Lifters

[Pearlsnake]

I wanted to convert my 289 hydraulic lifter to a roller lifter engine. I am going to get a roller cam that has a matching profile to what I have now (non performance; this is a daily driver car) and I want to know what lifters I can buy that will keep me from having to machine the top of the block. Basically I want something I can drop in and not have to take the engine out of the car.

[tpiini]

Please don't take this wrong, but if you're not changing the cam profile to take advantage of better "roller" ramps, why change at all? Several companies sell drop ins for SB Fords. In fact, just about every major cam companiy markets them. But given the inherent reliability of your hydraulic lifters versus the possible catastrophic failures of roller setups in a daily driver, I'd sure rethink the idea of giving up a reliable combination to spend $500.00 (or more) for the same cam profile. Don't forget that once you go to roller, your distributor gear will now be regular maintenance item. And really, aftermarket rollers shouldn't go more than a year or two or about 30k miles without a teardown for inspection. But if you're set on the idea, check out Comp Cams, Crane, Lunati, and the other major web sites. They should all have rollers listed for your engine.

Tom.

[Excaliber]

Three words:

Flat Tappet Solid!

Done...

[DavidNJ]

Agree with Tom, disagree with Excaliber. Roller cams let you have more aggressive ramps. For street cars, they allow a bigger performance/economy/emissions profile under the curve. So for the same performance, you could have a smoother more efficient engine. Or more power with the same emissions and economy.

I believe all current pushrod engines use roller cams. So they can meet the manufacturer's 100+k mile emissions warranty issues. They needed to get that way, the manufacturer's have governement dictated emissions and fuel economy requirements.

For your SBF, the drop ins would have a link bar to maintain the roller alignment. Production cars mount the lifter in dogleg tube that prevents rotation. Another option is to add a key, a little alignment bar, to block and use it with lifters that align against the key. This adds less mass to the lifter.

Hydraulic rollers run to over 7000rpm in the LS7. However, like any roller, the are challenged by mass, ramp, and spring stiffness. To get that performance GM uses featherweight valves, light die cast rockers, light beehive springs, etc.

Figure out your objectives and then order the best cam to meet it. Changing a flat tappet cam to roller cam with the same ramp is useless.

P.S.
In both roller and non-roller cams, solid lifters will allow bigger valves, higher revs, and more aggressive ramps. To get this they need stiffer springs and a stronger valvetrain (rockers, pushrods, etc.). They get the advantage because of the pressure limitations of hydraulic lifters.

[Excaliber]

This is a 289 hydraulic lifter block, I GUESS that means you could use the modern 'oil pressure fed' solid rollers?

That would be my primary concern. Old style solid rollers, those NOT pressure fed, WILL NOT live on the street. Modern roller lifter blocks have taken this all into consideration, can't say that for sure about a 289 block! My old style solid roller cam lost a roller lifter at about 8,000 miles, typical failure time frame is what I learned later.

Anyway flat tappet is cheaper, easier and will last the life of the motor while giving great performance for a 'street' application.

[Pearlsnake]

I could go with a more aggressive cam as long as I don't sacrifice too much fuel economy (once again, this is a daily driver). In my opinion, things are not looking good for the roller lifter option, but I am getting some 1969 351W heads w/ roller rockers ready to install (they have been cleaned up and decked, new valves, etc...). I just wanted an engine that I could rely on for a long time.

[DavidNJ]

One look at the spec sheet shows modern engines are more powerful, more fuel efficient, smoother and better running. The next question is why.

First, they have better combustion chambers, something your 1969 head won't have.

Second, they have port fuel injection, usually with a mass air flow sensor. Again, something you don't appear to be doing. This probably should be expanded to the ignitions, which are also controled by the ECU.

Third, they have cams that take advantage of everything they can. More aggressive lifts. More lift. At .200, some luxury sedan cams look like a '60s performance cam. While being much smaller on the seat. New valve spring and rocker arm technology is required to enable this. Not just a roller, but a low inertia roller.

Fourth, they are using separate intake and exhaust cams with variable cam timing. That is why a 350Z is as quick in the 1/4 miles as a 427/435 Corvette in 1969. Or a Twin Turbo Supra in 1994.

