What's currently the best choice for roller retrofit lifters for the SBC? - CamaroZ28.Com Message Board

Go Back   CamaroZ28.Com Message Board > 1967-2002 Powertrain Discussion > Classic Engine Tech

Reply Post New Thread
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-09-2007, 09:56 PM   #1
Registered User
 
ws6transam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Haslett, Michigan
Posts: 2,163
What's currently the best choice for roller retrofit lifters for the SBC?

Solid or hydraulic, what are currently the best choices in terms of performance and mass?

I'd like to lighten my valvetrain a little over the winter. I have a roller retrofit cam but the valvetrain runs out of steam at about 6300 RPM, probably due to mass. I'm using a 687-16 spring (I think) which is already fairly heavy. I might convert to beehive with titanium retainers to help, but I want to consider getting a high-perf. lifter with less mass. I am currently using an Elgin roller retrofit lifter, built circa 1998.
ws6transam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 05:55 PM   #2
Moderator
 
rskrause's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 10,757
Send a message via AIM to rskrause
The lifter mass is basically irrelevant to rpm potential. It's the weight of the stuff on the valve side that seems to count. I doubt changing lifters would be worthwhile for you. I have had good luck with Crowers in a variety of applications. But I never really thought about lifter weight and I have no idea if they are light, heavy, or in between.

Rich
__________________
'95 Z-28 383: Procharger, nitrous, etc. BBC 27T race car. "Every man dies, not every man really lives" William Wallace (Braveheart)
rskrause is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 06:41 PM   #3
Registered User
 
ws6transam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Haslett, Michigan
Posts: 2,163
Rich, If lifter mass were irrelevent, there wouldn't be much difference in terms of hydraulic and solid roller cam profiles. It's still getting tossed off the cam lobe by inertia, and re-engaged by the valvespring. Maybe not as much as, say a valve face, but it certainly plays a part in valvetrain control. I also think that might be some newer designs to hydraulic roller lifters that offer better oil control in order to reduce lifter pump-up.

There's the Crane hydraulic lifter, P/N CRA11532-16, and $479 per set. I haven't finished researching them yet, but I'm looking at trying to control my valvetrain to 6800 RPM. The engine is currently falling off the power curve steeply at 6300, and I think it's valvetrain related.

Last edited by ws6transam; 10-11-2007 at 06:45 PM.
ws6transam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2007, 08:03 PM   #4
Moderator
 
rskrause's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Buffalo, New York
Posts: 10,757
Send a message via AIM to rskrause
I don't agree, at least not much. But that's what keeps life interesting. I am not saying it means nothing, just that if you are having trouble controlling your valvetrain there are other places to go first before looking to lower the lifter weight. The general approach of lightening the valve side and/or more spring is where you should go first. I think you are looking at poor bang for the buck situation in the circumstance you describe. But YMMV.

Rich
__________________
'95 Z-28 383: Procharger, nitrous, etc. BBC 27T race car. "Every man dies, not every man really lives" William Wallace (Braveheart)
rskrause is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply Post New Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM.

 

Copyright © 1996-2013 CamaroZ28.Com. All rights reserved.