When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've used them several times and liked their sound and performance. I've selected cams for them with tighter lobe separation angles such as 108 to 110 degrees to gain performance while letting the shorter duration they afford at low rpm keep vacuum higher for better idle and improved low rpm response.
However, I am of the opinion that the ideal cam should not have the highest intensity available (advertised duration less duration at .050). Here's my rationale - if the valve is closing sooner due to increased bleed down, then I don't want the cams closing ramp to be as steep as a high intensity cam, otherwise, I'd be concerned about durability with the valve hitting the seat too aggressively. However, burners IS running them on a Comp Cams XE274, which does have high intensity.
Also in Rhoads' favor, the aggressive bleed down rate allows them to rev several hundred rpm higher before valve float becomes an issue.
I've used them several times and liked their sound and performance. I've selected cams for them with tighter lobe separation angles such as 108 to 110 degrees to gain performance while letting the shorter duration they afford at low rpm keep vacuum higher for better idle and improved low rpm response.
However, I am of the opinion that the ideal cam should not have the highest intensity available (advertised duration less duration at .050). Here's my rationale - if the valve is closing sooner due to increased bleed down, then I don't want the cams closing ramp to be as steep as a high intensity cam, otherwise, I'd be concerned about durability with the valve hitting the seat too aggressively. However, burners IS running them on a Comp Cams XE274, which does have high intensity.
Also in Rhoads' favor, the aggressive bleed down rate allows them to rev several hundred rpm higher before valve float becomes an issue.
Ok...I'll be the bad boy here. I don't like them. Ran them once in a 396. Not a big problem but I didn't really see any big increase in low speed manners.
To me the ONE thing a hyd lifter can well do is keep things quiet. Once you do stuff like limit travel, make them quick bleed down etc...you've eliminated the one thing they do well....be quiet.
Other than that there is nothing they do better than a solid..so if you like the solid sound....might as well put a solid in it and make some higher rpm power. If it's a motor that isn't revving that high anyway, it likely doesn't have a cam that big...so it will peak at lower rpm anyway where a regular hyd lifter is still happy.
I no longer use Rhoads Lifters. In my experience, they perform as advertised but eventually the cam lobe goes flat. Maybe I didn't adjust them correctly....
Either way it's just easier to use solid lifters for aggressive profiles and hydraulic for mild street engines.
i run them in my stroker, it took some time to get used to, sounds like a solid lifter cam. the engine builder who built the engine swears by them so i figured i'll try it out and im happy with the performance
Except the variable part is a big variable. Rhodes lifters basically just have looser tolerances and bleed the oil out of them. So you get the shock of a solid lifter without a nice clearance ramp to take up the slack in the cam design. The other variable is oil pressure, oil viscosity, oil temp etc etc. When all of that adds up to outrun the leaks in the lifters..you get more duration and lift.
I'll stick with things a little more steady than that. Just pick the right cam in the first place.
I ran them back in the late 80's on a Pontiac 400 build up. I used a 301/313 cam with .... something like 460 lift. The idea was that with them i would keep some low end that i gave up with the cam. To me it did not work. Back then I was a novice; not that I am still not a novice; but i would not use them again.
Still it was a cool engine.... not alot of low down grunt; but after about 4,600 rpm hold on! Worked well in a '78 Trans Am driven by a 23 year old!
I personally think a solid sounds a lot better. The Rhoades fet louder as oil warms up. When cold the thick oil keeps them pumped up and and they are relatively quiet. As oil gets thinner, the louder they get. I just don't like all the variables.
I just installed a stout flat tappet in a 555" pump gas street motor that only used .012 lash when hot. Very quiet.
In my experience you'll end up messing with the Rhoades more often trying to get the noise out than you will ever fool with a solid.
I have used rhoads lifters and people say they sound like a solid tappet cam, but personally i think they sound like worn out hydrollics, but to each their own.
I used them on engines, where we were a little to aggressive when picking a camshaft and they did help making the thing a little more streetable. This was also a time when only rich people ran roller cams.
Now with roller setups being so cheap you can have more lift with less duration so why bother putting excessive noise in your engine.
Also to mention a low compression engine and rhoads lifters does not sound near as good as a high compression engine with a solid cam. This is like comparing grapefruits to grapes. So for anybody buying them just for the solid cam sound --- don't ---- you will be disappointed. But if you put to much of a cam in and want to tame it down a little so it will idle, and you don't mind extra noisey valve train, go out and buy some variable durration lifters like rhoads.
I used them in a 460 ford in a jet boat[500hp] cam was ground
by engle to Mondello specs. .560 lift and a raunchy idle, Changed
the lifters to rhoads---nice sweet idle---------