Hydraulic roller lifter issue?

I think you are mixing the cams.

The second crower cam is a 246/250;

your comp is a 248/248

the comp has a required CR of 10:1 vs 10,25:1 for the crower, so not a big difference.

The real big difference betwenn those 2 cams is the lift. The Comp has significant more lift which means its lobes are way more aggressive.

If that is what you like, go for it.

I think the tamer one, I suggested will live longer and will have more torque in the range of 2500 to 4500 which should be beneficial on the street.

And my point is, that a single pattern cam doesn't make sense in a 4v stock headed Cleveland.

@GeorgS posted:

I think you are mixing the cams.

The second crower cam is a 246/250;

your comp is a 248/248

the comp has a required CR of 10:1 vs 10,25:1 for the crower, so not a big difference.

The real big difference betwenn those 2 cams is the lift. The Comp has significant more lift which means its lobes are way more aggressive.

If that is what you like, go for it.

I think the tamer one, I suggested will live longer and will have more torque in the range of 2500 to 4500 which should be beneficial on the street.

And my point is, that a single pattern cam doesn't make sense in a 4v stock headed Cleveland.

That's why the only sure method is to try them both and pick the one that you think is best for you.

I've been doing this for over 50 years. One thing that I know for sure is that almost never will two people agree on which is the best cam.

It has a lot to do with what you expect from it and the reality of how you are going to live with it.

One curiosity that I did notice is that if you work with Ford eninges, there are several cams that have the same timing and lift events for both the Cleveland and the 427's.

Often a 113° is recommended for the 427 for the same reason. The exhaust restriction in the head.

It is kind of hard to do an "Engine Masters" comparison test by yourself for sure, but in the end result it will often just show something like a 10 or 15hp difference so particularly in a street car where ultimate hp is insignificant since you are just competing with yourself.

The same engine in a Mustang v Pantera is going to be just a little different because of the exhaust systems. If you are going to dyno, then you need to dyno through the exhaust that you intend to use on the car.

It should also be mentioned that in the case of the Pantera, the gearing in the ZF makes it more important where the torque curve comes on and how much power you are going to have in 5th.

You need the Drag Race dyno to create that kind of a comparison test. Let's call in NASA?

Even then, don't be surprised if you start modifying the exhaust? An example here would be the ability to use a 180° system in the Pantera, or even just changing the size of the header primary tubes on a "stock" Pantera or a GTS header not to mention the mufflers?

I think ultimately that yes, one of those cams pointed out here will be the selection. I'd rather have the "owner" decide rather then me. I don't want to be blamed for his disappointment. It really isn't as simple as it seems to be on the surface .

I DO NOT profess to be THE expert. Not at all. Just sharing my experiences which I do admit are limited. It isn't "Everything Everywhere all at once" but that is what often is being suggested. That is just fiction.

I have a static compression ratio of 10.6/1 and as we have 98 octane in France (I don't remember the correspondence with the index in the US, but I know that George made a correspondence table in one of his posts) I have no problem.

You can run the cams at lower CR then what the manufacturer says.

Current 93 in the US is what we used to call 102.

Current SUNOCO leaded racing gas was 103 in the pumps and was called 260 then. It was and still is purple and the fumes will knock you out with just a sniff.

Now it is referred to at the track as 106 not to be confuse with the 115 leaded racing gas that the supercharged cars use at the track.

All very confusing.

It is a shell game of sorts. It keeps moving the ball around enough to confuse everyone and thus remove the references to the older systems and remove the criticisms.

I don't know how the European rating systems compare now.

Part of what the timing of the camshaft does is reduce the cylinder pressures so not to increase the pressure to the point that it ignites the fuel without spark. Longer duration camshafts do that by design.

They make the engine less sensitive to dieseling by letting the excessive cylinder pressure escape through the exhausts.

Sometimes this timing effect is called "bleeding off compression".

