Vizard talks lifters, and the Rhoads fast bleed type.

-
Bakerlite

Bakerlite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
6,431
Reaction score
3,311
For anyone running Rhoads lifters, here's something to think about.
Go to 17.20 in the video if you just want to hear the bit about bleed down lifters.

 
Thanks for that. That's long been my same argument against them is that they never fully restore to the point of a regular hydraulic lifter.
 
That sure is interesting. I never even considered adjusting the hydraulic lifter to 1/4 turn from bottom. Obviously that would require new pushrods, adding more cost. But it’s food for thought and if I had the correct pushrod on the shelf I would be tempted to try it.
 
Rhoads is not named because they’re copied by all the cam manufacturers and they all have there version.

It is wrong and unjust to name Rhodes solely.
 
rumblefish360 said:
Rhoads is not named because they’re copied by all the cam manufacturers and they all have there version.

It is wrong and unjust to name Rhodes solely.
Click to expand...
Rhoads is synonymous with bleed down lifters, and no one has pushed them more than Rhoads.
As soon as you say Rhoads lifters, everyone knows what you're talking about.
You're welcome to name more brands if you like. I just named the most well known.
 
Bakerlite said:
Rhoads is synonymous with bleed down lifters, and no one has pushed them more than Rhoads.
As soon as you say Rhoads lifters, everyone knows what you're talking about.
You're welcome to name more brands if you like. I just named the most well known.
Click to expand...
Naming one and only one comp is IMO wrong and bad. That’s it.
I didn’t name another implant because as far as I have seen though not investigated is that all (or nearly all) cam manufacturers offer a high bleed down (or variable duration) lifter and some form of an alternative lifter.

IMO, you basically slandered Rhoads.

Very uncharacteristic of you.
Hellrats said:
If you pick the correct camshaft in the first place you don't need bleed down lifters
Click to expand...
Yep!

Though I have used a variable duration lifters in the past, in this case Rhodes, after experimenting with them, I found for myself that I like them on the intake only. After learning what we know today, I think you guys can see and know why.

This I picked up on about 25-ish years ago.

Picking the right cam isn’t so easy for most people and of course, opinions vary. So to the world at large, when they hear your cam choice, it’s wrong. Chances are there right but I’d bet dollars to doughnuts there pick is at least just as bad or worse.
 
I mentioned lashing specific lifters like this a while back and nobody acknowledged it.
Nothing DV is doing is anything new.
The viewer who likes to see the Dirty Work who likes to use his imagination of taking junk and making into something special, those are the people who really like watching this stuff.
After checking with plate..my bench is actually 6 cfm off , LESS, and I get 215 cfm.....so +6 =221cfm with a 1.78 valve.
I'm still not impressed. I think everyone who ports can get that. Seriously. Rods you can buy for less then the time and grinder to lighten stock ones... Guides for LS valves, the valves.. yeah it's an exercise in obsession of a pos head and spending money.
Uncle Tony is losing viewers, look at his numbers ...and he knows why he's losing viewers... because guys in a tiny little garage with their cell phone can make better content than he does, way more info. I put a video up on 302 heads a year ago and it's over a thousands in a day or 2... and I'm nobody. A year later Tony has his mind on the same head that one of his critics 'me' does a vid on ...and so he brings DV in to discredit or over shadow with his name attached all other guys doing the same head-blacksheep,318willrun, etc. Blacksheep got 223 as well iirr.Tony is a complete Moron. He cant port heads, he can only ruin them. That's why he isnt behind a grinder and flow bench.
DV is getting used, but he is old and this isnt changing his future, so to speak.. he made his mark... now it's just YouTube likes and being in that mix.
Tony... well, hes trying to attach his name to greatness. You can fart on a 318 head and it'll do 200 CFM. You could not know what you're doing at all and just push the turn back from the VJ into the straight wall and make 200+ CFM with doing nothing else outside of the bowl. Fact is...the 302 head is a core shifting piece of crap and what Charlie experienced is the same thing everybody experiences with those heads one port is good and the next one is a turd that you could put all the time in the world into and never meet the goal in its entirety, low lift mid-lift and still have high lift. Like everyone said the goal post kept moving, it's just recycled **** that most people know but those in love with the cylinder head kind of like the author of this thread will treat it as if it's world changing gospel.
DV could have used the tiny rod and didn't and not had to lighten anything and be lighter than the rod he just worked on for 5 hours. More lacking knowledge of Mopars but he is now supposedly a fking Guru all the sudden..right...its hard to even watch!!
I'm not even subscribed to Dave, after watching his very general info on vortecs..I said to myself..oh ****, this guy just spoke in definites ..I'm out...
What works on this head does not work on the other head all the time, Charlie even admits it. So what good is a head that you cannot get every port to flow the same or close and or each port carries a different volume. Why is that attractive to some...idk.
One of my favorite things is all the general information that's lacking that you would normally hear from somebody who's a guru... stock intake manifold flow for instance, port window size and why ..for what. It's about a 302 head and nothing else.
Another point I'll mention the age-old argument whether ahead that goes turbulent versus a head that never goes turbulent will make the same power per CFM number on a running engine. Many have spoken from their mountain tops that if it went turbulent above lift usage..it wouldn't make as much power as a non turbulent version. Well that's out the window now... as most of us already knew!!
 
