Rhoads Lifters On Solid Lifter Cam - Setting Valve Lash

-
What is the lash spec for your cam?
It will certainly be an interesting experiment........making the cam bigger using the clearance ramps.......and trying to make it smaller at the same time using the Rhoads lifters.
Plus some extra lift as the revs move up.... sounds like essentially an intentional-pump-up lifter.
 
Did you run the Z-Max lifters or the original Rhoads? Two different animals. We're talking about the Z-Max. They are fairly new. Completely adjustable, whereas the original Rhoads lifters were not.

This was in 1990 so I imagine they were the originals. Still have the box I think... yellow/orange/black graphics with a swishy style ?
 
This was in 1990 so I imagine they were the originals. Still have the box I think... yellow/orange/black graphics with a swishy style ?

Yeah those would have been the originals. I was never fond of those myself. These new ones though, have a much more exacting tolerance so you at least have some measure about how much cam you're "takin away".
 
Running an hydraulic lifter on a solid grind?
That's a new one on me.
Most people want to do just the opposite.
Well, he is bottoming out the piston in the lifter, making it a very deep 'solid' lifter. I dont know how the pushrods are going to like it but its viable although the solid 'lash ramp' is going to play havoc on his timing as its going to lift the valve early as the lifter is going to become solid again once the oil enters. Not what I would expect to hear from a lifter manufacturer....?
 
Well, he is bottoming out the piston in the lifter, making it a very deep 'solid' lifter. I dont know how the pushrods are going to like it but its viable although the solid 'lash ramp' is going to play havoc on his timing as its going to lift the valve early as the lifter is going to become solid again once the oil enters. Not what I would expect to hear from a lifter manufacturer....?

They adjust totally opposite of how you think. The MORE feeler gauge you use, the LESS bleed down you get. In other words, say you have a BIG hydraulic cam. All you want to adjust is like .015" feeler gauge. That gives the most in reduced duration. By contrast, you can adjust up to .035 and get basically no bleed down. It's all on their web site in the instructions page.
 
At idle they are bottomed out or close. As rpm goes up you slowly gain the .035 back if you set lash at .035. Am I thinking right.
 
Yes...read the instructions.....I helped someone adjust their rhoads lifters...and i had to read the instructions....a few times..
 
Yes they make Rhoads V-Max roller lifters. They can run on solid or hydraulic.
I was being a wise guy . Lol
I will have to check out these new ones.
Seems like they could use variable shock valving technology to achieve similar results...
 
I was being a wise guy . Lol
I will have to check out these new ones.
Seems like they could use variable shock valving technology to achieve similar results...

lol ok. I did look and the only application they SHOW for the V-Max roller for Chrysler is the factory replacement for the small block and 3.9 V6. But call them. I would just bet they can make retro fit rollers or they may already make them for LA and big block as well.
 
It’s Jacks product so I would follow his instructions if you explained what your trying to accomplish. I have a almost new set of Rhodes lifters sitting on the shelf as I tried them in a magnum engine I put together a few years back. The magnum naturally has a tick to it with the adjustable valve train but the Rhodes lifters make quite a racket. More racket than I want to listen to anyway so I went back to the standard roller lifters.

Wise counsel, Mopar73340! Appreciate the info. I did ask Jack about lash setting. How to best accomplish it and recommended lash setting for what I am doing. He would only say that lash needed to be within the design parameters of the V-Max lifter and suggested not exceeding 0.035" if running these on the street, although circle track guys run them on solid lifter cams at 0.040". These are usually classes that require a certain minimum manifold vacuum at idle...... Allows them to run a hotter cam and still pass spec. Limit on total lash is dependent upon how far the spring loaded plunger will depress whilst allowing for a small amount of 'cush' between bottom and top of plunger travel for safety when running. (You don't want it to bottom out nor top out whilst running.)

Jack indicated that within those overall parameters, each engine will have a setting that works best and this will require a bit of experimentation. The greater the lash setting, the greater the difference in diminished duration and lift at lower engine speeds. And the greater the lash setting, the noisier the Rhoads lifter will be once engine is at operating temperature. And conversely, the opposite is true when lash setting is reduced (tighter).

