Hydraulic Roller Lifter Setup - Which Components Work Best?

[Road Grabber]

I am replacing a cam and head setup on my 440 - 6 pack using 240 Trickflows heads. Four speed, 3.54 gears, #4000 car. I have heard that hydraulic roller lifter cams have advantages like durability, better oil selection without zinc, broad torque curves etc. but after viewing reviews of products needed to support the roller cam valve train setup I get mixed feelings. The roller cams require components like adding a cam button and changing out the intermediate gear and pump rod. Reviews mention expensive pump rod and intermediate gears that wear out. Also cam button failures.

Which brands work best to use? Mopar? Comp Cam? Bronze intermediate or melonized? Hardened steel pump rods or bronze tip rods, nylon cam buttons or steel/washer?

I really don't want to sacrifice longevity and have to rip apart the engine because I thought I was getting a durable cam/lifter roller setup but the other components fail....

Roller cam:

Or option 2 - flat tappet cam:

Any feedback from past experience would be great. Thanks!

 

[wyrmrider]

first what's your comptession ratio (real measured) , intake, exhaust trans gears cobverter and what rpm range for power
what are the .oo6 durations for those two hughes reboxed cams?
for the solid .oo6 after lash please
you can go to the howard lobe catalog and find the lobes
post up the .200 durations also

btw hughes spring pressures on the seat are about 30 lbs greater than howards for a "very similar" lobe
why?
afik all hr retrofit come from the same vendor
I'd check with rhodes and PM dart19666 @crower on the fabo forum
is the ft a hyd?
if so ask both about lobe saver lifters
and direct lube lifters for the hr if on the street
if those are the right cam selections, and no way to tell, i see no reason for the greater ex lift
post up your head flows

 

[wyrmrider]

I do not find exact matches in the Howard lobe catalog but these should be close enough for dynamic compression Analysis
for the HR
278-280 @.006 intake [email protected]
284 Exhaust 153 @200

HFT
[email protected] 148 @200
279 @.006 152 @.200
WTF the seat timings are not close especially on the exhaust- what does that imply?
It appears that hughes is using the same cam series for both intake and exhaust as shown by more lift and .200 duration with the longer ex lobes
the spread between intake and exhaust needs to be carefully chosen based on heads and exhaust


There are several other lobes for each in Howards lobe catalog
but it is not unusual for HFT to have a shorter duration for the same 200 than a HR at these sizes
but it is the seat timings that determine compression ratio that can be used - dynamic compression and all that
The two cams might make the same power but they would idle different and low end would be different.
but here are some brand x HR lobes
006 272 276 276 280 284
050 226 230 230 234 238
200 147 151 151 155 159
lift .510 510 540 540 540

what this shows is that you can get 147 @200 6 degrees less seat giving more dynamic compression and less overlap , on an ex lobe you get longer power expansion stroke and less overlap
not saying any lobes mentioned are correct but I have no idea how you can pick a cam without knowing the seat duration and picking where the intake closes an all of the other valve events
of course you could move up to the brand x 276 lobe, be 2 degrees shorter and you can see the difference in .200

 

[6-david-5]

I'm building up a 451 low deck right now, and have had the same mixed feelings when I began embarking on cam selection. What factored in:

* My projects sit longer now than when I was young. In the instance I have a roller lifter that turns sideways due to failure, am I going to begin pulling it apart immediately, or "once my schedule clears"? Nowadays, I try to keep projects together.

* The investment. I dunno, maybe a FiTech/Holley Sniper instead down the road?

* I can adjust valves. Rather than pulling the manifold for fear that I need to catch something on the verge of failure, how about just pull the valve covers & run the valves?

I ultimately picked a flat tappet mechanical with Johnson EDM lifters. My engine builder felt this was a good move. And I think this lines up best with my objectives.

