What are the advantages of a solid roller????
10-01-2006, 09:02 AM
#41
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by 63mako
Guess I am alone in this opinion.
Also, solids are just plain noisy, even when they are roller type. IHMO, Hydraulic for street and solids for strip. They don't mix well.
10-01-2006, 11:53 AM
#42
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by 63mako
[Solid cams Rule!]...Yes they do! ...But a solid roller is not for everyone. A hydraulic roller has it's place also. Not everyone can afford or wants to do what it takes to get the maximum benefit out of the solid roller cam. Some people want to run a 180 or 190 cc head, Dual plane intake, Stock bottom end and mostly stock drivetrain components. They want a dependable, mainanance free, street driver with some extra power that will occasionally see 6000 RPM. This is what the original poster seemed to be looking for. A Top end kit with matched hydraulic roller, a good set of 190 CC heads, dual plane and carb will give you up to an extra 100 HP on a stock base engine without sacrificing much durability, extra maintanance or expensive bottom end and drivetrain upgrades. With these requirements I really don't see the benefit of a solid roller cam for his application, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I spoke with my engine builder and he prefers to under cam a bit for customers rather than over doing it. Especially for people like myself with limited $$$ and wanting a dual personality street motor. We tentatively discussed Brodix Race Rite Oval (rather than Rectangular) Ports that were ported to Rectangular at the Intake. ....staying away from Solid and maybe a Hydraulic Roller 225-230 @0.500 w/ 112 LSA. Maintain my dual plane GM Intake, 11:1 compression on my 427/435 standard bore. And finally convert my factory Dual Point, Gear Drive Tach to a GM Electronic. I currently have a 780 cfm Holley, Turbo 400, Factory Side Exhaust.
My last dyno with the GM Marine Hydraulic Cam was @ 301RWHP. That was nothing to sneeze at, but I had difficulty beating a slightly modified 2002ish Camaro. I shifted at 5200-5400 max. If I can shift at 5800-6000 - that is a massive increase to me. I noted to my engine builder that I want enough HP to ward off the '******' (hee-hee). I have confidence that however this new build is completed, the HP derived willl be FAR superior and driveability much better. It will be 93 octane acceptable, which means I am also FREE to move about the country!!!! ..... and I can deal with that..
And I think my position is similiar to the original poster's
Last edited by kaiserbud; 10-01-2006 at 12:00 PM.
10-01-2006, 12:36 PM
#43
Race Director
Either go with a bigger cam or lower your compression if you want to run on pump gas. If your engine builder suggested 11:1 CR and a cam in the 225-230 duration range I would ask him to guarantee it won't ping, your dynamic compression is going to be too high for pump gas in my opinion. It is a big motor, go with a bigger cam the cubes will tame it down and you need the longer duration to bleed off some cylinder pressure 
10-01-2006, 12:42 PM
#44
Race Director
Originally Posted by MotorHead
Either go with a bigger cam or lower your compression if you want to run on pump gas. If your engine builder suggested 11:1 CR and a cam in the 225-230 duration range I would ask him to guarantee it won't ping, your dynamic compression is going to be too high for pump gas in my opinion. It is a big motor, go with a bigger cam the cubes will tame it down and you need the longer duration to bleed off some cylinder pressure
That is a lot of compression for a 225 to 230 duration cam. I would run something in the 235 to 240 range and still be on the lookout for detonation.
10-01-2006, 06:56 PM
#45
Team Owner
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Here to make friends
Posts: 60,657
Received 473 Likes
on
140 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16-'17
Don't solid roller lifters have to be rebuilt every year or so depending on the mileage? I thought I've read some horror stories here about solid roller lifters letting go and destroying engines.
10-01-2006, 07:15 PM
#46
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by 63mako
Guess I am alone in this opinion.
I'm with ya on this one bud. Remember, it's not popular to go against majority "opinion", so I bet there's more "hydraulic" guys out there. They just don't want to go against the grain and be counted... Eddie
GO BEARS!!!
10-01-2006, 08:05 PM
#47
Race Director
Originally Posted by Edzred72
Awww Kev...lonesome??? I'm with ya on this one bud. Remember, it's not popular to go against majority "opinion", so I bet there's more "hydraulic" guys out there. They just don't want to go against the grain and be counted...
Eddie
GO BEARS!!!
I'm with ya on this one bud. Remember, it's not popular to go against majority "opinion", so I bet there's more "hydraulic" guys out there. They just don't want to go against the grain and be counted... Eddie
GO BEARS!!!
Go Bears!! Run whatever cam you want! You know me, I butt heads as often as the Bears defensive line. See your progressing on your build. My line bore is done, Decked, going to bore next. It's finally happening! Good luck on your build. Let's see what that Bad 406 hydraulic roller will do in the 72. Pics?
Last edited by 63mako; 10-01-2006 at 11:31 PM.
10-02-2006, 07:15 AM
#48
Racer
Thread Starter
OK, I know I'm a butthead & probably will use the solids.......but, what grind would you guys recommend in the hydralic roller? Will I still pull the same power & as wide a RPM power range?????????
