I’ve been looking at retro roller hydraulic lifters. I figured after looking at the rating and all the info given on the internet I would post to see if anyones had there experiences they might want to share. Some of the things I read are they are noisy do to the link bars others say top name brands had lifter collapse. Some compare the c -clip and “paper clip style” retainer. My guess is they can’t take them apart to repair. Do they all have roller bearings on the roller. Just looking for some experienced opinion. My block is a 1982 350 looking at a set of Brodix 180 cc 64 cambers. The cam I plan on using is not going to be big. Low end to mid torque. These are what I was looking at for lifters.

Melling SB817RF16

Elgin HL-4001S

COMP Cams 853-16

 

I used a Howard's retro roller cam kit with comp cams roller rockers. Sounds like a sewing machine. No complaints here other than my wallet took a hit.

 

I heard Crane are the best for not bleeding off and from experience you want bushing in the roller, not needle bearings

 

Been running these for over 10 years now. I rev to 6300 RPM regularly. Make sure you have enough spring. Lofting lifters will guarantee failure of any brand.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/h...xoCMmsQAvD_BwE

 

Hi Reelav8R. When you say lofting the lifters are you referring to leaving more space on the lifter adjustment or not exercise the motor once and a while. Sorry but my vocabulary gets me all the time. I did look at those lifters at summit. Howard and Johnson are supposed to be top of the line and my old vocabulary would take that as Howard Johnson. Lol. Those Howard’s do look good for the price. It crazy how similar they look to the Elgin lifters and the price I see for the Howard’s are 100 more than the Elgin. I think the Howard’s are going to do the job. Seems like good feedback. I like the fact that you have used them 10 years and have no complaints. Thanks to everyone for the replies. Really helps a lot.

 

Lofting means the roller on the lifter leaves the cam surface. The valve spring pressure insures that the lifter stays in contact with the cam surface as well as controlling the valve.
roller lifters are heavy relative to flat tappet so more inertia is needed to be controlled due to its weight/mass.
The intensity of the cam has a lot to do with this as well. As long as good springs are used with a good 135 to 150 lbs on the seat it should be good for anything on the street.

 

Most folks call it floating the valve train or floating the lifters. More spring usually solves issues that are not related to the hydraulic Lifters collapsing or bleeding off and leaving too much space between the rocker and valve. Like everything there are multiple words to describe the same event

 

10 years is only useful information if the car was driven. It could have set in the garage for ten years. Just saying. Reelav8r.....how many MILES on those lifters? I am not doubting they are great lifters, VortecPro put Johnsons in mine.....so I believe in them. Just a point of clarification. Often times technical things are written here that need clarification. It matters.

 

Ok, someone 'splain the benefit of roller rockers like I'm 5.

It can't JUST be about reduced friction, or bell mouthing, whatever. But maybe better valve sealing, over time.

Do roller rockers let you use more lifter advantage (1.6, 1.7) opening the valves faster or further, to make more power?

Does the ability to use lighter springs really save that much power?

A crate 350 with moderate roller rockers the only change is likely to make HOW much more power? 10HP?

Convince me this is is worthwhile! FYI I read this: https://www.whichcar.com.au/features/roller-rockers

 

Lofting or floating roller lifters should be held downwind a rev kit. These are supplemental springs that push on the lifter body, between the lifter and the cylinder head. This is really important with hydraulic rollers because more valve spring pressure will make them bleed more, and then you get old fashioned hydraulic lifter float. More of an issue with big blocks bc of the big heavy valves.

THE single reason roller lifters are a big improvement is that they make it possible to grind cam lobes with much faster (lift change rate) ramps. It becomes possible to have the valves open longer for the same amount of "off seat" valve timing. That gives jigger effective flow through the heads without the need to have too much valve overlap. Roller cams will make about 20 to 30 more hp than a similar valve timing flat tappet cam. Pr the same hp with a lot nicer idle and more idle manifold vacuum.

Roller rockers....don't do a whole lot. They're good if you have lift that exceeds the safe length of the slot on stamped steel rockers.

 

If you have stock diameter springs below 1.50 diameter you are obviosly not running a roller cam, so you can run 1.5. 1.6 or 1.7 stamped rockers.
the only way a rocker will add any substantial power is through lift. You could also use a 1.8 but above 1.6 you want a thicker rocker stud. A 1.5 roller rocker isnt going to give you any power at the rear wheel that a 1.5 will. The gain is just too small.
No one i follow uses rev kits anymore. The technology has bypass yhem with the springs that are available today. The BBC is claimed to be the worst for valve float and a roller cam system on a BBC can get over 1000 hp without a rev kit. Thats too old school even for me.