Multitudes of car forums have someone's account of their successes/failures with the parts they selected for their roller cam setups. Some say "I've had my roller setup for over 20,000 miles now", where the next reply has someone complaining about how their setup lasted only about 10,000 miles, a link broke & allowed a lifter to turn sideways & wipe out a lobe, and the vendor accepts no responsibility for the failure. I personally chose to not "roll the dice", & keep it simple. I'm honestly not concerned about the car being less-fun.

https://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/threads/solid-or-roller-cam-what-would-you-use.105061/

Post #9 from above also really influenced me on this issue.

Keep us posted on what you decide.

David

 

[Curiousyellow71]

My 2 cents do a flat tappet with edm lifters, brake the cam in with only the outer springs and spend the HR money elsewhere. We prefer to avoid hydraulic rollers on bb mopar and I may be the odd man out but I don't mind lashing a cam. Valve lash is something I grew up with. Every Diesel engine we have has valve lash and it's more or less a once and done event. Unless your really putting miles on or pushing the performance envelope lash is not something you need to mess with but once upon a blue moon.

People like working with Hughes and he certainly is a knowledgable guy, but if a cam is not listed with its seat timing we will not run it....especially when we are building for pump gas. For racing I don't have any problems with running a Hughes cam. Mopars larger diameter is a bonus when doing a flat tappet and mechanical rollers but with a hydraulic roller....Larger lifter body+taller lifter= more weight. To overcome that we use bigger spring pressures and end up with failures. In the end on a mopar your spending big money on a small HR cam that runs the same as a cam ground for a .904 lifter and the only benefit is no valves to adjust. When it comes running a HR and being easy on the rollers....cam choice is important...comp cams runs aggressive profiles off the base circle. Bullets hydraulic roller cams in my opinion are superior to comp cams because they don't slam the lifters as hard as say a comp extreme energy and are easier on the roller. So if I were doing a HR I would get a bullet cam, and the best quality hr lifters available. Or better yet run solid roller lifters with tight lash on a HR cam. We have one currently in the shop being set up this way...but it's not a BB mopar. Bullet HR cam with crower solid rollers. But talk to the cam mfg first and get their input..and watch this video if you want to know why....

 

[Road Grabber]

This is just tremendous information to digest. I appreciate all the tech notes and don't mind going "back to school." I am not jumping in for a awhile yet and won't pull the trigger on the build until it makes sense to me and I know the money will be wisely spent. Up until now I have the basic knowledge pushed out there about cams and I am trying to absorb this more detailed information.

I don't have to have the hydraulic roller setup. I was researching, like most, to see what's out there now as compared to the early 80's and was impressed with the availability of engine components pushing such high numbers. The first surprise was reading the top end kit Trickflow is advertising:

This seems crazy because I couldn't believe anyone would bolt a setup like this using a stock 440 engine and run these numbers without blowing up. I have asked about what other "insurance" should be installed and that led to better ARP rod bolts for "cheap insurance" but then after asking about how that would effect rod bore, I have read you need to resize the rods if you change out rod bolts. That makes sense so I plan on just toning it down enough to use the Trickflow aluminum heads to help eliminate detonation and keep enough vacuum for power brakes. I do have the original heavy duty 6 pack rods and bolts that have had the beams ground smooth. The engine has been internally balanced. The 10.5 to 1 compression, splash pan, deeper pan etc. to throw that info out there.

So I thought why not add hydraulic rollers? More expensive intermediate gears & pump rods wearing out? Cam buttons that can fail after spending $1,000 more? That brings me to this point trying to see if there were reliable components to use with hydraulic rollers.

Being armed with information to select a better cam is always welcome. I have talked to Eric at Howards. He is very patient to talk to. Trickflow said to call Howards for a cam if I didn't want a cam as radical as the one they used for their dyno test. When I first contacted him I was in hydraulic roller setup mode. He recommended # 720555-12

After seeing the reviews about possible failures I asked what hydraulic flat tappet Howards would recommend close to that cam. He said:
# 721941 - 12

Thanks for all the replies. I will continue to look into the numbers and information posted.

