Yesterday short ride, a clicking noise appears then gets louder but is not continuous, sometimes very loud, sometimes nothing. I came home back slowly and today I found a valve with 0.5 mm (0.02'') clearance and another with 2.4 mm (3/32'').
The adjustment nuts were not loose, the rockers are in perfect condition and I suspect the needle bearing of the lifters.
What do you think?
I bought the lifters at BULLET RACING but they are MOREL.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Dear Rene,
I suffered a clicking sound for months and it was getting worse. The short story is that after pulling the valve cover the cause was a push rod that had worn about 6 mm shorter than it was supposed to be.
My engine builder/machinist told me that, in addition to the quality problems with other engine parts, push rod heat treatment (?) has become unreliable. He claimed that using his own hardness durometer (?) to test *new* pushrods, he was finding roughly a 10 to 15% fail rate.
He told me to pull the other push rods for testing. Out of the sixteen push rods there was a total of two abnormally worn rods and two that only failed the hardness testing. I now have replacements for the four bad ones and a finally quiet engine.
It is easy to pull the push rods and check their ends for abnormal wear. I do not know how easily you can find someone to test the hardness.
For what it is worth, if it was built in the last ten years, it *might* be a push rod, if nothing else is found.
Warmest regards, Chuck Engles
@cengles posted:Dear Rene,
I suffered a clicking sound for months and it was getting worse. The short story is that after pulling the valve cover the cause was a push rod that had worn about 6 mm shorter than it was supposed to be.
My engine builder/machinist told me that, in addition to the quality problems with other engine parts, push rod heat treatment (?) has become unreliable. He claimed that using his own hardness durometer (?) to test *new* pushrods, he was finding roughly a 10 to 15% fail rate.
He told me to pull the other push rods for testing. Out of the sixteen push rods there was a total of two abnormally worn rods and two that only failed the hardness testing. I now have replacements for the four bad ones and a finally quiet engine.
It is easy to pull the push rods and check their ends for abnormal wear. I do not know how easily you can find someone to test the hardness.
For what it is worth, if it was built in the last ten years, it *might* be a push rod, if nothing else is found.
Warmest regards, Chuck Engles
Just asking… The 6 mm push rod part - was it missing or just smooshed … because if it was missing where did it go?
The last engine I built was the 408W for my Bronco. I used Hydraulic Roller lifters with a dog bone as the block is a 1994 351W block and designed for roller cam. I had problems with three of the 16 lifters. One would not pump up at all and two would collapse shortly after shutting off the engine. We constructed a test apparatus to pump oil into the lifter to test if it pumps up and if oil does indeed travel to the hole at the push rod. I found more bad lifters. I ended up buying more lifters and sending back the bad ones until I got a set that passed the test. The engine has been in the truck for three years now with no problems.
BTW the reason we made the test fixture was we didn't want to keep taking the intake manifold on and off to keep testing lifters.
I feel the quality of the aftermarket lifters today is awful.
Dear LeMans,
Initially, I thought that it had broken off. Later, I looked more carefully and it had not broken off, but *worn* off due to the sub-standard hardness. When I pulled all the other push rods, there was another one with similar abnormal wear. Where the metal went, is through the oil system including the oil filter. The engine runs much more quietly and as strong as ever with sixteen fully functional and properly hardened push rods.
Warmest regards, Chuck Engles
There is a tradeoff on hardness.
I had a racing set of push rods from Crane. A brand that I never question the quality of. Hardened for use with guide plates. I ran them a few miles and then all Hell broke loose.
I was only a mile from home so I was able to limp home.
When I took it apart I found that the tips on two had broken off near the lifters and many if not all had cracked through the dimple weld that held the tips on.
Crane refunded the purchase price and I wouldn't take another set from them.
The explanation was "a bad batch of metal", but in reality they had been over hardened to the level of what a good drill bit is.
You don't use a drill bit as a drift pin because it will shatter...badly.
Anyone who works with metals will tell you that in hardening or tempering it, at some point the metal gets brittle and will shatter like tempered glass will.
So really, there is a "sweet zone" for the hardness of the metal depending on the application intended.
