Hydraulic roller lifters !

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

BOSS 429 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

Old habits die hard..... EFI will never be successful either

BOSS 429 wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

Old habits die hard..... EFI will never be successful either

   



well your correct there, best minds in the world cant get that junk better then N.A. carbs.

But you just make comments about the hyd roller,and haven't  showed  why  in a BB FORD they are better  then others?    

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

I don't think guys that want to run hyd roller expect or need solid roller performance numbers. We don't want big lobes, high lifts, and high spring pressures. We choose great heads because we wanted something more modern than what factory cast iron offered plus more forgiving on pump gas with higher compression and more timing. Not everyone on this forum drag racers time slips some of us want to enjoy driving what we build than it sitting in the shop collecting dust just to drive less than 10 miles on the weekend. A lifetime of pleasure is worth more than a few seconds of glory.

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

Old habits die hard..... EFI will never be successful either

   



well your correct there, best minds in the world cant get that junk better then N.A. carbs.

But you just make comments about the hyd roller,and haven't  showed  why  in a BB FORD they are better  then others?    

Rich, you do it your way, I'll do it mine, occasionally we will agree sometimes we won't.

I'm done arguing over this

BOSS 429 wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

dfree383 wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

Old habits die hard..... EFI will never be successful either

   



well your correct there, best minds in the world cant get that junk better then N.A. carbs.

But you just make comments about the hyd roller,and haven't  showed  why  in a BB FORD they are better  then others?    

Rich, you do it your way, I'll do it mine, occasionally we will agree sometimes we won't.

I'm done arguing over this

Listen,Im not arguing with you,YOUR NO DUMMY, I was just trying to get a point across .

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:
I don't think guys that want to run hyd roller expect or need solid roller performance numbers. We don't want big lobes, high lifts, and high spring pressures. We choose great heads because we wanted something more modern than what factory cast iron offered plus more forgiving on pump gas with higher compression and more timing. Not everyone on this forum drag racers time slips some of us want to enjoy driving what we build than it sitting in the shop collecting dust just to drive less than 10 miles on the weekend. A lifetime of pleasure is worth more than a few seconds of glory.

68galaxie wrote:

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:
I don't think guys that want to run hyd roller expect or need solid roller performance numbers. We don't want big lobes, high lifts, and high spring pressures. We choose great heads because we wanted something more modern than what factory cast iron offered plus more forgiving on pump gas with higher compression and more timing. Not everyone on this forum drag racers time slips some of us want to enjoy driving what we build than it sitting in the shop collecting dust just to drive less than 10 miles on the weekend. A lifetime of pleasure is worth more than a few seconds of glory.

OK if one does not need or expect solid roller performance numbers - why would you then run the added expense to run a hydraulic roller over a solid flat tappet? A hydraulic roller package is as costly or nearly as costly as a solid roller package.
There have been several flat tappet SCJ builds that have made fantastic numbers. I believe Randy M had and example as well as Lem E awhile back. EDM solid lifter and a custom cam cam make very decent power - and have the longevity you want, and much, much lower parts cost - and use a regular distributor gear for thousands of miles.

Again, I am not trying to sell anything. Use your money as you prefer.

Cheers!!

Scott Foxwell wrote:

68galaxie wrote:

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:
I don't think guys that want to run hyd roller expect or need solid roller performance numbers. We don't want big lobes, high lifts, and high spring pressures. We choose great heads because we wanted something more modern than what factory cast iron offered plus more forgiving on pump gas with higher compression and more timing. Not everyone on this forum drag racers time slips some of us want to enjoy driving what we build than it sitting in the shop collecting dust just to drive less than 10 miles on the weekend. A lifetime of pleasure is worth more than a few seconds of glory.

OK if one does not need or expect solid roller performance numbers - why would you then run the added expense to run a hydraulic roller over a solid flat tappet? A hydraulic roller package is as costly or nearly as costly as a solid roller package.
There have been several flat tappet SCJ builds that have made fantastic numbers. I believe Randy M had and example as well as Lem E awhile back. EDM solid lifter and a custom cam cam make very decent power - and have the longevity you want, and much, much lower parts cost - and use a regular distributor gear for thousands of miles.