 

[Road Grabber]

My 2 cents do a flat tappet with edm lifters, brake the cam in with only the outer springs and spend the HR money elsewhere. We prefer to avoid hydraulic rollers on bb mopar and I may be the odd man out but I don't mind lashing a cam. Valve lash is something I grew up with. Every Diesel engine we have has valve lash and it's more or less a once and done event. Unless your really putting miles on or pushing the performance envelope lash is not something you need to mess with but once upon a blue moon.

People like working with Hughes and he certainly is a knowledgable guy, but if a cam is not listed with its seat timing we will not run it....especially when we are building for pump gas. For racing I don't have any problems with running a Hughes cam. Mopars larger diameter is a bonus when doing a flat tappet and mechanical rollers but with a hydraulic roller....Larger lifter body+taller lifter= more weight. To overcome that we use bigger spring pressures and end up with failures. In the end on a mopar your spending big money on a small HR cam that runs the same as a cam ground for a .904 lifter and the only benefit is no valves to adjust. When it comes running a HR and being easy on the rollers....cam choice is important...comp cams runs aggressive profiles off the base circle. Bullets hydraulic roller cams in my opinion are superior to comp cams because they don't slam the lifters as hard as say a comp extreme energy and are easier on the roller. So if I were doing a HR I would get a bullet cam, and the best quality hr lifters available. Or better yet run solid roller lifters with tight lash on a HR cam. We have one currently in the shop being set up this way...but it's not a BB mopar. Bullet HR cam with crower solid rollers. But talk to the cam mfg first and get their input..and watch this video if you want to know why....

Great stuff! Thank you

 

[wyrmrider]

good work grabber
you have to keep your eye on many balls at once like a juggler
what's your true compression going to be
TF shows 10.5 with 243/247 600 lift cam no idea whose but maybe a grinder that has separate intake and ex lobes
what's your quench? stock 6 pack with .028 gasket if you have not milled the decks much
what's your exhaust if modern heads and headers you may not need that much exhaust spread and if Howards is CNC grinding a exhaust or LCA change should be nominal once you pick your intake out
maybe the 271 intake with the 277 for exhaust instead of the 281 for example and yes 4 degrees does make a difference, especially on the intake
go to howards cams>downloads> catalog> lobe catalog and find the .200 durations under .904 flat tappetts
looks like one size bigger than Hughes recommendations
remember to ask about lube saver lifters Howards makes them for other brands or ask Rhodes or PM Dart6999 over on the abodies forum
if you do decide HR get back to me take another look at the addendum on my previous post
and we can do the same thing on HFT if necessary

 

[Road Grabber]

Well.....I wish I could give the tech at Bullet cams a jug of water because his mouth must be dry from all of my questions. He should also get an award for his patience. I will try to sum up some things just to share some info gained but remember I may not have responses to any more technical questions.

Bullet cams are custom ground so don't expect to see a typical catalog. The website catalog isn't working right now. After discussing pros/cons I think I have decided to go with either the solid tappet or the hydraulic flat tappet. It seems the intermediate gears and pump rods used for rollers do wear out. For street applications approx 3,000 miles or more depending on products out there and I don't want to to disassemble the engine or even have to think about it. The car rips up the road already and I don't have to be the fastest guy out there.

I can't cut and paste but this is what we came up with:

For the street/strip it was recommended I use a Ford lobe design given the street application and idling situations. The "fast ramp" "extreme" Chrysler lobes put a lot of stress on components not to mention lifter bores. The faster an engine rotates the cam rotates slower and cause issues with oiling. Newer engines might have this under control. I know roller setups have nice improvements but my situation is mostly street with an occasional - out of control asphalt ripping...

I was able to get some specific spring pressure to look for using the Bullet cam so I have to call Trickflow. I am looking for:

-Seek #135 - #140 install height 1.855 instead using the standard 1.460 OD springs that come with the Trickflows which come #120 @ 1.900
-Try to get #360 open spring pressure @ 1.300 height given the cam I plan to use has .555 lift using 1.6 rockers. I have to find out which shims will achieve this.

