Variable hydraulic lifters for 440 engine

-
I had a re-read some history, i had opened a topic before on FBBO on setting up my Holley 770 Street avenger where i found some details and settings of that time.
So below readings is what i had then, but at the time the camshaft was advanced 14*! crank degrees by having the dots to be off 1 tooth on the cam drive sprocket.

Idle rpm: 950 rpm. (Now: 750 rpm)
Vacuum: 10.0" Hg (drops to 5-5.5" when in gear with a big rpm drop). (Now: 6" Hg, less rpm drop)
Idle AFR reading: 15.0-15.5. (Now: 13.0) (Don't think about the actual number, it is only telling me it runs more rich now than before)
Initial advance: 20*. (Now 12*)
Mech advance: 18* all-in at 2500 rpm. (Now: 18* all-in at 3300 rpm)
No V-can attached. (Now: Still not in use)

The written in blue above is in its current state.

But boy did it run!! Burning tires all the time, this thing did not need any brake to stay stationary for making a burnout. Although that is fun, the normal driving and MPG suffered big time and want to be somewhere in the middle.
Plugs were black with soot and i was quite sure there was a leak in the fuel tank somewhere. :D
Oh, and idle quality was not good, engine was excessively shaking, and in gear it is always about to stall.
But with using the same PCV as i am using now, that would have went to WOT mode as soon as i put it in Drive, severely leaning out the mixture and caused the poor idle in gear.
(This is probably why the engine had no PCV when i bought it)
Another problem i had there was a very rich cruising of 11.0 AFR, hit it and it would go to 12.5-13.0.
But the rich cruise was caused by too much fuel coming from the mixture screws for the amount of air passing the throttle, and with the PCV valve in normal mode by then, due to higher vacuum, not allowing all that additional air in anymore and richened it up.
Tried V-can at the time, which brought in 5* advance at idle so i backed off the initial timing to maintain 20* but i noticed detonation at light throttle.
Things that were fundamentally wrong there were things i was not aware of at the time, just now looking back i understand why!

Comparing the 2 situations, i can see that with the camshaft advanced (too far though) i still would likely have ended up the same as i am now.
Because at that time to get the idle down i would have had to reduce the advance, which in effect would have dropped the vacuum as well.
Also would have had to fatten up the idle mixture to 1 - 1-1/2 turns on the mixture screws, which at that time were around 3/4 turn to make it idle stronger with a richer mixture to avoid too much rpm drop.
I believe at that time the PCV was giving me the headache as well as it did now.

I am sure the camshaft is installed as intended, the TDC indicator on the balancer i had also checked and found spot-on.
If i had to advance the cam again, i could only use the advance slot in the crank sprocket, which i think is 4* advance.
This would bring the ICA from 68* to 64*, so with that i will be indeed near 168 PSI again as i am at 160-ish at the moment.

Regarding the TC, yes it beats me as well.
When the engine is just running and the tranny is still cold, it can be put in gear and it will not move at all.
Maybe after a bit it will start moving slowly.
But once at operating temperature it will drive off straight without giving any throttle.
Could this be a tight converter with high stall? Sounds more a converter for a tow truck to be honest.
 
Could this be a tight converter with high stall? Sounds more a converter for a tow truck to be honest.
That was my though as well. A 180/200rpm drop going into gear with a TC that physically flash-stalls to 3000, with 4.10s, is strange behavior to me. This is why I suggested the wheels-up test.

By your numbers, advancing the cam from where it is , will not help. Something else is going on here that I don't understand. Ima starting to think that your cam is bigger than the cam-card you have, says it is. Since you didn't buy the cam new; what are the chances that the PO gave you a wrong cam-card? Did you have any trouble degreeing it? Did you check the exhaust installed centerline?

Thanks for the comparo
 
Nope, after some scientific investigation i found the part number engraved in the camshaft flange, behind the sprocket. See picture.

I had checked the cam events of intake and exhaust valve:
There is a bit of deviation in the readings compared to the cam specs, forgive me my unexperienced way of measuring a camshaft...i was a virgin. :D
But it is very close to the cam specs so it cannot be a different cam.

