Solid Roller vs. Hyd. Roller - Pros/Cons?

[mdross1]

All my years of running solids roller and flat tappet always ran them much tighter than recommended,once seated they were trouble free.It is all about TLC when something sounds different look into it right away.The last SB2 sbc 427" was equipped with ISKY EZRoll bushed rollers really nice pieces.

[blykins]

Originally Posted by RICK LAKE

Blykins Brent want to bet a lunch bill? If you go back to the old days, Isky had a rev kit for FE. In todays world we will have a rev kit again. Waiting on the Jay Brown PSE manifold. All the wishes will be filled.

As for roller or solid lifers, here a list of thing to extend life of them
1 no idling of the motor
2 correct lash on the tight side. HP lost but wear and life extended
3 OIL, OIL, OIL, Finding the best with the most protection against wear
4 oil pressure feed pin roller lifters
5 For high spring pressures and lift camshafts, bronze bushings and .904"
lifters from dodge
6 For an FE motor, high oil pressure in the 70-85 psi hot over 2,000 rpms.
7 If you have a great machinist add oil sprayers to motor for piston cooling and pin lube.
I have done and seen some of this done to other motors that are raced, An FE SO motor was not ment to be a 100,000 mile car motor. Made to race in NASCAR and 1/4 mile.

Dimis if you have silly money build the motor any way you like with either solids or rollers. Maintainance and good oil and suppliments are what is going to give your motor and lifters longer life. Chance of going 50K with out a rebuilt is small. It is possible. You didn't say anything about HP and torque for the motor you are building. With these numbers and head flow, you will answer your own questions. Max flow of the head is what? 350 cfm at .700". Put a cam shaft in the motor with a total of rocker arm and ratio to equal .700" total. anything more and you are just wasting motor and parts. Good luck Rick l.

He's in good hands....:-)

I would have to disagree with several of your points rick. Of course you can idle these engines....we don't use the 3000 mile non oiling comp lifters anymore.

And not everyone runs 100 pounds of oil pressure.... :-)

[601HP]

Originally Posted by lippy

David,
Which solid rollers do you have? How often do you check the lash, and has it ever required adjustment?
Lippy

Lippy,
Mine are the Crower EnduraMax. They are bushed rather than having needle bearings.

I run through the lash at 1,000 to 1,500 miles for general maintenance, however they'd probably go much farther between adjustment.

I inspect and adjust at that frequency because of a short discussion I had with Blykins, on another site. He had mentioned cam "lobe intensity" and I didn't know what the heck that meant. After he explained the term, it was evident my cam has a numeric lobe intensity that he considers to be more harsh on the springs. Subsequently I do more frequent under the valve cover inspections.

David

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Dimis

Its a case of Hydraulics will work and work well, but solid will fulfill the intakes potential... either way is a win/win just not sure if I want to leave anything on the table.

Yes, hydraulic rollers work very well. And I'm sure solid rollers do too. What's your goal? What are you doing with your car? Where the heck are you going at 7,000 RPM? If you're not racing your car, then what's the difference between 6,000 and 7,000 RPM? Yeah, I know it's 1,000 RPM, but who cares at that point? It's loud and you'll be going really fast at either RPM level.

As one example, Lippy's dyno read 638 HP @ 6,600 RPM and 567 ft/lbs of torque with solid rollers. Without much tuning and screwing around, my 482 with hydraulic rollers made 605 HP @ 5,600 RPM and 613 ft/lbs of torque at 4,600 RPM.

Lippy lives in the same local area I do and I just think it's "six of one, half dozen of another." I'm sure our engines look and will perform roughly the same.

IMHO, why make life difficult for more or less the same amount of power, which you may or may not ever use? But, in the end, it's your time and money.

[blykins]

One very important caveat.

Jeff's engine on another dyno would be closer to 680-690. Your engine on the dyno I use would most likely be closer to 560-570.

An engine dynod here gained 45 hp by running it across town to the nearest superflow....

That's why dyno numbers infuriate me.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by blykins

One very important caveat.

Jeff's engine on another dyno would be closer to 680-690. Your engine on the dyno I use would most likely be closer to 560-570.

An engine dynod here gained 45 hp by running it across town to the nearest superflow....

That's why dyno numbers infuriate me.

Brent, you have no idea what dyno was used for my engine circa 2008 and any quotes of what Jeff's or my engine would do "here or there" is pure unadulterated Internet BS. You simply just don't know, and are speculating based upon nearly zero info. And frankly, I would be insulted if I actually cared what you thought about my engine in the least.

My point is simple. At some point the HP difference is superfluous. As I think the decision between solid and hydraulic.