Rene,

My advise to you is to get a custom made cam to suit e your particular application. Call or email Cam Motion in Baton Rouge Louisiana, tell them what you have, what you want and they will make a cam for you that you can’t go wrong. I had my hydraulic roller cam made by them many years ago, never had any issues with Morel roller lifters, 6.15”/6.20” valve lift, Pacalloy beehive valve springs, titaniun retainers, Lightweight Special Alloy Ferrea Valves, etc. Running 8 individual throttle bodies EFI controlled by FAST ECU. 620hp at 6200 rpm at 31degrees total timing. Idles at 850 rpm very smooth. CAM MOTION is one of the best cam company in the US in MHO! Furthermore, I would recommend  no other than Penngrade 1 (formerly Brad Penn) 20W-50 synthetic blend motor oil. Never, Never use lightweight fully synthetic motor oil with roller camshafts, especially if you experience fuel dilution in the oil!
Best

L

Rene,

My engine is  an all aluminum Fontana engine, 10.5 to 1.0 static compression ratio, runs on Shell 91 octane fuel with no issues whatsoever. This is the oil that I use

Here is the answer from Cam Motion whom I had provided all the detailed characteristics of my engine. It is quite close to what I had, but even more powerful:

Unfortunately at this time we do not have a camshaft core that will accommodate these specs. I can share with you what I would recommend for your application.

I use the same oil (Penngrade) as Hightech, based on the recommendation (requirement?) of my engine builder…

Rocky

And if the cam company doesn't ask, be sure to tell them where you live. My house and home driving is at 5400 ft altitude in NV and has different needs than someone living at sea level.

@rene4406 posted:

Here is the answer from Cam Motion whom I had provided all the detailed characteristics of my engine. It is quite close to what I had, but even more powerful:

Unfortunately at this time we do not have a camshaft core that will accommodate these specs. I can share with you what I would recommend for your application.

289/295 Duration @ .006"

234/240 Duration @ .050''
115 LSA, 111 ICL (115+4)
.623"/.623" lift with 1.73 rockers

Thank you for choosing Cam Motion!

Jacob

It's nice of them to advise me on a configuration when they can't do it.

Interesting recommendation. It seems to be a contradiction in certain ways?

It is showing aggressive lift and duration numbers but backs off from that with the center lines?

With that lift and that duration it must be very close to the maximum lifter/ramp speed?

Did they give you a number of what the overlap is?

If you are interested in learning something about cams and how they affect an engine's running, there is a 28-cam-grind dyno comparison on You-Tube done just last week. Go to Eric Weingartner's free site for results. While the test mule was an LS engine, GM closely copied the Cleveland in their design, and at least you'll get a definition of the terms involved, the effects each had and the names of the dozen or so current cam grinders who were involved. Quite interesting but not directly applicable- the 351-C is 54 years old and out of production since 1974, so cores are not readily available from the two (2.0) places that still make cam cores in the U.S.A.

@bosswrench posted:

If you are interested in learning something about cams and how they affect an engine's running, there is a 28-cam-grind dyno comparison on You-Tube done just last week. Go to Eric Weingartner's free site for results. While the test mule was an LS engine, GM closely copied the Cleveland in their design, and at least you'll get a definition of the terms involved, the effects each had and the names of the dozen or so current cam grinders who were involved. Quite interesting but not directly applicable- the 351-C is 54 years old and out of production since 1974, so cores are not readily available from the two (2.0) places that still make cam cores in the U.S.A.

I donated the 20$ to Eric Weingartner upfront to get all the results and cam cards.

If you want the core information, watch this video, where he describes the engine and the competition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...nnel=EricWeingartner

And here you can even buy the winning cam:

https://nkpracing.com/products...enge-winner-camshaft

Little hint: look at the pictures, there you can see a chart of the results and cam info of all the competitors

If you look at the top 5:

- all have really big splits between Intake and exhaust duration

- all of them made over 650HP above 6500 and over 550ft at around 5000-5200 on an 406Cui engine with a 4 barrel carb as a hydraulic roller.

.

First off, he talks way too much. Secondly it doesn't answer Rene's questions much at all.

Rene has pretty much narrowed his cam considerations down to three or maybe four.

He is using an iron 4v Cleveland head and induction system. He is running 357 cu.in. and it is a street car that he wants it to run respectfully on open track days and be able to drive it to and from the track reasonably.

I don't think that there was ever a debate about the top end performance of any of the cams he mentioned. We do want to see what they are like at the lower rpm's  right off of idle and including idle quality.

