Trick Flow 190 Heads, hydraulic roller cam, and pushrod angle Question.

-

Matthew Quinn

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
26
Location
North Dakota
This build is a 340 stroker. 4" crank and 4.07 bore.

Not sure if this angle is something I should be concerned with or what avenues I could use to mitigate. The geometry seems to be way off. I understand I have the wrong style length checking tool as a I need a ball end and a cup end, however the diameter is correct, so the geometry should match although I can't get a length until the new tool arrives.

Just wondering if what I am seeing is abnormal.

20200830_174744.jpg


20200830_174729.jpg
 
are your lifters in backwards? or too tall?
I tried them both ways, same results Just took this picture as they sat, so yeah they are facing backwards and the pushrod sits centered on the lifter. Both rollers are sitting on the cam with no lift.

Using lunati lifters: 72337-16
 
That looks about right, especially if the push rod is fairly centered in the hole through the head. Do you have a regular flat tappet lifter to compare against? I guess the seat in your roller lifter could be higher than stock, which could exacerbate the angle. You are going to have a similar angle whether you have TF, Edelbrock, SM, or factory heads. The parts in the heads (rocker shaft, valves, rockers), should all be in pretty much the same position.
 
That looks about right, especially if the push rod is fairly centered in the hole through the head. Do you have a regular flat tappet lifter to compare against? I guess the seat in your roller lifter could be higher than stock, which could exacerbate the angle. You are going to have a similar angle whether you have TF, Edelbrock, SM, or factory heads. The parts in the heads (rocker shaft, valves, rockers), should all be in pretty much the same position.
I did place a flat tappet lifter and then compared with both the trick flow head and an x head. The lifter height is definitely a main driver into the geometry. I will be calling B3 tomorrow to see what options might be out there
 
The angle iiwii...... but...... in the op’s first two pics....... the lifters are in wrong.
 
I'm pretty sure the lifters are in backwards.

The bigger question is why do people who are otherwise well-based insists on using hydraulic rollers? They're the worst of the worst. Hydraulic flat tappets are a close second.
 
I'm pretty sure the lifters are in backwards.

The bigger question is why do people who are otherwise well-based insists on using hydraulic rollers? They're the worst of the worst. Hydraulic flat tappets are a close second.
Could you elaborate on that please. Everyone has different opinions on what parts to use. I am interested on how you would proceed with this.
 
I'd use solid lifters, roller or flat. Hydraulics just have no business in a performance engine. You can get more power and better behavior out of a solid lifter.
 
Thank you for the information.


You have time to sell the HR lifters and buy some solid lifters. Yes, you can run solid rollers on a HR lobe. Lash at .002 cold and run it.


Those HR lifters are a royal PITA, they will be noisy even if they aren’t having other issues, they are much less stable than even a HFT and with RPM they get worse.

Do yourself a giant favor and ditch the HR lifters. You’ll thank gregcon later.
 
HELLO
Not wanting to hi Jack this thread, I just want to ask (Yellow Rose and Gregcon) that I had my engine rebuilt last yr and I took the car out this yr and we changed the cam from Hydraulic cam to a solid cam and every one was telling me to put Hydraulic roller lifters but I went with the solids, mechanical Comp cam (about 550 lift) so you are saying this was a better bet than going with those rollers ?
Back in the day, quality wise it went like this,
Hydraulic Solid, Roller cam... There was no Hydraulic rollers, etc. You had a hydraulic cam you had hydraulic lifters, solid cam had solid lifter, and so on. Then they came out with those Rhodes lifters and that was supposed to be the next best thing to sliced bread.... As I got out of cars and into a family, lol
After 30 or so yrs, after growing up and moving on I bought me another mopar again and found out that a lot of things have Changed.
SS springs, out. Cal tracks, in. McCreary tires, out. Drag radials, in.
Cam hydraulic, in. lifters, rollers in ?
So you are saying it's better I stayed with the solids with the mechanical cam?

Thank you guys.
Maps
 
You have time to sell the HR lifters and buy some solid lifters. Yes, you can run solid rollers on a HR lobe. Lash at .002 cold and run it.

Interesting. Sounds like many of the forums have recommended mrl however their website doesn't work. Is there a brand in particular that would be recommended?
Those HR lifters are a royal PITA, they will be noisy even if they aren’t having other issues, they are much less stable than even a HFT and with RPM they get worse.