Again, I am not trying to sell anything. Use your money as you prefer.

Cheers!!

I posted this on the first page. It seems to have been ignored.
Four major reasons to use a hyd roller over a solid in any engine.
1) Roller never loses contact with the lobe. Benefits should be self explanatory.
2) Hydraulic internals act like a shock absorber and absorb a lot of valvetrain harmonics. Again, benefits should be self explanatory.
3) No "jack hammer" effect with stud mount rockers, where lash is taken up at the stud and trunnion.
4) Pushrods are shorter. Shorter pushrods, especially on a tall deck engine, are lighter and stiffer.
Now days we have hyd. lifters that we can run solid roller lobe profiles and spring pressures on. If you have to go to shafts on the BBF to eliminate some sort of geometry issue (which I still don't buy) then so be it but the benefits of the hyd. roller lifter are universal and absolutely not a waste of time or money.
Not to mention there is no risk of a lobe going flat and ruining your engine. The risk of that happening is ten times what it was even 5 years ago as the rest of the industry moves away from flat tappet cams. Power wise, there is no comparison between a roller and flat tappet and don't tell me you can make power with a flat tappet. Of course you can. You can make power all sorts of ways but some ways are just more efficient and a lot more practical than others. If cost is that much of an issue and a roller is absolutely not an option then there is no discussion. If you're building a hot rod engine then it's discretionary money anyway. Drink a few less beers, do a side job, collect cans... it's not rocket science and it's not that difficult.

BOSS 429 wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

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.

I don't hear this from my customers. The 903 hyd rollers make for a rock solid valvetrain. You have 16 shocks riding on the cam lobes that help reduce valve train harmonics. This lifter due to valving can take some very high spring pressures which opens up the opportunities in lobe profiles.

I ask a customer if part of the hot rod experience is adjusting valves then go solid roller. If it isn't, they go hydraulic roller.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a waste of time or money for the guys who sell this stuff to people.


SPEND THE SAME MONEY TO MAKE LESS POWER, YUP, good for the guy selling  them to a bbf guy.  Yup spending money on a great pair of heads,then run less lift,and less lobe,and less spring presser then a solid,and the et slip shows slower, yup seller wins again

FORD fig it out it, thats why they only made 5 of them

hyd roller have their place, BUT not in a bbf

Scott Foxwell wrote:

68galaxie wrote:

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:
I don't think guys that want to run hyd roller expect or need solid roller performance numbers. We don't want big lobes, high lifts, and high spring pressures. We choose great heads because we wanted something more modern than what factory cast iron offered plus more forgiving on pump gas with higher compression and more timing. Not everyone on this forum drag racers time slips some of us want to enjoy driving what we build than it sitting in the shop collecting dust just to drive less than 10 miles on the weekend. A lifetime of pleasure is worth more than a few seconds of glory.

OK if one does not need or expect solid roller performance numbers - why would you then run the added expense to run a hydraulic roller over a solid flat tappet? A hydraulic roller package is as costly or nearly as costly as a solid roller package.
There have been several flat tappet SCJ builds that have made fantastic numbers. I believe Randy M had and example as well as Lem E awhile back. EDM solid lifter and a custom cam cam make very decent power - and have the longevity you want, and much, much lower parts cost - and use a regular distributor gear for thousands of miles.

Again, I am not trying to sell anything. Use your money as you prefer.

Cheers!!