The fact is that in many cases it is better to have it softer and bend then too hard and shatter. It is very easy to criticize this and basically what is happening is that once you get away from OEM parts, the aftermarket is a crap shoot regardless of how well meaning the MFG is.
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
@cengles posted:Dear LeMans,
Initially, I thought that it had broken off. Later, I looked more carefully and it had not broken off, but *worn* off due to the sub-standard hardness. When I pulled all the other push rods, there was another one with similar abnormal wear. Where the metal went, is through the oil system including the oil filter. The engine runs much more quietly and as strong as ever with sixteen fully functional and properly hardened push rods.
Warmest regards, Chuck Engles
That’s bad.. did you stick a magnet on the new oil filter?
Dear Le Mans,
I have a magnet on the oil filter of both Panteras and have had for quite some time.
Warmest regards, Chuck Engles
There have been many that have gone to the hydraulic roller camshaft. The vast majority seemingly have not had issues with it.
Apparently though enough have had this kind of issue with components to it.
There are many that scoff at what I do as, i.e., the component decisions that I make as "old hat from the 'old guy' ". Perhaps that is right but one thing that will never happen at my end is to have this kind of failure simply because I will never go to a roller lifter camshaft. It simply introduces an additional level of potential component failure in the valve train that ultimately can have catastrophic consequences.
The potential failure risk far out ways the small benefits of using a hydraulic lifter valve train.
I personally have seen this type of failure too often. The roller lifter solution simply is not a bulletproof one. Why risk it?
I'm sorry for your loss.
Doug, I tend to agree with you. Hydraulic roller lifters should be reliable. After all, they are OEM in 5.0L Mustangs where they do not have reliability issues, that I’m aware of. The problem is, the lifters are heavy, which creates the need for heavy valve springs to control the inertia they create. Solid roller lifters are better in this regard. These heavy springs create a very hard, short life for the tiny needle bearings that live inside the rollers. The only partial solution is to lower your max RPM expectations and fit the very lightest valve springs possible. That’s how Ford dealt with this issue in the 5.0L. Solid roller lifters are a bit lighter than hydraulic roller lifters, so they can get away with lighter valve springs. As a result, they are more reliable
As I mentioned in Marlin’s pilot bearing thread, Isky makes solid roller lifters that use the same style of bearing as his pilot bearings. No needle bearings! Unfortunately, they are expensive and so far unavailable as hydraulic lifters.
@davidnunn posted:Doug, I tend to agree with you. Hydraulic roller lifters should be reliable. After all, they are OEM in 5.0L Mustangs where they do not have reliability issues, that I’m aware of. The problem is, the lifters are heavy, which creates the need for heavy valve springs to control them. Solid roller lifters are better in this regard. These heavy springs create a very hard, short life for the tiny needle bearings that live inside the rollers. The only partial solution is to lower your max RPM expectations and fit the very lightest valve springs possible. That’s how Ford dealt with this issue in the 5.0L. Solid roller lifters are a bit lighter than hydraulic roller lifters, so they are more reliable.
As I mentioned in Marlin’s pilot bearing thread, Isky makes solid roller lifters that use the same style of bearing as his pilot bearings. No needle bearings! Unfortunately, they are expensive and so far unavailable as hydraulic lifters.
My solution is simple. I use a solid lifter cam and valve train.
They are the lightest of all, offer the greatest longevity and the highest rpm potential.
To me, they are also the easiest to maintain.
To me, when you find the answer, stop looking.
To me, "There ain't no Coupe DeVille at the bottom of a Cracker Jack Box". - Meatloaf is correct on this point. 
Some folks are like the Conquistadors searching for the city of gold that never comes.
I had the same configuration of a Bullet cam and Morel (branded as Bullet) lifters.
What happened to me was one of the link bars came loose when one of the rivets popped off of the lifter pair.
That allowed the roller lifter to rotate in the lifter bore, which wore both the cam lobe and the lifter roller.
Once mine started wearing, it wore very fast, in about 200 miles. Post-disassembly, appeared to be just the failure of the lifter pair (the rivet), but not an engine build issue.
Doug - I think you’re being a little harsh on people who choose different solutions?
