Hydraulic roller lifters?

[Ghoste]

What would be the preferred brand for a performance roller lifter in a Mopar?

[Cooter]

Good question, but I fear you may get varying opinions.
I can't understand how the factory gets hyd. Roller lifters to go 300k miles, and the aftermarket has a hard time with  roller 440's that see less than 2500 miles/year.

[Ghoste]

Exactly, and that's why I posted it in the performance section, figuring that whatever the racers liked had to be good.

[Challenger340]

Good question, but I fear you may get varying opinions.
I can't understand how the factory gets hyd. Roller lifters to go 300k miles, and the aftermarket has a hard time with  roller 440's that see less than 2500 miles/year.

IMO, because those factories INTENDED to utilize Hydraulic Roller Lifters from NEW in their Blocks ? and provided for them.
and... 
if the Lifter Bores were too "short" for good Oil Pressure and "seal".... they redesigned the height of the lifter Bores in the Block to be conduscive over an "extended" service life. ie; Ford AB, Mopar SB, SB & BB Chev, etc., etc.

The retro HR's will work in many non-HR older blocks, as in go "up & down" in any Block/Bore...
but that is not to say service life, or their "performance" for extended periods will be satisfactory...
nor,
will the Oil Pressure leakage around worn/sloppy/ "short" Lifter Bores be sufficient to maintain Lifter hydraulic preload against ever increasing Valve Spring pressures and rates in a performance HR Cam application.

I have NOT had good success on the Dyno with retro-fit HR Lifters in BB Mopars... unless... I bushed the Lifter Bores FIRST to extend the short Bore and "control" the leakage around the Lifter to maintain it's preload.
even then,
the $1,000. labor to bush the Bores was NOT worth any gains versus a Flat Tappet Solid... or "Street" Mechanical Roller.

I've said too much already.... but IMO,  just dropping a set of  Hyd Roller lifters in a 40 year old BB Mopar Block Lifter Bores... and figuring you are "good to go"... well... all I will say is manufacturers will SELL.... whatever the market wants... and HR's are IMO... WAAAAY over rated in a stock short BB Mopar Lifter bore.

[Challenger340]

Exactly, and that's why I posted it in the performance section, figuring that whatever the racers liked had to be good.

IMO, because REAL "Racers" DO NOT use "Hydraulic Roller" lifters in their Engines.... PERIOD !

IMO, the 40 year old stock/sloppy BB Mopar Lifter Bore is too short "stock" to maintain adequate Oil Pressure and Lifter preload against increased Valve Spring pressures & rate = breakdown @ higher rpm's.
Anybody tells ya different... please post up the ACTUAL Engine Dyno Sheet.... I'd love to see it and eat crow !
Christ...
even a "link" to a reputable Dyno Shop.... not a "promotional" sales test would be great ! on an un-bushed BB Mopar lifter Bore

The Manufacturers will SELL, whatever the market WANTS... and if HYPE takes over like it has... once some supposed "guru" village Idge-yot, devoid of actual data says "works great"... everybody jumps in !
LEMMINGS !

[Ghoste]

Would you say the same situation exists for many 60's era engines, and specifically the Ford FE?

[Challenger340]

Would you say the same situation exists for many 60's era engines, and specifically the Ford FE?

I don't know as we don't do many FE Fords and they have HORRIBLE Oiling at the best of times....
but I suspect so, and I will find out pretty soon, because a 428 FE just left here last week as a "Machine Pkg" only that they are assembling themselves using retro-fit HR CompCams Lifters etc.
They are Dynoíng once completed, so should be interesting.

[Ghoste]

Okay, thanks.  Asking for a buddy of mine as he had an issue in a CJ and he asked me what the Mopar guys are running for hydraulic rollers and I didn't really know.  As far as I have ever heard Comp was popular for that but a lot of the Mopar guys I know use a flat tappet.
Would be interested to know how that Ford dynos as an afterthought.

