbillies, you're asking for a rod or main bearing failure.
The key is to use a Hyd Roller cam with a 1.135 base circle or larger on a HT2148 lifter. Let me be clear, it will run regardless but at continued high RPM it will pump the oil to the top and bearings are going to suffer.
For anyone who has built an engine with these lifters and a large hyd roller cam, IF you don't know your cams base circle dimension, call your cam manufacturer and find out.
The hobby can't afford any more Pontiac blocks being destroyed.
Pics on our page at facebook.com/pontiacspeedshop

[GoatZillaRacing]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

Randy, I have a Crower solid roller I'd like to try this setup on, to your knowledge has anyone used this type hydraulic lifters on a solid roller cam? Is there any reason not to try this adaption.

One of the big negatives I see to this is that most solid rollers have a small base circle and that would not work. Min base circle with Sealed Power lifters is 1.135, 1.080 with Gatermans.
The setup I ran back in the 80s was set of tall round bodied solid lifters with the internal link bars removed and the bodies cut on one side to "ride" on the plate. Very crude but worked great!

[Stuart]

If some of the posts are confusing or seem repetitive, there were multiple threads on this same topic that have been merged together.

[krisr]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

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.

When I had my LS3 apart to do a valve spring and camshaft swap, I weighed the intake valves to compare against my 2.11 stainless valves.

Stock LS3 - 88 grams
F6189 (machined down to 2.11 w/30deg seat)- 147 grams

And that's JUST the valve!

[Murf]

Originally Posted by krisr

When I had my LS3 apart to do a valve spring and camshaft swap, I weighed the intake valves to compare against my 2.11 stainless valves.



Stock LS3 - 88 grams

F6189 (machined down to 2.11 w/30deg seat)- 147 grams



And that's JUST the valve!

Good info krisr! I have a couple questions for anyone that cares to reply.

1. Does the weight of the complete valvetrain affect the spring pressure required? I assume it does.

2. Would the use of beehive springs help fight the possibility of overloading the lifters & are there compatible beehives available?

3. Are there any relatively light 2.11 intake valves available at a somewhat reasonable price?

Thanks
Murf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by krisr

When I had my LS3 apart to do a valve spring and camshaft swap, I weighed the intake valves to compare against my 2.11 stainless valves.

Stock LS3 - 88 grams
F6189 (machined down to 2.11 w/30deg seat)- 147 grams

And that's JUST the valve!

I don't know the ls stuff that well, do they run titanium valves? What size valves are they?