Solid Roller lifter life? and valve lash

[JMC]

I have 50 hours on my Crane Rollers. How many hours do you guys run yours before checking them? I have read some guys swap them every season. I would really like to get more than 50 hours out of them but
Also, I have had a couple of engine builders tell me to run the valves at .026 for intake and exhaust but the actual builder for this engine says to set them at .018 to .020 . Can someone tell me how this difference will affect the longevity and performance?
I feel very fortunate to have this Blower Engine thread here. Lots of knowledge and wisdom from you guys! Thank you and Kudo's to ***boat

[Badburn]

I think roller lifters are the major weak link in the system. I have used mostly comp lifters, and mostly cams in the .750-.850 lift range with springs that are around 275 lbs on the seat new and about 200-225 after used. I have always had lifter problems after about 10-20 passes (1/4 mile). I will check the lash after about every 3 rd time to the track. If you find a rocker out of adjustment by more than a few hundredths- there is a problem, and you must find it. usually the rollers going bad. If you dont catch it in time, you will be rebuilding.
When the roller bearings in the lifter start to go bad the valve will go out of adjustment.
I also think if you keep the lift under .700 or so, it will greatly extend the lifter life. I am currently running the Isky red zone lifters, with a .680 or so cam. seems to be working well.
I would contact your cams manufacturer for lash specs, I think each grind is different.
Hope this helps, my experience in a nutshell. :rollside:

[Infomaniac]

Throw them away every season was the norm for quite some time. If you buy the latest greatest solid roller lifters that have pressure fed roller pins. Go ahead and run them several seasons. They are not real cheap.
And naturally I can fix you up with a set if interested.

[Hallett]

Throw them away every season was the norm for quite some time. If you buy the latest greatest solid roller lifters that have pressure fed roller pins. Go ahead and run them several seasons. They are not real cheap.
And naturally I can fix you up with a set if interested.
Hello info what lifter would you recommend that would be less
maintenance and whats the best.

[lucky]

Hello info what lifter would you recommend that would be less
maintenance and whats the best.
Since I Decided To MAKE mine a Pleasure /lake boat - and i never plan on running it over 6500- ( short burst ) I switched to a hyd- flat tappet cam with 600 " lift and ya know the sob ran all year ??
I had 715 roller with 300 lbs of seat pressure and Old style rollers -- due to the idle zone i had and the fact the dam motor had restictors I bought the motor fresh out of a nosltogic rail - and paid the price as idle and roller isn't the best combo :(
I believe a "driven " boat With less maintence , would require hyd rollers .. They just don't offer huge lift !

[TIMINATOR]

A jet LAKE BOAT that turns 5800 rpm or less will work quite well with 175 lbs on the seat and 450 or so over the nose. There is no need to spring a roller (or flat tappet) cam with pressure to run 7000 rpm if it will never see it. I have run numerous street/strip cars and at least 3 dozen drag only motors with this poundage, I build torque motors mostly, but the rpms are as high as 6500 and they work fine. I used to believe the cam companys recomendations, but have come to realize that all of that is "cover my butt" thinking. Thats on valve/piston clearances too. P.S. You will make more HP with less spring pressure too, and the whole valvetrain will last much longer. I have done MUCH back to back testing on pressures and with QUALITY cams from large manufacturer, (Comp), they will run with less pressure than cams from lesser companys. This is due to a higher quality ramp transistion and better quality finishing. P.S. my 7.72@174.6 mph dragster(super E) ran 170 lbs on the seat too! I ran it for 2 1/2 YEARS and only ran the valves 3 times. The 21 Daytona (113mph) ran the same springs and valvetrain stuff for three + seasons. I ran the valves once a season.The dragster and Daytona run complete Comp Cams valvegear. I was given a set of Isky springs to try from their rep at the PRI show, they lasted for 4 months on the Daytona. Your results may vary. P.P.S. Crane did NOT warrenty the hydraulic roller in the 25 Daytona that the distributor gear end broke off of the cam. I can post the spring and Cam pics if anyone wants to see them. I run Comp exclusively, you should run what you have had the best results with. TIMINATOR

[Infomaniac]

Hello info what lifter would you recommend that would be less
maintenance and whats the best.
The Morel lifter is the best one. They make them for a number of big name companies. Not sure if the Isky is theirs or not. But a few offer pressure fed pin solid roller lifters. That is the cure for idle oil starving.

