If you are building an engine today (~2023), Professionals are not building Hydraulic FLat Tappet camshaft engines? Don't try?

-
greymouser7

greymouser7

Vagrant Vagabond “Veni Vidi Vici”
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
3,729
Reaction score
1,493
Location
78002 down the road from Atascosa, Texas
A few have posted this here as I randomly read engine build threads: they won't build Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshaft engines.


Hardness of lifters and cams have been blamed,


Oil ZDDP has been a previous culprit, (to include modern oil has cleaning additives/detergents that wipe ZDDP off of lobes?)


>>>Manufacturing quality control standards has dropped off<<<


1. So has this become a rare procession of the past? (Building Hydraulic Flat Tappet Camshaft engines) (Don't try it unless you like gambling $ )


2. ROCKWELL Hardness testers prove that lifters and camshafts are still hard enough? Is this typically consistent?


3. If you measure Camshaft and lifter lobe 'CROWN ARC TAPER' {1.5 TO 3 THOUSANDTHS TAPER??} will that be enough with break in oil?


4. LA engine and Big Block builds (Slants????)- DO we need to bush the lifter bores for adapting to roller camshafts?


5. (please forgive my ignorance) Best break in procedures for Hydraulic flat tappet camshaft engines (OR Mechanical flat tappet cammed engines)?


Prior to retirement I prepped to build several Hydraulic Flat tappet LA 360's, all the parts have been bought and now I personally just discovered this issue.


 
I only use hydraulic lifter when the end user isnt capable of lashing valves CORRECTLY.

Sadly, too many guys aren’t capable of that. So they get junky assed, leaky, squishy lifters and they can live with the noise they make when the lobes get even the slightest bit agressive.

Other than that, there is no reason to run hydraulic lifters. I say they suck. And I’m not wrong.
 
Rat Bastid said:
I only use hydraulic lifter when the end user isnt capable of lashing valves CORRECTLY.

Sadly, too many guys aren’t capable of that. So they get junky assed, leaky, squishy lifters and they can live with the noise they make when the lobes get even the slightest bit agressive.

Other than that, there is no reason to run hydraulic lifters. I say they suck. And I’m not wrong.
Click to expand...
If you're building a modified engine your right, if not you are wrong. imo
I've used Rhoads lifters on a few builds and they worked out good.
I actually like the sound of them over a solid.
Otherwise for a stock or slightly warmed over build, a good hydraulic fits the bill. imo
 
I think another often overlooked aspect of lifter/cam failure is cleanliness of the lifter itself. We know quality standards have declined and I would bet only about 10% of builders disassemble their lifters and clean out the check valves prior to installation. I do and I’ve found some interesting shtuff. Next to that I wholeheartedly believe lifter bores are not scrutinized during rebuild machining and they should be. And lastly for some unknown reason, most guys can’t get **** to fire off INSTANTLY on first start and are scared of rpm. My opinions.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Hay, don't bring me into this convoluted clusterfuckery. LOL
Click to expand...
RustyRatRod said:
Knock yourself out. IMO, they are totally unnecessary on anything under 220 @ .050. I wouldn't use them anyway, becaus I am over and done ewith hydraulic lifters. I MIGHT would use the Rhoads VMax lifters, but most likely not, since the slant 6 is really not built for a hydraulic camshaft.
Click to expand...
" because I am over and done with hydraulic lifters."

Why is that Rusty? -thanks for your information, time, effort, and experience!!

RustyRatRod said:
Because first, nobody makes a good hydraulic lifter anymore and secondly, solids make more power everywhere, so there's no sense whatsoever to go hydraulic. They were never made for performance anyway.
 
IDK what all the hulabaloo is about,
My Hughes lifters have been in my 367 since 2004, on their HE3037AL cam, with enough valve spring pressure to spin 7000/7200 as often as possible,lol. Said lifters have, Ima guessing, over 80,000 on them. Probably closer to 100,000.

Oh sorry, almost forgot, I set the preload to about 1/2 turn, lol.
 
greymouser7 said:
" because I am over and done with hydraulic lifters."

Why is that Rusty? -thanks for your information, time, effort, and experience!!

RustyRatRod said:
Because first, nobody makes a good hydraulic lifter anymore and secondly, solids make more power everywhere, so there's no sense whatsoever to go hydraulic. They were never made for performance anyway.
Click to expand...
Did you not see the "lol"? You're such a dork. I still love you though, brother.
 
AJ/FormS said:
IDK what all the hulabaloo is about,
My Hughes lifters have been in my 367 since 2004, on their HE3037AL cam, with enough valve spring pressure to spin 7000/7200 as often as possible,lol. Said lifters have, Ima guessing, over 80,000 on them. Probably closer to 100,000.

Oh sorry, almost forgot, I set the preload to about 1/2 turn, lol.
Click to expand...
Oh of course and you and your precious lifters have gone around the moon like 44 times, around the sun twice and up Madonna's *** who knows how many times. We get it. Everything's just peachy keen perfect in your "world".
 
I think spring pressure, aggressiveness of the cam, break-in procedure (including lubricants), and quality of cam manufacture all play a part in FT cams and how long they live. To date, I have not lost a FT cam, but I am slowly going roller in most of what I own.
 
I'm building my 340 with a Comp Cams FT 262XE, and matching springs. I am going to check the crown on the lifters, and taper on the lobes. Using the best assembly lube and break in oil. Make sure the timing is spot on, oil system primed, lifters rotating, and the carb, fuel pump, and ignition components tested and adjusted on a mule. If I wipe a cam after this.......F*&K it! I can't believe the cam companies are still in business if failure rates are as high as it seems.
 
The last two engines I built (340's) I used NOS lifters and had no problems. My current build (440-512) will be my first roller. I figured why not, a little more money but it takes out a lot of chance of failure.
 
AJ/FormS said:
IDK what all the hulabaloo is about,
My Hughes lifters have been in my 367 since 2004, on their HE3037AL cam, with enough valve spring pressure to spin 7000/7200 as often as possible,lol. Said lifters have, Ima guessing, over 80,000 on them. Probably closer to 100,000.

Oh sorry, almost forgot, I set the preload to about 1/2 turn, lol.
Click to expand...
I think the hullabaloo is people are finding issues with cams and lifters produced now that are showing the effects of poor metallurgy, hardness, and QC and thus, failure.

so, they did make stuff better back in the day. literally.
 
CFD244 said:
I'm building my 340 with a Comp Cams FT 262XE, and matching springs. I am going to check the crown on the lifters, and taper on the lobes. Using the best assembly lube and break in oil. Make sure the timing is spot on, oil system primed, lifters rotating, and the carb, fuel pump, and ignition components tested and adjusted on a mule. If I wipe a cam after this.......F*&K it! I can't believe the cam companies are still in business if failure rates are as high as it seems.
Click to expand...
" I can't believe the cam companies are still in business if failure rates are as high as it seems."
In one of the videos the Professional engine builder claims that Cam COmpanies can out wait the builder in regards to compensating or addressing the financial consequences of production failure. I illustrate multiple videos where builder after builder claim that this is significant problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top