Definitely less, but not way less. I just pulled those above as an example and went with the best in each category that Isky had to offer.

I've been shopping.

Johnson 2112SBR: $835.65
COMP 15853-16: $720.95
Jones XLR-8 Series: $691.47

All link bar retro-fit by the way. I'd prefer a factory roller but this isn't the case.
All of the above have steel and not cast bodies which is a minimum I would say.
Needle bearings though. No bushings until you pony up.
Certainly all good enough for the RPM's and output I'm targeting.

As for shafts. No argument there.

 

lunati and morel have street link bars for 470-540$. Good for most mild street hyd rollers. The race stuff costs alot more than they used to but are a necessary evil i guess for a serious combination. Even the morel 4602 i used 7 yrs ago are 200-250$ more than they used to be. But these are the times we live in

 

If you are going racing use solid roller lifters.
If you are doing a semi serious street/ strip build use solid roller lifters on a (solid) street roller cam.
Hydraulics are for gurlie men.

 

I'm not sure I'd use Lunati's entry level lifter. While I haven't investigated too closely, I'd say they're probably a cast body and would suffer the same limitations s COMPs low cost offering. Historically, this has shown inconsistent performance at RPM's past 6k. We lived it and experienced the drawbacks. A steel bodied lifter remedied that. But the cost goes up as my earlier list demonstrates.
I suppose too that it depends on your definition of "most mild street hyd rollers". RPM's might be limited to 6500 but if I choose, for example, one of Jones's .360" lobe profiles, the intensity is starting to get up there. I'll defintely be more comfortable with a "race" orientated lifter then the more pedestrian "street" roller profile.

I'm comfortable enough with my disposition to use a "gurlie man" cam.
Besides, the hydraulics are well within my operating envelope.

 

Limited by the hyd lifters shortcomings..
You're paying more, for less car performance.

 

Shortcomings being?
To put it in perspective, one cam recommendation on record suggests a single pattern 282 @.006", 108 LSA. .050" duration isn't defined but could be anywhere from 238 to less than 220.
This should peak a 357 at 6000 or so with a 6500 shift.
As I mentioned, that's within the range of a hydraulic roller easily. But better parts will yield a longer service life. And the entry level hydraulics don't cut it.
I'm comfortable with hydraulics all the same. I'm not about to switch it up at this stage of the game.

 

The most over thought, expensive , 12 second car ever built.

 

Not yet anyway.

 

hyd are for ppl who know what they are doing and not stuck in the stone age. Theres 3000 hp and 6 sec cars with hyd rollers, some turning near 9000 rpm. Try again lol

 

Not on a gen 1 based sbc.. You can waste your money trying again and again.
The smart money kniws better.
There are many more who eliminate the perf limitations of the hyd roller lifters in a sbc simply by replacing with solid roller lifters.
They never go back.

 

Pretty much all of the Normally Aspirated Gen 1, 3, and 4 SBCs and Mark IV, Gen 5, and 6 BBCs that I build/ have built for my Customers and myself...
Are higher RPM Engines.

Some of the Power-Adder Engines are too... but most are only in the 6,900 RPM to 7,500 RPM range.

I would say that 8,500 RPM to 8,900 RPM is where most of the Engines were making Peak HP.
ALL of which = Hydraulic Roller Lifter Engines.
These would be Lifters with very short travel Pistons, very precise Pre-Load, and All the Push-Rods are different lengths in order to achieve the Pre-Load.

Today's Hydraulic Roller Lifters and Camshaft Lobes are absolutely amazing!

9,000 RPM to 12,000 RPM is where I am going to Solid Roller Lifters.

 

it doesnt matter what the platform is, the lifter is capable. More ls motors are out there than sbc so makes sense why most of the fastest are lsx. But doesnt mean there arent any sbc. You can put thin stem titanium valves in them and larger cam cores as well. Hell you can throw in .903 hyd rollers now. It can be done and im sure it can be. To say otherwise just shows how little you understand about valvetrain

solids have their place, simpler way to do things. But go run 250/700 lbs springs on same .842 lifter bearings as a 180/400 hyd and see what lasts longer. See what needs more maintenance. Hyd rollers do have a place and are a fine choice when done right.

