Solid roller lifters, cylinder heads and more

[Caprimaniac]

Hello, engineheads. Or peterolheads; whatever you prefer.

It's like this: my 347 have comp 838-16 mech. roller lifters. Purchased in 2005. worked perfectly, but have been in "hard" use only 2- 3 seasons. I'm a bit worried about rollers failing....

Now; in the 2010 Comp catalogue, this part number is listed as a "Endure-x" lifter with EDM oil injection technology to the rollers.

Question is: Does my 2005 lifters also have the EDM injection?

Question 2: How often should I inspect the rollers (visually/ testing the rollers) and how often should the lifters been shipped to Comp for inspection/ repair?

Question 3: Are there any cylinder heads for SBF that have the possibility to remove the lifters without removing the heads?

These heads should also have 60cc combustion chambers and be capeable to do 600 Hp, have the inlet ports at standard location, wide exhaust bolt pattern and be reasonably priced....

The reason for this question is that I'm (re-) building a long rod 306 and might use the heads current atop of my 347 which might be retired from the street (-legal) car and go into some kind of race-build.

Rs

[blykins]

1. If you could post a picture of your very lifter, I could tell you. I can't remember when they switched to the pressure fed lifter; I think it was around 2005-2006. You could call and ask.

2. This all depends on the application and the camshaft. If used on a street roller grind on a toy weekend cruiser, then I would inspect them every couple years or 7500 miles or so. You'll get varying opinions on that. But if the valvetrain is setup correctly, it's a mild lobe, you keep the idle up, etc., they'll last a long time.

On your application, where you're not sure which lifter you have, and you've had it on a track, I'd go ahead and pull them now. Better safe than sorry. At this interval (5 years and track time), I'd send them back to have them rebuilt. If they're not Endure-X lifters, then I would probably invest in a set of those, or some Crower lifters, or even Isky Red Zone lifters.

3. The heads really aren't what shoot you in the foot on a 302 based engine...it's the deck height.

[Caprimaniac]

Brent; Hi.

I was afraid of that; to pull the heads... Have so many other plans this winter.

So, what you say is: there are no SBF heads with slots to make the lifters come out. Confirmed?

Unfortunately, I have no pics of the lifters. Only date of purchase and part number. I will write to comp and here what they say.

[madmaxx]

What spring pressures are you running? I thought oiling was only an issue on big blocks. I thought lubrication was good even at idle with small blocks.

[Caprimaniac]

Hello, Madmaxx.

I am running, and this is too weak according to Mr. Lykins, 380 Lbs open and 145 Lbs seat. (No valve float, no troubles noticed so far.)

Problem is the roller lifters. According to some, engines with such should not be idled at all, due to oil starvation. They rely on oil- splash from the crank only. Unless they are of the modern type with oil channels to the pins/ rollers.

[madmaxx]

Those appear to be very reasonable spring pressures for a hydraulic roller!!!!, no need for solids in my opinion. Your rollers should live a long life with those spring pressures. I suggest pulling your distributor to look at your camshaft, you will see the #1 intake lobe, you will have to use a mechanics mirror. If it looks good I would not touch the engine. The only problem the light springs may have causes is hammering on the backside of the cam. 347 based on 302, i have never heard of a lubrication concern with those engines. Mustangs go well over 200K miles.

Originally Posted by Caprimaniac

Hello, Madmaxx.

I am running, and this is too weak according to Mr. Lykins, 380 Lbs open and 145 Lbs seat. (No valve float, no troubles noticed so far.)

Problem is the roller lifters. According to some, engines with such should not be idled at all, due to oil starvation. They rely on oil- splash from the crank only. Unless they are of the modern type with oil channels to the pins/ rollers.

[blykins]

Maxx.....It's not a hydraulic roller....it's a solid roller.

It's not an oiling problem either....


Capri.....

No, not enough spring pressure. I really don't understand how you're not having valvetrain control issues with spring pressures meant for a flat tappet or hydraulic roller cam.

As for the cylinder heads, you're pretty much stuck. I've never seen a factory or aftermarket head that would be cut out enough to get the lifters out. The whole pushrod area would need to be removed.

[madmaxx]

Thanks, that what i thought. Why in the world would he have a solid roller with those spring pressures. I guess the disadvantage to the solid roller is the valve lash you have to factor in when setting it up and adjusting the rocker arms. In turn the lash sets up play where the roller can launch off the peak and hammer the backside of the camshaft.

[blykins]

The lash is the killer.

The clearance there lets the lifter bearings get a shock load in addition to the other loads.

On a mild solid roller cam (like a Comp SR series), I would at least have 225 or so on the seat, with 525 on the nose. I would probably opt for more, like 250/550.