- The custom grind will be:
3 bolt
106 center
109 + 3 LSA - not sure what the plus 3 means...
INT HF (Ford) 287/3471
EXT HF 295/3471

INT 235 @ .050
EXH 243 @ .050

Lift .555 for both using the 1.6 rockers

Valve seat closings: ( I would not have asked this had it not come up. THANKS!)
Maybe WYMRRYDER can make sense of this?

INT 12
INT 44
EXH 54
EXH 10 degrees ATDC

Lifters (Made by Johnson) LH 1977R

Use Break-in Joe Gibbs Oil
BR30 - 7 quarts

Thanks for all your replies!

 

[wyrmrider]

nice info
but i do t see those lobes here
http://www.bulletcams.com/Masters/HFlobes.htm
did you talk with tim?
I'm concerned about the durations compared to howard & hughes
to me that duration cam with your rear gear ...
maybey road race but street?

 

[Dodge Bros]

The individual IV 12, INT 44, Exh54, Exh10 figures are valve events at .050 tappet lift. The +3 means the cam is ground with 3 degrees advance, ICL is 106, lobe separation 109.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think this cam has Tim’s finger prints on it the way it is designed. Everyone has their own design twists on cams. Guessing this one may have came from John Partridge or one of the other guys at Bullet.

FWIW, With 1.6 rockers the move to an adjustable valve terrain is done. If I had that ability I would use a Rhoads Vpro lifter and tailor the lash to personal preferences. FWIW, I like to run the lash tight, .005 to .010. I think those Ford profiles are CRS profiles. They will idle rougher than the CRA’s.

The combo of the symmetrical lobe with 1.6s, the extra area under the curve from the .875” profile, and the moderate intensity, combined with a VPro Rhoads would be unique, should run hard and would have some flexibility for some extra street manors.

I have had Tim at Bullet do several HFT cams like this with V series benefits designed into the profile. One was a Bullet/Ultradyne CRA 283/291 235/243 110 lsa with 1.7 rockers, .567 lift, vpro lifters.

Anyone know if the Howard’s mopar hydraulics are symmetrical? The Bullet .875 and .904 hft cams are they are mostly symmetrical designs. It would be nice to have some more options in a CRA or a CTA.

 

[wyrmrider]

sort of sketchy info to finely slice the baloney
6 pack compression say 9.5 with a head and gasket change- where are we now?
nothing about headers which if he has would not need a 9-10 degree spread on the exhaust
AJ/FormS over on FAAB has a 4 speed car and has played with rear gears and trans gears and cams to get a workable street solution
I'd PM him and ask him to review your thread

remind me A is asymetrical
r is rolled over nose?
I would think Howards are asymetrical their .904's seem to be one series and most likely cnc ground

 

[Dodge Bros]

Bulletcams lobe ID:

first letter is C (conventional nose), D (dwell nose)

second letter R (high rpm profile) or T(torque profile)

Third letter is A (asymmetrical) Or S (symmetrical)


The Howard’s 904 profiles have a lot of lift for the .050 specs is why I was curious how they are ground. To maximize lift and area on a flat tappet it takes a symmetrical design with fast ramps on both the opening and closing. Eventually there are durations and lifts which cause the lifter to walk to far on the edge of the lifter face. I was curious if those lobe are to the point on lift they used a more symmetrical profile versus Lunati or Comp.

Crower has CNC machines and does mostly symmetrical profiles on there flat tappet cams. FWIW..The Howard’s 904 designs are really aggressive on the lift like most aggressive Bullets CRS grinds.

 

[wyrmrider]

Not as fast on the closing
on the open the cam is pushing the lifter
on the close you are spring limited (and mass)
Howards .904 are no more agressive than their chevy profiles
but take a MP or the easier Engles or cranes and they have about the same valve profile as a hot chrvy grind but spread out over more area they wear better

someone was looking for other .904 grinds
camcraft has a couple of interesting .904 series

one is for the chevy base circle for those sbc guys wanting an edge or wanting a cheap way to fix worn out lifter bores
but used in the larger base circle BBC or MOPar you get a fatter nose and better wear

the other series is a dwell nose series giving 480 lift
camcraft guys learned from crane not UD Harold