We did not discuss the effects of oil weight, as Rhoads installation instructions on their website suggest that weight of oil and whether a high pressure oil pump are used do not affect bleed down rate. Or put another way...... Bleed down rate is more a function of time (dependent upon RPM) versus lash setting. However, it has been my experience with other fast bleed down type lifters that weight of oil, oil pressure and operating temps do factor into bleed down rate (and noise) and will be a part of the equation.

Hope this makes sense,

Harry
 
send a pic of that oil groove or both for comparison
I have a set of Rhodes for a 440 Ill dig them out

This oil groove allows additional oil to get to the face of the lifter and cam lobe? EDM hole allows same but through a different path?

Yes, its an old racers trick. If I remember correctly a small vertical groove or flat is machined into the side of the lifter between the recessed area (oil band) in the lifter body and ends a bit (1/8" - 3/16") above the face of the lifter. The goal being to allow a bit more oil to reach the face of the lifter where it interfaces with the cam lobe. I have also seen such grooves machined into bronze sleeved lifter bores many moons ago. Easier to do the groove on side of lifter, though. Its been a long time, but I think the groove was very small. Something on the order of 0.005" - 0.010" deep X 0.015" - 0.020" wide? Some of the cam manufacturers used to sell a grooving tool for this. However you do the groove, be sure to deburr the side of the lifter before dropping lifters into lifter bores.

Anyway...... I'll see if I can get a photo of the oil groove after the Rhoads lifters come in and post it here. Computers are a mystery to me. Wife has a camera around here somewhere that she can put a photo on a computer with. No, I don't own a 'smart phone' and never will. Reckon I've gotten along just fine without one for the past 72 years. No need to complicate things now. :)

Happy Motoring,

Harry
 
Last edited:
...... Mine is a Hughes 208/214 @.050 .480/.490.

Jim, that is nearly identical to my cam. What valve lash are you running and how do you like the Rhoads lifters with that cam?

A buddy gave me a Dyno 2003 program to play with 17 years ago. So I pulled Isky's cam lobe profiles up and looked for ones that would fit what I wanted to do. My goal being a broad, flat powerband redlined at 5,500 RPMs. Looking for highest average (not peak) TQ and HP over that RPM range. Also wanted to keep valve lift just under 0.500", as my iron heads won't flow any better by lifting the valves higher than that.

Anyway, I ended up with a solid lifter cam having 210/216 degrees duration @ 0.050". Ground on 108 degree LSA. Valve lift 0.495" for both intake and exhaust. So pretty close to your cam specs.

Best regards,

Harry
 
Getting back to enigma57's question. Do not include anything regarding the solid lifter camshaft when making your adjustment. Think of it this way. You depress the lifter plunger with the feeler gauges in place like you are adjusting a solid, but you lightly bottom the plunger out, lock the nut down and slide the feeler gauges out. Basically, you are adjusting the lifter off the BOTTOM of the plunger travel, instead of the top. I am thinking about running some on something myself and I just may, although I will be running a fairly stout hydraulic cam. I think Rhoads lifters can be a good idea in the right application. It's like running several camshaft grinds in one. I've messed with krazykuda Karl about them in the past, but I like them in the right place.....and they do have a right place.

Instead of dismissing them, yall should read up about them. They are pretty innovative.

:thumbsup: Thanks, Rusty! Much appreciated. I have been trying to figure out how best to do this and your explanation helps a lot!

Best regards,

Harry
 
Wasn't this question for a Chevy straight six?

:) Hi, Oldiron440! Yes and No. Youngest son is helping me with last engine build(s). We are building 2 engines for my cars.

1 is a '78 360 Chrysler engine which is going into my '62 Dodge Lancer and the other is a '66 Chevy 292 inline 6 which I am swapping into my '57 Chevy.

Both cars will be geared similarly and I had Isky grind both cams the same except that they used MOPAR specific cam lobes on the 360 cam to take full advantage of the .904" lifters. Will run Rhoads V-Max lifters in both engines.

I generally do not ask Chevy questions on MOPAR websites same as I don't ask MOPAR questions on Chevy websites, as some folks tend to be highly partisan in their brand loyalties. And whilst I respect that, I have no problem swapping parts from one make of car into another.

