Hydraulic roller lifter issue?

No - I didn’t mean to do the lifter bore bushings in the car.  We did it after we pulled the engine and had the block on the drill press.

Fixturing and alignment of the block was still a bit of a set up challenge, even with the block out of the car.

I doubt if you could do lifter bore bushings in the car, you need a lot of room for the drill, the U-joint and the reamer.  And then driving the bushings  in would be another challenge.

I thought I had read that Rene had already done the lifter bore mod.

I was only saying that that’s the operation that made me think about the location of the oil gallery.

Rocky

The oil drain holes are in the middle of the block.

Yes, I have already installed the bronze liners for the tappets.
I know I could do the repair with the engine in the car, but I will save little time and I risk doing the job badly. In addition, if I have to drill holes or even if I only have to tap them, I will make cast iron debris that I will have difficulty removing, so I decided to pull the engine out of the car and disassemble it, I will be able to work comfortably and clean it meticulously. I may lose a day or two but I am not short of time.

That will be the best way.

@rocky posted:

No - I didn’t mean to do the lifter bore bushings in the car.  We did it after we pulled the engine and had the block on the drill press.

Fixturing and alignment of the block was still a bit of a set up challenge, even with the block out of the car.

I doubt if you could do lifter bore bushings in the car, you need a lot of room for the drill, the U-joint and the reamer.  And then driving the bushings  in would be another challenge.

I thought I had read that Rene had already done the lifter bore mod.

I was only saying that that’s the operation that made me think about the location of the oil gallery.

Rocky

Do you remember the diameter of the oil passage hole you drilled in the liners?

I used .060"

I have continued to inquire about this system and it appears that the cam lift would be limited to about 0.32", beyond which the lifter hits and lifts the dog bone.
I asked Ford Performance, Summit and Schneider cams about this and am awaiting their response. Do you know anything about this limit?

I can't answer that. I don't have issues with flat lifter cams.

You need to accept that the hydraulic lifter cam for performance applications is an aftermarket modification of a modification and there are going to be unexpected bumps in the road.

I feel your pain but to me this is self flagellation?

Depending on your pocketbooks, and the amount of self-flagellation you want to do….  (😎)…

I’m sure you have seen the Jesel keyway lifters…. I haven’t researched them, but they sure don’t seem like they would have a short lift limit.

But that would probably require removal of your existing lifter bore bushings.

Anyway – good luck on the path forward.

Rocky

PS. That .032” lift limit doesn’t sound right, because no one would use them if that was the case on most engines.  Is this just a Cleveland issue?

0.32'' at the cam produces 0.55'' at the valve, that's already good and many are satisfied with that.

Thanks, I didn’t work out the numbers….

Looking at my cam card, I have a .353” lift…

I thought you were talking the valve opening.

Thanks for the clarification.

I researched this lift issue as best that I can. The information that I did get was that the lift maximum was stated in valve lift and that is .550" maximum valve lift.

So it would appear that you need to find another solution then the Ford Racing?

In the same research it was a common factor that the roller lifters that you used and failed on you happen to be "a common occurrence".

So I'm just reporting what I found. I am not the source. Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.

It is an old premise that "when you raid a 'cat house' you arrest the piano player too".

@panteradoug posted:

I researched this lift issue as best that I can. The information that I did get was that the lift maximum was stated in valve lift and that is .550" maximum valve lift.

So it would appear that you need to find another solution then the Ford Racing?

In the same research it was a common factor that the roller lifters that you used and failed on you happen to be "a common occurrence".

So I'm just reporting what I found. I am not the source. Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.

It is an old premise that "when you raid a 'cat house' you arrest the piano player too".

You mean Morel brand lifters?