10-02-2006, 12:37 PM
#49
Team Owner
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Here to make friends
Posts: 60,657
Received 473 Likes
on
140 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16-'17
You should do a little research into the life expectancy of a solid roller lifter before you make a decision. Here is a thread that talks about it.
hot rod forum
Personally, I wouldn't want to have to inspect the lifters every 2k-3k miles in a street engine.
hot rod forum
Personally, I wouldn't want to have to inspect the lifters every 2k-3k miles in a street engine.
10-02-2006, 02:17 PM
#51
Race Director
Originally Posted by KJL
Here is my combo with a hydrolic roller.
10-02-2006, 03:12 PM
#53
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by KJL
Here is my combo with a hydraulic roller....450 RWHP/475 RWTQ .
Eddie
10-02-2006, 03:32 PM
#54
Melting Slicks
I am using 1.6 ratio rockers and they JUST cleared. I am due for an under valve cover check. I read in this post that Compcam's new magnum rockers have a roller oil hole. Mine do not and I am concerned this may lead to premature wear. When I got them I was supprised there were not any oil holes....always something. I could attach a PDF of my dyno run, but I am not sure how to do that....
10-02-2006, 03:37 PM
#55
Race Director
Originally Posted by KJL
With my 4 speed in drive my vacuum is at 5 inches. That is about as low as I want to go. A manual trany can go more radical.
10-02-2006, 03:53 PM
#56
Melting Slicks
If I had my vacuum advance hooked up I could probably pick up the vacuum a couple of inches but then I have problems with pinging at cruise when accelerating. (to much advance) I just run with 36 deg mechanical advance all in by 2300 rpm. 21 deg initial.
Last edited by KJL; 03-22-2013 at 08:18 AM.
10-02-2006, 04:07 PM
#57
Race Director
Originally Posted by KJL
If I had my vacuum advance hooked up I could probably pick up the vacuum a couple of inches but then I have problems with pinging at cruise when accelerating. (to much advance) I just run with 36 deg mechanical advance all in by 2300 rpm. 21 deg initial.
10-02-2006, 04:11 PM
#58
Team Owner
Originally Posted by kaiserbud
I know that we all want the moon... but for me - once I get on the street, I want some semblance of sanity for dependability.. Sure we all dream of having the fastest car in town, but the fact is, there is ALWAYS someone out there that is willing to give up more driveability than you (and they hopefully have more cash to do it without 'selling the farm').
I spoke with my engine builder and he prefers to under cam a bit for customers rather than over doing it. Especially for people like myself with limited $$$ and wanting a dual personality street motor. We tentatively discussed Brodix Race Rite Oval (rather than Rectangular) Ports that were ported to Rectangular at the Intake. ....staying away from Solid and maybe a Hydraulic Roller 225-230 @0.500 w/ 112 LSA. Maintain my dual plane GM Intake, 11:1 compression on my 427/435 standard bore. And finally convert my factory Dual Point, Gear Drive Tach to a GM Electronic. I currently have a 780 cfm Holley, Turbo 400, Factory Side Exhaust.
My last dyno with the GM Marine Hydraulic Cam was @ 301RWHP. That was nothing to sneeze at, but I had difficulty beating a slightly modified 2002ish Camaro. I shifted at 5200-5400 max. If I can shift at 5800-6000 - that is a massive increase to me. I noted to my engine builder that I want enough HP to ward off the '******' (hee-hee). I have confidence that however this new build is completed, the HP derived willl be FAR superior and driveability much better. It will be 93 octane acceptable, which means I am also FREE to move about the country!!!! ..... and I can deal with that..
And I think my position is similiar to the original poster's
I spoke with my engine builder and he prefers to under cam a bit for customers rather than over doing it. Especially for people like myself with limited $$$ and wanting a dual personality street motor. We tentatively discussed Brodix Race Rite Oval (rather than Rectangular) Ports that were ported to Rectangular at the Intake. ....staying away from Solid and maybe a Hydraulic Roller 225-230 @0.500 w/ 112 LSA. Maintain my dual plane GM Intake, 11:1 compression on my 427/435 standard bore. And finally convert my factory Dual Point, Gear Drive Tach to a GM Electronic. I currently have a 780 cfm Holley, Turbo 400, Factory Side Exhaust.
My last dyno with the GM Marine Hydraulic Cam was @ 301RWHP. That was nothing to sneeze at, but I had difficulty beating a slightly modified 2002ish Camaro. I shifted at 5200-5400 max. If I can shift at 5800-6000 - that is a massive increase to me. I noted to my engine builder that I want enough HP to ward off the '******' (hee-hee). I have confidence that however this new build is completed, the HP derived willl be FAR superior and driveability much better. It will be 93 octane acceptable, which means I am also FREE to move about the country!!!! ..... and I can deal with that..
And I think my position is similiar to the original poster's
Last edited by gkull; 10-02-2006 at 04:13 PM.
10-03-2006, 09:16 PM
#59
Melting Slicks
gKull - thanks for the input. Was yours a solid or hydraulic? I assume you had no ping? Because that is what I am in now and I SURELY do not want that.
10-03-2006, 09:27 PM
#60
Le Mans Master
Does this thread qualify as one of the longest actual "tech discussions"...with NO nonsense, OT, highjack, jokes, sarcasum, argument, or bashing?????
We play nice when we want to....don't we???
Eddie
We play nice when we want to....don't we???
Eddie
