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

-
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.
If that is the build described in the June issue of Mopar Action, on a four wheel chassis dyno they got 380 whp at 4800 and 460 lb-ft. He says that translates to 475 hp and 565 tq at the flywheel. I need to find the previous four installments of the build.
 
If that is the build described in the June issue of Mopar Action, on a four wheel chassis dyno they got 380 whp at 4800 and 460 lb-ft. He says that translates to 475 hp and 565 tq at the flywheel. I need to find the previous four installments of the build.
@gzig5, Thanks for that update on the Ehrenberg build. I respect his work and was eagerly anticipating the outcome. I expected it might fall slightly short of the 500hp goal given the exhaust manifolds but that's an impressive result regardless.
 
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
Again, one man's opinion. Some guys want to drive their car and not have to work on it. Some guys aren't as skilled at doing valve adjustments as others. Some guys don't want to spill oil all over their detailed engine compartment. Add to that the noticeable decline in flat tappet lifter quality of late, and the requirement for more expensive oils or additives, and a hydraulic roller has some appeal. Personally, the older I get, the more I hate hanging over a fender adjusting lash. And again, most street engines will spend 95% of their time between 2000 and 3500 rpm.

I get what your saying. I tell people if they are going to run a roller rocker they need to correct the rocker geometry. Otherwise, leave it stock if the factory engineering is "good enough". But, many don't do it. The difference is that a hyraulic roller cam will run for hundreds of thousands of miles, but a motor with bad rocker geometry probably won't. Something will fail prematurely.

I run everything, but from a liability standpoint, and not knowing what the customer is going to do with/to their motor, I use rollers whenever I can. But, solid rollers just aren't practical for a car that gets driven a lot, but doesn't get maintenanced a lot. Just another man's opinion.
 
Again, one man's opinion. Some guys want to drive their car and not have to work on it. Some guys aren't as skilled at doing valve adjustments as others. Some guys don't want to spill oil all over their detailed engine compartment. Add to that the noticeable decline in flat tappet lifter quality of late, and the requirement for more expensive oils or additives, and a hydraulic roller has some appeal. Personally, the older I get, the more I hate hanging over a fender adjusting lash. And again, most street engines will spend 95% of their time between 2000 and 3500 rpm.

I get what your saying. I tell people if they are going to run a roller rocker they need to correct the rocker geometry. Otherwise, leave it stock if the factory engineering is "good enough". But, many don't do it. The difference is that a hyraulic roller cam will run for hundreds of thousands of miles, but a motor with bad rocker geometry probably won't. Something will fail prematurely.

I run everything, but from a liability standpoint, and not knowing what the customer is going to do with/to their motor, I use rollers whenever I can. But, solid rollers just aren't practical for a car that gets driven a lot, but doesn't get maintenanced a lot. Just another man's opinion.


It’s hard to disagree with you mike because you ain’t wrong.

I get the liability issues. I’ll sound like the prick I am, but there are far too many guys who claim they can do a lot of stuff, then you find out they can’t.

IMO, setting valves is so simple and easy (in most cases...there are those engine compartments that everything is in the way just to get the rocker covers off...when I see that, I know those guys need some kind of hydraulic lifter) that anyone really wanting the best performance should be willing to learn to do it correctly and learn it quickly.

That said, when I can I still try and sway guys to use solid rollers on HR lobes, set the last at .002 cold and send it.

I have guys driving 7500 to 10k miles a year and they just run the valves in the spring and then they drive.

I’ve had so many issues with HR lifters making “noise” and the owner saying it’s not “quiet” that I just got sick of it, and now try and get guys to use solids on their HR lobes.
 
It’s hard to disagree with you mike because you ain’t wrong.

I get the liability issues. I’ll sound like the prick I am, but there are far too many guys who claim they can do a lot of stuff, then you find out they can’t.

IMO, setting valves is so simple and easy (in most cases...there are those engine compartments that everything is in the way just to get the rocker covers off...when I see that, I know those guys need some kind of hydraulic lifter) that anyone really wanting the best performance should be willing to learn to do it correctly and learn it quickly.