 

A 10X $$$ the cost solution required for a $10 problem. Limits perf in any all SBC's and all LSX engines.
This is the engine platforn where end users end up ditching a $$$ hyd roller for a solid roller lifter after
chasing the shortcomings the hyd lifter has.
After spending a fortune on promises.
They never go back.
Street design solid rollers are lighter weight and do not need such #700 spring force.

The solid roller outperforms a hyd roller @the 180/400 spring force level. Its lighter mass guarantees that.

 

i dont know anyone going solid on an ls any more even on turbo combos. Its simply not needed. Stock rocker arms with trunion upgrades and they turn 8000 in boost. Why mess with solids when cars are going 4.1-4.3’s in 1/8 at 170+ lol.

yes sbc or other combos may be wiser to go solid since they arent setup like lsx motors with lighter parts. Same with bbc, a 2.300” stainless valve is super heavy, a solid makes sense. Mine has one but its well thought out using only 135 lb seat and 500 open. Problem is not many “cam” guys know how to do low force deals like that. Im lucky enough i have a guy i work with. Most end up with a typical 275-300 seat 700-800 open spring that eats needle bearing .842’s. I know cuz it happened to me.

 

Many do not know the difference between a solid street roller and a race only roller setup Which uses such high pressure springs 275-300. -700++ open.
Thats race only.. Yes roller bearing service life is
shortened by extreme loads of such race only springs..
Many race only rollers effectivlydo not have lash ramps.. These are not endurance/ street/ strip design rollers.
Street / strip engines do not need cams that are so radical lobe design that huge spring force is needed to control the valvetrain.
But solud roller lifters outperform hyd roller lifters
A. lighter weight.
B no hyd plunger bleed down collapse nor pump up..
C.Lower cost.

All roller type bearings in all aplications need routine inspection and replacement/ rebuild.
More load on bearing = shortens life.
When a hyd roller does bleed down/ collapse the resulting shock on the valvetrain. BUSTS PARTS.
Its like running a solud roller cam with huge valve lash..040"+++

Most of those who go down the short travel hyd roller lifter rabbit hole DO end up switching to solid roller lifters.. Often after wasting big money on Many sets of hyd lifters that all come up short especially on max effort cars.

 

You need a much bigger shovel.

We're talking about a street strip SBC .

 

Just as Homer Simpson does (Droooooooool)


MMmmmm..... The sounds from a Refrigerant-to-Water Inter-Cooled 4.0L Twin-Screw Supercharger on top of a 7.0L Gen-IV SBC Engine that has a 11.5:1 Static Compression Ratio, a Camshaft with a narrow 108 Degree LSA, and some open 3.5" Collector Long-Tube Headers at a lively 8,900 RPM!!!

 

Someone is off their meds again..
I have had good luck running MolySlip E Oil Supplement in Rotella T 15W-40 oil in engines with Flat tappet high perf cams and high perf valve springs.
The Moly really helps flat tappet cam lobes and lifter faces live. There is some Zinc in it but the main anti wear additive is the Moly.
I use ½ the can in each oil change.
I think a ½ can dose is plenty.
Many racing engine oils contain Moly as a high load anti wear additive to increase metal on metal surface wear life like piston rings on cylinder bores
camshaft FT lifters in cam lobes
Lifter bores , rocker arms, pushrod tips. etc etc and any time an engine cold starts and or to protect crankshaft journal and bearings in situations where oil pressure is momentary lost.
Moly is also used in ball joint grease and rear axle lube oil to extend gear life by reducing friction.
www.molyslip.com

 

Wow. I've been out of pocket for a week or so and this thread has really blown up. I appreciate all your guys' knowledge, opinions, and points of consideration. Lots of knowledge to apply to my Gen 1 and Gen 4. Even better coming from guys doing this more often, making more power and going faster than my Camaro of many donors or Sierra will ever go.

I know I will be using a quality lifter and break in procedure/oils/additives as stressed. @NoEmissions84TA test you mentioned is pure genius. Ounce of prevention as they say.

