SBM Roller Lifter Choice
- Thread starter 512Stroker
- Start date
-
Duane
Well-Known Member
I just read this link. It is excellent, although it needs to be updated
To reflect current offerings as it's going on 8 years old.
IMHO this link and the pics and info in post number 4 should be made a sticky in the engine section. The link explains at the end, how to prepare a sbm for use with a roller or which type rollers from which manufacturer will work with a given setup.
Too many members getting this info after they have trouble.
The old Chrysler engine book explained all this many years ago, but
Still there are members not familiar with this problem.
Also too many manufacturers claiming to have a drop in no mod hydraulic roller lifter, which is not always the case.
Post number 4 has good pics that show the relationship between
The lifter bore and lifter, and the drilled(not always correctly) oil galley. The link also points out that in a performance build, a valve train failure on a block with no tubes or bushed lifter bores will cause a huge drop in oil pressure that could damage other parts of the engine. The guy who did the leg work for the link, hats off to you.
I finally got around to reading this whole thread. Just recently a 347 Ford stroker we built was run on another dyno. Against all my wishes the owner wanted a hydraulic roller. This engine was to be run with the factory style fuel injection and the factory computer, hence the 224/228 @ .050, .591"/.600", 114 LSA camshaft hydraulic roller. Not being able to tune the computer on our dyno we ran the engine with a single plane and a 850 cfm mighty demon. 400 lb-ft and 450 hp.
Many months later, the engine never having been run that entire time, goes to a difference dyno for the fuel injection tuning. Hydraulic lifter rattle from hell. The boys on that dyno try many different preloads with no success and call me. Good oil pressure, 40 psi idle and 70 psi hot, and this is a new aftermarket block. We discussed going to a solid lifter as I have done successfully before.
Because I wasn't sure if there needed to be a spring change going to a solid on this hydraulic cam I called the manufacture to verify my thoughts. I told him I wanted to run solid lifters and gave him the cam serial number and he asked what spring pressures we were running currently. After I told him, he said, "Try this first......on the base circle, tighten the adjuster until the lifter bottoms out and back the adjuster off 1/4 turn, you'll have a hydraulic lash solid." His cam and his lifters, so...............
When the boys on the dyno tried it they reported back that the engine sounded like a tight lash solid, very little noise, and ran really well. With the long runner barrel type fuel injection intake and the lash that way, the engine made 450 lb-ft of torque and 390 horsepower.
Just something you might try before blowing a wad of money.
Many months later, the engine never having been run that entire time, goes to a difference dyno for the fuel injection tuning. Hydraulic lifter rattle from hell. The boys on that dyno try many different preloads with no success and call me. Good oil pressure, 40 psi idle and 70 psi hot, and this is a new aftermarket block. We discussed going to a solid lifter as I have done successfully before.
Because I wasn't sure if there needed to be a spring change going to a solid on this hydraulic cam I called the manufacture to verify my thoughts. I told him I wanted to run solid lifters and gave him the cam serial number and he asked what spring pressures we were running currently. After I told him, he said, "Try this first......on the base circle, tighten the adjuster until the lifter bottoms out and back the adjuster off 1/4 turn, you'll have a hydraulic lash solid." His cam and his lifters, so...............
When the boys on the dyno tried it they reported back that the engine sounded like a tight lash solid, very little noise, and ran really well. With the long runner barrel type fuel injection intake and the lash that way, the engine made 450 lb-ft of torque and 390 horsepower.
Just something you might try before blowing a wad of money.
Duane
Well-Known Member
It would help us understand your point here if you gave us a run down on the ford oiling system for comparison. Is it similar to the sbm and is it possible for the ford engine to have the same compatibility issues with differing brands of lifters. Other wise you are just saying he does not have the lifters adjusted correctly which he already says he has tried differing ways.
I would agree with what you are saying if we could verify that the Op does not have an oil pressure leak at the lifter bores because of incompatibility issues already raised.
512Stroker
We are all here because we are not all there.
Recently I have had one other person tell me to try the bottom plus a 1/4 turn lash adjustment. It is the only one I have not tried. Would there be any possibility of hanging a valve open when the lifter pumps up?
512Stroker
We are all here because we are not all there.
I do not believe my lifter bores are to loose as oil is 30psi hot idle and 60 psi or more at cruz.
Once the oil is trapped inside the lifter you can remove it from the bore and it will remain pumped up. Again the issue I have is these Comp hyd rollers bleed off very quickly when the engine is at rest (not running) and then clatter like hell on startup. Under normal operation the lifters perform fine. I am using the valve springs that were recommended by them for this cam and roller combination.
take one of your lifters apart to tell for sure but. covers up the oil hole so it can't pump up.
Basically the one way check valve that allow it to pump up (take up slack) is below the oil hole in the side of the lifter.
I don't know if this would work with a lifter that feed oil up the hollow push rod tub.
Basically the one way check valve that allow it to pump up (take up slack) is below the oil hole in the side of the lifter.
I don't know if this would work with a lifter that feed oil up the hollow push rod tub.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Because it's just not an issue with Chrysler stuff. I've said this before but IQ and I have had the same experience, as I assume RAMM, Porter and everyone else who builds engines for a living found.
The hydraulic internals are not capable of dealing with the aggressive ramps of the roller lobe.
I started refusing to build anything with hydraulic roller lifters. They either used solids on a hydraulic roller cam, went with a SFT or went to a different builder.
Quite frankly, I was tired of fighting that junk, and listening to the customer ***** his face off after being told they will make noise and you'll hate it, and they ignore you and you build it anyway.
Then they go ballistic when it's noisey and then ***** because I was right and they didn't listen.
I've fired plenty of "customers".
