Solid Rollers on a Hydraulic Grind Cam

-
512Stroker

512Stroker

We are all here because we are not all there.
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
2,924
Location
Freedom, MO
I have a 340 LA that has a Comp Cam 20-811-9 hydraulic roller cam. Engine has a stock oiling system. Street application, dyno'ed at 442 corrected HP.
For reasons outside of my control I wish to ditch the matching hydraulic roller lifters and install solid roller lifters on my hydraulic grind.
I am considering installing a set of Hughes Retro fit solid roller lifters made by BAM they have a small roller .700
Has someone got real world experience doing this, will it work?
I plan on driving the crap out this setup so it needs to be reliable.
I am done with hydraulics and yes I can set valve lash.
Thanks
 
Don't use a lifter with a .700 wheel. That's too damn small.

Spend the money for a set of lifters with an .810 wheel.

Set the lash at .003-.004 if you have iron heads and run them.

If you have aluminum heads you need to lash at .002ish. Just make damn sure you get some heat in the engine before you push it. Otherwise you'll hold the valves open.

Hydraulic roller lifters ain't all that. I been using solid rollers on hydraulic roller grinds for years. It's the best way to do it.
 
yellow rose said:
Don't use a lifter with a .700 wheel. That's too damn small.

Spend the money for a set of lifters with an .810 wheel.

Set the lash at .003-.004 if you have iron heads and run them.

If you have aluminum heads you need to lash at .002ish. Just make damn sure you get some heat in the engine before you push it. Otherwise you'll hold the valves open.

Hydraulic roller lifters ain't all that. I been using solid rollers on hydraulic roller grinds for years. It's the best way to do it.
Click to expand...
I am running ported Mopar X heads
I agree .700 is to small
I have been trying to find a solid roller lifter with a .8 roller that is a retro fit, for a stock oiling LA block that can be installed/removed from the block without removing the heads - no luck yet. Got any recommendations?
Thanks for the comeback
 
Last edited:
yellow rose said:
Don't use a lifter with a .700 wheel. That's too damn small.

Spend the money for a set of lifters with an .810 wheel.

Set the lash at .003-.004 if you have iron heads and run them.

If you have aluminum heads you need to lash at .002ish. Just make damn sure you get some heat in the engine before you push it. Otherwise you'll hold the valves open.

Hydraulic roller lifters ain't all that. I been using solid rollers on hydraulic roller grinds for years. It's the best way to do it.
Click to expand...

REAL WORLD INFO. I have been wondering about this for yrs. off and on. Everyone tells me no, glad to hear about it .
 
you get a lot more side thrust with a .700 roller and the lifter will follow differently than with the correct wheel - although the lift will be the same the path it takes to get there will not
what did comp say?
do you like the way the cam runs?
just a question but to several grinders get their add in roller setups from some same source
I doubt if many make them themselves
Round up the usual suspects that do mopar- Hughes, Jim at Racer Brown
who else?
 
Wyrmrider said:
you get a lot more side thrust with a .700 roller and the lifter will follow differently than with the correct wheel - although the lift will be the same the path it takes to get there will not
what did comp say?
do you like the way the cam runs?
just a question but to several grinders get their add in roller setups from some same source
I doubt if many make them themselves
Round up the usual suspects that do mopar- Hughes, Jim at Racer Brown
who else?
Click to expand...
Cam runs well - not alot of low end torque, pulls really hard in the mid range and top end.
Comp says to go head and do it but to tighten the lash to .004
It is about 50/50 half say never do it and the other half say's no problem. - everyone has there own opinion.
I dont think it is a problem if you find the correct lifter. Most of the retro fit solid rollers have small rollers - Hughes/BAM, I will check brown.
Got any other recommendations?
 