[TIMINATOR]

Shubeck makes the ultimate roller lifter, it is PRICEY!!!!!!! TIMINATOR

[cstraub]

The Morel lifter is the best one. They make them for a number of big name companies. Not sure if the Isky is theirs or not. But a few offer pressure fed pin solid roller lifters. That is the cure for idle oil starving.
I'll second Info on this. The new ultra pro from Morel is top notch. The pressure fed oiling to the needle bearings will keep you from hammering out the bearings during low rpm wake speed cruising.

[paradigm shift]

Hey guys since we seem to have some good information going here I have a question. I have heard that you can run a solid roller lifter on a hydraulic grind and it will perform better than if you ran hydraulic roller lifter and be easier on parts. Rumor and myth or is there any truth?
Thanks. :skull:

[Infomaniac]

Hey guys since we seem to have some good information going here I have a question. I have heard that you can run a solid roller lifter on a hydraulic grind and it will perform better than if you ran hydraulic roller lifter and be easier on parts. Rumor and myth or is there any truth?
Thanks. :skull:
I do that all the time. Just run .005 valve lash. You get the performance of the solid lifter and not have to run the solid lifter spring tensions.

[Squirtin Thunder]

I do that all the time. Just run .005 valve lash. You get the performance of the solid lifter and not have to run the solid lifter spring tensions.
No adverse efects on the cam or lifter ???

[Infomaniac]

No adverse efects on the cam or lifter ???
none at all.

[Squirtin Thunder]

Hey guys since we seem to have some good information going here I have a question. I have heard that you can run a solid roller lifter on a hydraulic grind and it will perform better than if you ran hydraulic roller lifter and be easier on parts. Rumor and myth or is there any truth?
Thanks. :skull:
I do that all the time. Just run .005 valve lash. You get the performance of the solid lifter and not have to run the solid lifter spring tensions.
No adverse efects on the cam or lifter ???
none at all.
I am not arguing with you just trying to understad correctly. Why are roller cams billit not cast if this is the case ??? Also would you put a solid roller on a good used hydrolic flat tappet cam ??? Or would this be done only on a new cam ???
Thank you for the info.
Jim

[Infomaniac]

Well Jim not all roller cams are billet. And no you cannot run a roller lifter of any kind on a flat tapped cam. The geometry is not the same. No arguements. Just interesting discussion.

[Blown 472]

Well Jim not all roller cams are billet. And no you cannot run a roller lifter of any kind on a flat tapped cam. The geometry is not the same. No arguements. Just interesting discussion.
Do you have to run a bronze gear on a hydraulic roller cam?

[Squirtin Thunder]

Well Jim not all roller cams are billet. And no you cannot run a roller lifter of any kind on a flat tapped cam. The geometry is not the same. No arguements. Just interesting discussion.
I think I misinteruted the question. So you run a Solid Roller lifter on a hydrolic roller cam at .005 lash right ???

[Infomaniac]

Yes sir hyd roller cam and solid roller lifters.
And You only have to run a bronze gear when the roller cam has a billet cam gear. You can get an iron gear on the cam to avoid the bronze distributor gear.

[Squirtin Thunder]

Yes sir hyd roller cam and solid roller lifters.
And You only have to run a bronze gear when the roller cam has a billet cam gear. You can get an iron gear on the cam to avoid the bronze distributor gear.
Comp also has a space age composite material that they make a dist gear out of they are suposed to hold up better than the bronze gear in some applications.

[Squirtin Thunder]

The Morel lifter is the best one. They make them for a number of big name companies. Not sure if the Isky is theirs or not. But a few offer pressure fed pin solid roller lifters. That is the cure for idle oil starving.
For durability life, what would you recomend, Solid or Hyd, in an engine that is turning a max RPM of 6K ???
How much power is lost with the Hyd roller cam ???
Is there a RPM loss as well ???