[Challenger340]

Okay, thanks.  Asking for a buddy of mine as he had an issue in a CJ and he asked me what the Mopar guys are running for hydraulic rollers and I didn't really know.  As far as I have ever heard Comp was popular for that but a lot of the Mopar guys I know use a flat tappet.
Would be interested to know how that Ford dynos as an afterthought.

On the FE that just left.... we enlarged the FE's Oil Pump feed from the pickup through to the pump mounting face, then re-aligned/drilled the #1, 2 & 4 main feeds for more Oiling.
Nonetheless, if this FE demonstrates the same characteristics as other short bore HR Engines we've seen on the Dyno.... it will have "tickety-tic" problems after revv'ing.... sometimes all the time... or just plain old power curve "break-down" @ rpm on the Dyno.... that can't be tuned out.

What was your buddies HR Lifter FE Engines "Issue" ?

[Ghoste]

Came apart.  Barrie Poole is here in town and if you know anything about him then you would agree he knows his way around the FE stuff.  I honestly don't have a clue what has been put into the engine but it certainly wasn't slapped together.
As I understand, the retainer at the top of the lifter came out.

[Challenger340]

Came apart.  Barrie Poole is here in town and if you know anything about him then you would agree he knows his way around the FE stuff.  I honestly don't have a clue what has been put into the engine but it certainly wasn't slapped together.
As I understand, the retainer at the top of the lifter came out.

just my opinions... for what it's worth based on my experiences.
I am certainly no FE "expert", but I have made 700+hp with them on Performer RPM Heads, a "chore" I do not wish to repeat anytime soon !.. so goes without saying here... I have nothing but "respect" for ANYONE who chooses of their "own accord" to play with FE stuff ?  IMO, a Sado-masochism endeavor !
IMO,
The retainer at the top of the lifter, and "cup" popping out is indicative of valvetrain "float", or an excessive "clearance" between the Pushrod and the Lifter Cup where it sits during "operation".... then it(pushrod) just hammers and "pops" out the Lifter Cup.
It won't matter what "brand" lifter you use under those conditions.... NO "Hydraulic" Lifter will stay together under those conditions.

Also no secret here.... Valvetrain "Float" is either one of two conditions present.... not enough Valvespring pressure... allowing the valvetrain dis-connect because the Springs can NOT keep up at rpm...
or,
The "Hydraulic" Lifter bleeds down.... alowing the same "excessive" clearance as "Float" functionally during operation.

Nonetheless,
the 2nd above example as it relates to a Hydraulic Roller, still indicates a lack of sufficient Oil Pressure "maintained" around the Lifter "body" in the Lifter Bore, to maintain lifter preload(keep the Lifter pumped up) against the Valve Spring pressure, which we usually see here on the Dyno....  BEFORE it happens once installed in the vehicle.... as the rpm "power" curve breakdown.
From what you are relating...
it would seem to me that Buddy was rev'ing the Engine consistently above where we get to "see" this Valvetrain instability on the Dyno....
and,
is part/parcel of the exact same problem I spoke of earlier... with 40 year old short un-bushed Lifter Bores, where oil pressure "control" to Hydraulic Roller Lifter Body's.... is insufficient for the increased Roller "rates" of Lift vrs V/Spring pressures req'd.
Short... and sloppy lifter Bores... do NOT "seal" enough Oil Pressure to keep the Lifter pumped up against the V/Springs... Lifter bleeds down = then valvetrain dis-connect and Float !

Like I said... we don't use the "Hydraulic" Roller Lifters anymore in old generation Blocks... unless I BUSH the Lifter Bores, then Hone-Fit the Lifter Body clearance to longer Bushing at .0008" to .0009"( 8 to 9 TEN-Thousandths).
This adds about $1,000.00 to the machining costs... and even then... we must be doing it wrong here ? But IMO, the HR's just don't make any "extra" power worthy of the extra cost... versus... Flat Tappet Solids, or " Street" type Mechanical Rollers ?