Intake: @ 0.050"
Valve open: 13* BTDC
Valve close: 44* ABDC
Duration: 237*
Centerline: 105.5*

Exhaust: @ 0.050"
Valve open: 51* BBDC
Valve close: 13* ATDC
Duration: 244*
Centerline: 109*


upload_2019-8-20_14-43-48-png-png-png.png

upload_2019-8-20_14-39-34-png-png-png.png



I even checked it by going @ .050" from the cam nose:


Intake:
Cam nose: @ 0.050" . Centerline: 105,5*
Valve open: 33* BBDC
Valve close: 64* ATDC

Exhaust:
Cam nose: @ 0.050" . Centerline: 109,5*
Valve open: 26* ABDC
Valve close: 65* BTDC

When checking the valve train for the correct length push rod to order i did measure more lift than as per cam specs.
i had measured multiple times but i found .578/.580" lift.

It may be a junker converter. Kim

Who knows, from what i heard from the Mopar society here some said the had seen this car somewhere in the late 90's as it is.
If the car had been redone (painted, engine overhaul, etc) in those days i know for sure that the availability of parts was not so easy as it is now with the internet web shops, international shipping, etc.
So digging up some parts from various old cars was easier and cheaper to do.

I know for a fact this car was "restored" with parts from a 1970 Coronet, i am quite sure they have taken the rear axle of that and put it on this car. (4.10 ratio with sure grip....track pak axle)
My car originally had a 22" radiator so it came with a 3.23 ratio rear axle....any axle package would have added a 26" radiator.
For all i know they took the converter of that car as well and installed it also on this car, and that converter could have been not the original one from that car but an aftermarket one.
I know the VIN of the 1970 car...long story, don't ask, but that had a 318 2bbl engine.
If they used the TC of that car in here, maybe unlikely, or anything else they could find locally, but who knows what it does behind a BB.

Schermafbeelding 2020-05-03 om 19.54.23.png
 
Last edited:
Well that's it now you gotta do the wheels up test, as in post #50

Is there still engine torque absorption from the transmission while in neutral?
So what does that test actually proof?
Does this show the "load" the convertor creates on the engine?
Where as this "load" with a high stall convertor should be very low, right?
And i guess that is what might drag the engine down, causing a low vacuum?
As when trowing it in Drive the load increases more and the vacuum drops more...well together with the idle.
 
You got it Wietse
In Park
all oil flow is hemorrhaged to the pan at the manual valve, except a maintenance flow to the convertor,and a small amount is sent to the lube circuit. Line pressure is spec'd to be 5 to 30 psi, depending on idle speed.
In Neutral
the hemorrhaging is stopped and the line pressure is spec'd to be 55psi, with the TC pressure rising to as much as same.
With the engine idling, wheel off the ground;
If your wheels turn in neutral,are hard to stop, dragging the idle speed and vacuum down, then, either
1) the forward clutch is dragging, not by hydraulic pressure, but by warped clutches, and driving thru the rear sprag, or
2) the TC sprag is not working right, or
3) the TC is just really tight
Here is a link I found, and a cool pic



torque-converter.gif
 
Thx AJ,

So the only difference between Park and Neutral are that in Park there is a pressure bleed off and the ratchet lock is engaged.
I would say when the TC sprag is not working (either stuck or able to rotate in both directions) that this would give issues all the time?
From the video, that when coming from a standstill it multiplies the torque as the stator is in a static position, the car would be really lazy at take off if the sprag was malfunctioning.
If it would be seized up guess this would show problems at higher constant speeds?
So as you said, a warped clutch would be likely, and a tight converter also as i don't know what type/model it is.

I checked on some pictures again and i can see a number stamped in the converter, i never noted it down but it is on the ring gear.
I removed the cover and cranked over the engine to find the numbers which says the following: 47339E12 CH RG 130
I will do some searching for these numbers and might find somthing.

It seems i cannot go back to work for some time due to this mad pandemic so i will see and pull the car from the garage and perform the test and see if i can find the number on the converter.
 
Last edited:
Ok, i did some research on that numbers.

The 47339E12 did not show up anything related to any converter brands.
The CH RG 130 seems a part number of the ring gear only, which seems to be manufactured by Sonnax Performance Converters. (the 130 stands for the 130 teeth)
This ring gear is being used on the CH-RK-4 converter kit, now this is a sold as a kit which still requires to be welded together.
Performance Converter Kit - CH-RK-4
This is a 10" Non lock-up unit for the 727 TF.

