Hydraulic roller lifters !

429 460 based engine NOT WORTH THE HASSLE to use hyd roller lifter/cam.

BOSS 429 wrote:429 460 based engine NOT WORTH THE HASSLE  to use hyd roller lifter/cam.

Why don't you just let folks decide for themselves what's worth the hassle and what's not. We get it. You don't like hyd rollers in BB Fords.

JBR-3 wrote:Mr Freelander:
What valvesprings were in your engine ? Specs, if not secret ?

I don't remember the part number but they where a Circle track endurance roller spring, nothing crazy and we only needed to spin 7000 so didn't need anything big.

cletus66 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:Shaft or Bolt-down fulcrum rockers, (like the Yella Terra rockerss), will alleviate the sideways motion at the roller tip.

Otherwise ... don't use a hydraulic roller lifter in any BBF expectant of long term valve guide reliability.

For clarification...from the article....


“I don’t know how long I would trust them on the street,” Freelander said,

I have never had the opportunity to run them for 10-20k on the street and see how everything lives

.

dfree383 wrote:

cletus66 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:Shaft or Bolt-down fulcrum rockers, (like the Yella Terra rockerss), will alleviate the sideways motion at the roller tip.

Otherwise ... don't use a hydraulic roller lifter in any BBF expectant of long term valve guide reliability.

For clarification...from the article....


“I don’t know how long I would trust them on the street,” Freelander said,

I have never had the opportunity to run them for 10-20k on the street and see how everything lives

Which is the nature of the Engine Masters Challenge. It worked for what you needed and made the power. How many guys get 20K miles out of an 800+ HP naturally aspirated mill anyway? It wasn't the point of your particular build. I love this stuff. I'm curious to see what kind of longevity Scotty will get from his hyd roller cams with solid roller lifters. He has been playing with that for a while now.

I have a whole pile of 572 parts that I have procured from Lem over the years, and I am watching every angle of this stuff. Actually, the only big thing I'm lacking is the valvetrain from the cam to the valves. I really appreciate what all of you guys do when you build these things.

[quote="Scott Foxwell"]

BOSS 429 wrote:429 460 based engine NOT WORTH THE HASSLE  to use hyd roller lifter/cam.

Why don't you just let folks decide for themselves what's worth the hassle and what's not. We get it. You don't like hyd rollers in BB Fords.





BECAUSE I'm the other guy,I prefer to stop people from wasting their time, money, hurting parts, and killing a good engine.

JBR-3 wrote:OK, maybe something like 200 lbs seat & maybe 700 lbs @ .800" lift ? Maybe jog a memory ?

225-250 seat 650-675 nose ish

I'm not an engineer by any measure, but it just "seems" to me that a Short body hydraulic roller lifter could be designed. One that would be no taller than a mechanical roller lifter, therefore reducing the side loading of the lifter bore, and the acute push rod angle to the point of being somewhat "acceptable". Am I missing something with my "pipe dream"? I would LOVE to be able to run a hydraulic roller 460 for a long duration in my 60 Starliner cruiser!

Wayne Pearce wrote:I'm not an engineer by any measure, but it just "seems" to me that a Short body hydraulic roller lifter could be designed. One that would be no taller than a mechanical roller lifter, therefore reducing the side loading of the lifter bore, and the acute push rod angle to the point of being somewhat "acceptable".  Am I missing something with my "pipe dream"?  I would LOVE to be able to run a hydraulic roller 460 for a long duration in my 60 Starliner cruiser!

If it is to be a HYDRAULIC lifter then there needs to be a hydraulic mechanism inside the lifter so, put a roller on the bottom of a hydraulic flat lifter and that is what you get; a taller lifter pushrod button, by about 5/8 of an inch.

BOSS 429 wrote:

BECAUSE I'm the other guy,I prefer to stop people from wasting their time, money, hurting parts, and killing a good engine.

LOL...

Scott Foxwell wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

BECAUSE I'm the other guy,I prefer to stop people from wasting their time, money, hurting parts, and killing a good engine.

LOL...

Guess the rest of us are the only ones moving up into the 90's at this point......

dfree383 wrote:
Guess the rest of us are the only ones moving up into the 90's at this point......