It's a crap shoot really... some older Blocks have tighter lifter Bores that handle the HR's... some don't ?
All I know is this... because we DYNO everything we build BEFORE it leaves... I can't chance it anymore ?
So if the Customer wants an HR Cam & Lifters in this old stuff that WE are building... we BUSH the Bores... NO exceptions !
Otherwise...
we will notify you of our findings... then gladly "machining only" anything you want.... that YOU are assembling ? and have a great day ! 
   

[Ghoste]

Thanks, good info I'll pass it along.  Fords are very popular in my hometown and readily available so there are a lot of Cobra Jet running around here.  Its because of Sandy Elliott and his son John with Barrie Poole in the 60's.

[c00nhunterjoe]

Every mopar track-only car i know with roller motors are either bushed factory blocks or aftermarket aluminum. And all over them run mechanical rollers, not hydraulic.

[Ghoste]

And I should add the vehicle in question is street/strip with mainly street.

[Ghoste]

Any experience with Morel lifters?

[Paul G]

I am doing my research right now on a big block build I would like to put together in the near future. I have spoken to two local engine builders who both like to use HR lifters. This is going to be a street engine I am building, not a race engine turning high RPM every weekend. Maybe high RPM once in a while. I am going to have to question them a little more on the resoning for HR lifters? I would prefer to stay with traditional hydraulic flat tappet lifters.

[Challenger340]

Any experience with Morel lifters?

Nope.
But if they are a "Hydraulic" Roller Lifter.... same PROBLEM... the "Block" and it's Lifter Bores.... NOT the Lifter no matter brand.

[c00nhunterjoe]

In my opinion, you are not going to benefit from a roller cam in a street car. Even if youspend the money to bush the block, its a waste.

Just take half the money you were going to spend to build the hydraulic roller PROPERLY,  and buy a good solid cam and adjustable valvetrain. You will make just as much, if not more power, be reliable, and spend half as much cash doing it.

[Ghoste]

Do you think some builders are turning to hydraulic rollers in an effort to get away from the lobe wipe issues?  Or perhaps cam grinders are subtly pushing the hydraulic rollers for that reason?

[heyoldguy]

I believe Bob, we are experiencing the very thing on the dyno with a hydraulic roller cammed 505 right now. I have once used a hydraulic roller cam before, but have never liked the thought of 'em. Put one in the grandson's truck. Rattle, rattle, rattle.

So, we tried to save the $700 Crane hydraulic roller lifters that came with the customers engine. After every pull we have lifter rattle. Soon as the seal kit for the dyno's fuel pump gets here we'll try some more preload adjustments on the lifters per Crane. I did spec solid roller lobes for the cam in the engine so we can just go to solid roller lifters (like I wanted to run) when everything else fails. 

[Paul G]

Please enlighten us on the advantage of using a solid lifter cam, be it roller or flat tappet? I know the disadvantage is periodic lifter adjustments. But for a low use vehicle, primarily a big horse street car, occasional lifter adjustments should not be too much of a hassle to do, I wouldn't think?

With a solid lifter what happens to the oiling system since the lifter is not pumping up?

[Challenger340]

Please enlighten us on the advantage of using a solid lifter cam, be it roller or flat tappet? I know the disadvantage is periodic lifter adjustments. But for a low use vehicle, primarily a big horse street car, occasional lifter adjustments should not be too much of a hassle to do, I wouldn't think?

With a solid lifter what happens to the oiling system since the lifter is not pumping up?

these are just my opinions... check your own resources as YOU see fit.

Some background:
Take anything I say with a grain of salt... because I really just don't like relying on anything with a un-sealed "hydraulic" connection, responsible for maintaining anything related to ACCURATE Lift and Duration.... when it relates to Valve movement in a "performance" Engine.
Don't get me wrong... Hydraulic Lifter Cams do have their place with the big advantage to being "Quiet" running on those applications where it is wanted... as long as.... one recognizes up front their trade-offs to "quiet" running.... at the expense of accurate Valve movement to "performance" pieces.

