289 power???

[MrPbody]

Msvic,

You're behind the times. Hydraulic rollers are passe. They were fine for the interim, but newer lobe profiles for solids have changed everything. Add to that, the improved lifters with positive oiling to the wheels (Comp and Crower both offer them), and you have a bulletproof setup. Actually, one of our best running customers (10.90s over 126) has an old Comp HR profile in his '65 GTO, with solid roller lifters on it. VERY effective!

You are also showing a bit of superstition by commenting on adjusting lifters every month. That's ancient history, but we still hear it all the time. It stems from the early '60s, when Chevrolet put solid lifter cams in their "bigger" 327s. They didn't change the adjuster type from the hydraulic, using only "crimped" nuts to hold them in place. Over time, they WOULD work loose. This is due to the mechanical "slap" the rocker gets each cycle. The hydraulic had no lash to take up, so it wasn't an issue. Ford 289 "High Performance" (271 HP) had similar issues for the same reasons.

Today, when we build a high-powered street engine, regardless of lifter type, we use "poly-locks" and high quality rocker studs (the tips are ground flat, perpendicular to the centerline of the stud, allowing the set screw in the poly-lock to have full contact). They don't "back off". Most of our customers report "adjusting" the lash once a year, but seldom have to make any changes. In olden times, before this change was considered, the extruded end of the stud wasn't flat, and the poly-locks weren't as dependable. ARP, Comp, Pioneer and many other suppliers have the flat-ground studs.

FWIW, I'm NOT an old drag racer. I'm an old STREET racer, that went to the track for level-set purposes. That's how I learned my 13 second GTO could beat most of those 11 second Mustangs and Camaros (really ran 15s, but they THOUGHT their cars were "fast"). Not withstanding, I am currently an ASE Master engine builder with 30 years under my belt, and have some of the more powerful 93 octane engines out there suitable for daily driving (600-plus HP without adders, under 500 CID). We've installed no less than 25 solid roller cams in street engines over the last year. It's impossible to get the smile off their faces!

At CVMS, we don't follow trends. We TRY to "set" them. Sometimes, we do!

PAX

Jim

[Msvic]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

Msvic,

You're behind the times. Hydraulic rollers are passe. They were fine for the interim, but newer lobe profiles for solids have changed everything. Add to that, the improved lifters with positive oiling to the wheels (Comp and Crower both offer them), and you have a bulletproof setup. Actually, one of our best running customers (10.90s over 126) has an old Comp HR profile in his '65 GTO, with solid roller lifters on it. VERY effective!

You are also showing a bit of superstition by commenting on adjusting lifters every month. That's ancient history, but we still hear it all the time. It stems from the early '60s, when Chevrolet put solid lifter cams in their "bigger" 327s. They didn't change the adjuster type from the hydraulic, using only "crimped" nuts to hold them in place. Over time, they WOULD work loose. This is due to the mechanical "slap" the rocker gets each cycle. The hydraulic had no lash to take up, so it wasn't an issue. Ford 289 "High Performance" (271 HP) had similar issues for the same reasons.

Today, when we build a high-powered street engine, regardless of lifter type, we use "poly-locks" and high quality rocker studs (the tips are ground flat, perpendicular to the centerline of the stud, allowing the set screw in the poly-lock to have full contact). They don't "back off". Most of our customers report "adjusting" the lash once a year, but seldom have to make any changes. In olden times, before this change was considered, the extruded end of the stud wasn't flat, and the poly-locks weren't as dependable. ARP, Comp, Pioneer and many other suppliers have the flat-ground studs.

FWIW, I'm NOT an old drag racer. I'm an old STREET racer, that went to the track for level-set purposes. That's how I learned my 13 second GTO could beat most of those 11 second Mustangs and Camaros (really ran 15s, but they THOUGHT their cars were "fast"). Not withstanding, I am currently an ASE Master engine builder with 30 years under my belt, and have some of the more powerful 93 octane engines out there suitable for daily driving (600-plus HP without adders, under 500 CID). We've installed no less than 25 solid roller cams in street engines over the last year. It's impossible to get the smile off their faces!

At CVMS, we don't follow trends. We TRY to "set" them. Sometimes, we do!

PAX

Jim

sure , makes perfect sense
Is that why Crane & Comp sells more Hyralic Roller cams than all others put together
Or is that why every factory performance engien(LS7 excluded, thats a big exclusion!) use roller cams
We all don;t need to rev to over 7K you know?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Msvic

sure , makes perfect sense
Is that why Crane & Comp sells more Hyralic Roller cams than all others put together
Or is that why every factory performance engien(LS7 excluded, thats a big exclusion!) use roller cams
We all don;t need to rev to over 7K you know?

Some notes:
1. The big-seller cams are not necessarily the best.
2. Auto manufacturers have many issues other than pure performance in mind when they select roller cams. Issues such as fuel economy, emissions and lower warranty claims are just as important in their selection, and affect their engineering decisions, making rollers more attractive than a more performance-based solid cam.
3. Given that MrPbody is one of the most knowledgeable members that this forum has ever had, your sarcastic dismissal of his sound advice is probably not justified.

This thread is old and has run its course. It has been closed to prevent a flame - fest.