[steelcomp]

Jim, take a look at the difference between a roller and a flat tappet. A roller is a roller, weather hydraulic or solid. BUT...a hydraulic roller lifter is HEAVY!! It's heavier than a regular hydraulic lifter. This means you have more mass to try and control with the valve spring. Heavy lifter= stiff springs. It also means low rpm limitations. That's the downside of the hydraulic roller. The upside is that most hydraulic rollers have a relatively mild grind to them, since they weren't designed for all-out racing. To take advantage of a nice, mild hydraulic roller profile, and not have the limitations of the hyd. roller lifter, some guys just use a solid roller lifter insread. Better throttle response, right off the bat because of lighter lifter and spring, and now days, with a good valve train, you can set the lash and forget it. No more trouble than hydraulics. You alaso have the option of playing with your lash, if you want.
A flat tappet lobe is shaped completely different than a roller lobe, plus, the roller cam is made out of steel, and the flat tappet made out of cast iron. The bottom of a flat tappet lifter is shaped, along with the lobe of the cam, to promote rotation of the lifter. As the lifter rotates, it "wipes" against the cam lobe. The lifter and cam lobe are different materials. If they were the same, they'd try and become one, and metal transfer would occur, or what we call "galling". Since they are different materials, each has it's properties, and they mind their own beeswax. The two surfaces are agreeable and "mate", and this is called "cam break in". Once these two surfaces mate, they have a micro-relationship that can't be changed. This is why flat tappet lifters must go back in the order they came out. They need to be returned to their proper lobe. The properties of cast iron allow this mating process to occur. This isn't necessary for a roller cam, since there's no "wiping" of the lifter, and no "mating". Simply a steel wheel rolling on a steel lobe. I know there are different materials thay've used for hyd. rollers, but I'm not completely familiar with them. Lunati makes a core that you don't need a bronze gear with. It's called endura-something.
The power loss between a hyd. roller and solid with the same profile is something that someone who's done the comparison can answer, but i'm willing to think it's probably noticable in a heavier boat.

[steelcomp]

I have 50 hours on my Crane Rollers. How many hours do you guys run yours before checking them? I have read some guys swap them every season. I would really like to get more than 50 hours out of them but
Also, I have had a couple of engine builders tell me to run the valves at .026 for intake and exhaust but the actual builder for this engine says to set them at .018 to .020 . Can someone tell me how this difference will affect the longevity and performance?
I feel very fortunate to have this Blower Engine thread here. Lots of knowledge and wisdom from you guys! Thank you and Kudo's to ***boat
JMC...the lash arguement has been around for as long as there's been valves and cams. The only reason for lash in the first place is to ensure that the valve sits on the seat completely, and for a certain amount of time, to provide the needed heat transfer from the valve to the seat. I've had lengthy discussions about this with a number of guys, and I'll post one of their responses.
Quote: Jim Miller, Miller Rockers.VALVE LASH
is only needed to do one main thing, provide CLEARANCE for HEAT EXPANSION, and nothing more. I have never bought the argument that a "transition ramp" is needed. History on cam development has proven me right. There are other factors that influence the "safety margin" of clearance, beyond HEAT; such as FLEX, REBOUND harmonics, etc., but all these are well within a "few thousandths" of an inch, not TWENTY-thousandths or more.
My first introduction to this was with the BOSS 429, which from the
factory had .013" for the intake and .015 for the exhaust, and this was after two years of racing the 427 FE engine in my 67 Mustang GT. It had .020". I was totally opened up to asking questions from that point on, as to the logic of valve lash designs, and when my questions received NO GOOD RESPONSE, I never looked back. This even preceded my rocker arm design theories, by two years (1970), when I was 17. A few years later, my love for motorcycles and working on them
as a "hobby" taught me that many engines, of air cooled (more heat problems)
were running valve lash that was adjusted by "rotating the pushrod for drag!"
In other words, .002" or .003".
So my logic and policy and advice on valve lash is this: DESIGN for and
SET your VALVE LASH - NOT for the least amount you can get away with, but the most amount that you have to have. It's not the answer that is important, as much as it is the "perspective." Since 1973, this figure, regardless of the engine I was building (Chevy, Ford, Hemi, etc.), except for aircraft or motorcycles (which are tighter), has always been .012" to .016" (intake and exhaust). Using the lash as a tuning reference can be very valuable to confirming you have the right cam or not. But just like rocker arm geometry, anything downstream of the cam lobe is a "tuning factor." It's always a good idea to play with these things that tune, when DEVELOPING, but not for the final design. If you need to do this, then you didn't match the optimum combination of parts
for the heads, cubic inches and RPM range in the first place.
I don't often elaborate on tech this much, but you've asked good questions
I've answered on the phone before, and maybe I'll use your letters for
reference if you don't mind.
Good luck. JM NASCAR engine builders have also seen that closing up your valve lash can also smooth out valve train harmonics, and reduce valve bounce. Valve bounce can occur at any rpm, and isn't limited to being a high rpm racing problem only. It can rob you of significant hp and if severe enough, can be destructive. If you tighten up your valve lash, and your engine runs better, it sometimes can mean you need a cam change, or it can just mean you made your valve train a lot happier.