NO un-sealed "Hydraulic" Lifter Valve connection... Roller or Flat Tappet, as it relates to an automotive Hydraulic Lifter devoid of "seals" to prevent leakage.... will ever transfer exact Valve movement from the Cam Lobe, as accurately as a "Solid" Mechanical Lifter connection... again Roller or Flat Tappet.

The "trade off's" to performance with quieter Hydraulics is directly proportional, and becomes greater... the more Lift, Duration, and Valve Spring Rate required,(more Hydraulic leakage), to keep up with higher and higher rpm Cam events, typical to attain more "Performance".

Back to your original questions:
Please enlighten us on the advantage of using a solid lifter cam, be it roller or flat tappet?
ACCURATE transfer of Cam events as it relates to LIFT and DURATION !
Take any given Cam events, and build 2 identical Camshafts.... ONE with a "Hydraulic" lifter.... ONE in a "Solid" Lifter.... The "solid" Lifter... being a mechanical transfer of movement.... transfers the given Lift & Duration 100%.... whereas... the "Hydraulic" lifter will only transfer whatever Lift & Duration it can.... depending upon a NON-Sealed oil pressure "Leakage", or "Bleed-down" against Valve Spring Pressure
This "leakage" gets worse according to the more Lift, Duration, RPM, and V/Spring rate pushing on the "leak".

I know the disadvantage is periodic lifter adjustments. But for a low use vehicle, primarily a big horse street car, occasional lifter adjustments should not be too much of a hassle to do, I wouldn't think?
NO Problem, but depending upon the Size and aggressiveness of the Cam Profile, periodic checking of Valve Lash is a good idea, and very easy once a guy gets on to it.
And once the Valvetrain is stabilized, with Today's quieter running tight lash Solids... adjustment is rarely required, and if it is ... usually indicates something else has happened ?
but normally.... with good Thermal Stabilization practise(warming up) actual adjustments are rarely required.
I have guys running the old xs282s Comp Solid Flat Tappet... haven't touched anything in 3 years of street driving.(checked... but no adjustments required)

With a solid lifter what happens to the oiling system since the lifter is not pumping up?
Absolutely NOTHING, Oil Pressure just leaks out around the Solid Lifter Body, the same as with any Solid or Hydraulic Lifter, just that the "Solid" Lifter does NOT rely on THAT same leaking Oil Pressure to transfer Cam Lobe movement to the Valve... like the "hydraulic" lifter does ?

IMO,
The biggest thing to remember, especially with Today's "Hydraulic" Rollers and their increased Lift Rates, Durations, and Heavier V/Spring Pressures required to keep up with their more aggressive Cam events....
is that it is a BALANCING ACT of V/Spring Pressure against OIL PRESSURE, to keep the "Hydraulic" Lifter pumped up ?
There are no "seals" around the Lifter Body in the Lifter Bores.... and there are no "seals" internal of the Lifter... it is simply "controlled" leakage by "fit"... against V/Spring Pressure.
And,
on 40+ yr old BB Mopar Blocks with typically .0013"-.0015" Lifter to Bore clearance, and "short" to boot... with only a .250" length to "seal" the .0013" to .0015" opening at the bottom of the bore...
well... THAT may be fine for a SLOW opening and closing Flat Tappet Hydraulic Lifter .... working against 110# Springs Seat, with 280# open pressure
but,
it might NOT work real well ? on a much FASTER opening and closing Hydraulic "Roller" Lifter with 165# Spring Seat, with 375# open Pressure ?
when at rpm...
that "lifeblood" Oil Pressure to keep the HR pumped up... squirts outa the bottom of the Lifter bore like shiat through a Goose !... rather than go IN the lifter so it can function ?

As always... check your own resources... do what YOU feel best, as these are just my opinions.
afterall...
being the internet... I could just be some 14 yr old behind a keyboard in his Mom's basement ?

[Cooter]

I baddest of the bad ass cams IMO, are solid flat tappet, then solid roller. BUT, if the early blocks (non roller cam blocks) can't keep lifters from eating themselves every 10k miles, I'll stick with my Solid flat tappet. Been in the Dart for almost 17 years and only checked/adjusted three times.