If you recall – not that long ago, everybody was talking about how catastrophically solid lifters fail because of a lack of ZzZz ZzZzP.
You pays your money and you takes your chances. Everybody puts a lot of thought into these motors when you’re spending 10 grand or more to build one. It’s easy in retrospect look back and say “oh you shouldn’t have done that”.
And like you said, lots of people have built this configuration motors and they have run well.
Anyway – good luck with the fix Rene. I suspect you’re going to want to disassemble your engine and flush it out. I like the Bullet Cams spec, but I went with a different roller lifter manufacturer on the repair.
Rocky
With two clearly documented failures of the same part, people may consider not sourcing their roller lifters from Bullet, if that’s the path they choose!
I removed all the lifters and some have abnormal wear
Doug, you may be right, solid flat lifters may be a better solution but if I change now I will have to change all the lifters, pushrods and, to take advantage of the weight, all the springs. That is a lot of work and money.
I sent Bullet a message and am waiting for their response.
That’s interesting, Rene…
It would seem that the only way to get wear there is if the (or both) lifter body was / were able to rotate in the bore(s).
As I recall, there’s a lot of gap on those link bars, so it would have to move a good distance to be able to touch there…
Let us know what they say…. How long did you run your engine since you’ve built it?
This is all about risk analysis. There should be enough data available to project a clear picture of the risks.
I don't tell anyone what to do and frankly while I am involved in building something I like to keep that secret incase it doesn't go so well. Plus, some, like my wife use me as a negative barometer and whisper, don't do what that jerk does.
As far as my personal success and failure rate goes, the bumps on my head should indicate that learning from failure should have made me a genius and sadly (to me) in has not.
As far as mixing in zddp as a preventative to failure, I've tried that and it mixes strangely with my Vodka. It hasn'nt made me any stupider but there is only so low you can go?
In actuality the lack of quality control of new components, particularly in the aftermarket ultimately is the culpret.
I would also theorize, right or wrong, that if you want the same dependability on these roller cams, then you should model OEM ones. Those have got thousands if not millions of test miles on THOSE solutions. Not some re-application of Pro Stock racing engine solutions that may or may not have the same dependability?
After seeing that simple failure of the retaining rivets, how comfortable are you going to feel with running one in YOUR car and exactly how many trouble free miles do you expect to put on those components?
For example, there are people running titanium valve train components on the street. NASCAR race cars change those out after every race.
How many miles are you going to put on those?
Yes Rocky. All food for thought. We can all share our various experiences here. When there is a reoccuring theme though, I would take those into consideration as to, what will I do if those break on me or maybe is it worth the risk for little gained.
...and OEM engines running roller lifter assemblies are designed for that, not added onto modified flat lifter cams.
I also noticed that in Medical experiments, there is always one person that gets the placebo that winds up with a miracle cure! So some notice that it simply defies logic yet there it is in black and white. I think that happens in these automotive experiments sometimes also?
I was only pointing out my train of thought on selecting a valve train and everyone should have as much information as they can get in order to make their own decision of which way to go.
Here is Bullet's first response:
Hello Rene,
for the lifter to have that much damage to the wheel the problem started from the beginning of running the engine.
The tie bar of the lifter should not have any stress on it unless something hits it or the camshaft is improperly installed.
What type of damage do the other lifters have? If the tie bars have similar wear it could be an installation issue.
What damage does the camshaft have?
Chris
They are in bad faith!
I told them I knew this happened to Rocky a few years ago and I'm waiting for their second response
I have run about 1600 miles since the engine rebuild.
It is true that the tie bar do not have any stress but I think that it undergoes heat treatment to harden it and if this treatment is poorly done, it becomes fragile and breaks with vibrations.
HA! IN THEORY the bar has no stress on it however if the rollers are not perfectly square, flat and parallel it will induce an inertia to make the lifter turn.
That will make the bar act as a pry bar and pull the rivet out.
Also if the lobe of the cam is not perfectly "square" to the center line it will induce the lifter to turn.
That is all irrelevant. The question is really, "are you going to warranty the kit or not"?
Exactly WTF could you have screwed up in the cam installation? You put it in backwards, sideways or upside down?