[vector1]

on the solid roller cam from mike jones i'm running i was beating the backside of the lobe with the stock as issued afr205 springs which are 225/500 range and 3/8" x .083 pushrods. he advised me to change to a thicker wall pushrod and/or lighten the spring as the pushrod likely had too much spring. his suggestion was some lsx style beehive springs which use smaller retainers and/or going to a .120 wall or larger diameter pushrod.

just something to think about.

[Excaliber]

Max, I wouldn't think any engine would go 200,000 miles on a solid roller cam (cam in block style)? Hydraulic roller of course is a different animal all together, mild springs, lower rpm potential, superior oiling.

Why would you even run a solid roller if you weren't looking for higher rpm potential, more horse power and willing to put up with a short life span (compared to hydraulic)?

[blykins]

I'm not a fan of beehive springs, but they are rated differently because of their weight. The spring pressures are a whole lot less than a dual or triple spring.

If you ever buy beehives, buy the best brand you can...if a spring breaks, you've pooped the bed....whereas with a dual spring, you at least have a little bit of safety there before dropping the valve.

[madmaxx]

I agree 100% I have no idea why he is running solid rollers. I assume if gets the same oil to the roller bearings in the rollers as a hydraulic roller lifter . So in his case if he has not been experiencing impact loads due to the lash why would they not last at least 100K miles with those spring loads.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Max, I wouldn't think any engine would go 200,000 miles on a solid roller cam (cam in block style)? Hydraulic roller of course is a different animal all together, mild springs, lower rpm potential, superior oiling.

Why would you even run a solid roller if you weren't looking for higher rpm potential, more horse power and willing to put up with a short life span (compared to hydraulic)?

[madmaxx]

I think Ford is quoting behive springs for their new SBF 427. The advantage to a behive is you use alot less spring pressure to get the same result, in turn you minimize wear on valvetrain parts like camshaft, rocker arms etc. I think the odds of a spring breaking are the same odds of any other mechanical failure.

Originally Posted by blykins

I'm not a fan of beehive springs, but they are rated differently because of their weight. The spring pressures are a whole lot less than a dual or triple spring.

If you ever buy beehives, buy the best brand you can...if a spring breaks, you've pooped the bed....whereas with a dual spring, you at least have a little bit of safety there before dropping the valve.

[blykins]

He is experiencing impact loads due to lash. The only way he wouldn't be would be if he were running zero lash.

There's no way of knowing what the cam lobes or lifters look like until he pulls them and does an inspection.

Just because it's not floating the valves like a rev limiter doesn't mean it's not losing control of the valvetrain. This loss of control is magnified on a cast cam core. The cam will literally start flaking off.

Capri, are you 100% sure on the spring specs? If so, I'd like to say a few words to your engine builder.

How high are you pulling the engine? 5500? 6500?

[madmaxx]

Is it possilbe to loose valve train control at high rpm's WITHOUT valve float with a hydraulic lifter set up?

[blykins]

Yes, I think you can begin to lose control without seeing the symptoms that we usually associate with valve float -- the brutal drop of power on a dyno sheet, the "rev-limiter" sound, etc.

I had a 445ci Windsor on the dyno last year that had a really aggressive hydraulic roller camshaft in it. Even with 150/410 lb springs, titanium retainers, etc., it was sounding really "flat" on the top end, at around 6500 rpm. I later disassembled that engine and saw the tell-tale "X" pattern on the top of the valve stem, where the valve/spring/etc was starting to rotate. Were the valves hanging open? I don't think so...but you could tell that it didn't sound sharp up top.

[Caprimaniac]

"I have no idea why he is running solid rollers"
I don't know exactly what you mean by this, Madmmmmax. But to cut a long story short:

Was building a high- revving Hp 306. Destroyed two sets of cam and lifters (306 degree solid). All due to an unexperienced engine builder & hope to do it all on a budget. As a mean of getting by the cam run- in procedure the thought was: "Go roller! Longer open times, more radical ramps and no run- in."

And here's number two, to Brent: The heads purchased for no. 1 build was a set of Edelbrock Vic Jr's. And, again with an unexperienced engine builder, he went with a complete set of heads for mechanical flat tappet cam. As the 2. solid flat- tappet cam broke, he was furious and called comp cams to give them a lesson. He then got this answer: "The springs on these heads are too stiff for this mech. flat tappet; you will need a HUGE cam for these springs." (As a note: the cam in question was the 2. nastiest cam "off the shelf" from comp.) Then a close reading through the comp catalogue started; to find a solid roller cam....

And there it was: The nastiest Magnum solid roller. Spring pressures on "required" springs: 165/385.
Springs on the vic. Jr. heads: 145/ 380.
The person at comp cams said these springs MIGHT work OK...