Do yourself a giant favor and ditch the HR lifters. You’ll thank gregcon later.
 
you have solid rollers on a solid roller cam you are good to go if correct springs and a nice narrow if scrub stripe like in that earlier pic
 
My understanding is the misalignment of the lifter angle coming off the cam with the pushrod angle is a legacy of developing the LA smallblock as a quick-fix evolution of the original 318 Poly block so the V8 could be installed in the A-Body (1964) when industry intel told of the pending V8 Mustang. The late 80's/early 90's truck LA's introduced the factory hydraulic roller cam which aggravate the angle further due to the greater height of the lifter body (thus shorter pushrods). No problem in a street motor in my opinion. I'm building a 4" cranked 360 from a 1990 truck and keeping it cheap with 308 heads. Rick Ehrenberg was featuring a similar build using the TrickFlows, anticipating 500hp with cast iron exhaust manifolds. Anyone see the dyno results on that? I haven't received any Mopar Action issues since Covid. Regardless, we've all been living with the bent lifter/pushrod angle since 1964 so I'm not worried.
 
I assume the Poly does not have the 59 degree angle?

I think it's pretty clear that the 59 degree angle works well in 'street' engine, or more accurately, a non-high RPM engine. I think once you get over 6000RPM or so, you start seeing issues.

Of course, there are a few factors as play....in order to get over 6000RPM, you're most likely using a pretty stout cam, which has more lift, which further makes valvetrain life hard.
 
I assume the Poly does not have the 59 degree angle?

I think it's pretty clear that the 59 degree angle works well in 'street' engine, or more accurately, a non-high RPM engine. I think once you get over 6000RPM or so, you start seeing issues.

Of course, there are a few factors as play....in order to get over 6000RPM, you're most likely using a pretty stout cam, which has more lift, which further makes valvetrain life hard.

IIRC, the poly is a 59 degree LBA.

You can fairly easily run 7500-7800 RPM and be reliable IF you have the geometry correct, aren’t using crapola parts and keep up on spring loads. You’ll need AT LEAST a 3/8-7/16 single taper pushrod and the lightest valves you can afford, which isn’t usually an 11/32 stem.

To get more RPM than that is tough.
 
Millions of hydraulic roller lifters in use in production vehicles every day. Every part had its place. Will a solid, or solid roller make more peak power? Probably, but not at an rpm where a street engine spends most of its time.

Everyone has their opinions, and they are valid, just not for every application. I encourage customers to use hydraulic rollers over a flat tappet for street performance all the time, and unless the lifters are failed from dirt (which isn't the lifters fault), they are generally trouble free. Anything solid is going to require adjustment and maintence, which many street guys are not interested in having to do. To each his own.
 
Fair enough....but a solid flat tappet requires little maintenance. I might venture to say if you ain't willing to adjust some rockers, maybe you oughta stick to the Camry. Lol
 
I'm not sure the points above are entirely clarifying. The Lobe Separation Angle (LBA) of the 318 poly, carried over to the LA evolution is exactly the point when it comes to considering the LA's "bent" lifter/pushrod path to the rocker arms. The 273 as the first LA was specifically made narrower overall on top of the poly block architecture in order to fit between the inner fenders of the A-Body. A compromise reflecting the corporation's time and resource constraints, including engineering and tooling, to adapt to a flexing competitive market. In the late 50's, a broad assumption was made that the Detroit response to European small car inroads would be to offer similar vehicles with four and six cylinder engines. With Ford's thin wall cast and small dimension 260 and the BOP aluminum diecast 215 V8's, Chrysler Corp had to scramble. As the first A-Bodies were formed around the Slant 6 and V8s were wide... The engine was unceremoniously squeezed and the 1964+ underhood sheetmetal massaged. We all know that until the unit body was slightly widened in 1967 that the V8 clearance remained a challenge.

More to the considerations of the original poster's question. I think everyone has been consistent in noting "it depends". Form follows function: Max horsepower high RPM drag car or street driver performance? Compromises made for production sales become increasingly significant as you get closer to pure racing optimization.
 
I’m running a small Hyd. Roller with the trick flow heads and the 1.6 rockers with Mikes kit on the wife’s car.
Such an excellent set up. For making good power in a car that gets driven often, I like a Hyd cam. Zero to maintain. Just get in and go 100% all the time. No hassle.

Hot street cars.... if you want a mechanical cam.. go for it. Adjusting the valves once in a while is a caveat that should be known and not a big bother. If it is... go Hyd.!
 
-
Back
Top