That said, when I can I still try and sway guys to use solid rollers on HR lobes, set the last at .002 cold and send it.

I have guys driving 7500 to 10k miles a year and they just run the valves in the spring and then they drive.

I’ve had so many issues with HR lifters making “noise” and the owner saying it’s not “quiet” that I just got sick of it, and now try and get guys to use solids on their HR lobes.
I hear ya Tim, but the problem is guys are expecting a performance engine to be whisper quiet. They're not, and fwiw, I've never heard a quiet solid tappet lifter. My point is, if guys want a motor that sounds stock, keep it stock. Most of us know that an aggressive lobe will cause more valvetrain noise, hydraulic or not. But, that is the cost of performance many times, and a performance hydraulic roller by nature has a more aggressive lobe profile than a flat tappet, so more valvetrain noise is to be expected. Guys just need to understand that from the beginning.

I built a hydraulic cammed 340 for a customer with a Voodoo flat tappet. He later went to work in the office at a different engine shop. He complained that the valvetrain made a tick sound sporadically. I could never hear it, but he insisted it was there. Guys at the shop he worked at claimed the lifters were junk, so he bought anti pump up lifters. Mind you, I used the same lifters in another engine I built for him with no complaints. The anti pump up lifter wasn't any better, so they talked him into putting solid lifters on the hydraulic cam. As far as I know, they are still in there, and he absolutely hates it. If he wanted quiet, he should have left it stock, or at least near stock. I can't imagine how distressed he would be with a solid and .024"ish lash.

If guys want to run a hydraulic in a performance motor, is should be for ease of maintenance, not for lack of noise. That will get you disappointed pretty easily.
 
Great discussion with lots of themes, least of all being customers' unreasonable expectations.

What I think is most amazing is that contemporary small block MOPAR critiques commonly involve low octane pump gas motors making 400+ horsepower. Oh, woe is me!

I've been around long enough to remember a 235 horse solid lifter 10.5 compression 273 being impressive. My 1970's Racer Brown solid cammed 11.5 340 6BBL wouldn't idle but it was awesome! 104 octane Sunoco 260 was available but expensive. Celebrate your good fortune my friends!
 
Last edited:
I hear ya Tim, but the problem is guys are expecting a performance engine to be whisper quiet. They're not, and fwiw, I've never heard a quiet solid tappet lifter. My point is, if guys want a motor that sounds stock, keep it stock. Most of us know that an aggressive lobe will cause more valvetrain noise, hydraulic or not. But, that is the cost of performance many times, and a performance hydraulic roller by nature has a more aggressive lobe profile than a flat tappet, so more valvetrain noise is to be expected. Guys just need to understand that from the beginning.

I built a hydraulic cammed 340 for a customer with a Voodoo flat tappet. He later went to work in the office at a different engine shop. He complained that the valvetrain made a tick sound sporadically. I could never hear it, but he insisted it was there. Guys at the shop he worked at claimed the lifters were junk, so he bought anti pump up lifters. Mind you, I used the same lifters in another engine I built for him with no complaints. The anti pump up lifter wasn't any better, so they talked him into putting solid lifters on the hydraulic cam. As far as I know, they are still in there, and he absolutely hates it. If he wanted quiet, he should have left it stock, or at least near stock. I can't imagine how distressed he would be with a solid and .024"ish lash.

If guys want to run a hydraulic in a performance motor, is should be for ease of maintenance, not for lack of noise. That will get you disappointed pretty easily.


LOL...if you want it quiet you should keep it stock...no truer words have been spoken. When you can convince the hot rod public of that simple notion, you’ll be the King!!

I have never been able to convince anyone that quiet and performance don’t go together. It’s a tough sell.
 
I'm a big believer in the concept that if something has been proven in millions of applications, it can't be all bad. The hydraulic lifter is one such animal. For Mom's car, they rule the world, unless Mon drives a Slant Six.