True enough. The better hydro rollers (some are better than others) are certainly an option in this century.
However, saying solid roller lifter option is being stuck in the 90's is utter nonsense.
Solid roller lifter design is FAR better than they were in the 90's. There have been many advances in solid roller lifters over the last few years.
One must not think a hydro roller is the only lifter that will survive. It is more about lobe design and using a newer solid roller lifter design that will allow longevity not seen in the 90's. The bushing lifters have advanced, as have the needle designs - and materials used.
Sure running an aggressive lobe profile with a hydro or solid roller cam is not going to last 10's of thousands of miles. However, a well designed lobe profile for an endurance application along with a solid or hydraulic roller can be used with success.

What the hell do I know?

It's always been about lobe intensity and spring pressures

And having realistic rpm expectations, big truck diesels have used solid rollers for years, but guess what, mild lobes, tight last, low rpm light springs and lifters designed and sized to go the distance.

Yes solid roller tight lash with mild lobes and reasonable spring pressures would be ideal but. How do you drive the oil pump and distributor without using a bronze gear as a wear item? I would happily run a solid roller cam if I could leave it untouched for 100,00 miles!! Don't mind adjusting valves.

Run a single stage external pump

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:Yes solid roller tight lash with mild lobes and reasonable spring pressures would be ideal but. How do you drive the oil pump and distributor without using a bronze gear as a wear item? I would happily run a solid roller cam if I could leave it untouched for 100,00 miles!! Don't mind adjusting valves.

It's called an everwear cam core with an iron distributor gear pressed on the back of the cam.

Scott Foxwell wrote:
It's called an everwear cam core with an iron distributor gear pressed on the back of the cam.

Back of the cam???

jasonf wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:
It's called an everwear cam core with an iron distributor gear pressed on the back of the cam.

Back of the cam???

lol, chevy guy,lolol

dfree383 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

BECAUSE I'm the other guy,I prefer to stop people from wasting their time, money, hurting parts, and killing a good engine.

LOL...

Guess the rest of us are the only ones moving up into the 90's at this point......

better check the date on your calendar, its the 2000s.

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:Yes solid roller tight lash with mild lobes and reasonable spring pressures would be ideal but. How do you drive the oil pump and distributor without using a bronze gear as a wear item? I would happily run a solid roller cam if I could leave it untouched for 100,00 miles!! Don't mind adjusting valves.

We get a few years out of the gear, works just fine.

68galaxie wrote:

dfree383 wrote:
Guess the rest of us are the only ones moving up into the 90's at this point......

True enough. The better hydro rollers (some are better than others) are certainly an option in this century.
However, saying solid roller lifter option is being stuck in the 90's is utter nonsense.
Solid roller lifter design is FAR better than they were in the 90's. There have been many advances in solid roller lifters over the last few years.
One must not think a hydro roller is the only lifter that will survive. It is more about lobe design and using a newer solid roller lifter design that will allow longevity not seen in the 90's. The bushing lifters have advanced, as have the needle designs - and materials used.
Sure running an aggressive lobe profile with a hydro or solid roller cam is not going to last 10's of thousands of miles. However, a well designed lobe profile for an endurance application along with a solid or hydraulic roller can be used with success.

What the hell do I know?

seems there needs to be a like button somewhere here

jasonf wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:
It's called an everwear cam core with an iron distributor gear pressed on the back of the cam.

Back of the cam???

LOL...Freudian slip. Sorry.

68galaxie wrote:

dfree383 wrote:
Guess the rest of us are the only ones moving up into the 90's at this point......

True enough. The better hydro rollers (some are better than others) are certainly an option in this century.
However, saying solid roller lifter option is being stuck in the 90's is utter nonsense.
Solid roller lifter design is FAR better than they were in the 90's. There have been many advances in solid roller lifters over the last few years.
One must not think a hydro roller is the only lifter that will survive. It is more about lobe design and using a newer solid roller lifter design that will allow longevity not seen in the 90's. The bushing lifters have advanced, as have the needle designs - and materials used.
Sure running an aggressive lobe profile with a hydro or solid roller cam is not going to last 10's of thousands of miles. However, a well designed lobe profile for an endurance application along with a solid or hydraulic roller can be used with success.

What the hell do I know?

No more nonsense than saying a hyd. roller is a waste of time and money on a 385 series Ford.

BOSS 429 wrote:

jasonf wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:
It's called an everwear cam core with an iron distributor gear pressed on the back of the cam.

Back of the cam???

lol, chevy guy,lolol

I was a Ford guy long before I was ever a Chevy guy. Truth is, I'll never be a Chevy guy. It's just what I work on most.