Last edited:
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
I mentioned lashing specific lifters like this a while back and nobody acknowledged it.
Nothing DV is doing is anything new.
The viewer who likes to see the Dirty Work who likes to use his imagination of taking junk and making into something special, those are the people who really like watching this stuff.
After checking with plate..my bench is actually 6 cfm off , LESS, and I get 215 cfm.....so +6 =221cfm with a 1.78 valve.
I'm still not impressed. I think everyone who ports can get that. Seriously. Rods you can buy for less then the time and grinder to lighten stock ones... Guides for LS valves, the valves.. yeah it's an exercise in obsession of a pos head and spending money.
Uncle Tony is losing viewers, look at his numbers ...and he knows why he's losing viewers... because guys in a tiny little garage with their cell phone can make better content than he does, way more info. I put a video up on 302 heads a year ago and it's over a thousands in a day or 2... and I'm nobody. A year later Tony has his mind on the same head that one of his critics 'me' does a vid on ...and so he brings DV in to discredit or over shadow with his name attached all other guys doing the same head-blacksheep,318willrun, etc. Blacksheep got 223 as well iirr.Tony is a complete Moron. He cant port heads, he can only ruin them. That's why he isnt behind a grinder and flow bench.
DV is getting used, but he is old and this isnt changing his future, so to speak.. he made his mark... now it's just YouTube likes and being in that mix.
Tony... well, hes trying to attach his name to greatness. You can fart on a 318 head and it'll do 200 CFM. You could not know what you're doing at all and just push the turn back from the VJ into the straight wall and make 200+ CFM with doing nothing else outside of the bowl. Fact is...the 302 head is a core shifting piece of crap and what Charlie experienced is the same thing everybody experiences with those heads one port is good and the next one is a turd that you could put all the time in the world into and never meet the goal in its entirety, low lift mid-lift and still have high lift. Like everyone said the goal post kept moving, it's just recycled **** that most people know but those in love with the cylinder head kind of like the author of this thread will treat it as if it's world changing gospel.
DV could have used the tiny rod and didn't and not had to lighten anything and be lighter than the rod he just worked on for 5 hours. More lacking knowledge of Mopars but he is now supposedly a fking Guru all the sudden..right...its hard to even watch!!
I'm not even subscribed to Dave, after watching his very general info on vortecs..I said to myself..oh ****, this guy just spoke in definites ..I'm out...
What works on this head does not work on the other head all the time, Charlie even admits it. So what good is a head that you cannot get every port to flow the same or close and or each port carries a different volume. Why is that attractive to some...idk.
One of my favorite things is all the general information that's lacking that you would normally hear from somebody who's a guru... stock intake manifold flow for instance, port window size and why ..for what. It's about a 302 head and nothing else.
Another point I'll mention the age-old argument whether ahead that goes turbulent versus a head that never goes turbulent will make the same power per CFM number on a running engine. Many have spoken from their mountain tops that if it went turbulent above lift usage..it wouldn't make as much power as a non turbulent version. Well that's out the window now... as most of us already knew!!
Click to expand...
I think you posted this in the wrong thread.. This is a lifter thread. And your post just sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. Are you just upset that you got "overshadowed"?
Forget it, that's all youtube is, one content creator trying to overshadow another to make $$$$$.
 
Last edited:
rumblefish360 said:
IMO, you basically slandered Rhoads.

Very uncharacteristic of you.
Click to expand...
I think you may have me confused with someone else. I've slandered Rhoads plenty of times here.
I don't like their product, never have.
 
Bakerlite said:
I think you may have me confused with someone else. I've slandered Rhoads plenty of times here.
I don't like their product, never have.
Click to expand...
Opinions vary, your experience differs mine.
But then again, you don't like sticking a solid lifter on a hydraulic shaft.:D
 
The right cam and good lifters. Who the F**k makes them any more? I like the idea of a solid flat tappet.
 
Jones says he only uses American made FT lifters which are veeeery expensive & the only company making FT lifters in the US.
 
Bewy said:
Jones says he only uses American made FT lifters which are veeeery expensive & the only company making FT lifters in the US.
Click to expand...
Not everyone buys lifters from him when they buy a cam.
 
Jones revealed the info on Speedtalk, post #17. He didn't disclose the lifter brand.
 
Bakerlite,
Post #19. I doubt the warranty on the cam would last pass sunset if you didn't buy the FT lifters from Jones....
 
Don't know, but I'm yet to lose one of his cams so I can't comment on the warranty.
 
SSG_Karg said:
That sure is interesting. I never even considered adjusting the hydraulic lifter to 1/4 turn from bottom. Obviously that would require new pushrods, adding more cost. But it’s food for thought and if I had the correct pushrod on the shelf I would be tempted to try it.
Click to expand...
Don't necessarily need to change push rods. DV was talking adjustable valve train.
With the hydraulic lifter almost bottomed out, you also change the effective rocker ratio. As the pushrod end moves down, the effective length from pushrod center to the rocker pivot center probably becomes less. This depends on the actual rocker construction. This measurement changes quicker than the rocker pivot to valve centerline. This increases the off the seat rocker ratio, which helps low lift flow. On a non adjustable valve train, lash caps could produce the required result. You would require fairly thick lash caps. A 0.100" lash cap with 1.6:1 ratio rockers would move the lifter plunger down 0.0625".
 
I have used Rhoads lifters many times. Not as a band aid but on purpose. Great results every time. Whoever adjusts a hyd lifter to near the bottom of its travel clearly doesn’t know a hyd lifter operates. Kim
 
Wellll, you could try telling David Vizard he does not know how things work. I doubt he would bother to stoop to that level. When you have written something like 40 books, countless magazine articles, won pole positions, races, championships and done consulting work for NASCAR and F1 teams, maybe you know a thing or two.
In the mean time, I will pay attention where a proven track record indicates I should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top