About 10 years ago, I assembled an early Hemi with a hydraulic roller. I did that to sidestep any zinc issues, and because I knew the engine would never see over 5000RPM, and I figured the lobe profile might pick up a few HP. Plus, the lack of adjustable rockers sort of went hand in hand with the hyd cam.

But that was not any sort of 'performance' engine....just a 'good' running engine meant to power (get this) a 1958 Chrysler.

The 'unknown mushiness' of a hydraulic lifter freaked me out 40 years ago...it still does today. The miracle is they work at all.....I can hardly expect them to work 'awesome'.

The real deciding factor for me lies in knowing I'm leaving something on the table when I use a hyd lifter....the knowledge that the 'same' cam in a solid will perform better, forever and for free.
 
I happened to see this pic online of a 318 Poly.

It made me remember the splayed valve layout of the Poly, as you can see some of the pushrods are angled.

But, it looks like the pushrods are not on a 59 degree angle. They look pretty straight, more or less.

318 poly.jpg
 
I happened to see this pic online of a 318 Poly.

It made me remember the splayed valve layout of the Poly, as you can see some of the pushrods are angled.

But, it looks like the pushrods are not on a 59 degree angle. They look pretty straight, more or less.

View attachment 1715598884


The pushrods are straight, but the lifter bank angle is 59 degrees.
 
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.

View attachment 1715587068

View attachment 1715587069
I tried those rocker rollers. Go with comp cam please. Those are cheap junk in my opinion. I built a 340 ta pump gas motor. Getting 600 hp on an .080 over sleeved block. 426 ci monster. Good luck with your build guy-
 
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
Would this not defeat some or all of the advantage of running a proper matched solid cam and lifter set? I mean I have seen the difference in the ramp lengths of HR to SRs being as high as 17*. And as you know, the .008/.006 advertised spec is no where near when the valve actually closes. I understand that running solids on hydros might make them quieter because of the gentle ramps, but in this case the quiet is eating up valuable cylinder pressure. 8 degrees,half the difference, equates to roughly 12psi.
Is my thinking wrong?
What I mean is; just because you can do it, and it works; is it still a good thing to do?
 
AJ, how much duration is eaten up by the lash needed for a solid roller tappet on a Hyd. roller cam?
How much lash are you giving it?
 
Would this not defeat some or all of the advantage of running a proper matched solid cam and lifter set? I mean I have seen the difference in the ramp lengths of HR to SRs being as high as 17*. And as you know, the .008/.006 advertised spec is no where near when the valve actually closes. I understand that running solids on hydros might make them quieter because of the gentle ramps, but in this case the quiet is eating up valuable cylinder pressure. 8 degrees,half the difference, equates to roughly 12psi.
Is my thinking wrong?
What I mean is; just because you can do it, and it works; is it still a good thing to do?


How do you think they came up with “tight lash” solid rollers?

They are HR lobes with SR lifters.

Guys get way to worked up over lash ramps and all that.

Put solids on a HR lobe, lash it at .002 cold and send it.
 
AJ, how much duration is eaten up by the lash needed for a solid roller tappet on a Hyd. roller cam?
How much lash are you giving it?
Not me Rob, jus asking , for personal understanding.
YR mentioned .002 lash.
Here are my thoughts;
Ima thinking of a 284/292/114+4 HR cam, with an .050 of say 230*.. That makes the advertised intake ramps to be 54* . And say it it's at .008 tappet rise. Sound fair? Well let's just say it is.
so, in at 110,the Ica at .008 tappet-rise is 72*ATDC
So now from .008 tappet rise to when the intake valve finally gets on the seat and not leaking, I have no way of knowing. But I can guess at least another 12 degrees, So the intake might be closed at 84* ATDC. ....... Now, lets give back,say 3* for the .002 lash, and we see the intake closing at 81* ATDC, leaving just 99* for compression.
>Right away a redflag goes up for me, cuz 99* is a very short time to build compression.To make this work in the typical stall to 3500rpm range, this engine is gonna need, either; a very lotta Static Compression Ratio, or, a hi-stall TC.
>This is immediately followed by a second redflag, in that while the piston is coming up on compression, the first 81* is going to be pumping the just inducted A/F charge, back up into the intake plenum. This, at low engine speeds is gonna really suck.
>And the third redflag I see is; in that it is now a really really long time until we hit the 050 point. Thankfully this happens during overlap. Or is it thankfully? With headers, this gives them, a really really long time to pull A/F charge right across the piston and out the back door.