There is not much "clearance ramp" and as mentioned aluminum heads (and blocks) and Iron are different
Me I'd check Isky and Crower they are the most likely to spec their own stuff Crane back in the day IDK now
The problem is the lifter
If you want some more low end Mike Jones could touch it up with an inverse flank cutting the intake duration maybe 10 degrees (advancing the intake close point say 4 degrees
you can feel 4 degrees, or convert to a solid profile- but let's try and find some good lifters
you may have to pull the heads :)
what's wrong with the HR
what size roller do they have (you may have said but I'm tired)
 
Wyrmrider said:
There is not much "clearance ramp" and as mentioned aluminum heads (and blocks) and Iron are different
Me I'd check Isky and Crower they are the most likely to spec their own stuff Crane back in the day IDK now
The problem is the lifter
If you want some more low end Mike Jones could touch it up with an inverse flank cutting the intake duration maybe 10 degrees (advancing the intake close point say 4 degrees
you can feel 4 degrees, or convert to a solid profile- but let's try and find some good lifters
you may have to pull the heads :)
what's wrong with the HR
what size roller do they have (you may have said but I'm tired)
Click to expand...
The heads will need to come off.
I am hoping to run the current grind.
The Comp hydraulic rollers shot craps - clatter on startup and bleed off very quickly, will barely pump up when hot, less than 500 miles and they are junk. They have .800 rollers
 
512Stroker said:
The heads will need to come off.
I am hoping to run the current grind.
The Comp hydraulic rollers shot craps - clatter on startup and bleed off very quickly, will barely pump up when hot, less than 500 miles and they are junk. They have .800 rollers
Click to expand...


And this ^^^^^^^^ is exactly why I won't do a hydraulic roller any more. To get the spring loads high enough to deal with the faster lobes they hydraulics won't take it. I used to run 160-180 on the seat and they hydraulics didn't like it.

When I started using hydraulic roller lobes and solid lifters I could up the seat pressure to 220, the lash doesn't move, the lifters and springs live just as good or better than they do with hydraulic lifters.

It just isn't worth it.
 
I just looked up your cam profile in the Comp Lobe list book Is that a catalog grind or custom?
That is a really quick cam
I definitely would not use the small roller without an OK from comp
1 If roller rockers have you shimmed up your shafts by about the amount of the radius of the roller- there are currently some good pics of the difference it makes
2 correct wt oil
3 Tried beehive springs and/or TI retainers
what are your head flows, compression, stroke and rod length
hate it when this happens
cheers
 
Ive swapped from stock type hyd roller lifters to solids(bam) and seen only a few HP gains. There are few easy answers but yes with any link bar lifter you will pull the heads. Trouble with comp extreme energy lobes? ? The correct lobes and your issues will vanish.
 
Wyrmrider said:
I just looked up your cam profile in the Comp Lobe list book Is that a catalog grind or custom?
That is a really quick cam
I definitely would not use the small roller without an OK from comp
1 If roller rockers have you shimmed up your shafts by about the amount of the radius of the roller- there are currently some good pics of the difference it makes
2 correct wt oil
3 Tried beehive springs and/or TI retainers
what are your head flows, compression, stroke and rod length
hate it when this happens
cheers
Click to expand...
PM sent
 
Mopar Tech said:
Ive swapped from stock type hyd roller lifters to solids(bam) and seen only a few HP gains. There are few easy answers but yes with any link bar lifter you will pull the heads. Trouble with comp extreme energy lobes? ? The correct lobes and your issues will vanish.
Click to expand...
In my case I dont think the BAM lifters will work, too small of roller .700
You may be correct, the cam lobes may be to aggressive for the hydraulic roller lifters.
 
Hmm, that is the roller I was looking at for my 390 stroker at 11.25:1 compression. Too aggressive for a roller? That is interesting. The HFT I was looking at, XE275HL, was too scary for a FT 1.6 rocker motor, so I started looking at rollers and came to that one since it is very similar.

Why too aggressive for a roller?
 
stumblinhorse said:
Hmm, that is the roller I was looking at for my 390 stroker at 11.25:1 compression. Too aggressive for a roller? That is interesting. The HFT I was looking at, XE275HL, was too scary for a FT 1.6 rocker motor, so I started looking at rollers and came to that one since it is very similar.

Why too aggressive for a roller?
Click to expand...


To agressive for a hydraulic roller. If you are going that way, set your clearances to run a 20w50 oil. I've lost power every single time I tried to use a lower grade oil.
 