[Squirtin Thunder]

Jim, take a look at the difference between a roller and a flat tappet. A roller is a roller, weather hydraulic or solid. BUT...a hydraulic roller lifter is HEAVY!! It's heavier than a regular hydraulic lifter. This means you have more mass to try and control with the valve spring. Heavy lifter= stiff springs. It also means low rpm limitations. That's the downside of the hydraulic roller. The upside is that most hydraulic rollers have a relatively mild grind to them, since they weren't designed for all-out racing. To take advantage of a nice, mild hydraulic roller profile, and not have the limitations of the hyd. roller lifter, some guys just use a solid roller lifter insread. Better throttle response, right off the bat because of lighter lifter and spring, and now days, with a good valve train, you can set the lash and forget it. No more trouble than hydraulics. You alaso have the option of playing with your lash, if you want.
A flat tappet lobe is shaped completely different than a roller lobe, plus, the roller cam is made out of steel, and the flat tappet made out of cast iron. The bottom of a flat tappet lifter is shaped, along with the lobe of the cam, to promote rotation of the lifter. As the lifter rotates, it "wipes" against the cam lobe. The lifter and cam lobe are different materials. If they were the same, they'd try and become one, and metal transfer would occur, or what we call "galling". Since they are different materials, each has it's properties, and they mind their own beeswax. The two surfaces are agreeable and "mate", and this is called "cam break in". Once these two surfaces mate, they have a micro-relationship that can't be changed. This is why flat tappet lifters must go back in the order they came out. They need to be returned to their proper lobe. The properties of cast iron allow this mating process to occur. This isn't necessary for a roller cam, since there's no "wiping" of the lifter, and no "mating". Simply a steel wheel rolling on a steel lobe. I know there are different materials thay've used for hyd. rollers, but I'm not completely familiar with them. Lunati makes a core that you don't need a bronze gear with. It's called endura-something.
The power loss between a hyd. roller and solid with the same profile is something that someone who's done the comparison can answer, but i'm willing to think it's probably noticable in a heavier boat.
The thing is Scott I knew this, but like I said before I misinterputed what was said. That is also why I was asking so many questions. I was confused and worried about the Kodiak Bears tearing Kimmies head off.
As far as Lunati, do they actually engineer anything ???
I keep seeing other manufacturers pruducts listed with new names, but same product profiles a year or two after the original manufacturer bring them to market ??? I could be wrong.
So basically you are saying it should RPM faster with the solid roller, right ???

[Floored]

We have run ours for 24 years in a good 8000rpm street car and never worry. Not just a sunday only car but was driven to and from work for years with 5.38 gears.

[JMC]

Thanks for taking the time to help me out Steelcomp. Great info!

[cstraub]

No problem running solid rollers on hyd roller profiles. It started in the late 80's with stocker cheating. I recommend lash of .008" on the intake and .012" on the exhaust.

[GofastRacer]

No problem running solid rollers on hyd roller profiles. It started in the late 80's with stocker cheating. I recommend lash of .008" on the intake and .012" on the exhaust.
Do you recommend the same lash regardless of lobe lift???..

[steelcomp]

Do you recommend the same lash regardless of lobe lift???..Lobe lift shouldn't have anything to do with lash.

[steelcomp]

Lobe lift shouldn't have anything to do with lash.
One thing I can see about cams designed with a lot of lash is that in order to get into the higher numbers AFA lift and duration, the more lash there is, the faster you have to open the valve. The faster you have to open the valve, as in IR cam lobes, the slower you have to set it down, in order to keep the valve from smacking the seat and bouncing. This is going to require a stiff spring, and more wear and less reliability. The other thing I can see is that the valve has to sit on the seat for a given amount of time (seat duration) in order for the right amount of heat transfer to take place. (The heated valve sits on the seat for a given amount of time, the heat is transfered to the seat, then from the seat through the head casting, and into the water jacket.) This amount of seat duration is (hopefully) designed into the lobe. By reducing the lash, you reduce the amount of seat duration, thereby reducing the amount of time of heat transfer to the seat. I don't have any idea what kind of duration of time we're talking about here, and by how much you change it when changing lash, I just know it's a consideration. Changing lash by .008"-.010" may not be enough to cause any harmful effects. By reducing the seat duration, you're obviously increasing the open duration, which some say is part of the performance benefit you might see with tighter lash. I disagree, as the amount of airflow at that point of opening and closing is nil. The piston speed is so low that it's barely moving any air at all, and I don't think that a few more degrees of duration at .005-.010 lift is going to make any difference. The other side of that coin is how critical opening and closing evnets are, especially with an asymetric lobe. By changing lash as much as .008"-.010". you can vary those numbers by quite a few degrees. I'd definately like to hear what Chris Straub has to say on this.