[c00nhunterjoe]

My cousins solid cam hasnt required an adjustment in 5 years. He checks it every spring and nothing has moved. Poly locks are a wonderful invention.

My girfriend's solid cam hasnt been adjusted in 2 years, only inspections.

In my opinion, if you have a reliable locked adjuster, and you require continual adjustments, then you have a cam wear issue.

[Cooter]

From what I've seen and read here, it would seem retro roller lifters on the street in an older block suck.

[Paul G]

I am going to ask the machinist's about using solid flat tappets instead of hydraulic rollers. I am eager to hear thier take on it.

If I understand it correctly the benefit is greater valve control at higher RPM. Which equates to more HP at the top end. But is a SFT giving up anything at the bottom end? Usually you dont get anything without giving up something?

[firefighter3931]

I am going to ask the machinist's about using solid flat tappets instead of hydraulic rollers. I am eager to hear thier take on it.

If I understand it correctly the benefit is greater valve control at higher RPM. Which equates to more HP at the top end. But is a SFT giving up anything at the bottom end? Usually you dont get anything without giving up something?

Challenger340 (Bob) gave an excellent description of the inherant flaws associated with a hyd lifter valvetrain. You have to consider not only the bleed off from loose lifter bores but also the weight of the roller lifter itself. Hyd Roller lifters are much heavier than their flat tappet counterparts. 

That additional weight coupled with the increased spring loads required for the more agressive ramps ultimately limits their function at high engine speeds. Lots of guys will claim that rokller cams have been used for years in production engines with great success. That is true but those cam profiles are very mild with very soft spring rates and gentle lobe profiles. You won't see a 400lb spring in a production motor and most are well under .500 valve lift. Those blocks are more precision built with better tolerances than our older high milage production blocks.

The advantage to a solid lifter is that there is no oil pressure variable to be concerned with....the coupling is solid and not dependant on a hyd crutch (oil) to maintain it's integrity. I've allways used solid cams and had great success. The tight lash solids are quiet and make excellent power. If you really want the best street setup the way to go is to have the cam nitrided and use an EDM style lifter that direct oils the cam lobes. Use a good oil like Brad Penn racing with lots of EP additives and keep the spring pressures reasonable and it will last forever. 

My last solid flat tappet cam required very minimal valve adjustments over a 5 year span. I checked them at the beginning of each season and most of the time the lash was in spec. It only takes 30-40 minutes and i liked to have a peek anyway just to make sure everything looked good under the valvecovers. 


Ron

[Mike DC]

  
                         
As I understand it, the benefit of roller lifters isn't the ultimate HP/TQ numbers.  It's about broadening the power curve below the peak & smoothing out the engine's attitude.  

Rollers get the valve entirely open faster without increasing the ultimate amount of duration that it spends open.  Racers typically wouldn't see so much gain from it because of how they build engines.  They are already willing to put up with a grumpy attitude from the engine for the sake of power.  But street drivers, who might actually limit their chosen duration for reasons other than HP, would benefit from the rollers.  




Are those streetable gains cost-effective on a B/RB wedge?  

That's a different issue.  

[Ghoste]

With a solid roller the advantage is that you can use very steep ramps on the lobe.  With the hydraulic roller, I think it was an oem move just to reduce rotational friction?

[Cooter]

Bottom line is more power from solid roller cams are great for an engine that gets torn down every 8 passes, but for the majority of us, we refuse to pull one down that often for an extra 50-75 hp.
I'll just screw on another NOS kit on my SFT cam to make up the difference.

[BSB67]

Just take half the money you were going to spend to build the hydraulic roller PROPERLY,  and buy a good solid cam and adjustable valvetrain. You will make just as much, if not more power, be reliable, and spend half as much cash doing it.

Or plow the extra savings back into the cylinder heads and get more power for your $

[Ghoste]

What style lifters are in your 67 BSB?  Your combo seems to work very well.