I thought that one of the benefits of a Hyd roller, is being able to handle the steeper ramps? Is a HFT a better way to go for something of that size, like the XE275HL? I was just worried about wiping a lobe on such a big cam with PAC Beehive springs with 1.6 Roller rockers.
 
stumblinhorse said:
Hmm, that is the roller I was looking at for my 390 stroker at 11.25:1 compression. Too aggressive for a roller? That is interesting. The HFT I was looking at, XE275HL, was too scary for a FT 1.6 rocker motor, so I started looking at rollers and came to that one since it is very similar.

Why too aggressive for a roller?
Click to expand...


That Comp grind above isn't was I would call aggressive.
 
IDK if too aggressive for a roller, and I've never run that one but I see that for a flat flank roller it's pretty agressive
that said any agressive cam needs to have the rocker geometry right on
why
because if you do not the acceleration, instead of being in the middle of the opening and closing ranks is more toward the valve open area
meaning that the rocker is trying to accelerate the valve when the cam is trying to slow down to go over the nose
and on the closing side is using less leverage toward closed meaning the valve is shutting harder
second what YR said about the right oil- I mentioned that as a "usual suspect" above.
I'm reposting my .006 list later today and you can compare the HE275HL to other cams in that duration area
IDK if comp sells it for AMC or Magnums or other 1.6 rocker motors but I suspect they do- just set up your springs
and light valves and light steel or TI retainers always help
on the HR comp sells it as a kit and should be held to "merchantibility and fitness" standard
their method of setting geometry sucks Hell Racer Brown knew all about it 50 years ago, so did Jack Engle and Dick Jones and I suspect Winfield
stumble both cams take pro level installation
Physics and Geometry say that a max effort flat tappet cam translated to roller the roller flank has to go concave
I have no indication that that Comp HR is an inverse flank like Mike Jones,and Engle (who I suspect used U know who's profiles) and a couple of others
so with it's specification it has to get there some other way
One way is to stretch the seat duration- obviously this is fixed
another is to show not quite as big at .050 then ramp up between 100 and 200 and up (and then you have to unramp to get over the nose)
I'm sure the guys at comp know what the tradeoffs are.
It would be interesting to put both the HP and the HE-XL cams on the cam doc and see how they compare
but bottom line is neither is going to work right without the geometry being attended to
on the HR you want to run the biggest wheel you can and a bigger base circle would be nice but we can't easily change that
YR- I'll take another look at it - You are correct that the intensity shown in the lobe list does not look that intense but it depends on where they are putting the acceleration
hard to do it right off the seat like a FT
thanks
 
stumblinhorse said:
You are saying that the XE275HL isn't too aggressive for a Hyd Flat Tappet? With a good bit of spring pressure? I guess I will switch back to a HFT from a roller and save the $600.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's not what I'd call agressive. I'm running a SFT that is 281/255 at .050 and I gross .620 lift with 1.6 rockers. That's about the same as a Comp MM series lobe.
 
904 vs HR in the .006 tappet lift duration area we are discussing
Lunati
.525/530 270/278 219/227 112/106 1800 5800 Lunati HR1800-5800 2000 stall
.494/513 271/279 226/234 110/106 1800-6200 2400 stall Lunati Voodoo
note the HFT is fatter @.050 which is what I would expect I do not have easy data on .200 from Lunati
Comp
.538/534 274/282 224/230 149/154 110/106 XR274HR-10 XE retro fit 6 38 49 1 (7)
.525/525 275/287 231/237 149/@200 110 comp XE275HL 2000-6000 smallest comp .904 HL grind.
Here too the FT is fatter at .050 and the HR catches up to the same duration at .200 (although duration at 300 can still be quite different)
which intake has more area under the curve ?
IDK
 
If going from a hydraulic roller to a solid roller will he need to do any oiling mods? I thought there was something about a length of tubing crossing from 1 bank to the other in the lifter valley...Edit...or maybe that's for the front main oiling.
 
Last edited:
could you gut the hydros and put in a spacer under the circlip to make it a solid? would have to be pretty accurate..if you or your bro were a machinist. I had a few solids that had a circlip. didnt know why they had it as I have had others that were 1 piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top