I posted this on the first page. It seems to have been ignored.
Four major reasons to use a hyd roller over a solid in any engine.
1) Roller never loses contact with the lobe. Benefits should be self explanatory.
2) Hydraulic internals act like a shock absorber and absorb a lot of valvetrain harmonics. Again, benefits should be self explanatory.
3) No "jack hammer" effect with stud mount rockers, where lash is taken up at the stud and trunnion.
4) Pushrods are shorter. Shorter pushrods, especially on a tall deck engine, are lighter and stiffer.
Now days we have hyd. lifters that we can run solid roller lobe profiles and spring pressures on. If you have to go to shafts on the BBF to eliminate some sort of geometry issue (which I still don't buy) then so be it but the benefits of the hyd. roller lifter are universal and absolutely not a waste of time or money.
Not to mention there is no risk of a lobe going flat and ruining your engine. The risk of that happening is ten times what it was even 5 years ago as the rest of the industry moves away from flat tappet cams. Power wise, there is no comparison between a roller and flat tappet and don't tell me you can make power with a flat tappet. Of course you can. You can make power all sorts of ways but some ways are just more efficient and a lot more practical than others. If cost is that much of an issue and a roller is absolutely not an option then there is no discussion. If you're building a hot rod engine then it's discretionary money anyway. Drink a few less beers, do a side job, collect cans... it's not rocket science and it's not that difficult.

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:

Why no mention of less parasitic losses between flat tappets (sliding friction) vs roller came both solid and hyd.?

68galaxie wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

68galaxie wrote:

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:
I don't think guys that want to run hyd roller expect or need solid roller performance numbers. We don't want big lobes, high lifts, and high spring pressures. We choose great heads because we wanted something more modern than what factory cast iron offered plus more forgiving on pump gas with higher compression and more timing. Not everyone on this forum drag racers time slips some of us want to enjoy driving what we build than it sitting in the shop collecting dust just to drive less than 10 miles on the weekend. A lifetime of pleasure is worth more than a few seconds of glory.

OK if one does not need or expect solid roller performance numbers - why would you then run the added expense to run a hydraulic roller over a solid flat tappet? A hydraulic roller package is as costly or nearly as costly as a solid roller package.
There have been several flat tappet SCJ builds that have made fantastic numbers. I believe Randy M had and example as well as Lem E awhile back. EDM solid lifter and a custom cam cam make very decent power - and have the longevity you want, and much, much lower parts cost - and use a regular distributor gear for thousands of miles.

Again, I am not trying to sell anything. Use your money as you prefer.

Cheers!!

I posted this on the first page. It seems to have been ignored.
Four major reasons to use a hyd roller over a solid in any engine.
1) Roller never loses contact with the lobe. Benefits should be self explanatory.
2) Hydraulic internals act like a shock absorber and absorb a lot of valvetrain harmonics. Again, benefits should be self explanatory.
3) No "jack hammer" effect with stud mount rockers, where lash is taken up at the stud and trunnion.
4) Pushrods are shorter. Shorter pushrods, especially on a tall deck engine, are lighter and stiffer.
Now days we have hyd. lifters that we can run solid roller lobe profiles and spring pressures on. If you have to go to shafts on the BBF to eliminate some sort of geometry issue (which I still don't buy) then so be it but the benefits of the hyd. roller lifter are universal and absolutely not a waste of time or money.
Not to mention there is no risk of a lobe going flat and ruining your engine. The risk of that happening is ten times what it was even 5 years ago as the rest of the industry moves away from flat tappet cams. Power wise, there is no comparison between a roller and flat tappet and don't tell me you can make power with a flat tappet. Of course you can. You can make power all sorts of ways but some ways are just more efficient and a lot more practical than others. If cost is that much of an issue and a roller is absolutely not an option then there is no discussion. If you're building a hot rod engine then it's discretionary money anyway. Drink a few less beers, do a side job, collect cans... it's not rocket science and it's not that difficult.

Hmm, roller never loses contact with lobe in a hydraulic roller engine - Not true.
If you can't get flat tappet engine build to survive you should chose another line of work.
It certainly isn't rocket science as you have clearly shown.