As block was changed 2 years ago, the lifters and cam was beeing inspected as well; all looking well. No suspicious markings or anything on cam or rollers.
(As a remark: the car had not seen many hours of brutal driving by that time.)

As you can see, Brent, the spring pressures are very close to what comp advices for this cam.

Footnote: comp is also listing, in red letters, another set of valves for this cam; 977-16, which ahve pressures 155/420.

And if you need to speak to the engine builder; here he is- in person.

Let's think this over: If engine behaves well with these springs; no float at 8000 rpm, noe visible damage to the moving parts, noe debris in oil, no need to adjust valves after 10+ track days and with the fact that you should run the lightest springs "that will work" as possible to save the moving parts, I can see no problem in these springs involved. The statement of the need to run 450+ lbs springs (or whatever) on a solid roller is a truth with some modifications, as are also the "truth" in my arguments here.

I'm considering building a more streetfriendly 306 long- rod and therefore also thinking of switching the heads on the 347. AND therefore... I need to do research on what heads to use, what valves to use, what springs to use
and all other hardware involved. I will continue my quest and see about those valvespring pressures... If lighter valves are installed there will be consequences as well.


Now; one of my original question in this thread was: Will titanium valves do alot to make my valvetrain last longer and act more stable at the RPM's I'm spinning? Or do you have to move to 9000rpm to get real use of the lightweight valves? Is it worth the money, in other words.

rs

[blykins]

I can understand where you're coming from now.

The first comment I would make would be NEVER trust Comp Cams' tech line on ANYTHING. EVER. NEVER. First of all the springs on the Vic Jr heads are for hydraulic roller cams or flat tappet cams. They would have been just fine for each one of those. Secondly, the guy that gets paid $9 an hour to read out of a catalog doesn't understand that Vic Jr heads have larger, heavier valves than a lot of SBF heads. Comp tends to put a lot of "universal" information in their catalogs and while a spring may be good at a particular install height for a particular engine, it may be way off on another setup.

As I've said earlier, just because you don't get the tell-tale pop-pop-pop of valve float doesn't mean that you're not losing control of the valvetrain, especially if you're spinning this thing to 8000. I find it extremely hard to believe that a 145lb seat pressure can keep a huge solid roller lifter down on the lobe at 8000 rpm.

It's true that the Magnum lobes are not very wild. However what's not wild at 5000 becomes pretty funky at 8000 rpm. (It also means that you can step up to a Xtreme Energy street roller grind and pick up quite a bit of horsepower.)

Let me ask this question rhetorically: if Comp told you to go with the weaker of the two sets of springs in the catalog and you're turning 8000 rpm, why would they put the stronger set in the catalog as well?

As for titanium valves, they are found in a lot of OEM street applications here. Some of the Corvette LS engines have them.

They are $$$$$ and most definitely help on valvetrain control. However, I wouldn't consider it a return on investment unless you are in fact turning 8000-9000 rpms on a regular basis. Even then, there are probably some other options that you could try before hand. Those titanium valves are just horribly expensive compared to a stainless steel set.

[Caprimaniac]

Toutched tha backspacebutton and drove away to the Weber forum, but now I'll try once more...

Yes, Agree: "why would they put the stronger set in the catalog as well"? And tonight I found this in the Comp catalogue: part numbers in red are "the premium choice". Whatever that means!

Yes, I will follow some guidelines given here and move up the LBS scale on the valve springs.

What other means, besides going to Ti valves, can be done to make the valvtrain even more reliable?

I'm considering: Ti valve locks & retainers. Jesel belt drive & shaft mounted rockers. (Yes, I know. Darn expensive stuff. But, with 5000$ invested in the block, why not step up on other things, one by one, as well?)

Please feel free to come up wih other suggestions.

Let me ask this hypothetic question:

- If valves, retainers and locks are changed from steel to Ti; by how much can the sping LBS rating be lowered (everything else kept equal)?

- If locks & retainers are changed only, is there any reason to go down on spring rating? (I have not looked on the numbers, but it will be , I think, a net loss of 15 grams on each valve?)

And yes, it spins 8000+ every time the car is taken out for a drive, unless it's only to test the brakes or something on a sunday evening. How long it stays at 8000 is another matter because the racetracks where I live have very short straights. 1 lap takes about a minute and 5 - 12 seconds, and it's mostly turns. Top speed is 180- 200 km/h.

By the way: I'm on my way welding 2" pipes on the flanges (which I have cut off) from a set of "standard" Hedman 1 5/8" headers. To fit a set of Vic jr. heads. With standard bolt pattern....

Can the Vic jr. heads be drilled & tapped for widers exhaust bolt pattern? (I think the Glidden heads have this.)

Godnight.
Rus