I am in contact with a Ford Performance specialist of Cleveland. He advises me not to use spiders and dog bones.
I told him my story, he asked me all the characteristics of my engine and pictures of the cylinder head and the valve train, he is really very helpful and here is his conclusion:

Although this is my opinion…Link bar hyd. Lifters are not a wise choice for RPM’s exceeding 5,800, we sell 3 different styles of crate engines with link bar lifters and cams much larger in duration @ .050 and have found that 5,600 seems to be the tipping point.  I believe you were in a valve float situation at some point.  My recommendation is one of two paths, I personally would put a flat tappet solid in it, or a tight lash solid roller with specs just a little bit bigger on duration @ .050 and a slightly tighter lobe sep.

This is just my opinion but I have a hard time believing in valve float with springs as hard as mine (150 / 450 lbs) with a rev limiter set at 6800 pm.

Schneidercam also advises me against using the spider and dog bones and recommends Gaterman lifters #5310

@rene4406 posted:

You mean Morel brand lifters?

"Link bar lifters" which include Morel.  Others have complained of other brands as well.

If the "Tech" says the lifters have a maximum recommended limit of 5,600 rpms and if your rpm limiter is set to 6,800, you had the potential to surpass the 5,600 rpm recommendation.

It isn't a very common discussion but it is mentioned enough times to suggest investigating further as a potential pitfall.

In my own personal experience I have found that it is not unusual for one individual to have isolated an issue and determined a viable solution, generally unknown by the larger group. In fact, my experience tells me to look for that person, that they are there somewhere.

The mentioning of a "valve float situation" is distracting and should not have been mention if it was the rpm's alone that likely caused the failure in my view.

I would use the word, irrelevant to describe it's mentioning.

I don't know enough about the weight of the valve train components to know exactly where to expect valve float with those springs.

I would think also that if it is an accurate analysis that you are getting valve float at as little as just over 5,600 rpm with 450 pound springs then I would start to be concerned about the push rods also.

Somewhere in this thread I thought that I read that there was a recommendation to go to a solid flat lifter cam and lifters and how absolutely shocking that it could use more duration and closer center lines? I don't remember who it was that suggested that?

Roush 427 IR Crate Engines:

Come with hydraulic roller lifters rated at 6250 rpm maximum and warranty of 2 years/ 24,000 miles.

So, why would Roush use hydraulic roller lifters in their engines, and give a 2year/24,000 miles warranty if they would have a lifter problem?

I think that the Ford technician has no explanation for the breakage of the tie bar and gives the most common one: floating valves, but I don't believe it because even if there had been floating the tie bar would not have been more stressed; the pushrods could have bent, the springs broken, but not the tie bar!
For me there was a manufacturing defect, that's the only reason and I read in several places that the Morels are no longer as reliable because they are now built offshore......

Finally, I think that the tie bar lifters are a good solution even if sometimes one can break, like any other part of the engine.

The choice of brand remains.

Schneider racing cam recommends Gaterman at $500, on a facebook group "Cleveland for ever" I am recommended Johnson at $950, others Jezel at $2000, etc, etc..... I have the impression that it is like for the engine builder, everyone has their own which is necessarily the best.
I will perhaps opt for those recommended by the cam grinder and if unfortunately, I have another breakdown it will be easier for the warranty.

Rene, there are supposedly two levels of Morel hydraulic lifters. Never used them myself so I don't know how to tell them apart but one is more pricy.

@hightech posted:

Roush 427 IR Crate Engines:

Come with hydraulic roller lifters rated at 6250 rpm maximum and warranty of 2 years/ 24,000 miles.

So, why would Roush use hydraulic roller lifters in their engines, and give a 2year/24,000 miles warranty if they would have a lifter problem?

So what? You paid all this money for a high tech solution and all you get is a 6,250 rpm red line limit? HOW is THAT THE answer?

To me maybe that is ok for your off road 4x4 PU truck but it hardly fits into the character of the concept that you attempted to create?

Where is that high rev'ing Ferrari,-ish type vehicle with American muscle? I have an answer to that. You killed it somewhere along the way.

You've introduced newer high technology into the solution and all it did was restrict you when "old" flat lifter technology turns out to be more reliable, cheaper and much better delivering what you were looking for?

I'd say that you folks are so gullible that I could sell you a bridge complete with toll booths but I can see that you are mesmerized by the folly of chasing a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?