Personally I am data driven and the only question in my mind is if he will be happy with living with a 294° duration cam. Ultimately there will likely be just a few hp difference at the top end, and as I suggested, max hp is going to be in the 6,500 to 6,700 rpm range.

It will turn way more then that and how much more really depends on how much courage he has in consideration of how expensive it will to rebuild if he breaks it.

Again, it is pretty time consuming and therefore expensive to do a "Dyno Masters" comparison test and frankly you don't need to do one on know entities.

I am not a big believer on a split LSA and for all of the above reasons I do not see the value of going from a 110° to a 113° and not even to mention that he is going from unreliable aftermarket hydraulic roller lifters to a flat solid lifter type.

So if you have a couple of hours to go through that series of videos and constantly be lectured that "you don't know shit", have fun, because it changes NOTHING about OUR discussion and recommendations.

I will stick with my recommendation of the Compcams 294° solid lifter. I am not the one who set the criteria. Rene did. It answers the criteria that he set.

If you want to change the nature of the cam, change the criteria. That cam is essentially what he asked for.

Sorry if I didn't answer all your contributions, I wasn't at home, I was doing "the tour of the cemeteries" as they say in France in anticipation of All Saints' Day. I don't know if this tradition exists in the US but here in France if we only put flowers on the graves of our deads once a year because we live far away, it's for All Saints' Day.

Back to the cams, I thought about it and after having assimilated the disappointment of the engine breakage and considered the choice of existing camshafts with flat tappets or with roller tappets, I will finally stay with roller tappets (sorry Doug) but "top of the range", I will not take the risk of saving a few hundred dollars and breaking my engine again.

I remind you that I have a 382 CI with open chamber cast iron cylinder heads, a static ratio of 10.6 to 1 and that I do not want to exceed 8/1 for the dynamic ratio which means an intake closing angle of at least 72°.
I have springs that exert a force of 150 pounds with the valves closed and 450 pounds with a lift of 0.62'', which allows me to reach 7000 rpm without problem.
It is for sporty street use but I am not afraid to change gear when I want to exploit the resources of my engine.

The camshaft I currently have that I broke a lifter with was custom ground to George Pence's recommendations:
Duration @ .0050 = 285/291
Duration @ .050 = 231/236
Valve lift with 1.73 rocker ratio = .623/.623
Lobe separation = 114
Intake centerline = 110
Overlap = 60°

Cam motion's recommendation:

289/295 Duration @ .006"
234/240 Duration @ .050''
115 LSA, 111 ICL (115+4)
.623"/.623" lift with 1.73 rockers
so that's pretty close.

With a 111 ICL the intake starts opening at 33.5° and the exhaust to close at 28.5° which makes an overlap of 60° identical to George's and the same offset of 4°.

I will watch Weingartener's videos, there are always things to learn even if we do not agree on everything and continue my research.

All your contributions are welcome.

Rene,

Since you've decided to stay with roller lifters; if Isky makes their non-needle bearing hydraulic lifters for your application, I'd use them. Also, use the lightest valve springs you can live with. Do you really need a 7,000 RPM redline?

https://iskycams.com/shop/inde...53&pg=categories

No, I don't need a 7000 rpm redline, but if I want to get close to 500 hp I have to turn fast.

There is Jezel too:

https://www.jesel.com/tie-bar-roller-lifters

@rene4406 posted:

Sorry if I didn't answer all your contributions, I wasn't at home, I was doing "the tour of the cemeteries" as they say in France in anticipation of All Saints' Day. I don't know if this tradition exists in the US but here in France if we only put flowers on the graves of our deads once a year because we live far away, it's for All Saints' Day.

Back to the cams, I thought about it and after having assimilated the disappointment of the engine breakage and considered the choice of existing camshafts with flat tappets or with roller tappets, I will finally stay with roller tappets (sorry Doug) but "top of the range", I will not take the risk of saving a few hundred dollars and breaking my engine again.