This is the exploded view of the unit, Item #17 ring gear has the part number as i found.
Chrysler 727, 10-3/4" NLU Performance Converter Torque Converter

So now i am wondering, would a company like Sonnax sell these kits to, for example B&M, and B&M will do the final assembly and maybe do some in-house modifications of their own?
And B&M will sell this as a final product under their own name?
But if this is the case the converter could be any brand, and depending on the brand specific modifications/assembly could have any stall speed.
It says it uses a GM245mm core, which is used on a wide variety of converters for not just for Chrysler but also other brands.
 
Last edited:
Nice detective work.
Unfortunately I cannot answer any of those questions. Hopefully someone who can will chime in.

So the only difference between Park and Neutral are that in Park there is a pressure bleed off and the ratchet lock is engaged.
Additionally, the flow to the TC is reduced, resulting in very low pressure in there, and very little energy transfer from the engine to the trans.

The thing about a TC is it's Torque Multiplying ability. This varies with rpm and with load, and is greatest with the vehicle stopped. The TC has an internal hydraulic ratio that can vary by as much as 2.0 to as little as 1.0 and change.
So at zero mph, lets say the typical performance ratio is 1.8 then whatever torque comes into the TC, at stall, will be multiplied by that 1.8, then by the trans low gear (2.45) then by the rear end, 4.10 in your case; so the total multiplier is 18.081 ! this is a crazy high number. If at 3000rpm/WOT your 440 had the ability to generate say 380 ftlbs torque, then your tires would be trying to deal with 6870 ftlbs. Of course they would lose that battle instantly.
So now the rpm is rising and the tires are spinning. The TC is dropping ratio because of the loss of resistance due to the spinning tires.
So lets say you just keep the rpm at 3000,which can no longer be at WOT, so say putting down 200ftlbs,and say the TC ratio has fallen to 1.4, so then;
200x1.4x2.45x4.1=2810, and the tires keep right on spinning.
So say the car is accelerating with spinning tires, and you eventually reach peak torque of say 440 ftlbs, and the TC is down to 1.1, so
440x1.1x2.45x4.1=4860, so those loser tires keep right on spinning.
So say you eventually get to max power, and that might be 450@5500 so that would then calculate to 280ftlbs. Ok,then
280x1.1x2.45x4.1=3100 ftlbs and the tires are still spinning. The roadspeed is 44mph with 28" tires.
So that's getting to the end of first gear.

Now, the point I'm trying to make is that, this is about how it should be working. I guessed at you torque numbers so the actual values are just best guesses. But don't overlook the big picture that The TC is constantly changing it's ratio, in response to the rpm and load.

If the stator-clutch quits locking,and spins backwards, then the TC will never do the Torque Multiplying. So at zero mph the torque coming out of it will be same as going in, less whatever slippage occurs, so, again at zero-mph, say;
380x0.9x2.45x4.10=3435, still enough to spin the tires with that 440 and the 4.10s; but now it takes full throttle to maintain the spin, as there is no more TM occurring in the TC.

If the TC is designed for a low stall application, the angle of the fins will be different, and the unit will want to start transmitting torque sooner; and the stator angle could be different as well. The result of all that could be a higher TM ratio. But if it is engineered for 300 ftlbs, and you pump 440 into it, then the flash-stall could rise due to deformation of the case resulting in internal slippage.

I mean the TC is a fabulous invention; simply built, but almost unfathomably complicated in operation. It can fail catastrophically, or subtly.
Not long ago a FABO member had his TC fail internally to the point that the engine would nearly stall when the trans was put into gear, and the car would accelerate very poorly. Once moving and cruising it seemed fine. A new TC gave his combo a whole new personality.
 
Last edited:
Well explained how that works.
As you said it is a very nice invention and actually really simple if you look at the small amount of parts, but to understand completely how they work is a different ball game with all these variables.

I did not get to it today as i had other things to attend, tomorrow i will lift the rear of the ground and do the test.
 
Ok, so i checked what engine and transmission do as you mentioned.

I had screwed around a bit before with the choke and had played with the idle adjustment, so at the first test it run around 900rpm idle and at that time the wheels did start to spin in Neutral.
The speedo cable is broken but my guess would be the rotate for maybe 10mph, if i put my foot against it i could bring them to a stop though.
When looking at the rpms and vacuum there was a loss, it seemed like being in drive already.

But then i realized the rpm was 150 too high so i brought it down to 750rpm idle.

When at idle in Park, i have around 750rpm and 6" vacuum.
Putting it in Neutral, the rpm's drop slightly to 730-ish and vacuum drops of a little, maybe 5.5"
The wheels don't spin continually, but they rotate a little bit at the time but just small amounts and if i grab the wheel i can just hold it stationairy.