[BSB67]

Do you think some builders are turning to hydraulic rollers in an effort to get away from the lobe wipe issues?  

It seems that most that post on this forum are kinda confused on some aspects.  For you, this is a fun hobby, for the machine shop guy, its a living.  He is trying to put his kids through college.  Most of the guys on here are novices.  When a novice walks through the doors at a performance engine machine shop, the guy knows it in 30 seconds.   He also knows that his margin will be relatively small, likely not a bunch of repeat business, probably a lot of his time training you, knows that mopar guys are actually cheaper than most others in the hobby, and finally, you'll probably try to make him responsible for every problem you have a year after the motor is built.  

I don't mean to offend any of the professionals on here, but once the machine shop guy sizes you up, he will instinctively chart a path to make you the customer happy but with the least amount of potential issues for himself.  The hydraulic roller is "perfect" for this.  He knows you'll never know that the valve train is going south at 5300 rpm, he know that you really will never know if it makes 525 hp, or 450 hp.  And he knows that you won't wipe a lobe.  Most machine shops now have dynos.  The dyno is not really for you, it is for them.  They know that the motor leaves their shop without an issue.   Ultimately, If it spins the crap out of the tires from a 20 mph roll and is indestructible, you both get what you wanted.  Happy story.

I have seen this play out probably 10 times.  The machine shop guy steers someone in a particular direction.  The customer gets what they agreed to, and usually the owner is very very happy. Then someone takes them to the track and they notice that, relatively speaking, there stuff seems slower.  Even then, they sometimes don't figure it out.  It is easy to blame tire spin, or gear, or convertor, all disguising the fact the motor is actually an under achiever.  None of these guys would ever know if they did not go to the track, and know someone that understands a time slip.  

Put yourself in the machine shop guy's shoes.  I doubt that any machine shop guy would recommend to a novice a fast rate solid FT cam despite the performance advantage.  It is just not worth the risk.

[Ghoste]

Interesting.  Never really thought about it that way before.

[BSB67]

What style lifters are in your 67 BSB?  Your combo seems to work very well.

A relatively mild, older school solid roller lobe profiles.  Although it is not called a "street roller" by the manufacturer, it is actually slower (less aggressive) to .200" lift than Comp or Lunati's "street roller" cams and there are solid flat tappet cam that are faster/more aggressive.  I use a pretty mellow valve spring, but because the ramps are also mild, the motor still maintains good valve control to 6800 rpm, although I shift lower than that.

[Challenger340]

Do you think some builders are turning to hydraulic rollers in an effort to get away from the lobe wipe issues?  

It seems that most that post on this forum are kinda confused on some aspects.  For you, this is a fun hobby, for the machine shop guy, its a living.  He is trying to put his kids through college.  Most of the guys on here are novices.  When a novice walks through the doors at a performance engine machine shop, the guy knows it in 30 seconds.   He also knows that his margin will be relatively small, likely not a bunch of repeat business, probably a lot of his time training you, knows that mopar guys are actually cheaper than most others in the hobby, and finally, you'll probably try to make him responsible for every problem you have a year after the motor is built.  

I don't mean to offend any of the professionals on here, but once the machine shop guy sizes you up, he will instinctively chart a path to make you the customer happy but with the least amount of potential issues for himself.  The hydraulic roller is "perfect" for this.  He knows you'll never know that the valve train is going south at 5300 rpm, he know that you really will never know if it makes 525 hp, or 450 hp.  And he knows that you won't wipe a lobe.  Most machine shops now have dynos.  The dyno is not really for you, it is for them.  They know that the motor leaves their shop without an issue.   Ultimately, If it spins the crap out of the tires from a 20 mph roll and is indestructible, you both get what you wanted.  Happy story.

I have seen this play out probably 10 times.  The machine shop guy steers someone in a particular direction.  The customer gets what they agreed to, and usually the owner is very very happy. Then someone takes them to the track and they notice that, relatively speaking, there stuff seems slower.  Even then, they sometimes don't figure it out.  It is easy to blame tire spin, or gear, or convertor, all disguising the fact the motor is actually an under achiever.  None of these guys would ever know if they did not go to the track, and know someone that understands a time slip.  