I got the same "crap" from Compcams when I opened the box and the distributor drive gears crumbled off of the camshaft.
They told me, "that is not covered by our warranty BUT to maintain good customer relations, we will replace the cam FOR FREE!"
Here is the actual truth about camshafts. They only spot check them for quality and accuracy. The big companies have like five slave machines all grinding the same profile together and the operator just loads the blanks in and runs the system.
They don't check every cam and every lobe. They don't check every cam blank before the load it. That is too time consuming and therefore too expensive.
Don't let them shovel BS on you.
here is my response to Bullet
If the problem had started right from the beginning, the clicking noise would have appeared very quickly, which is not the case. I have only driven about 40 miles to home since the noise started and it has increased in intensity quite quickly.
Doug sez:
“In actuality the lack of quality control of new components, particularly in the aftermarket ultimately is the culprit.”
This is absolutely correct in these modern times!
These are not OEM roller lifter cams and lifters. They are aftermarket.
You can't rely on a near 100% dependability. All you can do is simplify the valve train and/or keep changing out the breaking components.
Rene, you don't need to change out the valve springs. New push rods with stock flat lifter cams should be stock, not custom.
You are going to change out the lifters and cam anyway. This isn't as complicated as you think if you go to a flat lifter cam.
If you switch, you can get a cam kit. Cam, lifters and matching springs.
So I don't understand the issue some have with adding ZDDP to the oil? You are just returning that oil mix to the original formula that the car was designed with.
The issue now with ZDDP is that it has the tendency to foul catalitic converters. There are none on Panteras to foul.
US law requires OEM manufacturers to warranty the emission systems for 100,000 miles. Cats are expensive to replace.
Current OEM manufacturers went to roller lifter cams for that reason and because they are aiming at a Fleet fuel consumption average and the roller lifters help that Fleet number. There is no other reason.
A roller lifter camshaft can be ground with a steeper lobe ramp then a flat lifter cam can. So that permits a more radical cam timing with better everyday manners BUT the cams you are selecting are too mild to take advantage of that, so then what is the advantage of a roller lifter cam?
Simplify. It is the best course of action.
Incidentally, what does the lifter bore in the block look like? Aren't you risking damaging those in the block with another lifter failure?
I have installed bronze sleeves in the tappet housings and they appear to be in good condition but they are certainly not designed to operate with faulty tappets.
When I say replacing the springs, I mean to put in softer ones to take advantage of the weight reduction of mechanical flat tappets over hydraulic roller tappets
The weight of the higher spring rates will not matter much at all except to give your valve train more rpm potential.
I would guess that it is highly unlikely that you will put 100,000 miles on your car.
It should have no issues with those springs in the normal usage of a very high performance vehicle.
The added load on the lifters and cam lobes with the heavier springs really doesn't matter with correct lubrication.
The concern is that you need to be sure of the capacity of the push rods and if you go to a flat lifter camshaft, that you use a sufficient amount of ZDDP.
IF you are going to look around in considering valve train changes, you might come across the term "shell lifters".
Those were used by Ford in the 427's for higher rpm potential. Essentially what they are, are lightened lifters, i.e., lower mass.
Those typically were used with the sodium filled valve stems.
The combination put the 427 into 8,000 rpm capability EXCEPT for the valve springs which were limited at the time strictly to 7,000 rpm.
There is an entire side discussion about that with the development of the MkII GT40's for Lemans. There Ford did a 24hour crash test and determined that the maximum safe rpm of the engine for that race was 6,200 rpm.
So yes, there is a contradiction there in why would you put in 8,000 rpm components if at most it is safe for 7,000 rpm because of the valve springs, etc.
I can only envision a scenario in which different components were assigned to different engineering teams for development and the spring technology people just could not keep up within the given time frame?
The spring issue has been resolved. It was in the alloy of the spring steel which we now have.
incidentally, when NASCAR outlawed the big block Fords and the racers went to the 351c, there was issue of valve spring failure early on.
The racers solution was to submerge the valve springs in oil within the valve covers. I'm not sure of the exact procedure to accomplish this but it did involve restricting the oil return to the oil pan in a way that the valve covers would fill up with enough oil.