Ive looked on Summit and they sell them...seem most they carry are for solid lifter small blocks.....

 

Some people believe that the actual ratio of stamped rockers are anywhere from like 1.35 to 1.55. So, depending on what "batch" of rockers you have, by going to roller rockers could give you a HP benefit due to the ratio to be a true 1.5.

 

If that big a discrepancy were true you could verify it with a dial caliper at the valve end of the rocker. Again if you are using after market heads most likely you will have too wide a spring to use stamped rockers anyway.

I prefer less moving parts so i will use stamped rockers if i can. My current build wont support them so i am buying 1.8 rollers myself for the 427

 

John Hinkley has an article where they did research about that and how it affects valve lash. He has a big following. But again, how many people check their rocker arms. Not many, but those that are looking for more power, and are in classes that restrict them to stock rockers could have an edge if they bother checking.

 

The factory stamped steel rockers are perfectly fine for 90% of cam applications and the rollers or roller tip rockers are a waste of money.

 

Im sure if they have money on the line they are loooking for every bit they can get

 

15,000 miles. Or thereabouts, I'd have to check to be sure. I usually drive around 1500 to 2000 miles a year.

 

Reelav8r Thank You for explaining lofting. I can’t ever remember hearing that term used before. There are so many thing to consider on the change over. That will just keep my mind refresh so I don’t forget👍 The head,I got to check again are supposed to have had the roller rocker spring included. Good heads up. 15000 miles on and off starting tells me the gut on those roller run good as the sit for I bit in between runs.

Avispa had a good point to but I don’t think I’m ready for that setup. I think it involves more hardware in the lifter valley. My engine is not going to rev into a high rpm for racing. I’m just trying to gain more torque if I can.

‘The reason for the build is a fresh up. She had about 67000 on her. The heads are the old 462624 nothing wrong with them meaning no cracks and they sealed good but instead of rebuilding them just going to an upgrade on that and the cam. I broke in a couple of different cams comp, and crane years ago on my rat motor. 396.I loved that motor , but I hear a lot about flat tapped cam failures to scare me. I’m going to mess with a computer upgrade and the throttle body rebuilds. If it doesn’t fire off right away I’m screwed.

Thanks again for all your advice. Have a good New Year.
Bubbagum.

 

Lofting in regards to the lifters may not be the best way to describe it. It is what’s happening if it doesn’t stay in contact with the cam profile after it goes over the nose of the cam.

lofting of the valves is also a thing. Often intentional, with the goal of opening the valve higher than the lift of the cam lifter combo allows through intentional momentary loss of control of the valve. But the consequences can be detrimental to the valve , valve seats and any other valve train components that end up with a gap between them that then slam back together as the components reverse direction and the spring catches up to the action.

what I’m referring to though is unintentional loss of control of the cam profile in regards to the roller lifter. In any case as I said use quality springs with adequate spring pressure for the cam and it won’t be an issue. PAC springs are high quality. It’s what AFR uses on their heads.
mostly I was just making a point that roller lifters can fail if abused or not set up properly. Done right, they are pretty bullet proof.

valve float/ floating is an unintentional loss of control of the valve action. Different from valve lofting.

 

The reason for mentioning the valve float problem and a rev kit as a possible solution isn't for more HP. It's to be able to get the advertised HP out of some fairly mild cams. The last hydraulic cam I ran was a Comp XE 274H flat tappet. It's only 230/236 duration at .050 and about. 550 lift on both. Supposed to be good to 6000 rpm. It ran fine, very much like a factory L72 sold lifter cam, but croaked DEAD at 5500 rpm. Like shutting the key off dead. It would sputter at 6300 on a no load rev, so you could tell it was valve float. This was with Comp lifters, again with Crane lifters, one more time with Melling lifters. I could never get it to run over 5500. Lash setting didn't matter. 1/4 turn, 1/2 turn, 1 turn past zero ladh, didnt matter. This was with the recomnended Comp springs (924 dual w damper), which, by the way are still on my heads and rev cleanly through 7000 with a Crane solid lifter cam.

The point was, if you want to run a hydraulic roller, be sure the cam/spring combo works to the rated RPM. My experience is that it won't because it's hydraulic and BBs have big, heavy valves. More valve spring pressure won't get you there. It just squashes the lifters. If all you want is 5500 RPM, go for it. Past that, I want to see it run on the dyno first before I'll believe it.

Then again, check w CF member Lotsacubes. He has a 427 w retro fit hydraulic roller he says runs to 6500. Me, I'm just hard to convince after bad experience w hydraulic cams in a BB and LOTS of good experience w solids.

Im NOT making any suggestions about what to do w a small block. I dont have experience with them and retro fit roller cams to say anything.