So as a result of this, i believe letting the engine run in idle above 800rpm just worsens the situation as the converter will start to put a load on the engine.
So sticking with 700-750 rpm would be the best option.
But it could mean this torque converter is too tight for this cam, but a flash stall of around 3000 rpm is ok.
 
Giving the engine a little rev to 1000-1200 makes the tires rotate a bit but after stop turning again and just creep a little every now and then.
I set the idle rpm to 800 rpm, which still keeps the tires stationairy.

I also seems temperature sensitive as well, if the car has been off for 10 minutes and i start again it will not idle as good, throwing the tranny in Neutral will rotate the tires.
After just letting it get back to temperature and not changing anything it idles better and the tires remain stationairy in neutral.

I am quite sure now that either the torque converter has a problem or is the wrong type.

Edit: Giving all that a thought here...
As the torque converter likely drags on the engine too much in Park/Neutral already, this makes me have to increase the idle mixture screws more than i should compared to a "better suitable converter".
This obviously makes it to run rich and idle and cruising speeds.
If a proper 3000 stall TC does not apply any torque transfer during idle and when in Drive i should barely see any rpm drop when going in gear, the mixture would stay near enough the same and does not require to be enriched as it is now due to the load that is applied to it.

That's where i am at now, but please correct me if i am wrong.
 
Last edited:
The temp sensitivity is normal.
I think your TC is working correctly.
I think ,at the least, it is not responsible for your low idle vacuum.
And,obviously, neutral works just fine, so the trans clutches are not mechanically dragging.

I would have expected the tires to rotate faster, and continuously, in neutral, at 1000/1200 but your rear brakes may just be dragging, or the TC is just loose, which for a 3000 flash-stall, is probably correct.
If the tires break loose with moderate throttle from a stop, and continue to burn with ever more throttle as the car moves out, then the stator is fine. It would be hard for me to judge, how much throttle opening would be required because I've never had a BB,lol. So I use the word "moderate".
But if the tires break loose at 1500rpm or 2000, with a 3000F-stall, I would assume the TC is not working right

Ohchit, gotta go, I'm late for work!
Ok , I'm back,lol
 
Last edited:
I would have expected the tires to rotate faster, and continuously, in neutral, at 1000/1200 but your rear brakes may just be dragging, or the TC is just loose, which for a 3000 flash-stall, is probably correct.

What i ment was, that when at idle in Neutral, i just hit the throttle a bit to rev it up to 1000-1200 rpm, but not maintaining that rpm but just let it drop again back to idle.
At that time the revs jump, the tires rotate a little and when the rpm comes down the tires come to a stand still again.

Brakes are not dragging because the wheels rotate easy by hand.
And holding 1 wheel stop both obviously with a sure grip.

So I use the word "moderate".
Yes, with "moderate" throttle the tires will break loose. :D

Good luck with work out there, stay safe!
 
Last edited:
But if the tires break loose at 1500rpm or 2000, with a 3000F-stall, I would assume the 3000 TC is not working right
And what I meant, of course, is with the tires on the pavement.
I was in a hurry....
Any TC, should not break the tires loose at under it's rated stall, else the stall may not be rated right. I mean they start transmitting torque right at idle, just not enough to move the vehicle. But as soon as the rpm rises, and the torque overcomes the "body at rest" then the vehicle begins to move. Once moving, less torque is required to stay moving.
But to break traction, the TC will have to come to, or very near to, a hydraulic lock , which should be very close to it's stall rating.... not the flash stall but the brake-stall rating.
 
Last edited:
This TC does seem a stranger though.
It does flash relatively high but seems a tight model, that it works does not mean it is the right one behind this engine though.
Anyway when time comes i will replace it with something new and known.

So, guess that the question remains..why the manifold vacuum remains low.
I had a look again in my previous posts on FBBO and i always had this low vacuum there, only times i mentioned a higher vacuum was with the engine running at higher idle rpm.
This shitty vacuum did not come because i had the engine opened up, even with the severely advanced cam setup it suffered the same.
And now confirming the engine runs without load caused by the tranny it remains low.
It must be the nature of the beast i guess, this cam in a 440 BB.