The submerging in oil was "cooling" the springs so they would not loose temper.
I know I can keep my springs since they are designed for a "heavy" valve train, but if I install much lighter lifters, these springs will be oversized and will create an unnecessarily high pressure at the cam/lifter contact.
For now I am waiting for Bullet's second answer
@rene4406 posted:I know I can keep my springs since they are designed for a "heavy" valve train, but if I install much lighter lifters, these springs will be oversized and will create an unnecessarily high pressure at the cam/lifter contact.
For now I am waiting for Bullet's second answer
Best of luck with that. I hope this all ends well for you.
Isky does offer a hydraulic roller lifter with a bushing for a Windsor block. I have been thinking about replacing my hydraulic roller lifters with the ones offered by Isky but haven’t done it yet because my motor doesn’t have too many miles on it. It would be more for piece of mind and prevention.
I sent another message to Bullet:
and here is their response
@jimmym posted:Isky does offer a hydraulic roller lifter with a bushing for a Windsor block. I have been thinking about replacing my hydraulic roller lifters with the ones offered by Isky but haven’t done it yet because my motor doesn’t have too many miles on it. It would be more for piece of mind and prevention.
Jesel too but they are very very expensive:
They are just being cheap. I think that they should send you a complete new set up.
To me this is predictable but their reaction may simply be that they have so many complaints it puts their buisness in jeopardy if they replace all of them for free.
Some companies just have no integrity. Some do.
I have a 2003 Audi Turbo TT. I installed long ago, a Forge intercooler on it. It is specific to the car and not a universal fit.
In addition, I put a "Monster Turbo" on it.
Now at some point, some how I blew up the intercooler. It split at the seams in several places. The specs on the intercooler say it is good for 100psi. I only was at 28psi.
This was just before the Covid thing, so roughly 4 years ago. So I call up Forge and they tell me to send an email to customer relations since Forge USA no longer carries them.
I do it and in less then an hour, I get a message back for a picture of the failure. I oblige and really expect the run around?
Wrong.
I get a phone call from someone "up' in the company. He apologises for the failure. They no longer have these as stock items. What do they do?
THEY BUILD ME ANOTHER IMMEDIATELY from the original blue prints, run it to the airport in LONDON, ENGLAND, ship it out OVERNIGHT! It is here in NEW YORK THE NEXT DAY BY 10AM BY UPS RED LABEL!
What did this cost me? NOTHING! NADA! ZILCH! There is a personal letter in the box signed by the President of the company apologizing and saying that their products ARE GUARANTEED FOREVER!
That is a $1,100, intercooler and the shipping from London overnight was just under $700.
I literally had tears in my eyes, and do as I write this. This is what you call INTEGRITY!
To this day I still find this amazing.
So Bullet won't even offer you a new lifter? Maybe they just can't get hold of the President because he is out playing on his boat with a "do not disturb" order?
FYI: Forge sells the world's best hose clamps!
I didn’t want a new set of Morel lifters from them…
I was happy to get my cam reground.
Rocky
@davidnunn posted:FYI: Forge sells the world's best hose clamps!
I would highly recommend them to anyone regardless of what you are buying from them.
I will FOREVER judge EVERY OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD by the standard that they set.
It really comes down to put up or shut up. Period. End of story.
The big kids on the block are saying you're afraid to come out and play now. What's it gonna' be boy?
I plan to do like Doug and go back to flat and mechanical lifters.
But with which camshaft? I need a minimum 75° ABDC closed intake, a lift of about 0.60'' and a maximum speed of at least 6500 rpm.
Any suggestions?
I would recommend this one.
https://www.compcams.com/magnu...-351c-351m-400m.html
That is just the cam. They offer it with a complete matched kit of cam, lifters and springs also.
Other then it sounds like a marching band at idle, the only negative that I see with it is the 110° centerline. That is basically an issue with the iron heads because of the restriction in the exhaust ports very similar to what the FE series is limited by and struggle with.
It won't cost you any power as a result, it just won't maximize the exhaust gain that you would get with a better exhaust port like on the Motorsport aluminum head series.