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

68galaxie wrote:

SandHillsHillbilly wrote:
I don't think guys that want to run hyd roller expect or need solid roller performance numbers. We don't want big lobes, high lifts, and high spring pressures. We choose great heads because we wanted something more modern than what factory cast iron offered plus more forgiving on pump gas with higher compression and more timing. Not everyone on this forum drag racers time slips some of us want to enjoy driving what we build than it sitting in the shop collecting dust just to drive less than 10 miles on the weekend. A lifetime of pleasure is worth more than a few seconds of glory.

OK if one does not need or expect solid roller performance numbers - why would you then run the added expense to run a hydraulic roller over a solid flat tappet? A hydraulic roller package is as costly or nearly as costly as a solid roller package.
There have been several flat tappet SCJ builds that have made fantastic numbers. I believe Randy M had and example as well as Lem E awhile back. EDM solid lifter and a custom cam cam make very decent power - and have the longevity you want, and much, much lower parts cost - and use a regular distributor gear for thousands of miles.

Again, I am not trying to sell anything. Use your money as you prefer.

Cheers!!

I posted this on the first page. It seems to have been ignored.
Four major reasons to use a hyd roller over a solid in any engine.
1) Roller never loses contact with the lobe. Benefits should be self explanatory.
2) Hydraulic internals act like a shock absorber and absorb a lot of valvetrain harmonics. Again, benefits should be self explanatory.
3) No "jack hammer" effect with stud mount rockers, where lash is taken up at the stud and trunnion.
4) Pushrods are shorter. Shorter pushrods, especially on a tall deck engine, are lighter and stiffer.
Now days we have hyd. lifters that we can run solid roller lobe profiles and spring pressures on. If you have to go to shafts on the BBF to eliminate some sort of geometry issue (which I still don't buy) then so be it but the benefits of the hyd. roller lifter are universal and absolutely not a waste of time or money.
Not to mention there is no risk of a lobe going flat and ruining your engine. The risk of that happening is ten times what it was even 5 years ago as the rest of the industry moves away from flat tappet cams. Power wise, there is no comparison between a roller and flat tappet and don't tell me you can make power with a flat tappet. Of course you can. You can make power all sorts of ways but some ways are just more efficient and a lot more practical than others. If cost is that much of an issue and a roller is absolutely not an option then there is no discussion. If you're building a hot rod engine then it's discretionary money anyway. Drink a few less beers, do a side job, collect cans... it's not rocket science and it's not that difficult.

Why no mention of less parasitic losses between flat tappets (sliding friction) vs roller came both solid and hyd.?

To me the hyd roller fills the gap between flat solid and roller solid. Granted a tame cast tight lash solid roller with tame lobes with less aggressive ramps and lifts 650 and under will equal the performance a hyd roller. BUT solid roller will still need a more agressive spring and additional mantence checking valve lash.

rollercam1 wrote:I wanted increased opening and closing rates, with the low maintenance. Maybe, I am in a small niche area where, cost wasn't an issue and I wanted as much performance while staying as maintenance free as I could. BBF's in early F-100 are not enjoyable in the slightest to adjust valves on. Just taking the drivers side valve cover off often requires removal of the brake booster and master cylinder. It made sense to me to go to a hydraulic roller as I have had great results in my SBF builds. This is my 3rd BBF build and the first with a hydraulic roller, Time will tell and if I go to a solid roller in the future, I can give feedback.

gt350hr wrote:   Chris ( Straub)
     The "issue" I read a few pages back seemed to be the raised pushrod seat in the hyd roller  increasing the pushrod angularity though the guide plate and offsetting the roller tip at the valve. This is supposed to side load the rocker and the guide causing premature failure of both. This could be solved with a reduced base circle cam to allow a "standard length" pushrod to be used. ( at least as I see it)
     It is my understanding the Ford test engines used a 5/16 "production" pushrod which at it's length has the integrity if a wet noodle. 5/16ths pushrods "were" 90% of the "valve train geometry" issues the Boss 302 and 351C engines had/have.  A 3/8ths  heavy wall ( or bigger) nearly eliminates the issue. Worse on the 429-460 and 351M-400 engines.