Yellow Bullet Forums banner

Using Hydraulic Lifters with Solid Lifter Cam

15K views 22 replies 9 participants last post by  kennybis 
#1 ·
Just curious what experience anyone has running hydraulic lifters on a solid lifter cam.

Basically I have a solid lifter cam that works very well but I figured out that I don't really need solid lifters since I shift the engine at 6500 rpm and have the rev limiter at 6700. Primarily I'm looking to reduce the rocker noise and maintenance for periodic adjustments. I plan to use very high quality hydraulic lifters.

Cam is a Comp Cam street grind with low lash - 248/242 deg duration @.050" and has .640 lift using 1.7 rockers.

I know it will work at least for sometime but I'm concerned about the long term durabiity. If you are not familiar with my car, it's not unusual for me to drive it many miles to the track so I'm concerned about durability.

Thanks.
 
#2 ·
I would think the biggest thing is the hyd.lifters will make the cam seem much larger than with the solids.Instead of the lash ramps just taking up clearance in the valvetrain it will begin lifting the valve at that point.It will make the seat to seat timing act like a larger cam.
 
#8 ·
Randy.... theres no need for your motor to have a reverse split camhaft in it. Not with the twins.

There are some lobe designs from comp that can use either lifter.... but odds are on yours the ramps accelleration rates are too high and itll collapse a hydraulic lifter.

Id love to work something up for ya if youre interested.
 
#9 ·
Randy.... theres no need for your motor to have a reverse split camhaft in it. Not with the twins.

There are some lobe designs from comp that can use either lifter.... but odds are on yours the ramps accelleration rates are too high and itll collapse a hydraulic lifter.

Id love to work something up for ya if youre interested.
Thanks LilJohn for the info. Honestly, you may be right about the camshaft (it is a Comp Cam) but I'm trying to make things simple and keep everything as they are. I'm simply going to go back to the hydraulic design I had in the engine previously which had virtually the same performance and mileage - a proven design with my combination. The mechanical roller was an "experiment" which showed my that the previous hydraulic roller cam was actually doing quite well - less spring pressure, less maintenance and quieter operation.

Perhaps I could improve performance slightly by testing different cams but honestly, the car weighs 3550lbs, goes 8.40-8.50s and gets almost 18 mpg with both the mechanical roller and the previous hydraulic roller cam - shifting at 6500. I have competitors with cars weighing 200lbs less, bigger cams shifting at 7500, TFS R-box, same boost, etc. that ET the same as I do but at a few more MPH. I'm pleased with my combo already and I'm limited in the resources necessary to try new things right now.

The original posted question is actually a moot point. After getting back from this last trip I ran a compression check and had something going on in the engine so I pulled it yesterday and disassembled it today. Found a bad lifter and wiped lobe - first time I ever had a problem like this in this engine. Don't know if the lobe or the lifter roller went first but their both history. These were high end roller lifters so I suspect the lobe. Hopefully by going back to a hydraulic with less spring rates I won't have this problem again. Fortunately the engine needed to be refreshed so I'm just going to go through it and and make everything fresh.

Now what I need badly is information on a good machine shop in central Tennessee that can hone a block and turn a crank.
 
#11 ·
How many miles on this setup? Also how many miles were you getting out of the hydraulic roller setup?
Good questions, I'll have to check my records. I'm pretty sure the previous hydraulic setup had many more runs/miles on the lifters (stock ford hydraulic rollers) but the hydraulic cam itself I changed once in 2009 to a more aggressive hydraulic roller cam from the original that I initially installed in 2007.

I do know that the hydraulic cam had seat pressure around 135-145lbs and the solid my head guy bumped that up to 200-210lbs so I'm sure the open pressures were similarly higher though I can't remember the number. Obviously the higher seat pressures and mechanical cam characteristics will eat into the life of the valvetrain components as compared to the hydraulic setup.
 
#13 ·
Good questions, I'll have to check my records. I'm pretty sure the previous hydraulic setup had many more runs/miles on the lifters (stock ford hydraulic rollers) but the hydraulic cam itself I changed once in 2009 to a more aggressive hydraulic roller cam from the original that I initially installed in 2007.

I do know that the hydraulic cam had seat pressure around 135-145lbs and the solid my head guy bumped that up to 200-210lbs so I'm sure the open pressures were similarly higher though I can't remember the number. Obviously the higher seat pressures and mechanical cam characteristics will eat into the life of the valvetrain components as compared to the hydraulic setup.
Randy,

I'm sure like you said the hydraulic roller had more miles then then solid roller.I have heard many times street driving is hard on solid roller lifters.Just curious was the solid roller cam faster then the hydraulic roller cam car in your car?

Later Mark.
 
#22 ·
Didn't really work better with the solid rollers vs the hydraulic rollers, not enough RPM in my combination to need the solid rollers. I shift at 6500 and have a rev limit set at 6700. I was using ford OEM lifters prior and really didn't pick up anything using the solid lifter setup.

I would say if your combo is set to run over 7000 then solid lifters would start to be a better choice.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top