So, to come back to the initial idea of using the variable hydraulic lifters.
Think this is the last option of trying to get a street car out of this engine as it is.
I can gain 1-3" vacuum and reduce cam duration with 5-15* @ .050" lift.

Think i will send them an email and ask them some questions and ask for a recommendation.
I wonder what the base height of these lifters are compared to what i am currently using.
If they are same it is ok, if not i might need different length push rods to suit the difference if it is too much.
 
Last edited:
This shitty vacuum did not come because i had the engine opened up, even with the severely advanced cam setup it suffered the same.
And now confirming the engine runs without load caused by the tranny it remains low.
It must be the nature of the beast i guess, this cam in a 440 BB.
with the cam advanced 14*, it should have had a much much higher idle vacuum.
That it didn't, I think, is pointing us to something else. Low manifold vacuum, in a performance engine, with no vacuum leaks; is caused almost exclusively by the late-closing intake valve.

One cam I had,the 292/292/108, ran so "poorly",that I was desperate to know when the intake valve closed. What I did was install a timing tape on the damper, then put the piston at the bottom of the intake stroke. Next I injected air into the plug-hole regulated to 30 psi, and continued to rotate the crank,in the normal direction,until the bar I was using, began to bounce in my hand, as I tried to continue.
With a 4" piston, 30 psi is 377 ftlbs of force, so my 20" bar and me were not heavy enough to control the bar, as the cylinder began to build pressure. I reduced the pressure, and put a pipe on my bar, until I could find the threshold within a few degrees, of when exactly the valve closed, and the cylinder began to be pressurized. What I found was that the piston in terms of degrees was actually about half way back up the bore, when compression began.
When you "time/degree" a cam, this is the thing you are moving; the intake closing angle. Yes, of course, all the other points are simultaneously moving, but the Ica is the only one we are usually concerned about.
So that is when I put 2 and 2 together, why my intake vacuum was so low.
However,in my case, I didn't believe that it was the only reason. I eventually traced a portion of my problem to another source, fixed it, and then I had a monster-engine. It still idled "poorly", but it would idle a whole bunch slower and was much happier about it.
 
Hey guys,

I am new around here, since i own a B-body i am mostly active on FBBO, but i have been looking here on this forum and have found plenty useful information around here.
Now i would like to raise a question some of you might be able to answer, or have experience regarding variable hydraulic lifters.

I own a '69 Coronet with a 440 engine and 727 auto tranny.
The engine has a Hughes Engines hydr. FT camshaft, HE3844BL, 238/244 @ .050" with .572"/.576" lift. (283/291* @ .008")
This cam is obviously not a street cam but this is how i bought the car.
While avoiding to change the whole engine setup i want to make it a bit more street friendly, and i was thinking variable hydraulic lifters could help me out.
I've come across the Hughes Engines variable lifters HUG 5003 and also read a lot of things about the Rhoads V-Pro street variable lifters.
Now at idle i have 5-6"Hg vacuum and obviously idle quality is not that great.
The engine has flat top pistons, 906 heads and compression is about 10.25 - 10.5 with a cranking pressure of about 160 psi.

Anyone here has any experience with variable hydraulic lifters? And does it help to reduce the lift and duration at idle to obtain a better idle quality and vacuum?

I did notice people mention they are noisy, my engine has around 50-60# oil pressure during driving and 40# is the lowest i've seen at idle.
Currently i am using 20W50 oil, and the Hughes Engine lifters state to not use any heavier oil than 10W30. (Rhoads does not mention any oil viscosity requirements for their lifter)
So if i had to swap to a different viscosity i will loose some pressure i think.
I am using a new HV Melling oil pump but wonder would a HP pump be a requirement?
The car is not used for racing/strip purposes, i want to use it as a hot street car

If you have any experience with these type lifters i would like to hear your experience with them if they help in improving idle quality.


I've been using Rhoades lifters for many decades in small blocks with no problems and they work great...


Rhoads Lifters


Read the second article for the best explaination:

Articles


Part number:

Part Numbers
 
When you "time/degree" a cam, this is the thing you are moving; the intake closing angle. Yes, of course, all the other points are simultaneously moving, but the Ica is the only one we are usually concerned about.
So that is when I put 2 and 2 together, why my intake vacuum was so low.

So, as this cam has .008" @ 68* After BDC lift, the valve will close even later, it is more than likely the intake valve is fully closed in the 75* area.
Yes, i agree that the when the cam was advance 14* the vacuum should have been higher as a lot less air is being pushed back in the intake.
But at that time still the valve would seat around 61* After BDC (compared with the assumption above) which is still late, and might not improve much on the vacuum as there is still heaps of air being blown back.