512Stroker
We are all here because we are not all there.
I will admit that I should have done more research before supplying a set of hyd rollers to my builders.
But, the wrench in the gears, I have met, talked to and saw with my own eyes other Mopar folks that are successfully using hyd roller setups in stock block applications.
Duane
Well-Known Member
Agreed, it can be done. A friend of mine just completed a mild build with hydraulic roller lifters. He is totally happy with the motor. But the devil is in the details. I will try to get specifics from him and post them here. I could have sworn that he told me he used a specific lifter that Ryan Johnson told him to use, and it is very tall.
Also as was pointed in a previous post, having good system pressure does not mean there is not an issue with leakage at the lifter.
Well golly. All I was pointing out, with some background, was how a noisy hydraulic lifter situation was solved on another engine. We were ready to spend $600 for solid lifters and pull the heads to change the suckers when this type of adjustment came up.
I recall now where this method is used in race engines where hydraulic lifters are required and these engines are spinning to 7,000 rpm.
Same here except I told 'em I'd do a hydraulic roller if we bushed the lifter bores ($800). In went the solid cam. Though now I've completely solved the problem. I just don't build engines for someone else anymore.
Duane
Well-Known Member
And I appreciate your recommendation to the Op. All I was trying to say is I am not familiar with Ford engines oiling system and that if the Op has a problem with his lifters because of the lifter wheel uncovering the oil passage like shown in post number 4, I doubt that your method of adjustment, would work in all cases.
I just wanted to know if the ford oil system resembles the sbm.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Chevrolet also has the same issues. I think you are confusing two issues. One being the issue with Chrysler and their sloppy machining of the tops of the lifter bores, and the second being the inherent inability of the internal hydraulics being able to handle the aggressive roller lobes.
I've never heard of the method IQ mentioned. I can see that helping with stability some way. Reducing the oil cavity must (in my thinking) help control the hydraulics.
As I've posted before, there was more than one reason I grew to hate those lifters.
One was (at the time...Chris Straub has told me on the phone in very pointed language it's different now) in order to control the valve train as the RPM goes up you had to run 20w50 oil. I stopped using that crap in the early 1990's. If you didn't, right about peak torque you start to see the engine get unhappy. It would get through that and then get wacko again as you go past about 6k. The heavy oil helped that a bunch.
But...you lose oil control because you have to open up the clearance for that thick goop. And so it goes.
They tell me now the new lifters are made with much more precise machining so you don't need that heavy oil. That may be. But that didn't address the rest of the issues with them.
I'm not sure why so many guys are not wanting solid lifters. IDK if it's they don't want to do lash, don't know how to do it or what. It's not hard. I check my lash once a year. Maybe. And that's only because I guilt trip myself into it.
This coming from a guy who was check lash every pass on my race car. Once a year is like goldbricking to me.
Edit: forgot to mention that we also used high volume pumps where we never would have and used way more pressure than we normally would to help with these issues.
Last edited:
The 302 Ford has an oil galley drilled to intersect the lifter bores like the Mopar.
Duane
Well-Known Member
I don,t think I am confused about anything. We do not know yet the root cause of his noisy lifters. Are they just inherently noisy because as you say, they cannot handle the ramp, or are his lifters in the smiley face area partially uncovering the oil feed passage at full lift, or is the oil band being exposed above the lifter bore cause loss of pressure at the lifter. As the poster shows in the pics, post number 4
The lifter can expose the oil galley depending on the amount of cam lift. Some guys that have posted on the forum in the last 6 months or so have low system pressure because of the lifters.
Yet some guys have no issues at all.
I agree with you that I personally do not understand the attraction of hydraulic rollers. They cannot handle a real roller ramp to get the performance advantage, so I do not see the benefit.
A friend of mine claims that no one uses flat tap pets anymore because the steel is crap and the oil today does not have the additives to make them live, that's why he went hydraulic roller.
But his build has no issues, so not every case is the same.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
I just post my experience. BTW, you should let your friend know that all flat tappet cams are cast iron. And as Kenny from Oregon Cam always says "they sweep the crap off the floor and make cams out of it".
Which is true. Always has been for cast iron cams. BTW, my first roller cam was cast iron. Those cores HATED being in a clutch car. I don't know why, but the lobes would get substrate fractures (had an engineer friend cut the cam up and look at it and I think that's what he said was happening but that was 1985 and in those days I drank a bit so I could be a bit fuzzy on the terminology) at the end of the lash ramp and cause the material to flake off. I made it better by tightening up the lash but it still happened. Ok, just a little trip down memory lane.
As for the rest of it, a quick search of most any hot rod forum and you'll see they had industry wide issues. I've had the same issues with every brand. So it's a lifter issue. Yes, the Chrysler machining adds another left handed monkey wrench to the issue, but that's on top of the hydraulics issues.
Like I said I was big on hydraulic rollers. My first 408 that made well over 500 HP was a hydraulic roller. When Cam Motion looked over the dyno sheets they begged me to either put solid rollers on it or just change to a solid roller and instead of 5200 RPM turn it 6000 and it would be close to making 600 HP.
So I've built many HR engines. When the lobes became even more aggressive then the issues cropped up.
I mean, you can get a lobe that is .680 lift and 240 at .050 (wish my Comp catalog was here) or similar stuff. You'd never get away with that on a SFT lobe. Not even close. Not even with a Comp MM lobe. But with a roller you can.
When my catalog gets here and I'm back home I'll start a thread comparing modern HR lobes to SFT lobes. Or better, maybe PRH, if he feels like it will do it.
I think that would be interesting and eye opening.
It’s nice when you can see the lobe master specs printed out. It makes it black and white so to speak.
-
