Hydraulic roller?? or Solid

Author Topic: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid  (Read 4473 times)

Offline mojavered

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 853
  • Someday!
Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« on: May 28, 2009 - 12:59:58 AM »
I am in a dilemma after reading some of the info on this site.  It seems that the hydraulic roller cams and lifters are not really too popular around here.  I am in the middle of an engine build at the moment.  I will give you as much info as I can:
440>500 with 4.15" stroke and 4.35" bore
9:1 CR, 84cc Edelbrock RPM heads, Torker II or Victor intake
All forged internals
This is going to be a street and an occasional (once or twice) strip machine.

Now my engine builder is talking about some 1.6 rocker assmly and using an Isky cam:
Intake Valve Lift 1.6 .501"
Exhaust Valve Lift 1.6 .539"
 
Intake Duration at .050" 215°
Exhaust Duration at .050" 223°
 
Lobe Separation Angle 112
This is a solid roller with roller valve train.  I was thinking about going with a hydraulic roller to free up some horsepower.  ( I know it is more money, but if it can give more power now?)  Should I stick with a solid cam or what?  Also if you think that I should stick with solid, please let me know why and give me some input on lift and duration? 
Jason




Offline dodge freak 2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2009 - 01:37:49 AM »
My feelings are a old fashion solid camshaft works pretty darn good..even now in 2009.

Hydraulic rollers..some pro racers call them Girly cams cause they wimp out after 6500 rpms or so...there are tricks to get them to 7000-7200 rpms but one guy claims his son drag racer motor hits 9000 rpms and no "girly" cam could do that.

Solid rollers don't seem to last on the street, the roller pin get bang up from the low rpms and break...unless you have a true pro street car that gets the motor rebuilt each season I would stay away from them.

An old fashion solid cam can take 7500 rpms all the time...if the bottom end can as well...plus its much cheaper than a hydraulic roller.

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2009 - 02:55:46 AM »
I have some killer flat tappet solid grinds with similar to roller specs that are perfect for street use
 Hyd roller are limited in the lift of the ramps due to collapsing the hyd lifters , solid rollers are better but you need to change the oil pump drive every second oil change & the cost is huge as well .
 My engine is getting a .586 lift flat tappet solid grind

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline moper

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2368
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2009 - 12:39:31 PM »
Are you sure you have that right? For a solid roller, it has no duration or lift. For a 4.15 stroke, you should be looking in the area of 240°@.050 if you need power brakes, 250°@.050 with a solid or hydraulic flat tappet, and 260° for a solid roller. A nice choice (solid roller w/o power brakes) would be the XR286R Comp.

The deal with hydraulic rollers is you can't run a huge spring, and you can't lift it any faster than a std hyrdaulic flat tappet can because it's still a hydraulic lifter... It will simply compress rather than lifting the valve. It is easier because there's no break in issues. But it's pricey for the power it makes.. or rather what it gives up compared to a solid flat tappet or solid roller. Now, I will not run any solid roller without bushing the lifter bores. If there is a valvetrain failure without the bushings and the lifter pops out of the bore you have a very great chance to ruin the bearings and cause damage down below. IMO, it's not worth it to save $500 on a budget of $8500+ and I wont do it. I like solid flat tappets for the engines I build that need to make good numbers and the owner isn't afraid to set valve lash once a year. Some guys dont like to, so I'd run a std hydraulic rather than the partial expense of hydraulic roller. The 1.6 rockers are a good idea. Just make sure while the heads are being corrected (you are having them corrected, yes?) the shop also elongates the pushrod holes. If you don't, and run other than 1.5s, you will more than likely have pushords hitting the heads.  Also the valve springs will have to be changed, possibly the retainers too depending on the spring requirements of the cam.

Offline mojavered

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 853
  • Someday!
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2009 - 01:47:29 AM »
Thanks for pointing that out.  :newbie:   It is a solid flat tappet.   

I contacted Comp and they feel that I should run the following:
INT/Exh 1.6 -.608/.608
Int/Exh .50 - 254/262
Lobe Separation Angle 112

I am not going to be racing the engine (at the strip) but once or twice for #'s and cannot imagine that I am ever going to need to take it past 6-6,500 RPM's.  Do you think the problems or concerns about hyd. rollers mentioned will have too much affect on me other than the pocket book?  Is the horsepower gain really about 25-30 using a hyd roller?

I have not talked to my engine builder yet, and have not seen anything about having to "correct" the pushrod holes.  Is this a standard practice on new aluminum heads when running 1.6 rockers?  Upon assembly would this be noticed?  Or is something that you would not notice until the engine is running?  I am going to talk to my engine builder, but you have me kind of worried at the moment and I will not be able to talk with him until Monday or Tuesday. 
Jason

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2009 - 01:54:10 AM »
the hyd rollers have to have a more gentle ramp speed & lift to keep the lifters from collapsing so the gains will be less than using a solid Roller
 if there is pushrod clearance problem you will easily see it as you turn the engine over

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline femtnmax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2009 - 10:50:33 PM »
Comps suggestion sounds like alot of cam for "street use" and 9:1 compression.   I plugged all your info into Comp's camquest.  Assumed series street with some strip use.  493 cubic inches, 9:1 compression, single plane intake with 900 cfm carb, large tube headers with mufflers NO CAT.
Camquest said best fit was 282S or XS274S.    The 282S has intake closing at 67 degrees after bottom dead center which seems real late for 9:1 compression.