Funny you mention in the last couple years. In my cruising the web I ran across a post on another forum that a "major cam MFR from Tennessee" who was purchasing lifters from a questionable supplier to save some money and was having wiping issues. In a nutshell, the supplier was using 'stolen' equipment and the machining wasn't completed or performed correctly on the lifters.

All of this being said, would the 'boutique' cam companys be a no go if they're using Comp to supply cores and do their grinds, hydraulic rollers in particular? The only other 2 Gen 4 VVT cam options allegedly use Comp for their cores/grinds.

Jones being 480 for a hyd roller isn't that bad, considering what a similar off the shelf Comp runs. At least for a VVT cam.

 

I'll bet ( and soon to be using my own money on this) that Jones wouldn't use the same cores as COMP if their origin was suspect.
His reputation, as " boutique" as it might is what keeps his company going. His track record for flat lifters and cams (thousands) vs failures (he recounts two or three) is remarkable.

 

I am long out of touch with what is taught today in regard to Engine Design and/ or Repair...

However, the Action/ Rotation of the Lifters in their Bores (as in a Flat Tappet Valve-Train design) is both critical and one of the most beneficial qualities of the design.
The Rotation of the Lifters allows for the corresponding contact areas and wear to be better distributed over a greater surface area than a comparable Roller Lifter...
Which I find to be comically ironic as the nomenclature of: "Flat Tappet" is just ridiculous...

But this was all at one point common knowledge!


From your reaction to the Post that you quoted...
I sadly take it that this information is no longer common knowledge.

 

I did know they rotate in the bore/on the lobe, but never knew or thought of a test to verify rotation prior to break-in. So simple I'm ashamed I didn't know or think of it.

The only "formal" training I had was in the mid-90s autotech class in high school. If Mr Black did teach us this it has been forgotten over the last almost 25 to 30 years. I am sure it does not help the last engine I built was in 2007 and then took a fairly complete break from anything automotive outside of basic maintenance and learning tuning from then until the last year.

Fortunately or unfortunately, having a family and the memory required to maintain the schedules that go along with having kids has pushed out a lot of things that I can just feel I know in my humonculus but can't quite remember

 

This is info I was waiting for:

I kind of knew that Jones' lifters were US made but it's nice to see it in writing.
That there's a comparison made between the street rollers by Lunati/Morel and the XLR-8 lifters was interesting. And the step up to the Johnson lifters even more so.

 

While we're talking rollers.....The Summit brand hyd rollers are Morel. Good to know "hecho en Mexico". When we pull the 6.2 for teardown in the next few weeks I'll try to remember to follow up with what the prognosis of failure point is/was as they seemed a perfect option for the build. I thought I'd be safe with a small comp VVT cam- 210/224, .556/.568 lift with Pac 1218 springs and 8-10psi. Pretty sure the lifters are toasted- rattles hard at startup until oil pressure builds and getting some 'squish' when checking cold by hand. Planning on replacing with Johnson 2116LSR.

 

Looks like the Mexican thing is old news.
Apparently now U.S.made.

 

I have turned an OE style hydraulic roller Gen 1 SBC to 8,200 rpm with a cast 3" stroke L99 crank and it never missed a beat!~ OE style hydraulic lifters are not a problem even using USED GM lifters. I dissasembled the lifters, clean them up and adjusted the plunger to within about 0.040" of the bottom of its travel. They are good for a ton of RPM with more preload. The reason they float is aerated oil and short preload settings relative to their travel.

With the 880 blocks being as common and good as they are you could not pay me to build an old 2 piece flat tappet block now or use the riveted tie bar lifters. They always end up breaking, spinning and eating the cam. Could turn even more rpm with a good rev kit.

My 383 in my Express van has been close to 7K with no signs of valve float. The LS7 lifters in it are preloaded to 0.130" which was 2 full turns.