My first car was a Boss 302, purchased new as a leftover in 1971 (for $2950). Rated at 290hp and about 3200# (if my memory is correct), C&D timed it at 14.9@92 in the 1/4 mile. About the same as a Honda Accord or Hyundai Sonata today.

[Pearlsnake]

If I wanted SEFI, ECU, and others of the like I would have bought the kits or sold my car and went to the local car dealership to buy a new Mustang. The point of me adding anything roller related to my engine is to reduce stress on the engine. If the roller lifters are prone to cause trouble in a 289, then I will not bother with them. The '69 heads are to replace the 1-289 head and 1-302 head that my motor acquired sometime before I got the car (this wasn't the only thing on my car that was half-a$$ done before I got it, there were several others). I have ditched the old ignition for a more modern (and more efficient) firing system (from ACCELL) which was fairly cheap to do, so are the roller parts and heads (the only real expensive part would be buying a $2-3000 fuel injection kit). Plus, I want stuff that I can do at my house w/o having to use a mechanic or any specialist.

If I wanted a more up to date performance engine, I would've bought a new 302 roller block and went from there, but I don't. By the way, I fully understand the advances that modern electronics and machining techniques have made. New engines last longer and are stronger, but better fuel economy is not always true in modern day cars.

[mstngjoe]

This roller cam you are considering.....is it a "standard" roller cam or a reduced base circle cam.

This will determine what your options are relative to lifters.

[Pearlsnake]

mstngjoe, I will run either style because the lifters will determine the cam. I am looking for roller lifters that will allow me to install them at my house w/o having to machine the block. If I have to do something like drill and tap a couple of holes, then no problem, but if I have to take the whole engine out then no dice. If the roller lifters are prone to cause problems, then I may decide against them. Any help will be appreciated.

[mstngjoe]

The drop in link bar lifters will allow you to use any off the shelf roller cam. Cost is around $400 just for the lifters. Changing the dist gear would also be necessary with a roller cam.

You can use the Ford factory "spider & dog-bone" setup, but in an early block that would entail a small base circle cam which will limit your options on specs.

Having said that, for your described application, I just don't consider the gains to outweigh the cost all other things being equal. I thought about doing a roller cam in a early Mexican 302 block that I used for a 331 stroker. After doing the research, I went with a (relatively mild) custom spec'd hyd flat tappet. Ended up with 330hp to the wheels in a '65 Fastback with a C-4. I'm presently building a 408 with a solid flat.

Vizard recently did testing on a Spintron and dyno comparing similar flat tappet to roller cams (both solid and hyd in both cases). He found that until you exceed 270* duration on your cam, the flat tappet outperforms. From 270* to 280* or so their about even and from 280* on up the roller edges the flat tappet.

If it were me, I'd do some nice home porting/gasket matching of the W heads and maybe have them milled depending upon your current c/r, piston style, piston to deck height, etc.

I would then consider the Comp XE262H or the XE268H depending on my desired performance level. I had the 262 in a mild 302 and it worked great, IMO.

Just my opinions....others may differ.

Good luck whatever you decide.

[Pearlsnake]

Thanks for the advice everyone. The engine itself is not aimed toward performance (a daily driver), I was looking for ways to prolong its life through the use of roller parts, but as a bonus roller parts tend to "free" up the engine and allow more horsepower because of the reduced amount of friction (when compared to regular rockers, full roller rockers are advertised to give anywhere from 10-35 horsepower by just installing them). As for the heads, I could've bought some regular 302 or 289 heads, but I got the 351W for the same price as the others. I was also looking at other things such as a lightweight flywheel to help reduce stress on the engine; my ultimate goal is to have an engine that will last for a long time.

[DavidNJ]

Originally Posted by mstngjoe

Vizard recently did testing on a Spintron and dyno comparing similar flat tappet to roller cams (both solid and hyd in both cases). He found that until you exceed 270* duration on your cam, the flat tappet outperforms. From 270* to 280* or so their about even and from 280* on up the roller edges the flat tappet.

If it were me, I'd do some nice home porting/gasket matching of the W heads and maybe have them milled depending upon your current c/r, piston style, piston to deck height, etc.

