[Chaplin]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

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.

They are entirey different designs- why would you expect the specs to be the same? That is the whole point- you can make as much or more with less. And what does the fact that the specs are not identical prove (other than that they are different designs)? I don't think it is a conspiracy of the part of the cam manufactures to prevent gear heads from learning the truth. Fact of the matter is, there will always be applications for both so they need to continue making both and comparing apples to oranges wouldn't really serve any purpose. What use would making a roller cam with the same specs as your solid cam be in your non-hyd block ? It would be useless to you.