 

While I admire you good fortune with the OEM lifters (and that Gen 1 stuff ) there's published information that explains the lifter body distortion that occurs under load and RPM.
This is what causes the high bleed down.
This is exactly while you'll find a distinction in the lifter catalogues. Entry level stuff uses a cast body and is described as being RPM limited. The next step up is a billet body where this distortion is eliminated (or at least better constrained).
Setting the lifter plunger low in the body is an old racers trick for keeping hydraulics alive. It does have the drawback of very nasty results should there ever be component seperation as that excessive preload is taken up via the oil pressure filling that now unloaded cavity. But, there shouldn't be seperation in the first place if the rest of the valvetrain is designed properly. Primarily the springs doing their job but of course there's more science to it than that.
It'll be billet stuff for me and although I would prefer an alternative to the link bar lifter (as I've had a link bar failure) I've little.option at this stage of the game.
That said, there a countless retrofit SBCs out there racing trouble free which is exactly what I've been doing for twenty years. What I failed to realize, and shame on me for this, is that an engine pushed to the extremes of its design requires more than regular maintenance and a PM schedule to reduce the likelihood of high mileage parts wreaking havoc.
Taking a set of high mileage lifters as I did, and these were billet body tie-bar style, and pushing them to their design limits was a recipe for disaster. And disaster I got.
But I'll be back with better parts all around.

 

Duplicate post.

 

Absolutely!

Most often just shy of 9,000 RPM is doable with Hydraulic Lifters.

And the short stroke is not necessary at all (it is not a bad thing don't get me wrong) but 4.000" Stroke and greater all also will work.
The one area that I like to focus on is the Rod to Stroke length Ratio.

I do not like all these LS 4.000" Stroke Builds with 6.125" Rods (don't get me wrong they will work just fine) but I prefer a 6.460" Rod with a 4.000" Stroke.
Or at least 6.350".

 

Perhaps you missed the context of the conversation vortecpro.
I'll go out on a limb and say that you wouldn't in a million years, take a Gen 1 roller lifter (not an LS7 lifter) and go 8000 RPM with it let alone 9000.
I'd you're building customer engines that's business suicide.
That Fast goes 8k with his highly preloaded stockers (although no mention of stock what IIRC) hats off to him.
But that doesn't rid the lifter of its needle bearing roller nor does it do anything to address the tiny wheel diameter.
That the body is cast is another thing.
I'm sure you've gone to the bottom of the catalogue page to see what the good stuff entails. They're a different animal.
Lunati's entry level lifter is cast with a .700" diameter wheel. Listed as RPM limited. High bleed down rate (which is partly due to the twisting lift body losing hydraulic pressure.)
The next step up is billet with a .750" wheel. More RPM and more spring allowed.
There are a couple of additional entries beyond those but you get the picture.
These by the way, are made by Morel in the US. (Sources available upon request).
Anyway, just saying. We've tried and failed with our original ZZZ SBC and it's rollers. This is despite stepping up the rest of the valvetrain. 7k and the thing sounded like a sewing machine on steroids after a pass.
With the only change made, to a tool steel lifter body, and the problem never re-occured. Trap speed went up as expected.

 

No I was not referring to stock (like LS7 Lifters) at all.

On Gen-I Engines in particular, I machine the Block for larger Aftermarket Billet 0.904" Lifters.

On the Aluminum Gen-III/ IV Engines, I stay with an Aftermarket Billet 0.842" Bushing-Style (No Roller Bearings) Lifters.

On the Dart Gen-III/ IV Engines I also use larger Aftermarket Billet 0.904"Lifters.

 

Given the nature of your posts, I expected no less!
​​​​​​

 

Sound byte please.

 

So you are adjusting "from the bottom" of plunger travel similar to what Rhoads does with his VMAX lifters, correct.
I don't fully understand the concept - Jack Rhoads tried to explain it to me, I just can't get my "lightbulb" to turn on.
I can verify what you said about turning a 3" stroke to over 8000 rpm. My 302 Chevy is using a small solid FT camshaft (not roller) with the "Hydra-solid" VMAX lifters.
If you care to, explain the "from the bottom" concept in a PM. Thanks.