I remind you that I have a 382 CI with open chamber cast iron cylinder heads, a static ratio of 10.6 to 1 and that I do not want to exceed 8/1 for the dynamic ratio which means an intake closing angle of at least 72°.
I have springs that exert a force of 150 pounds with the valves closed and 450 pounds with a lift of 0.62'', which allows me to reach 7000 rpm without problem.
It is for sporty street use but I am not afraid to change gear when I want to exploit the resources of my engine.

The camshaft I currently have that I broke a lifter with was custom ground to George Pence's recommendations:
Duration @ .0050 = 285/291
Duration @ .050 = 231/236
Valve lift with 1.73 rocker ratio = .623/.623
Lobe separation = 114
Intake centerline = 110
Overlap = 60°

Cam motion's recommendation:

289/295 Duration @ .006"
234/240 Duration @ .050''
115 LSA, 111 ICL (115+4)
.623"/.623" lift with 1.73 rockers
so that's pretty close.

With a 111 ICL the intake starts opening at 33.5° and the exhaust to close at 28.5° which makes an overlap of 60° identical to George's and the same offset of 4°.

I will watch Weingartener's videos, there are always things to learn even if we do not agree on everything and continue my research.

All your contributions are welcome.

I'm ok with whatever you do. You need to be happy with it. Not me.

The recommended specs from GeorgeP can be read here:

https://pantera.infopop.cc/top...yd-roller-street-cam

275°/288° advertised duration (281.5° average)
224°/234° duration at 0.050" --> 10° split

So I wonder why your "GeorgeP camshaft only has 5° split at .050''.

Lets do a little calculation:

If you watch the Weingartner Video you can see the flow numbers of those aftermarket ported LS3 heads. At .400 Int/Exh 272/185, at .600 Int/Exh 352/234; if you divide that you have 1,47 at .400 and 1.50 at .600, so lets say roughly the Intake port flows 1,5 times more than the exhaust port.

Flow numbers for a 4V Cleveland Head vary a good amount, but what I found for example was this: ( these were closed chamber heads, but I don't see why that would impact flow very much)

https://www.corral.net/threads...hamber-heads.744366/

In the first post the numbers are at .400 Int/Exh 220/154 and at .600 Int/Exh 269/165. Divided thats 1,43 at .400 and 1,63 at .600

In the 6. post the flow numbers are 212/139 and 257/164 which equals to 1,52 at .400 and 1.56 at .600.

So the ratios between those aftermarket heads and the 4V Cleveland heads aren't too far off.

I am sure you already know, where I am getting at.

As I wrote the 5 cams that made the most Power all had really big splits between intake and exhaust and that with only a 1 and 3/4 inch header, which surely makes less back pressure than a Pantera exhaust system.

I would probably go for something like a 230-232(int)/240-244(exh) at .050, 113-114 LSA and the ICL at around 110.

I hope it was understandable and please let me know, what you chose and how it worked out.

About eight years ago, I asked about the differing valve size between intake and the exhaust (IIRC, exhaust is smaller) - and the answer was because the burned combustion gases are still at a higher pressure than atmospheric – that helps in the evacuation of the cylinders….

Rocky

@rene4406 posted:

Here is the culprit

I haven't dropped it off yet but it's certain the camshaft is pretty damaged too.

I know this has happened to at least one other person with the same camshaft and lifters. I'll message Bullet Racing and see how they explain it

I just watched a U-tuber video with the Same Problem!  Same style Broken lifter and Wiped out the Cam or their built 440 Charger. That Sucks.

I've also seen link-bar lifters where one of the bar retaining rivets wasn't staked and fell out. Same result, different mfgr. There are 4 ways to hold rollers-hydraulic or solid- in alignment with the cam lobes. The OEMs do not use link-bar types.

Rene,

Stick with the Cam Motion recommendation and you’ll get 500hp @ well below 6500rpm with a good set of headers and unrestricted exhaust system.

@bosswrench posted:

I've also seen link-bar lifters where one of the bar retaining rivets wasn't staked and fell out. Same result, different mfgr. There are 4 ways to hold rollers-hydraulic or solid- in alignment with the cam lobes. The OEMs do not use link-bar types.

I don't see the point of an hydraulic roller lifter camshaft if it is a mild grind? What is the point?