My first car was a little '53 Henry J that I dropped a 276 DeSoto hemi into in 1963. Summer of '65, I swapped the DeSoto into a '55 Ford and drove that car my seniour year in high school. Have done more than a few such engine swaps over the years including a 413 Plymouth cop car engine into a '55 Chevy, a 400 Pontiac engine into a '56 Chevy and a '78 Toyota Celica engine into a '72 Triumph Spitfire sitting on a '68 Triumph GT6 chassis.

Best regards,

Harry
 
Jim, that is nearly identical to my cam. What valve lash are you running and how do you like the Rhoads lifters with that cam?

A buddy gave me a Dyno 2003 program to play with 17 years ago. So I pulled Isky's cam lobe profiles up and looked for ones that would fit what I wanted to do. My goal being a broad, flat powerband redlined at 5,500 RPMs. Looking for highest average (not peak) TQ and HP over that RPM range. Also wanted to keep valve lift just under 0.500", as my iron heads won't flow any better by lifting the valves higher than that.

Anyway, I ended up with a solid lifter cam having 210/216 degrees duration @ 0.050". Ground on 108 degree LSA. Valve lift 0.495" for both intake and exhaust. So pretty close to your cam specs.

Best regards,

Harry
I use 273 rockers and set hydraulic roller lifter per Hughes at Zero plus 1/2 turn
 
paper johnson tappet catalog has a picture of the lifter with the flat 229 chev v6
or go buy one
mag bed grinder and a v block easy to grind
howard also shows a pic of a sbc lifter
 
:) Hi, Oldiron440! Yes and No. Youngest son is helping me with last engine build(s). We are building 2 engines for my cars.

1 is a '78 360 Chrysler engine which is going into my '62 Dodge Lancer and the other is a '66 Chevy 292 inline 6 which I am swapping into my '57 Chevy.

Both cars will be geared similarly and I had Isky grind both cams the same except that they used MOPAR specific cam lobes on the 360 cam to take full advantage of the .904" lifters. Will run Rhoads V-Max lifters in both engines.

I generally do not ask Chevy questions on MOPAR websites same as I don't ask MOPAR questions on Chevy websites, as some folks tend to be highly partisan in their brand loyalties. And whilst I respect that, I have no problem swapping parts from one make of car into another.

My first car was a little '53 Henry J that I dropped a 276 DeSoto hemi into in 1963. Summer of '65, I swapped the DeSoto into a '55 Ford and drove that car my seniour year in high school. Have done more than a few such engine swaps over the years including a 413 Plymouth cop car engine into a '55 Chevy, a 400 Pontiac engine into a '56 Chevy and a '78 Toyota Celica engine into a '72 Triumph Spitfire sitting on a '68 Triumph GT6 chassis.

Best regards,

Harry
I'm intrested in hearing how this works for you, me personally I didn't care for the clacking noise they made.
 
I'm intrested in hearing how this works for you, me personally I didn't care for the clacking noise they made.

I don't disagree there and that will be the ONLY reason I decide not to run them if I do decide not to. I am still thinking about it.
 
You know the feeling is different when climbing hills or grades and you don"t get that sinking gas peddle feeling.

OK I might be getting it; I see NE PA is hill- country. What elevation are your "Hills"? That is a really big deal.

The 204/214 probably power peaks at or somewhere near 4600 and probably has a 400 rpm plateau. Thus making the shift rpm near 5000 before the power starts to tank. It will depend a bit on the LSA and the rest of the combo.

By 2000 ft elevation, I can see the torque at 2500 beginning to be an issue. By 3000ft the engine-torque is dropping. With a clutch, there is no TM(Torque Multiplication) addition as there would be with a TC, so the engine has to do it all. With engine rpm falling simultaneously with rising altitude, and going rich on the climb.... I get it, and I get how 10 to 20 degrees less intake duration would very nicely pump up the torque, at Part Throttle. If you do a lot of this type of driving, I can understand why you choose to install the Rhoads, on a combo that normally would never need them.
I live on a 930 ft prairie ,that with few exceptions is of similar altitude for hundreds of miles in every direction, especially to the West,lol. So sometimes my thinking is somewhat narrow. Thanks for the additional information.
 
-
Back
Top