 

Not sure if we're going to be discussing the same topic however from what I gather, Fast is taking all of the plunger travel out of the hydraulics. Essentially making it very close to solid lifter. This is what the short travel lifter accomplishes. Plunger travel on those is .015"-.030" whereas a conventional lifter has about .120".
By taking the travel out, the determinantal results from bleeding down at high RPM and or high spring pressures is reduced. There's less than 30 thou to compress. Compare that to the .120" of a entry level lifter and a typical cast lifter body (rather than billet) and it makes for a loss of lift as the plunger collapses.
While I've not come across the "bottom up" technique specifically (although Vizard does allude to it his SBC books), what it describes is adjusting lash until the plunger is fully collapsed, then backing off the requisite number of turns to achieve the plunger travel desired.
For a lifter with 120 thou of travel, crank it down, then back off .040" for limited range as in a short travel lifter. (Or whatever value you're after).

The biggest risk with this is that there's now .100" of possible separation should the spring not be able to keep everything together. Then that's a valve hung open at the wrong time.

 

Thanks skinny z for that simple explanation.
This kinda kills the zero lash plus only a quarter turn additional concept.
Great for maximum hydraulic valvetrain compensation for grandma's grocery-getter.
Not so good for racing.
Now I think I understand what Rhoads is trying to achieve with the VMAX lifters - a high-bleed hydraulic pump mechanism
to lessen duration below 3500 rpm combined with adjusting "off the bottom" similar to a solid lifter as you described above. Now I see why he calls it a Hydra-solid.

 

That 1/4 turn concept is the flip side of the coin to the off the bottom idea.
Like grandma's grocery getter example, if she's in a real rush to get to the store, high RPM may cause a loss a valvetrain control. That means things aren't necessarily staying together. With only a 1/4 turn of preload, there's not much pump up when the parts seperate.
Problem is, there's a lot of room for lifter bleed down. Goodbye horsepower.
The short travel lifter I used came my way by default as what I was looking for was to get away from a cast lifter body. We (racing circle we) had issues. A to B comparisons showed the internet and other published information to be true regarding the cast body shortcomings. I'll qualify that by saying we didn't test all cast body lifters. Just the ones we had which were OEM 1st Gen ZZZ crate engine stuff.
The entry level billet body was COMP's and it was short travel. Now i'm looking for replacements.

 

My 334 Chevy version 2.0, I had a brand new Crane camshaft KIT that was sitting on the shelf for years.
It was a spare for the engine. The kit had lifters. Crane was already out of business. I wasn't sure about the lifters or where they came from (the great lifter shortage).
But I had never in my life seen a single GM hydraulic lifter with the spun-welded chilled iron bases ever go convex on the base.
So I decided on those. The real thing was expensive and there was no gaurantee that genuine GMs would be in the box - counterfitters would buy a set at the dealer and substitute the knock-offs back into the box and return them.
So I foolishly bought into Skip White's line of crap and bought his "gauranteed Made in USA" lifters AND GOT SCREWED.
New camshaft trashed during the 20 minute break-in.
Now the engine is version 3.0 with an ISKY cam & lifters. So far, so good.

 

Good luck.
When I got back into the game 20+ years ago, the version 1 350 had a generic white box flat tappet cam (Clevite's copy of COMP's 268H which is probably a copy of someone else's) and NIB GM hydraulic flats from the late 70's. Trouble free for tens of thousands of miles until for whatever reasons, (stretching out the gap between oil changes, oil with reduced ZDDP, mileage, a confluence of all three perhaps) and the entire cam went flat and the lifters were smoked. Which trashed the engine. It was roller all the way after that damn the expense.

I'm big on research and country of origin but sometimes it's hard to tell the ***** from the Shinola.
I'm digging deep into the lifter thing and from some very credible sources, I've zeroed in on the US made manufacturers. And also those rebranded, (see Lunati supplied by Morel) that are still US made.
There's Jones, Morel, BAM and Johnson as far as I can tell. Lunati is Morel but the likes of Isky, COMP, and the usual group of suspects I can't say with certainty. I believe Isky is supplied by a US based manufacturer but who that is I don't know.
There are others I'm sure.
This is specifically hydraulic roller although the spill over to other types is there. Johnson is one who only make roller lifters. Hylift Johnson are a US based flat tappet manufacturer.