For the record, my engine was dyno'ed in two separate locations with two different dynometers at two different points in time (1-year apart), but with nearly similar results.

Lastly, while I'm not engine builder and expert like you, I sincerely doubt Jeff's engine makes 130 HP more than mine and any claims of such are complete utter nonsense. But I totally understand your position of owning and operating an engine building business and the necessity to promote said business in order to be successful and make money.

[blykins]

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself rod. I'm as sick of dyno talk, desktop dyno, bench racing, etc as anyone else. I just know the typical 482, even with gutted edelbrock heads and a hydraulic roller doesn't make 600 hp here. Sorry.

So, rod, what combination are you using with your 482? Let's speculate a little more.

[patrickt]

Well, I firmly believe that I am the only one on this forum that tells the truth about his engine.

[Dimis]

Boys, boys, boys... Plenty enough room in the sandbox for all of us.

Out right figures are not important to me.
Either Lippys or Rodknock engine can be made to spit out different numbers by messing with cams, and peaking the figures to suit.

RK raises a valid point. Thank you for posting.

I wont be using anywhere near 600hp anyway so why spend the dollars to push to 650hp?

BUT RK I'll put it in terms you may relate to... and I welcome your thoughts on this comparison.

What I'm wresting with is: If I buy the 911 carrera, It's a great car and I'll have plenty of fun, and if I didn't know the 911 carrera S existed I'd be happy and have no second thoughts. But Since I know the "S" exists I'm wondering if its worth the little extra cash?

I don't know anyone who wishes they had buying the 911 Carrera over the "S", but I personally know someone who wishes he had bought the S after buying the 911 Carrera.

In the big scheme of things it ain't worth fighting over, but not being able to have them side by side for comparison, I come seeking expertise from generous members of this forum.

[blykins]

I wanted to say a few more things about dyno numbers.

I'm in no way insinuating that guys doctor their numbers. What I am saying is that different brands of dynos yield different results. Period.

I've seen engines from a lot of well-known builders and I can attest that numbers vary. Greatly.

I wasn't cutting your engine combination Rod. What I was trying to say was, your engine, which is the typical 482 inch combo, with Edelbrock heads, Performer RPM intake, hydraulic roller, etc., just won't make 600 hp here. I have built numerous 482's just like that, even using cylinder heads and camshafts from other well-known builders. Again, not insinuating that people doctor numbers, but stating the fact that different dynos yield different results.

Does it make any logical sense that an engine with cylinder heads that flow almost 350 cfm on the intake side and over 260 cfm on the exhaust side, along with a camshaft that probably has over 20 degrees more duration, along with a ported single plane intake *only* makes 23 hp more than your combination? Really?

Also, if I were that worried about "selling numbers", I would go else-where to dyno my junk. But I would rather have a 400 hp engine that outruns all the 500 hp engines.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by blykins

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself rod.

First, I'm in no way mad, insulted or anything. Though, I always consider the source for/of info. Compare, contrast your product with another. I get spam email everyday with nutty claims and nonsense.

As I said, I really don't care about yours or others who make dyno comparisons. It's just nonsense to me. Notwithstanding, if you or anyone else are sick of dyno talk, then stop being part of the problem, speculating based upon info that's limited at best, from roughly 2,500 miles away, and become part of the solution.

And why do you want more info about my "standard" 482 engine anyway? Do you want to analyze it further in your Iphone HP calculation app? To me, I find it disingenuous to say on one hand that you're sick and tired of the dyno talk and then on the other hand go ahead and ask about my engine so you can tell me how much dyno power it makes without any doubt in your mind, from the State of Kentucky.

And if you need more information about my engine, then I suggest you speak with Stuart Hall (Hall Fabrication & Racing) and Tom Lucas of FE Specialties, among just two of the businesses that had a hand in the building and dyno'ing of my engine (and car). I'm sure they'll take the time and effort to answer all your important questions about my engine, which was originally built about 5 +/- years ago.


Same point as before, there's a "precipice," where the numbers become meaningless due to the various constraints of engine, chassis, knowledge and skill.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Dimis

BUT RK I'll put it in terms you may relate to... and I welcome your thoughts on this comparison.

What I'm wresting with is: If I buy the 911 carrera, It's a great car and I'll have plenty of fun, and if I didn't know the 911 carrera S existed I'd be happy and have no second thoughts. But Since I know the "S" exists I'm wondering if its worth the little extra cash?

I don't know anyone who wishes they had buying the 911 Carrera over the "S", but I personally know someone who wishes he had bought the S after buying the 911 Carrera.

My first question is what generation of 911 would you be using in your analogy? Because, the early 911E long hoods (1969-1973) are considered better performers than their 911S counterparts. But, the early 911S is more valuable than the 911E.