Put yourself in the machine shop guy's shoes.  I doubt that any machine shop guy would recommend to a novice a fast rate solid FT cam despite the performance advantage.  It is just not worth the risk.

pretty well stated summary of the sad situation these days.
The problem being.... some people are just NOT capable of owning what many reputable Engine Builders "could" give them ?
No Offense to anyone... but it's true.
Some Customers very simply... do NOT have the skill-sets or background... therein RIFE with pitfalls to said "reputation" of the Shop(if they are a performance Shop), so best to just price it beyond their means... Buh-Bye.

[fy469rtse]

Very interesting reading, not an expert by any means
But it seems I did my home work,
Always thought that the retro hydraulic roller lifters were to cash in on the guys who want the performance of solids but don't want the headaches of lash adjustment,
Always value your input challenger340
There's a build thread outline that needs your input, when you read it you will know better than most what's required at each level, it's to with the level of machining required appropriate to the engine that's intended

[randy73]

Is this just a BB issue, because I read on a couple of forums where people had good success using HR's in 340's, 318's and 360's. But all the good reviews used cranes retro sb lifters.

Concerned because I am going HR, but I am going for longevity, more so than performance.

[BSB67]

I've been saying it for years, minus the energy and effort Bob puts into his nice detailed responses, the hydraulic portion of the lifter has always been the limit on the lifter, putting a roller on the bottom does not fix the issue.  Not only do I agree 100% with Bob on every word,  But I'm seeing and/or hearing regularly (not always) the same issue with the fast rate FT hydraulics, depending on the same engine /lifter specifics Bob mentioned, oil weight, oil pressure, lifter/bore clearance, lifter quality (internal tolerances are CRITICAL)  do they oil out the face,  do they have pushrod oiling provision (wheather used or not) and not least of all, VS pressure.

I know of two professionals that are also distributors for popular cam companies that have pretty much stopped using and recommending the fast rate hydraulic stuff.  They have dialed back to cams with 0-0.050" rates around 48°ish and are seeing a little loss in lower power numbers, maybe or maybe not a loss at peak power, but a dramatically extended power range past peak. (i.e. more average power).

If you really care about making power, and you really want hydraulics, you better get serious about parts and machining.  Or buy soild.  The reality is, very, very few people on here really care about power, so any hydraulic will work.

Soild FT is a beautiful thing IMO.  However, the fear of wiping a lobe is real.  My guess is the shops that are pushing HYD rollers are doing it for themselves, not the customers.  Win win for them.  No matter how big a moron the customer is,  there won't be a wiped lobe, and they know instantly which customers will never know if they have 525 hp, or 485.

[Challenger340]

Is this just a BB issue, because I read on a couple of forums where people had good success using HR's in 340's, 318's and 360's. But all the good reviews used cranes retro sb lifters.

Concerned because I am going HR, but I am going for longevity, more so than performance.

Randy,
I would be REALLY curious, to see the actual Engine Dyno Sheets from these people.... and I mean no dis-respect here... claiming good success with HR Cammed sb mopar engines ?  at what rpm ?
Have they Dyno'd... or are these "seat of pants" claims ?

Can't argue with CRANE hard part engine products these days  .... they are about as good as it gets.
although,
I have not tried their HR lifters specifically, the problems I have experienced/witnessed related more to external lifter clearances and Oil Pressure, as it would affect ANY "Hydraulic" Lifter... no matter how good quality.
But nonetheless, eliminating any potential HR Lifter "contributing issues" always helps.

[randy73]

I called Crane and several other retro HR lifer makers, Crane was the only one that said they designed theirs to not lose oil pressure, unless you have a severe lift, which I will not.

So I feel good again.

[BSB67]

I called Crane and several other retro HR lifer makers, Crane was the only one that said they designed theirs to not lose oil pressure, unless you have a severe list, which I will not.