In the end there is a great value to abstract thinking but there is a practical limit to it as to how you can apply it. Keep dreaming.

Maybe join Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tinman, Lion and Todo? Go ask  the Wizard. He'll have an answer?

@bosswrench posted:

Rene, there are supposedly two levels of Morel hydraulic lifters. Never used them myself so I don't know how to tell them apart but one is more pricy.

Yes I know, and I had ordered the LRR5327 that is to say "limited travel Pro Race serie", but they have no engraved reference and are called "Bullet" since that is the one I ordered them from at the same time as the cam. So I don't know for sure if Bullet actually provided me with those or cheaper ones.

There are also these, they are expensive but are equipped with bushings instead of needle bearings (that would please Marlin), they support a load of 185/580 lbs and are guaranteed up to 7500 rpm, which is much more than I need.

https://iskycams.com/shop/inde...amp;products_id=2221

Older roller lifters seem to have been heftier? These are old Chevy solid rollers but look at how they are tied together.

And here is the condition of the camshaft:

The cam bearings are in excellent condition which leads me to believe that the oil filter well stopped all the filings produced.

I also had a quick look at the oil pump and it does not seem to have suffered at all, I will still check the clearances.

@panteradoug posted:

So what? You paid all this money for a high tech solution and all you get is a 6,250 rpm red line limit? HOW is THAT THE answer?

To me maybe that is ok for your off road 4x4 PU truck but it hardly fits into the character of the concept that you attempted to create?

Where is that high rev'ing Ferrari,-ish type vehicle with American muscle? I have an answer to that. You killed it somewhere along the way.

You've introduced newer high technology into the solution and all it did was restrict you when "old" flat lifter technology turns out to be more reliable, cheaper and much better delivering what you were looking for?

I'd say that you folks are so gullible that I could sell you a bridge complete with toll booths but I can see that you are mesmerized by the folly of chasing a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?

In the end there is a great value to abstract thinking but there is a practical limit to it as to how you can apply it. Keep dreaming.

Maybe join Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tinman, Lion and Todo? Go ask  the Wizard. He'll have an answer?

You are not as funny as you think you are. Why don’t you state facts instead of shooting BS?
FYI I owned a 1991 Ferrari Testarossa that came with a 4.9-litre, 48-valve flat 12 engine that only produced 380hp maximum power at 6,300 rpm and maximum torque of 361 ft-lb @ 4,500 rpm, redline 6,800 rpm.

My pantera with a 422 C.I. Fontana Engine with Morel hydraulic roller lifters was dyno tested at over 600 hp @ 6,200 rpm and 580 ft-bl of torque @ 4,900 rpm, redline 6,500 rpm. So, which high rev  Ferraris are you referring to?  Do you think your flat lifter pushrod engine could be compared to the double overhead cam Ferrari Engine? If so, keep on dreaming! How reliable, and how long do you think your high rev flat tappet pushrod engine would last at 9,000 rpm? Do you think flat tappet lifters are more reliable and can rev more than the roller lifters? With all due respect, your opinion is biased, misleading and unproven. The point I was trying to make about the Roush crate Engine is that there nothing wrong with roller lifters, nothing more, nothing less. However, please refrain yourself from using your arrogance to veil your ignorance.

Yes of course. I yield to the higher intelligence or yours. It is quite apparent to all of us.

Here we go again. I have neither the time nor the energy to argue with you on matters that are not important in this world. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Thank you and have a good day!

@hightech posted:

Here we go again. I have neither the time nor the energy to argue with you on matters that are not important in this world. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.Thank you and have a good day!

No there YOU go again. I'm not arguing with anyone.

Just out of curiosity, how many engines have you built?

Oh, and just to be clear, I know that I am not funny and never have been.

I’m not an engine builder per se, I have built a few engines for my personal cars only. However, I have a background in mechanical engineering from a well established  institute of technology. Thank you

@hightech posted:

I’m not an engine builder per se, I have built a few engines for my personal cars only. However, I have a background in mechanical engineering from a well established  institute of technology. Thank you

Just like me.