I'm using this cam along with the first head in that series, the A3. Those have 60cc chambers and the largest intake ports of the series but have a raised exhaust port. That change is good for around 25-30 hp over the iron heads.
I'm running the combination with 180° 2" primary headers. So there is much less restriction in my set up. A 110° centerline makes sense there.
The most popular head in that series seems to be the C302B head but if you look at a set of those that has been raced prepared, the intake ports have been opened up to the point of closely resembling the stock as cast A3 intake ports.
That series of heads is where all of a sudden you go from a 500hp engine to something like 700-750hp.
What you do to match the induction is significant with that as well. I went to an 8 stack Weber system, then switched over to an 8 stack EFI to clean up the heavy Weber idle.
The combination does change the character of the car from a "gentleman's GT" into something more closely resembling a GT40. It all depends on your "tastes" I suppose? Personally, I don't have issue with it.
Others seem to though. It's just too nasty for them. To each his own?
I do not know where the upper rpm limit is going to be with the springs in that kit but it would tend to answer the criteria that you posted. I would inquire with Compcams about the rpm's with it? You may have better springs then those in the kit already installed in your heads?
I had seen this cam and also this one,
https://www.compcams.com/magnu...-351c-351m-400m.html
but I fear that the second one is a bit too "radical" for road use.
I have these springs:
https://www.manleyperformance....sional/MAN_22441-16/
which gives 146 lbs valves closed and 434 lbs at max lift for the intake and 164/461 for the exhaust.
I have cast iron cylinder heads and have no plans to change them.
Compcams say that you absolutely have to remove the internal spring for the break-in of the camshaft and the lifters, then put it back afterwards. I could make a tool to compress the springs with the cylinder heads in place and the engine in the car, but perhaps there are tools available commercially?
Cams:
I think that the second cam, as you have listed is too much for a street car.
What will tell you the nature of a cam is the "Advertised Duration". 294° is the advertised duration on the cam that I recommend to you. It is about as hot as you want to go in a street car.
What 294° is telling you here is that it is hot but not quite a dedicated racing cam and streetable. That is what Compcams is telling you with that number.
The second one that you list has an advertised duration of 306°. The "rule of thumb" on this is 300° or more is too much for a street driven vehicle.
The Advertised Duration doesn't mean too much other then tell you the nature of the cam. The duration @.050" lift is the significant number.
There is so much duration in the over 300's that you will actually hear the engine spitting through the exhausts. I know street cars that use them but they are more race car then street car and a bear to handle on the street. Basically Drag Race set ups.
294° advertised in this case is going to be 248° @ .050" lift. I can tell you from experience that is a TREMENDOUS open track camshaft. It may seem at times a little much on the street but it loves an open track. It will outrun most of the ORIGINAL 1960's "factory road race cars".
236° @ .050" is what most "street machine owners" are happy with NOW. I have that cam in two of my other cars and it is very driveable on the street but no fun in bumper to bumper traffic.
Springs:
I didn't look for the spring load specifications in the cam kit but as I remember they are at least dual springs. They may be triple. You need to look at that.
The 460 pounds that you have now is not really necessary with solid lifters. About 360 pounds is what you need. There is a factor of valve guide wear with higher rates especially if you are not using a "roller bearing" rocker arm.
Depending on the weight of the valves, your potential rpm normally with the cam kit that Compcams supplies is about 7,200 rpm. Titanium valves will turn a bit more. 7,500rpm given the same other components but the stems are softer and wear faster then chrome molly stems.
I honestly can't tell you the maximum of the cam since I have never looked for it. Generally the car is "tuned" to max out about 6,500 to 6,700 rpm. Certainly that is where the headers were built to max out at and with the Webers that is complimentary to their power range.
I am aware of their recommendations for breaking in the cam.
So far, "knock on wood...knock, knock, knock", I have yet to wipe out a brand new camshaft.
I did not follow their break in procedure but yes you can change the springs while the heads are on the engine. It is not fun to do on any car and worse on a Pantera.
Spring tools:
Yes there are kits for changing the springs on the car. They actually are common since it is not unusual for racers at the track to have to do maintenance on the valve train with minimal amounts of time expended.