None of these things are good things for a streeter to have.

Am I wrong? I really want to know.
 
So, what if I had a 230/236/114+4 SOLID lifter cam , same .050 specs as the above HR. I have seen these with ramps advertised at 39* and less. That puts the .008 tappet rise at 64* ATDC. And now, with a Solid lifter, say the remainder of the ramps is not 12*, but say just 6*. I mean IDK; just throwing it out there. So now the Ica is 64+6=70. And lets take out say 6* for initial lash, and that leaves an Ica of just 64.... compared to 81 in the above example; that is a chitload of cylinder pressure NOT given up. And it's still the same 230@.050 cam.

If I'm wrong, I want to know why.

If I'm right, I know what I would be doing;
I spent way to much money on my engine for it to generate 180/185psi, to then piss that pressure away, in an attempt to save the cost of a proper cam.
 
AJ, I believe your over thinking this because putting a solid roller lifter on a Hyd. roller cam makes more power. Any difference in the cam timing events is insignificant.
 
I'm not talking about absolute power.
My discussion is centered around sub 3000 rpm, and more specifically at slow speed operation, like cruising around in second gear on Friday nights, when the engine with 3.55s and a 904 is idling along in second at 30=2200rpm Not everything is about max power. Even if you downshift into First, 30mph is still only 3600rpm. If the engine is bleeding pressure, it's gonna be doggy.
 
I'm not talking about absolute power.
My discussion is centered around sub 3000 rpm, and more specifically at slow speed operation, like cruising around in second gear on Friday nights, when the engine with 3.55s and a 904 is idling along in second at 30=2200rpm Not everything is about max power. Even if you downshift into First, 30mph is still only 3600rpm. If the engine is bleeding pressure, it's gonna be doggy.


You will GAIN bottom end using solid lifters. Done it many times.

You have it in your head that getting rid of squishy lifters makes power. It doesn’t.
 
So the 59 degree angle produces a straight pushrod?

The poly has a 59° lifter angle, the LA inherited that. The reason some of the pushrods are straight in the image of the poly is the valve location.

Check out the images here.
What Is A Mopar 318 Polysphere And How Come Nobody Likes It?
And here.
This 426-Cube 318 Poly Can Outgun Hemis!

As far as making a mess and getting oil everywhere when running the valves I call B.S.. I can run the valves on my engine and never get a drop of oil on the headers.
My lash gets checked once a year when the oil is changed, plugs checked and everything else gets a good thorough going over. It's simple routine maintenance and comes with the territory.
 
I guess my point is the 59 degree angle is 'evil' in the LA because of the pushrod angle it produces. But there's nothing inherently wrong with 59 degrees. In fact, if it produces a straight-shot pushrod in the Poly, then it's optimal.
 
I guess my point is the 59 degree angle is 'evil' in the LA because of the pushrod angle it produces. But there's nothing inherently wrong with 59 degrees. In fact, if it produces a straight-shot pushrod in the Poly, then it's optimal.


Exactly, the 59 LBA is perfect for the Poly, and very not optimal for the LA.

You can run the 59 degree LBA to 8500 or a bit more, and do it relatively reliable, but the first thing you have to do is NOT treat it like it’s a SBC.

You can’t get the pushrods too big and stiff, you can’t run the spring loads as low as everyone thinks you can, even with Ti valves and you can’t run the same oil volume and pressure as the chevy.

If you listen to and/or think like a chevy guy you will fail.

I honestly don’t have the gumption to do it any more. I thought about shifting at 8000ish on the R block 3.79 W2 junker I’m eventually going to do, then I quickly got off that ledge.

I’ll shift it at 7500 and not look back.
 
-
Back
Top