Right now I have a tappet block and was just curious as to what you guys thought a retro roller conversion. When I upgrade my heads, I'm doing the cam and intake as well and have been told a roller would be better off. Should I do the conversion on this block or just get a roller block?

I plan on using AFR 180 heads, XR288H, RPM Air Gap, 750cfm DP, my current bottom end. Might throw a 100-125 shot at it as well.

 

Do a retro conversion. The retro roller lifters are a much better design than the dog bone/slotted factory ones. The factory lifters are not good over 0.530" lift from what people say around here. They make a super long factory type Comp or Crane lifter to accomodate high lift, but they are as expensive as a retro lifter set.

I am using a set of retro roller lifters in my 327 w/ a Stealth Ram and Sportsman 200cc heads. Should kick some butt.

 

Any prices on such a conversion? Whats included with the kit besides the rollers?

 

Its not a "conversion", it's just a different set of parts.

 

$'s/HP, it's not the best way to spend your money.

 

AFR 195cc eliminator heads. (64cc)
Comp cams XE284H-10 flat tappet hyd #12-250-3
1.6:1 roller tip rockers
10:1 10.3:1 compression 3000-3500 stall 3.73-4.10:1 gears.

A lot lot more bang for the buck.
Nitrous ready.

 

"Once you go roller, you never go back" and anyone that tells you otherwise has never run one. Less friction equals more power and less heat, smoother running, and you'll get ALOT more power out of it than a comparable flat tappet....and today's flat tappet cams have a tendency of failing prematurely, EVEN WHEN DONE BY EXPERIENCED ENGINE BUILDERS.

 

A roller is peace of mind, although a little expensive. Roller lifters are reusable with different cams, so you could amortize their cost over several cam swaps.

 

If you have a roller block and mongo cam, I agree.

That's a bit of an overstatement. Would a Comp XR284 retrofit make ALOT more power than F-BIRD'88's XE284? I think not. Nor would it make more power than the next step up flat tappet, while costing a lot more money.

That's a bit of an overstatement as well. GF-4 oils with reduced zinc and phosphorus have been blamed, but I haven't seen any scientific tests to back that up.

 

The government mandated changes in oil formulation plays a big role in the increasing failures of flat tappet cams as well as the fact that there are a lot of import made lifters flooding the market when the biggest US maker of lifters stopped, but is now finally making them again. As to your asking whether to go roller, my vote goes for yes, if you can afford to do it. I am building a 400 that will have a retro roller camshaft made by Crane cams with a set of retro hydraulic roller lifters, Beehive springs, on top of a set of Patriot 215cc ported heads. As was said before, a stock roller block lifters limit is their overall length and on overly high cam lobe ramps and/or high rpm's can make the lifter come high enough to spin and when that happens, game over, ruined cam. The retro roller lifters are taller and do have the tie bars to keep things together. When I decided to go the roller route it meant having to save money to buy the parts and I have most everything to start on it this late winter for a spring install into the car. Good luck and more importantly, have fun..

 

The most recent cam failures I've seen involved retrofit rollers. Of course, they were race-only BBC's. People have talked a lot of what you've just said, but again, I haven't seen scientific tests to prove it.

 

I saw a program on one of the car programs earlier this year talking about the changes in the oil formulations which directly affects flat tappet cams especially on intitial break in and that is why all the cam companies are wanting you to use an additive for the break in. Also, reading in CHP mag as well as Car Craft mag, the issues with flat tappet cam failures. Most will tell you that Shell Rottella oil for diesel engines has more of the zinc and other additives to aid in break in of a cam and lifters.

 

None of that is reason to spend all the money required to do a retro roller set-up.

 

There is one fact people overlook when considering hydraulic roller lifters - what will be the rpm range of your engine? Hydraulic roller lifters are HEAVY and pound the hell out of your valve train at high rpms. I think hydraulic rollers are far harder than hydraulic flat tappet at 6,000+ rpm.

Yes, you can use "band aid" solutions like a rev-kit; but if you are looking to take your engine past 6,000+ rpm, I would not be using hydraulic roller lifters.

I would either stick with hydraulic flat-tappet or (better yet) go with solid roller. Solid roller setups seen to be less "maintenance intense" than a regular mechanical flat-tappet setup.

I know a few guys now using solid roller setups and while they don't drive more than 10,000 miles a year on any of their cars, they only need to adjust their valves once a year. And that is more of a "spring tuning" event (with all the other tuning items such as plugs etc). In reality, neither the valve adjustment or the spark plug change is really necessary.

