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

[Jerry Clayton]

Transferred to the joke thread

[Jamo]

...as opposed to the Chevy Forum.

[Dimis]

Ok I've read the thread... And still need help.

I'm still not convinced either way SOLID vs HYDRAULIC ROLLERS.
I am convinced flat tappets are NOT for me (sorry Patrick).

Can anyone tell me if there have been any advancements in the last 1/2dozen years that would help a hydraulic roller control the valve train at higher rpms, or any advances in solid roller technology that would minimize the maintenance requirements.

Reading Jay B book and anecdotal research tells me I can get a truck load more out of my TW intake by spinning past 6000rpm.
It's not that I'll ever need it just cruising the streets to work and back a couple days a week, but it's there, and the rest of the build is plenty strong enough to cope, so why not tap into it?

Yes, I want my cake and to eat it too... What's wrong with that!?

Ps. Break in is NOT a concern of mine, I'll pay a pro to do that, but annual maintenance will be.

What would you chose and why?


Many thanks.

[RICK LAKE]

dimis Need a number you are looking for. Whjat kind of power do you want from this? If you want your cake and eat it too, go to an LS motor or coyote motor. If you want a hydro cam shaft setup with rollers you are limited by weight. High oil pressure will pump up the lifter, need a high spring pressure, no little to no valve lash to stop valve staying open when you go into float. Max rpm will be about 6,400 rpm and this is pushing. If you want more than this, goto another motor like cleveland and rev the snot out of it. There is no rev kit made for roller motors in an FE yet. When there is, 7,500 will be no problem. The other thing is watching the valve spring numbers. I run beehive springs with 15 years on them. 120pounds closed 355 pounds open. Max rpms without power drop starting is 5,600 rpms if setup is done like cranes want with 1/2 turn after contact of rocker having no play on valve stem. Lets get some answers. Is it Foster time yet?? Rick

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Dimis

I'm still not convinced either way SOLID vs HYDRAULIC ROLLERS. I am convinced flat tappets are NOT for me (sorry Patrick).

Did I read over on the FE forum that your reluctance to go with SFTs is the fact that they need to be periodically adjusted?

[blykins]

FE parts are big. Heavy .875" lifters, heavy valves with thick valve stems, fat heads, and long overall lengths, etc, etc.

There are lots of differences between the FE, the typical SBF, and the LS line of engines. These are not 7mm stems and .842" lifters...they are 2.250" valves with 11/32 or 3/8 stems and a longer length.

I've tried many combinations of parts on hydraulic roller FE's, with the exception of titanium valves. Paying $3-4k just for a set of valves is ludicrous for a street engine. I've tried Ferrea hollow stems, extreme spring pressures, titanium retainers, etc.

It's more of a challenge than just the normal combination of parts and usually 6000-6100 is all she wrote....and that includes using beehives, titanium retainers, hollow stem valves, etc, etc.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Did I read over on the FE forum that your reluctance to go with SFTs is the fact that they need to be periodically adjusted?

Did you...?
There's plenty of chance I may be, but any chance that you may be mistaken?

Sorry mate, but flat tappets are not on the table...

[750hp]

I haven't looked at the options available for FEs, but Morel hyd rollers are used past 8000rpm in other engine families.

For what it's worth, my FE has a solid flat tappet cam, which I planned to change as one of the first upgrades for when the car arrived. Turns out it's great just as is and I have no reason at all to change to hyd or solid roller.

[undy]

The trick to getting a hydraulic roller cam to go well past 7K rpm is a v-e-r-y light valve train.

1) As Rick said, beehive springs with Titanium retainers would be a good start.
(OEMs have already learned that)

2) Next you need light valves. Titanium intakes with Ferrera's hollow stem stainless intake valves would fill the bill.

3) Also, as Rick said, you'll need quality hi-rev anti-pump up hydraulic roller
lifters.

4) Another integral part of the recipie would be very light roller rockers.

If you've done all that then a hydraulic cam will rev to 7K, and well past.

Unfortunately, all this is just half of the equation. To achieve any form of longevity you need a light rotating assembly, pistons, rods and crank.

Chebby has accomplished all this in the C6 Z06, which I own. It has hi-rev lifters, bee-hive spings, titanium intake valves, hollow sodium filled exhaust valves, light forged crank, titanium rods and ultra-light Mahl cast pistons. It spins 7K easily, from the factory. With a small amount of mods, it'll go 7.5K. A lot of people are producing waaaay over 700 FWHP with these engines, in streetable trim and the engines are going 200K miles to boot.

To acomplish all this in a "dump truck motor" FE would be very expensive. To me, 6K rpm in this motor is really all I/you need. The heads, even with extensive porting, are very prohibitive to deep, hi-rev breathing. You can spin them higher, but with minimal benefit due to the head design. The LS7 heads flow 355 CFM on the intake side right from GM and with additional CNC porting they go well past 420 CFM @ 0.650" lift.

Food for thought...

[CHANMADD]

The reason non hydraulic lifters wear out.......is because there is a space...( the valve lash) within which the lifter bounces......which in turn causes the wear of the lifter face and the cam.
With a hydraulic roller, the wheel on the bottom of the lifter is kept in constant contact with the cam lobe, just a wheel continuously running on a flat surface...........a solid roller lifter has the same problem as
solid roller in that it also has some lash which allows the lifter wheel to leave the surface of the cam, allowing it to hammer itself to death.......this is why the solid rollers die.........in a small Chevy and I am sure with some work it can be made to work in the Fords, there is a kit called a Rev kit .....nothing new....which is essentially some small pressure springs between the head qnd the lifter....solid lifter which keeps the lifter in constant cantqct with the cam........the other huge benefits of the are the the valve spring is not tqsked to control the lifter, and the valve spring can be much lighter pressure alleviating a lot of stresses on the valve train.....

[fordracing65]

6000rpm is still pretty high for the street. I guess it comes down to a little more maintenance on your part if you went solid...Either way it's a win...

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

6000rpm is still pretty high for the street. I guess it comes down to a little more maintenance on your part if you went solid...Either way it's a win...

As a kid, I remember SFT cars that would go 50,000 miles without ever being lashed -- because their owners just never had it done.... And they were fine.

[blykins]

No way a rev kit could work with an fe. :-)

Bushed, pressure fed solid roller lifters go 25-30k miles before needing a rebuild.

[lippy]

Brent and I just went through this for my engine. The lifters we chose, and that he is referring to, are Isky bushed solid rollers. No needle bearings. The folks at Isky claim you can even go 50k mi (I'm dubious). This build can rev to 7k+ but doesn't use a completely radical cam or spring seat pressures. Brent can give you more details on the specs, but the performance is impressive - especially for the large amount of rotating mass in an FE. I will need to check the lash once in awhile, but no big deal.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.