I would go with the Cam Motion specs but the Sneider Cam is even better. You can give up a bit of idle quality to gain some top end.

You go to it so that you can increase the rate of valve opening that a flat lifter can't follow or you are an OEM that needs all the help that you can get for Fleet MPG averages dictated by the EPA requirements.

Neither do you need intakes that flow 400 cfm. The engine can't pump that much with this displacement.

The risk of lifter failure is too high considering the catastrophic disaster they cause.

This is all about risk analysis v. performance gained / period of time.

" 'splain it to me Lucy!"

These link bars do not undergo any stress but they are subjected to repeated shocks against the rivets at the place where they are the least resistant. In addition, they must be hardened by heat treatment to resist the friction against the rivets. We know that a poorly performed heat treatment can make the metal fragile and not very resistant to shocks. It is therefore not surprising that there are some that break at the place where the shocks occur.

What to think of the guidance systems with spider and dog bones?

I received a proposal from Schneidercams at $600 and one from Howards whose price I do not know because you have to go through a dealer.
Here is a comparison table with the characteristics of my current cam for comparison:

GeorgeP had predicted a power of 490 HP at 6100 rpm with a cam following his specifications, my iron cylinder heads and GTS style headers.

According to the authors of the articles on OEM iron cylinder heads, open chamber cylinder heads would MAY be more susceptible to knock but would have better flow from start to mid valve opening because the surrounding area is clearer.

Everyone should read this article

Diagnosing Common Lifter Issues

By Greg Jones

www.enginebuildermag.com

Very interesting article that maybee reinforces my idea of using dogbone-guided lifters.

Summit sells a really cheap Ford Performance kit:

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-6253-a50

They also sell Ford Performance lifters that are also very cheap, can we trust them? There are two types but the description is exactly the same, I will ask Summit to know what is the difference between the two:

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-6500-r302

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-6500-r302

Even with the most expensive lifters, it makes a set for less than $300 while it takes at least $600 for tie bar lifters and more than $1000 for high-end. I hesitate a lot, why pay a lot if a much more economical solution exists? Is the economical solution really good?

I found the answer:

https://performanceparts.ford....LLER_CAM_LIFTERS.pdf

@rene4406 posted:

Very interesting article that maybee reinforces my idea of using dogbone-guided lifters.

Summit sells a really cheap Ford Performance kit:

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-6253-a50

They also sell Ford Performance lifters that are also very cheap, can we trust them? There are two types but the description is exactly the same, I will ask Summit to know what is the difference between the two:

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-6500-r302

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-6500-r302

Even with the most expensive lifters, it makes a set for less than $300 while it takes at least $600 for tie bar lifters and more than $1000 for high-end. I hesitate a lot, why pay a lot if a much more economical solution exists? Is the economical solution really good?

The components derived from OEM production have more then just the one benefit of being less expensive.

They are also better engineered and are proven to last 100,000 miles.

They are the obvious solution. Is that too painful to admit?

You are certainly right and I am not against saving money if the quality is there, I am just surprised and therefore a little skeptical.

@rene4406 posted:

I found the answer:

https://performanceparts.ford....LLER_CAM_LIFTERS.pdf

You can't argue with that assessment.  The only thing is that I think you will need to drill into the block and thread the holes to mount the retaining spider?

As far as which is the best way to go, I would mention Occam's Razor.

I would have to agree with Ford's initial assessment in the design selection in that there are less components that can fail catastrophically.

Ford Racing explains it well.

"Greetings Pilgrim, your search has ended!"

I would caution that the Ford Racing parts may have the OEM design (geometry), but I doubt the materials/manufacturing/monitoring specs at the aftermarket suppliers are as closely followed as parts that go into OEM engines!

@panteradoug posted:

You can't argue with that assessment.  The only thing is that I think you will need to drill into the block and thread the holes to mount the retaining spider?

As far as which is the best way to go, I would mention Occam's Razor.

I would have to agree with Ford's initial assessment in the design selection in that there are less components that can fail catastrophically.

Ford Racing explains it well.

"Greetings Pilgrim, your search has ended!"

This kit is supposed to fit the 289, 302 and 351W engines, the Cleveland is not listed. I think this is because it requires drilling and tapping but I would like to be absolutely certain that the tappet and cylinder center distances are exactly the same on the Windsor and Cleveland.