[GofastRacer]

One thing I can see about cams designed with a lot of lash is that in order to get into the higher numbers AFA lift and duration, the more lash there is, the faster you have to open the valve. The faster you have to open the valve, as in IR cam lobes, the slower you have to set it down, in order to keep the valve from smacking the seat and bouncing. This is going to require a stiff spring, and more wear and less reliability. The other thing I can see is that the valve has to sit on the seat for a given amount of time (seat duration) in order for the right amount of heat transfer to take place. (The heated valve sits on the seat for a given amount of time, the heat is transfered to the seat, then from the seat through the head casting, and into the water jacket.) This amount of seat duration is (hopefully) designed into the lobe. By reducing the lash, you reduce the amount of seat duration, thereby reducing the amount of time of heat transfer to the seat. I don't have any idea what kind of duration of time we're talking about here, and by how much you change it when changing lash, I just know it's a consideration. Changing lash by .008"-.010" may not be enough to cause any harmful effects. By reducing the seat duration, you're obviously increasing the open duration, which some say is part of the performance benefit you might see with tighter lash. I disagree, as the amount of airflow at that point of opening and closing is nil. The piston speed is so low that it's barely moving any air at all, and I don't think that a few more degrees of duration at .005-.010 lift is going to make any difference. The other side of that coin is how critical opening and closing evnets are, especially with an asymetric lobe. By changing lash as much as .008"-.010". you can vary those numbers by quite a few degrees. I'd definately like to hear what Chris Straub has to say on this.
This was the reason behind my question, would like to hear Chris's views on it!.. ;)

[Cs19]

I got roughly 2 seasons out of my lifters,we just pulled them out for inspection and decided to drop new ones in just to be safe,only one lifter had a gritty feel to it, the rest were okay.
Im no engine builder, but I agree with that comment about "lifters being the weak link"
I think the fat .904 lifters is the hot set up.

[cstraub]

8 and 12 are a good starting point but not set in stone. Lash to me is one of your most important tuning adjustments. Hyd roller lifters ramp rates are very easy compared to solid rollers do to the limitations of the hyd. guts. I factor about .006" for hyd cams when using hyd lifters. So on the intake at .008" you are not that far off from hyd. and the exhaust is double which will change the duration by reducing it about 1 degree for every 2 thousands. But note this is not exact every lobe is different. Again just a base line.
I factor the lash whe doing a cam. I have had engine builders comment they have played with lash but go back to the initial setting because they loose power when most of the time they gain. Reason for loss is the cam has the proper lash factored when you get it.
Also since the ramps are milder you can run reduced spring pressure. Something in the 170# range usually works good. Also the lite lash setting does not beat the valvetrain up as much therefore it has more longevity. Lastly it is not as noisy as a real solid roller setup. For some the latter is important.
Hope that helps.

[GofastRacer]

Thanks Chris!.. :cool:

[TIMINATOR]