The Compcams with .587 lift is one step down and would be 236° @ .050" duration.
It will idle hot at about 850-950rpm. You CAN get it down to 800 ish but that's about it.
Most people would not go hotter then that.
Frankly, in "the old days" it wasn't unusual to try the hottest cam first, then step down one at a time until you find the one that you want.
Compcams timing events on their cams are almost identical from engine series to engine series in many cases.
You need to remember also that the actual valve lift is not the cam lift. You need to deduct the "valve clearance" from that which I think in this case is going to be either .022" or .028" (I forget at this moment and would need to look at the cam card to verify that).
What you need to match though is the valve flow numbers from the heads to the lift of the valves to maximize the potential. But the flow of the intake manifold runners is also involved in that and unless you go to an IR intake manifold with equal runners, that is difficult to get them all completely in balance.
The carbs are involved in that as well and Weber 48ida's with 42mm chokes are maxed out at 2400cfm total divided by 8 = 300cfm intake per cylinder. So anything that is going to give you more flow then that is really wasted effort.
That's why with Webers the engine at 5.7L max's out at about 6500 to 6700 rpm.
So you need to know the flow numbers of your heads from flow bench testing to tell you the maximum flow and at what lift to be completely scientific about the entire thing.
With a single 4v intake, it is very difficult to balance flow that closely because normally you have 4 runners that flow high and 4 runners that flow lower.
You COULD do that on something like a Boss 302 inline carb along with a matching IR manifold but the results may not be worth the additional cost and time involved.
It all depends on how crazy you want to get with this?
Incidentally, you can take some of the effect of long duration cams out with efi.
Those are just my experiences and I have no doubt that others will feel very differently. To say that I am crazy is as the "Brits" would say, "in Doug's case that's a bit redundant". 
With stock Iron Heads and the big Flow Difference between Intake and Exhaust Port a Split pattern Camshaft seems more logical. If you want to go mech flat tappet why not something like this:
https://crower.com/camshafts/f...ppet-camshaft-3.html
It doesn't have .600 lift but seems to be in the range you would liek to have.
There is this one too:
@rene4406 posted:There is this one too:
That cam requires a static compression ratio of 10.25:1. I am running with under 10 with the Compcams 294.
In the US, pump gas of a 93 octane is only good for under 9.9:1 or so.
You will need to run racing gas with it.
I have found here that even SUNOCO unleaded racing gas will not handle that compression ratio. It needs the old purple 106 leaded racing gas.
Something to consider.
With the Cleveland I find that lift is more important then the duration is.
That cam is also a 112° centerline so it is not giving you the opportunity to benefit from exhaust improvements that a 110° can.
Look at the rpm range on it. It is done by 5750.
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
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 rockersThank you for choosing Cam Motion!JacobIt'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?
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:
@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 | Cam Motion | Schneidercam | Howards hyd | ||||||||||||
| HR 285/360 | HR 291/360B | ||||||||||||||
| Int | Exh | Int | Exh | Int | Exh | Int | Exh | ||||||||
| @0,005’’ | 285 | 291 | 289 | 295 | 290 | 296 | 287 | 293 | |||||||
| @0,05’’ | 231 | 236 | 234 | 240 | 235 | 242 | 235 | 241 | |||||||
| LSA | 113 | 114 | 115 | 111 | 115 | 119 | 111 | 115 | 119 | 111 | 115 | 119 | |||
| IVO | 29,5 | EVO | 80,5 | 33,5 | 86,5 | 34,0 | 87,0 | 32,5 | 85,5 | ||||||
| IVC | 75,5 | EVC | 30,5 | 75,5 | 28,5 | 76,0 | 29,0 | 74,5 | 27,5 | ||||||
| Overlap | 60 | 62,0 | 63,0 | 60,0 | |||||||||||
| 0,36 | 0,36 | 0,36 | 0,36 | 0,357 | 0,353 | ||||||||||
| 1,73 | 1,73 | ||||||||||||||
| 0,62 | 0,62 | 0,62 | 0,62 | 0,62 | 0,61 | ||||||||||
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
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:
@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:
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.
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.
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.