However, in my case, I didn't believe that it was the only reason. I eventually traced a portion of my problem to another source, fixed it, and then I had a monster-engine.

I think we have searched for all other sources already on this one, but anyway i want to ask where did you find the other problem?
I don't know if a different type manifold would help? Now have a dual plane intake but what if i used a single plane intake would that reduce the effect of the blow back?
Because as 1 piston is pushing air back in the intake, it will be spread more rapidly in the intake and another cylinder that is still filling might "absorb" this partially, reducing the effect and increase vacuum?

I already got a reply from Rhoads and they recommended using the V-Pro lifters and set them at .030" to provide max. leak down.
This should reduce the duration around 15* @.050" lift and increase manifold vacuum up to 3".
The only thing i am doubting about that is that it will increase the dynamic compression ratio again, and my cranking pressure will also go up.
 
The only thing i am doubting about that is that it will increase the dynamic compression ratio again, and my cranking pressure will also go up.
It will, but it will only exist at idle. as soon as the lifters pump up again, the pressure goes down, and with a 3000TC, the transition should be seamless. At Part throttle this is ideal, between idle and stall, this is ideal.

I don't know if a different type manifold would help?
No; I think an open plenum will make it worse. But at your pressure and VP it might be worth a go.

But at that time still the valve would seat around 61* After BDC (compared with the assumption above) which is still late, and might not improve much on the vacuum as there is still heaps of air being blown back.
61* is actually pretty tame, I run 64/65* @.008, and my 367 idles quite happily at 550 rpm, she is such a sweetheart.
i want to ask where did you find the other problem?
Well,
the machine shop I trusted, sent my block out somewhere to be decked for zero with my KB107s. I trusted them both. I never checked it until the engine idled like a pos.
What I found was that, the one bank was running downhill from end to end, and so was the other bank also running downhill, but in the opposite direction; and the banks were not at 90* to each other.
So this was all twisted up and the cast-iron TQ intake I was running, ended up sucking in the valley from both sides because it just couldn't conform.
So I bolted on an old aluminum Excellerator for the summer with a thick gasket, and got away with it. The following winter, I sent the block out to a Mopar shop, who said I need an align hone.
Ok so after they got thru with it, the decks were fairly well straightened up ................ to the now running uphill at the back crank. The rear main seal now leaked, and the wear-pattern told the tail.
But the new RPM AirGap intake sealed real nice.
So the following winter, I took the block back to the machine shop, who denied they screwed up the line-hone, but would be willing to machine a different block that I would bring, for free. Ok said I what about the boring and decking? Oh no, they said, I'd have to pay for that, only a line-hone would be free.
I, politely, declined, and loaded up my crummy block. So I did some research, and found that a 383 Mopar rear rope-seal fit into my 360 with just a bit of trimming. It still seeps a bit, but it's bearable.
The 292 cam was only in there for the first summer.
The plan was to eventually replace the block but that combo runs like a scalded cat, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Oh man, that must have been a real pain, bringing that block around shops to get the screw up's fixed.
And then even denying they did not do that....

I guess a 440 will push a bit more air back to the intake compared to a 367, so being a BB it will worsen the situation compared to a SB.
If i go ahead of buying and installing these variable lifters, the valley pan needs to be pulled again anyway.
I can remove the intake now and double check the sealing area between intake and valley pan sealing face for any potential leaks that might be there.
Your story makes me wonder, the heads were not removed and the flange angles have not changed.
But if they are wrong, they are still wrong and if they leaked before, they could still leak.
Although i did not hear/notice any leak, a visual will tell more then that i think.
We know it is not pulling air from between the valley pan and cylinder heads as the crankcase builds up pressure when blocked off.

Whatever i find there, i can reseal it temporary using a gasket and rtv for another test and see what vacuum i am getting then.
Anyway i will be going back to work next week, if i do find nothing wrong with the intake sealing faces i can order them and by the time i am back home again they will be already here waiting for me.
 
Here is a thought. How much lifter preload do u have now? Ever thought of putting solid lifters on that cam? Kim

Now i have .040" pre-load on the hydr lifter.
Is it possible to change to solids on a hydraulic cam?
What/how does that benefit? Does that also reduce duration?
 
-
Back
Top