Beg,steal,or borrow a Comp Cams catalogue,read it, especially in the back where it lists the cam lobes. It gives the advertised,at .050, and .200 durations. Compare the hydraulic rollers to the solid rollers and you will see that some hyd rlrs have a FASTER ramp rate than some solid rollers. If you can graph the profile you can see that the newer solid rollers have less lash and "takeup ramp" than the older designs. We have been running solid rollers on hyd rlr cams since the summer of 1986, I remember it well.... Crane came out with hydraulic roller profiles for the SBChevy and advertised that the power gains were phenominal. They said 35-40 HP was easily obtained, and it would pass smog tests. I ordered one right away for my 1984 Vette,I knew exactly what I had performance wise because I had a Vericom performance computer in the car too. Changing to the recomended Crane hyd rlr slowed the car from 13.90 to 14.60 with a commensurate loss in MPH. After much finger pionting, I added headers, ported the heads, used 50 wt oil, and bored the throttle-bodies. That got it back to 14.20s. I noticed that the first pass was allways the fastest, so I added STP to the oil. It picked up .2 and some mph. This told me that lifter bleed-down was causing the losses. I bought some used solid roller lifters at a swap meet and installed them that afternoon. Just guessing, I lashed them both at .005. It sounded like a totally different car! Testing showed 13.25 at a major mph gain! I ran it like that for 5 more years till I sold the car. The new owner totalled it 2 yrs. later.I never again tried a hyd rlr cam until the 572 in the 21 Daytona 4 yrs ago. Using a complete Comp kit as recomended by Comp, it ran well until the oil reached 180 deg+, then the boat lost 6 mph. I put in a solid rlr and gained 2 more mph! I again swore off of hyd rlrs. The new 25 Daytona came with a 565 blower motor and a hyd rlr by Crane, even with a large Dan Olson oil cooler the speed would drop 5-6 mph with the oil warm. Then the Crane Hyd rlr broke off the distributor gear end of the cam where the iron gear was pressed on. That occured at 97 mph and accelerating. Crane WILL NOT WARRENTY THE CAM!!!!!!!!! After trying a Comp hyd rlr with the Crane Super Lifter(I think thats what they call them) the Comp lost several mph when the oil warmed up too. Then 2 lifters "went solid" (Cranes term) in the fully extended position. Loss of power, bad idle and two burnt valves before I got back to the dock. Crane wouldn't warrenty the lifters either, even tho they acknowleged that "it sometimes happens". NO MORE HYDRAULIC ROLLER STUFF FOR ME!!! EVER!!! I have the Comp rlr for sale and several sets of hyd rlr lifters for sale. There are enough lifters to make a good set with some spares. Make a reasonable offer, or I'll make a CRANE QUALITY SHRINE in the engine building room, and they can live there. I think I really need to post some pics when I get around to it. Oh yeah, the Comp hyd rlr that they recomended, that I wasn't happy with, was replaced with a solid rlr of my choice, along with the springs, retainers,lifters and pushrods. They also paid the shipping. This is in short why I don't use hyd rlrs or Crane products, your results may vary. P.S. until you have run back to back tests, replacing hyd rlr lifters with solid rlr lifters you don't know how much hp you are losing. I have done it numerous times on customers vehicles and never ran slower. I keep reading how wonderful the hyd rlr stuff is, but in person I just haven't seen it. The dyno shows different, but then again I have never been beaten by someone with a dyno-powered boat. But then again the dyno sits still, and the boat or car is accelerating and bouncing on the waves, this aerates the oil by throwing it against the crank, even with a tray, the air in the aerated oil can be compressed and that allows the lifters to bleed off.These are only my experiences, I will not argue somthing that I have seen many times. Racing oils have a lot of anti foamants, that helps, but solids don't need it. TIMINATOR

[cstraub]

Gofast,
Your welcome.
Timinator,
The Morel hyd in testing by 3 different shops all made more power then Brands X, Y, Z. Tolerance, design, and valving on these are superior to others. In 2 marine applications that were tried and true combinations engine builders saw more rpm without valvetrain stability issues that had happened in the past. In one case the Morels were worth an average of 21HP in a 10 to 1 509 NA BBC. So there is hope out there.
PS, did you get my mail?

[TIMINATOR]

Yup, I recieved the mail, thanks. But I have a question, how can any hyd lifter make more power than a solid? A solid transmits all the lift what more can a hyd rlr do than that? TIMINATOR

[PC Rat]

I thought Chris was comparing the Morels to other brands of hydraulic lifters. I made this assumption based on his statement "valving on these are superior to others".
Brian

[cstraub]

Morel vs. other hyd rollers, sorry for the confusion. Now they do have a HLT series, hyd but you adjust it like a soild to "0" lash. This is for the guy that want hyd ease of maintenance and solid roller sound and rpm capability.

[Squirtin Thunder]

Morel vs. other hyd rollers, sorry for the confusion. Now they do have a HLT series, hyd but you adjust it like a soild to "0" lash. This is for the guy that want hyd ease of maintenance and solid roller sound and rpm capability.
Chris, when are you going to be back from PRI ???

[cstraub]

The 5th, then I will be buried for a week, then maybe can breathe after the 12th.

[Squirtin Thunder]

The 5th, then I will be buried for a week, then maybe can breathe after the 12th.
That will work for me I should have the heads flowed and we can talk cams and lifter design.
Thanks for all your help
Jim