 

It's obvious you're a flat tappet lover. Why are you trying so hard to convince someone not to do it? Like someone else said, if you have to money, you'd be stupid not to go roller.

Maybe you should ask yourself why NONE of the new vehicles today have flat tappet cams anymore!!

Educate yourselves; http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...c_roller_cams/

By the way, I've dynoed my retro-roller setup past 6000 RPM without a problem and I don't have a rev-kit. It's called having the correct parts in your valvetrain.

 

I agree with you on this. Do it up right with correct springs and hardware and it will live with no problems. My buddy runs his upwards of nearly 7000rpm with no issues, it is having the right parts for your particular application. Is it expensive? you bet but horsepower and torque costs money, do it cheap, and it will not survive.

 

Hardly. I'm running a ZZ4 in my current 350, and the LS1 about to go in obviously has roller lifters. It's the expense of the retro set-ups and the wive's tales about flat tappet failures, along with the one-size-fits-all attitude, to which I am objecting.

That's pretty presumptuous, as the originator never made any deep-pockets statements.

It really depends upon where $'s/HP comes into your situation. If you have to choose between retro roller and headers/exhaust upgrades, there's no doubt where your $'s should go, and it ain't into retro roller lifters. Like someone else said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Irrelevant since the originator's block isn't factory roller. And, the factory's reasons don't necessarily line up with ours.

When you point a finger at someone else, remember 3 are pointing back at you.

To quote from your own link: "There are some great reasons for stepping up to a hydraulic-roller cam package, but all is not perfect in the roller-cam world. One glance at the pricing sidebar will reveal that this better technology comes at a hefty price. This price includes adding in more expensive roller rocker arms, stronger pushrods, and better valvesprings. If you plan to bolt a hydraulic-roller cam into a pre-’87, non-roller-cam block, the retrofit lifter kits can get expensive. This will also require a thrust bearing on the front of the cam to prevent cam walk.

"This isn’t required with a flat-tappet cam since the lobes are cut at a slight angle to offset the cam thrust movement that’s inherent in a roller cam. This is just one more piece to the hydraulic-roller cam investment portfolio that’s important to know."

CHP and I are in complete agreement.

 

What Demon355 is asking is , is he better off using his present bottom end and fitting a retro fit roller cam+ kit, or finding a 87+ roller block and going with OEM roller lifters and using the #8-433-8 post 87 type comp roller cam.
Well if you can get the oem roller lifters with the roller motor complete you should be able to rebuild that block and use the late style roller for less than
the total cost of retro- fitting the old block once you include all the $$$ and work to do each. If you're fruggle and can assemble a SBC at home after having a machinist do the block and crank for ya you're way ahead.

A Typical hi performance (comp cams) Hyd roller setup is good for about +20-25 HP over a flat tappet cam of the same .050" duration.
But the cost is around 4 to 6 times as much all said and done. ESPECIALLY WHEN DONE BY EXPERIENCED ENGINE BUILDERS.

If you look at my purposed combination with a slightly better cylinder head and slightly bigger but comparable flat tappet cam with much more net valve lift. (1.6 rockers) it will make the same or more power in the end for a lot lot less $$$.
Plenty of $$$'s left to finance that Comp Zex plate nitrous kit. And get a set of sticky tires to boot.
It's the overall combination that counts. having a "full roller motor" sounds sexy but can easily and does come up short on a hp/$$ spent comparision.
And surly on a total net performance/$$$ when you can buy other stuff to complete the package ( better heads,exhaust tires, converter) with the money you saved by going with a very good flat tappet cam.

I've been running this particular flat tappet cam and have no problem with it. Well, other than keeping tread on the tires!
Demon: maybe you and Mr deep pockets can build your combinations the way you think best and take it to Cayuga (TMP) one T and T day and see "Whois The Sherriff".

www.torontomotorsportspark.com

 

Thanks for all the input guys. Although this was only a bench racing thread, I have a lot more idea's on what I'm going with, again, thanks.

 

You got it. Get real, flat tappet guys. No auto manufacturer has used a flat tappet cam in 20 years. That should tell you something. The flat tappets have gone the way of carburetors.

 

And cost has gone the way of EFI. . .

 

I have a set of retro-lifters that I'll sell real cheap.Just PM me if interested.Also believe that I have the hardened push-rods that are the right length for the retro-lifters