So I feel good again.

That's good.  I guess everyone else said that they design theirs to lose oil pressure  Was Crane specific on what they do that others don't do?

Remember, it might not be the lifters fault, and there is nothing that Crane can do about that

[c00nhunterjoe]

I beleive every serious builder i know that uses them reccomends bushing the bores to control the oil loss problem with the mass production block tolerances. Some of them run chevy rollers too..... but that gets very costly and unless you are building a special purpose engine, you are wasting time and money, alot of money.

[randy73]

I called Crane and several other retro HR lifer makers, Crane was the only one that said they designed theirs to not lose oil pressure, unless you have a severe list, which I will not.

So I feel good again.

That's good.  I guess everyone else said that they design theirs to lose oil pressure  Was Crane specific on what they do that others don't do?

Remember, it might not be the lifters fault, and there is nothing that Crane can do about that

Was not saying no one else designs theirs not to lose oil pressure, I said they are the only's who told me that. Forget the exact reason, but they lowered something, I know that is not much help. I did not write it down. 

[c00nhunterjoe]

I called Crane and several other retro HR lifer makers, Crane was the only one that said they designed theirs to not lose oil pressure, unless you have a severe list, which I will not.

So I feel good again.

That's good.  I guess everyone else said that they design theirs to lose oil pressure  Was Crane specific on what they do that others don't do?

Remember, it might not be the lifters fault, and there is nothing that Crane can do about that

Was not saying no one else designs theirs not to lose oil pressure, I said they are the only's who told me that. Forget the exact reason, but they lowered something, I know that is not much help. I did not write it down. 

Its a sales gimmic. The issue is the lifter bores in our older engines. They were mass produced and the tolerances were not as tight as they need to be to run high rpms. Couple that with 45 years of abuse and there is even more tolerance between the lifter bore and lifter. The point is, nothing you do to the internals of that lifter will change the space between the lifter and the bore.

[Cooter]

Just got back from a buddy's house. He's old skool and built a 440. 13.5:1, .688 lift 272/284 @.050 SOLID roller cam, with Eddy heads. Just didn't have the heart to tell him after 10 years building that thing, that with nearly 800-900 # open pressure, it won't last 5k miles on the street.....

[c00nhunterjoe]

It will be a badass ride though......

[heyoldguy]

Just got back from a buddy's house. He's old skool and built a 440. 13.5:1, .688 lift 272/284 @.050 SOLID roller cam, with Eddy heads. Just didn't have the heart to tell him after 10 years building that thing, that with nearly 800-900 # open pressure, it won't last 5k miles on the street.....

Did your buddy actually say that he put 800-900# open spring pressure on that camshaft? If so, I just ask him why, 'cause that seems way excessive.

[BSB67]

Just got back from a buddy's house. He's old skool and built a 440. 13.5:1, .688 lift 272/284 @.050 SOLID roller cam, with Eddy heads. Just didn't have the heart to tell him after 10 years building that thing, that with nearly 800-900 # open pressure, it won't last 5k miles on the street.....

Did your buddy actually say that he put 800-900# open spring pressure on that camshaft? If so, I just ask him why, 'cause that seems way excessive.

You can run low 10s high 9s with eddy heads, pump gas, and gentle ramp solid roller ( 250/600 pressure) in a regularly driven street car.  Guys have been doing it for years without valve train failures.  Good lifters are a must.

Certainly a cam needing 8-900 over the nose is a mismatch for a street car IMO, and I have my doubts it would even go 5K.

[Ghoste]

I was actually kind of wondering what scenario does need that kind of spring?

[heyoldguy]

I was actually kind of wondering what scenario does need that kind of spring?

I can't say from experience because I've never used spring pressures like that. But I did use 260# IH/760# open on a 280/288 @ .050, .800"/.800" lift camshaft and pull it to 7400 rpm.

It was never intended as a street engine. It was fun however, to drive on the street, set car alarms off and get the thumbs up from those we drove by.