Merci beaucoup Mon confrère, Rene👍

Finally I ordered the Schneider camshaft:

and the Isky tappets:

https://iskycams.com/shop/inde...amp;products_id=2221

which are expensive and certainly oversized for my application, but I hope to be safe.

Those are expensive!

Did you buy the $10 Isky sticker?

Anyway, good luck with the build!  I expect good things, and look forward to more progress updates!

Looks like a healthy camshaft.

I can't find any cams on the Schneider Website for the 351c, it only appears as an empty page.

Please let us know how everything works out.

As it was to replace my camshaft destroyed by the lifter, I told them its characteristics and asked them what they could do that was identical or very close and they sent me a proposal.

I received my new camshaft with a LSA of 115° and a timing recommendation with Intake Center Line at 113°, I had another recommendation with the ICL at 110°.
In your opinion, what difference will a timing at 110° rather than 113 have on the behavior of the engine?

@rene4406 posted:

I received my new camshaft with a LSA of 115° and a timing recommendation with Intake Center Line at 113°, I had another recommendation with the ICL at 110°.
In your opinion, what difference will a timing at 110° rather than 113 have on the behavior of the engine?

Not a lot of difference initially in feel. The 110 feels more peppy then the 113 even with similar timing and valve lift.

The 113° will have more vacuum at idle then the 110° will.

So I think of the difference as one is better for an automatic transmissioned car. The 113° and the 110 is more ACCEPTABLE for a manual transmissioned car.

For me, I would not want to drive a 110 for an everyday car. It is a toy that I take out and play with when I want to play boy racer.

The 113 is less abrupt and smoother enough to live with ALMOST every day. It feels more stockish.

Others will describe it differently, I'm sure.

If you are talking about dyno results, I saw a difference with the the engine power caused by the differences in cam timing.  For example, the "Weber cam" v. the Compcams solid. There is around an 80hp difference between them at maximum power. The "Weber cam" is a 113. The Compcam a 110.

As intended, the "Weber cam" didn't have the same level of fuel reversion that the Compcams has but it was down just about 80hp as a result of the overlap timing differences.

The "Weber cam" is also a hydraulic roller lifter and the Compcams a solid flat lifter so that does have something to do with the power output and the power curves.

I've always found it ironic and somewhat contradictory, that what the dyno sometimes clearly shows, the difference in the "power under the curve" on the graph,  doesn't necessarily translate to me in the "feel in the seat of the pants thing"?

I suppose that may be in the way that I like to drive the car? I can't drive a dyno.

Thinking back, my "Boss 351" had a 113° Shelby solid lifter cam and would break the traction loose at around 4200 rpm FROM AN EASY NORMAL ACCELERATION. That matched up with the maximum torque the dyno showed. 380ish at around 4,500. So to drive that one I had to feather the throttle to not break traction.

The solid lifter 110° is easier for ME to drive. It seems linear, not as peaky and if need be I just put my foot in it all the way. I just look to keep it under the  top rpm limit.

I don't know if the same will translate to these new cam profiles?

When confused, I always look back to what Ford did with these engines to make them civil enough to be everyday drivers as a guide. That tells me a lot.

Many engines are a wolf in sheeps clothes but when you unleash the wolf, it's still a wolf and it has it's everyday use drawbacks.

Ford is correct in that MOST will be happiest with the stock CJ cam.

I bought thèse.

Le mar. 31 déc. 2024, 22:04, The De Tomaso Forums <alerts@crowdstack.com> a
écrit :

I had read somewhere that the lifters sold by Isky were actually manufactured by Johnson and I had contacted Johnson directly with the reference given by Isky. They had answered me that they did not sell these lifters and advised to check with Isky.
So I ordered from Isky and received them in a nice box marked Isky but looking at them, they are indeed Johnson....... Trade agreements I suppose!

Marlin, did you notice? Needle - free

@rene4406 posted:

Marlin, did you notice? Needle - free

Many of the Ford lifters are made by Johnson.