Summit has a tech line. You can chat with them on it on Facebook. They usually can be reached up to 12am my local Eastern Time.

The Cleveland falls into the heading of "Ford Small Block" family. Within that family the center to center on the things like the lifter bores in the block will be the same.

The listing you refer to does not include the Cleveland because the Cleveland block does not have the cast in threaded mounting bosses for mounting the spider .

That you need to improvise on and drill and tap into the block so that you can bolt the spider on.

@panteradoug posted:

Summit has a tech line. You can chat with them on it on Facebook. They usually can be reached up to 12am my local Eastern Time.

The Cleveland falls into the heading of "Ford Small Block" family. Within that family the center to center on the things like the lifter bores in the block will be the same.

The listing you refer to does not include the Cleveland because the Cleveland block does not have the cast in threaded mounting bosses for mounting the spider .

That you need to improvise on and drill and tap into the block so that you can bolt the spider on.

That's what I wanted to be sure of, thanks.
Drilling two holes or using the ones used for the oil return to the crankcase and tapping them, really doesn't pose any difficulty for me

@rene4406 posted:

That's what I wanted to be sure of, thanks.
Drilling two holes or using the ones used for the oil return to the crankcase and tapping them, really doesn't pose any difficulty for me

I do not know where the mounting bosses are on the OEM roller lifter blocks v. the original Clevelands?

It is entirely possible that where the oil drain back holes are in the center gallery of the Cleveland is where the mounting bosses on the the"roller blocks" are located? If so, there may be some fabrication on your part required.

There always seems to be some kind of a complication involved and is why some say that "there is no such thing as a bolt on!"

Best of luck on the swap over but I think if you are going with the Ford Racing kit you are going the right way given your current criteria.

According to this publication, the oil return holes can be used.

https://www.diyford.com/ford-3...t-guide-street-cams/

For the bosses, I will always manage with washers or by making a shouldered insert of a larger diameter in which I will make a tapped hole to the diameter of the fixing screws. I will study this when I have the parts in hand. In addition, I have an old unusable block (+0.040'' and worn) with which I can do tests

@rene4406 posted:

According to this publication, the oil return holes can be used.

https://www.diyford.com/ford-3...t-guide-street-cams/

For the bosses, I will always manage with washers or by making a shouldered insert of a larger diameter in which I will make a tapped hole to the diameter of the fixing screws. I will study this when I have the parts in hand. In addition, I have an old unusable block (+0.040'' and worn) with which I can do tests

That is an excellent article but verify that the adapters (what they are calling mollies) are included in the kit that you order. They may not be available separately?

It sounds like they are intended to eliminate or at least minimize the fabrication that you will need to do.

Looking at the sample being held, it is not readily apparent to me how they are intended to install into the block and what you need to do to restore the oil drainage?

Often authors of articles or "How to" books refer to obsolete items as if they are still readily available? He may be referring to a kit previously available for the Cleveland that is no longer available?

At Summit Racing, often you can download the installation instructions that the manufacturer include with the kit. I did not see it on their web page but you can inquire with them about it. They may be able to give you a link to view and download that information?

It does appear that you have all concerns covered at this point though.

Bon appetit seems appropriate?

IIRC, the oil galleries are to the “exhaust” side of the lifter bores, not on the valley side.

Good luck with the drilling.

Like most machining tasks, the biggest issue we had when bushing the lifter bores was fixturing the block for the operation.

Rocky

@rocky posted:

IIRC, the oil galleries are to the “exhaust” side of the lifter bores, not on the valley side.

Good luck with the drilling.

Like most machining tasks, the biggest issue we had when bushing the lifter bores was fixturing the block for the operation.

Rocky

I lean towards, "there is no such thing as a bolt in" philosophy. That doesn't quell the disappointment of being "not able to get it done today" though. It's just a rationalization.

I never believed that you could reasonably do the lifter bushings in the car but in so many ways I am still so naive. Regardless of the centering cutter supplied with the kit, that just looks like "you better have a Bridgeport mill" to me solution but I ain't no Marlin Jack.