If your friend is speaking of the modern 911S (called 991's), then I would say the performance difference is negligible and that if he or she wants MORE power, in real life terms, then buy a Turbo.

Personally, I would spend the extra cash on other things. Hydraulic rollers are less maintenance and cheaper. Can you make another 50-100 HP with a solid roller, sure, but they cost more, require more maintenance and as HP goes up, reliability goes down.

[RET_COP]

Solid Cam Lobe Profile has alot to do with what spring pressure you'll need, resulting in "X" rpms and "X" life for the rollers. Everything else has been addressed.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Well, I firmly believe that I am the only one on this forum that tells the truth about his engine.

Sure, Sheldon. Whatever makes you sleep well as night.

(Hacked by Chas again).

[blykins]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

First, I'm in no way mad, insulted or anything. Though, I always consider the source for/of info. Compare, contrast your product with another. I get spam email everyday with nutty claims and nonsense.

As I said, I really don't care about yours or others who make dyno comparisons. It's just nonsense to me. Notwithstanding, if you or anyone else are sick of dyno talk, then stop being part of the problem, speculating based upon info that's limited at best, from roughly 2,500 miles away, and become part of the solution.

And why do you want more info about my "standard" 482 engine anyway? Do you want to analyze it further in your Iphone HP calculation app? To me, I find it disingenuous to say on one hand that you're sick and tired of the dyno talk and then on the other hand go ahead and ask about my engine so you can tell me how much dyno power it makes without any doubt in your mind, from the State of Kentucky.

And if you need more information about my engine, then I suggest you speak with Stuart Hall (Hall Fabrication & Racing) and Tom Lucas of FE Specialties, among just two of the businesses that had a hand in the building and dyno'ing of my engine (and car). I'm sure they'll take the time and effort to answer all your important questions about my engine, which was originally built about 5 +/- years ago.


Same point as before, there's a "precipice," where the numbers become meaningless due to the various constraints of engine, chassis, knowledge and skill.

I'm not mad either Rod.

However, all of this dialogue has stemmed from your comment about Jeff's engine only making 638 hp while yours made 605 hp at a much lower rpm. It's easy to make those kinds of comparisons and draw those kinds of conclusions when you're not in the know, but my point was simply that different dynos give different results.

The thought of, "Well, why would you want a solid roller, a higher powerband, and more maintenance, when the horsepower difference is negligble?" leaves out a whole lot of variables, and honestly Rod, I'm surprised that you stated it that way.

I have had the luxury of seeing other builders' creations on the dyno that I use, and the numbers are never the same. Again, let me underline that higher numbers are not necessarily the result of being shady, but when I see dyno numbers, the first question I ask is, "What kind of dyno was it?" That's why I grow very tired of forum members gawking at horsepower numbers and dyno results.

Doesn't matter to me who built your engine, or how far away they are from me. Those points are apropos of nothing.

I didn't know that there was a hp app for the i-Phone.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by blykins

I have had the luxury of seeing other builders' creations on the dyno that I use, and the numbers are never the same. Again, let me underline that higher numbers are not necessarily the result of being shady, but when I see dyno numbers, the first question I ask is, "What kind of dyno was it?" That's why I grow very tired of forum members gawking at horsepower numbers and dyno results.

Doesn't matter to me who built your engine, or how far away they are from me. Those points are apropos of nothing.

I didn't know that there was a hp app for the i-Phone.

These are points to me, because you're making a whole lot of assumptions. You still don't know anything about my engine, how it was built, what parts were used and/or replaced, where it was dyno'ed and what dynometer was used.

You claim Lippy's numbers are X on your dyno and would have made X+Y on someone else's dyno. My BS meter is pegged right, notwithstanding your expertise and experience.

You're in the business to build and sell engines. And underselling your product is definitely a smart marketing move, IMO. Most engine builders choose to go the other way, and make "happy" claims about the HP their engines produce. You've chosen a different path for your engine building business. And I applaud that.

But I now find it ironic that you're making claims that Lippy's engine, as an example (not to pick on Lippy), makes 8% more HP (roughly 50) on other people's dyno's and then claiming my engine makes 8% less power (THE SAME 8%, roughly 45 HP), even though you know NADA about my engine, car, dyno or anything for that matter. I'm sure your formula that uses 8% for adding and subtracting dyno HP is unassailable.

So, you're making the same "happy" claims, you so dislike, but choosing to wrap those "happy" HP claims in a wrapper of "my engines make less HP because my dyno is correct and honest."