Realize the compression ratio is determined INCLUDING the camshaft.  I suggest you need to plug all your engine build info into a static and dynamic compression ratio calculator such as KB silvolite has, then be sure your satisfied with the results.  JMO.
Phil

moparniac

  • Guest
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2009 - 07:38:00 PM »
the power curves listed on camquest are for stock strok engines... stroker motor brings the power band downa bout 300rpm top and bottom  :working:

Offline moper

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2368
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2009 - 12:02:32 PM »
I think for a street car it will be hairy with that Comp in it. Was that a hydraulic roller? If it was a 4.25 stroke I'd say run it... but with 1.6s that also add duration I'd go one size smaller than what they recommended. The gain from the hyd roller is from friction more than anything else. But the lifters are a bit heavier and they cant lift as fast like CP said. So I dont think you'll see 30hp. But you might see 20. but for 20hp, the price tag is high. You still need the billet cam, the bronze drive, and the lifters. I think that's a difference of about $400 over flat tappet stuff. I wouldnt pay $400 for 20hp. On the push rod holes, you're not running a factory rocker arm ratio... so yes, that is (or should be) standard practice. I have it done as part of the correction work. It sure saves the effort and cost later and all the shavings can be cleaned out easily. So just have them do it.

Offline mojavered

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 853
  • Someday!
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2009 - 03:22:19 PM »
I was talking with my engine guy and he said that he has already corrected the heads for the push rods.

It seems that there are quite a few of you that run and build with the solid flat tappets.  Why do you prefer a solid flat over a hydraulic flat?  Can you tell me approximately how much more power you get out of it, if any?  I was talking with my dad and he told me that the solid flats are pretty noisy, like a sewing machine.
Jason

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2009 - 02:49:51 AM »
I generally run solid flat tappet cams in most builds , they Definatly make more power than a Hydraulic due to faster ramp speeds & spring pressure than a hyd & without the excessive costs of the roller cams
 thay make a little more noise at idle , ....Love that sound  :2thumbs:

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline mojavered

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 853
  • Someday!
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2009 - 09:55:49 AM »
Thanks CP.  Do you know if there is a number that shows if you are using this lift and duration with a solid vs. hydraulic, you will have this HP at this RPM?  I know there is a wide range of cam choices, but just ball parking something with around .565 lift and 240deg.
Jason

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2009 - 11:41:20 AM »
too many variables to do that , most Mopar haeds will quit flowing around .500 lift without port work , virtually any other head will have different flow to lift ratio so it would be hard to determine without flowing the heads first , I pick the cams based on the duration profile I need to give the engine the powerband I am looking for & get as much lift as possible or that the heads will support flow wise

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline moper

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2368
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2009 - 01:06:38 PM »
The trick is to get the valve open fast past it's max flow lift. On the RPMs, they will move air well to about .550, then they peak. Now, the faster it lifts, the more spring you need, and the more oil the lifter base needs to stay alive. This is splash fed, so idle time  (with little windage blowing the oil around) is rough on a cam with high spring loads. I don't use the ".904" lifter profiles on my large cams for that reason. Street cars idle a lot, and I hate idle speeds over 900. You asked for numbers and like CP, I cant say for "x" you will get "y". Because I'm not building yours. If you have to run power brakes, then exceeding 245°@.050 will probably mean your brakes wont work well. CP's 240 is a solid spec and will definately make enough vacuum. As far as what you need, like CP says... more details. Engine, trans, gearing, honest usage, etc. It's only a 10% stroke increase with the 4.15, so you can over cam it if you try hard enough. You want to run enough lift so you get the valve open to that .500 number plus a little. Lash is .022, and you're running 1.6s. So take all that into account. That makes the XS274S look good to me depending on your answers to the "more info" part. That gives you about 241°@.050 and .513 lift intake, about 246°@.050 and .523 lift exh and should work with the Edelbrock supplied spring even tho Comp wants thier dual spring in there.

Offline mojavered

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 853
  • Someday!
Re: Hydraulic roller?? or Solid
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2009 - 02:01:03 PM »
Here is what I have for right now. 

727 auto, power brakes, 3.55 sure grip, 265-60-15’s in the rear, ???converter???, carb???, 99% street use with an occasional (maybe only once or twice) track run. 

440 – 500 4.15” forged rod, 4.35” bore, 9.1 compression with forged pistons, new forged crank. 84 cc Edelbrock Performer RPM head (1.81 int/ 2.14 exh) port matched to a 440 Victor intake, (bare heads, builder using dual springs at the moment), headers, 3" dual.

I am sure that there is more info that you would like to see, but not quite sure what else you might want.  I appreciate the time you are taking to help me and I am sure that my builder knows what to do, but this is the first engine I have ever had built.
Jason