That would have to depend on what 'similar' meant. If they had the same profile, this is undoubtedly true. However, it is common for hydraulic rollers, street hydraulic rollers, to match aggresive race solid flat tappet designs in profile.

That said, some mild work on your new heads, a good valve job and maybe some bowl work from a good head shop (one that wins races), and new springs and you should be good with your current cam or another low-cost flat-tappet hydraulic.

The cost of going roller will far exceed any improvements in future maintenance costs.

[mstngjoe]

Originally Posted by DavidNJ

That would have to depend on what 'similar' meant.

Here's a scan of the portion of the article I was referring to:

http://www.fordmuscle.com/pics/mstngjoe_Vizard1.jpg

http://www.fordmuscle.com/pics/mstngjoe_Vizard2.jpg

[DavidNJ]

Old designs. First, the short designs he tested are smaller than anyone would be using here. They are even smaller than stock, emissions-legal LS7.

Using hydraulic cams, and using numbers for .006/.050/.200, the Xtreme Energy XFI lobes (Vizard used regular Xtreme Energy, which are not current) are:

Short
Flat: 252/208/121/.298
Rolller: 252/202/128/.344

You would need a 260 in the flat tappets to equal the 252 roller at .200

Medium
Flat: 268/224/138/.325
Roller: 268/218/143/.356

equivalent to the a 274 flat. Also note that is .325 vs .356 lobe lift.

Long
Flat: 292/248/162/.365
Roller: 292/242/165/.365

Both are .365 lift. In this case, they are nearly identical.

Looking at solids I'll use the Tight Lash Solids, since the Xtreme Energy and Magnum solids where developed by Noah on the Ark. Using Xtreme Energy vs Xtreme Energy would not have been close. We used the Tight Lash on street stock oval cars in the early 90's with stamped Chevy rockers (required by the rules)

Medium
Flat: 268/238/147/.335
Roller: 268/230/153/.368

A two size advantage, equal to a 276 flat

Long
Flat: 304/274/181/.3934
Roller: 304/266/187/.398

Advantage roller, but not by that much.

It is harder to compare the latest race grinds. They have about 27 deg major intensity on both solid flat and roller. However, the flats are all big ratio rocker designs and the rollers aren't.

In the solid configurations, much stiffer springs are possible with the rollers.

So, it would seem that Vizard's analysis may be faulty. What is needed is a way to normalize the selection rather than pick from one vendor's selection of similarly named lobes.

[mstngjoe]

Vizard's article was about "street" cams and illustrated some "general, ballpark" findings about what is "so often assumed". I should have noted that in my earlier postings.

In the context of Pearlsnakes original comment about "non performance; this is a daily driver car" I thought the testing by Vizard to be valid and relevant to his situation. Especially if you factor in the cost of converting to the roller vs the "performance" gained over the flat tappet. Not everyone of course considers cost a factor, but I do and must.

Vizard's experience, knowledge and resources are far and above the average hobbyist and most "performance experts" as well. If you find his methods and conclusions invalid, so be it.

It's a given that comparing flat tappet cams to roller cams is difficult at best. In order to optimize each design, specs would obviously need be moderately if not considerably different.

I'm always on the lookout for articles and testing that prove or disprove general assumptions about performance gains for a given part in a street application.

[DavidNJ]

Vizard used the Comp Xtreme Energy cams, their strongest street cam once-upon-a-time. They have been superceded by the Xtreme Energy XFI which I listed. I used the Tight Lash solid flat tappet cam because Comp didn't bother upgrading their Xtreme Energy solid flat tappet. The Tight Lash is closed to the the Xtreme Street Roller, which is also a tight lash cam (lower case).

Vizard is an acknowledged expert. However, that doesn't make him always right.

To further the point, to the best of my knowledge there are no current pushrod flat tappet engines in production, at least for US sale. And those engines by and large have cams smaller than the short lobes in Vizard's article.

P.S.
You seem to have an interesting engine. What cam do you use?

[mstngjoe]

Buddy Rawls spec'd the solid flat tappet for my 408.

At .050 it's roughly 260 and .590 lift