And since I'm a layman who just writes checks and has a difficult time putting air in his tires, let alone knowing anything about highly technical measuring devices such as a dyno, what do I know anyway.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by blykins

The thought of, "Well, why would you want a solid roller, a higher powerband, and more maintenance, when the horsepower difference is negligble?" leaves out a whole lot of variables, and honestly Rod, I'm surprised that you stated it that way.

Please don't be surprised. You have a belief based on a simple formula and limited knowledge of my engine. Your belief is not mine.

Let's assume for the moment my 482 engine makes 560 HP and Lippy's makes 690 HP, using your standard formula of 8% deduction and addition, do you think Lippy or Dimis will use and feel the difference for the extra money and maintenance and reduced reliability? Again, I think these numbers are BS, but I would still say they're negligible in the big scheme of their Cobra's life.

Let's just say, my puny 482 does just enough to make the CLAIMED extra 130 HP to be superfluous.

[blykins]

Holy cow.

If you would spend half as much time on reading my posts as you do trying to think up wordy responses, you would see that you have misquoted me....quite badly.

Nowhere did I say there was 130 hp difference.

What I *did* say, was that if these two engines were dyno'd on the same dyno, there would not just be 33 hp difference between them.

Again, let me reiterate: I did not say there were 130 hp difference.

Should I re-reiterate?

Let me state it a different way (or in the same way that I stated it the first time)....

If these engines were dyno'd on the same dyno, for instance, the one I use, you would most likely see that your engine would be around the 570-570 mark, where Jeff's was around 640.

Let's look at it from yet another view:

If these engines were dyno'd on the same dyno, for instance, the one you used, you would most likely see that your Jeff's would probably be around the 680-690 mark, compared to your 605.

I don't have a simple formula. I put them on the dyno, and whatever the dyno tells me, that's what I write down.

I'm still waiting to hear what your engine specs are, because the 482's that I've built with professionally CNC ported Edelbrock heads that flowed around 320-325, with a professionally ported Performer RPM intake, with around 10.5:1 compression, and a hydraulic roller cam with around 244-248 degrees at .050" and .630" lift didn't make 605 hp *on the dyno I use*.

You have convoluted this to the point where the simple point that was made at the beginning is far beyond simple now.

What was that point? Different brands of dynos yield different results and you can not make apples to apples comparisons of horsepower numbers.

You keep trying to make this a personal argument against me, my business ethics, my choice of advertising, etc., but all of that have nothing to do with anything.

[patrickt]

Dang, it's a shame you two can't get paid for just sitting back and spouting loads of shi* like some of... ehhhrrr, never mind.

[Barry_R]

I have an open invitation to other FE builders to bring a build down to my dyno for comparison sake. Mr Lykins has expressed interest but the geography gets in the way.

My machine is a somewhat older (late 90s vintage) DTS8800 (also sold as a DTS 4000 at one point in time). It was originally purchased and installed at Wheel to Wheel Powertrain and calibrated/certified for use in GM OEM engine development work. When "The Wheel" went out of business as a result of the economy meltdown this dyno was sold at auction and I eventually acquired it along with virtually everything in the cell.

I have had the unique opportunity to test several engines on this machine - and then transport them to another facility to run them again. The EMC uses a DTS Powermark series dyno pair that is calibrated by the DTS engineering group before the contest, in the middle of the contest, and at the end of the contest. It should be obvious that - with +/-50 engine builders involved and a good amount of prize money and media visibility at stake, the accuracy of the results is pretty critical.

So far, engines tested on my equipment have generally been extremely close to the contest numbers - within one or two percent - with mine being slightly lower. Well within expectations given the differences in room layout - mine has a room mandated 90 degree turn in the exhaust at the back of the cell. Jim Stykes has a nearly identical "sister dyno" to mine, also used by GM, which I used prior to getting my own. His reads slightly higher, but the exhaust runs straight out the back wall. Mike Phillps, the Buick guy, has another similar one and his numbers are virtually identical to his contest numbers. You could toss a blanket over all our variability.

I have run a great number of 482 inch FE engines on this machine. While I have admittedly "squinted" at some of his results (we are competitors after all) Brett's 638 number on this 482" seems pretty realistic considering the parts employed. We've done several solid rollers packages that fell in between 611 and 650ish. I think that with the singular exception of my Engine Masters stuff, the highest hydraulic roller I have was a much larger 527 incher with power in the 620+ range.

This is a loooong way of pointing out that I agree with Mr. Lykins 100% on some of the dyno numbers I see tossed around. When I see values that are way, way out of context to those I can generate using comparable components I need to question the source data. Torque per cubic inch values that approach the EMC level 1.4 per cube are generally unrealistic with "normal" parts. I KNOW what it takes to get there and you simply ain't gonna reach that level with normal bolt it together type parts no matter how good you are.