Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bobcowan
>> I've had my solid falt tappet in the motor for 10 years now. <<
Bill, why? Not trying to be a smart guy, just figure you know something I don't. As I see it, the reason for a solid lifter and it's associated issues is the ability to rev to 7,000 rpm's. If you never do that, why install one?
Popular Hot Rodding did an excellent article last year. They compared a roller to a flat. They picked cams of similar specs to make it as close as possible. As it turned out, the roller cam started to make more power once it got fairly "big". I can't remember the exact specs, but it seemed like anything over 270'ish or 280'ish in advertised duration the roller made more power. Below that, it was a wash. Wish I had saved that article, it was good.
Last month they did an article about hydraulic vs. solid. That was also very interesting. If I was at home I'd look it up.
|
Bob-first off,i have a side-oiler.The block isn't drilled for hydraulics.Second,i'm not afraid to run the valves every once in awhile.Third-I do take it to 7,000.And even if i don't ,i have no worries about floating a lifter.Also,back in 96 when i built the motor,adapting rollers to ancient iron was VERY "ify".There was a very big issue with the bearings staying in the rollers.If just one lifter loses it's bearings,it's time to tear the motor down.I love my side-oiler too much to risk that.
Below 280ish is a wash?i believe that and that's where a LOT of street motor cams reside.Now if i was building a track motor(something that idled around 2500 rpm)i probably would be looking at a solid roller.But i see no need for hydraulic anything.
"close as possible"is "No Cigar"to me.Still no roller cams with the SAME lift & duration as a flat-tappet.
Post that article if you can.Thanx.