Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I'm in the process of putting together a 383 SBC with a Dart SHP block, and I need to purchase the hydraulic roller lifters now. This will be a Street/Strip motor.
I was looking at a couple of sets of Comp Cams roller lifters, the 850-16 and 875-16. Both are the "spider tray" style lifters.
The difference between the two is the 875-16 are "Reduced Travel" lifters.

Does anyone have any experience with the Reduced Travel lifters?
Are there any drawbacks for street use? Apparently it would change the amount of preload when you adjust the valves, just wondering if it would affect anything else...

Any informed opinions would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
is the shp block set up for spidertray lifters?
Street/strip engine might use a high lift/high rpm cam, not sure if shp's allow for higher lift style cams
good Eric questions
hydro roller get expensive when high rpm is mentioned
why an shp block for a 4" build?
 

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
20,462 Posts
The reduced travel lifter is absolutely necessary if you plan to run the rpm up over 6300-6500 or so regularly, to avoid lifter collapse or pump up and loss of valve control.
What is meant by "reduced travel" is the lifters hydraulic plunger has less space below it in the oil chamber of the lifter....if the oil gets aerated it can only collapse a tiny amount, and conversely if it tries to pump up it can only do so a tiny amount...keeps from potentially damaging the valvetrain/engine.

I would also question why just 383 cubes when purchasing an aftermarket block....smart move is to get it in 4.125" bore and use either a 3.75" stroke and build a 400 or use a 3.875" stroke and build a 414.

Unless you waste money boring the new 4.00" bore SHP to 4.030" right off the bat, with a 3.75" stroke crank it will only be a 378, not a 383.

The 4.00" bore aftermarket blocks mainly exist for use in racing classes that limit cubes to 360 or so, or have 4.00" basic bore rules....if you don't have rules holding you to that, smart money does the 4.125" bore. It allows the heads to breathe better due to less valve shrouding by the bore wall while more closely matching most aftermarket head chamber widths, and more cubes is always a proven path to bigger power.

The factory style retention lifters are also limited to just how high of lift can be used with them....in factory blocks this figure is about .530", and IIRC this is about the same with the SHP blocks too. This is due to bigger lift puts the lifter out of contact with the dogbones or plastic guides that the spider tray holds and the lifters can turn sideways to the direction they are supposed to roll....which is near instant catastrophic failure killing both lifter and cam lobe if not more.
It would be smarter to use the more reliable link bar style lifters.

How big is the cam you ae planning to use??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,588 Posts
Reduced travel lifters are intended to better manage the causes of pump-up by reducing the chamber volume under the plunger. The idea is to eliminate some of the causes of pump-up notably the effects of oil aeration allowing loosenes in the system that results in the mechansim taking up what seems to be lash but is really compressibility of the aerated oil. Theoretically and testable reality shows this type tappet compared to standard long travel versions more commonly used is better able to impose the lobe contours into like contours of valve travel as well as resist some of the forces that result in pump-up. If you intend to explore the engine's power peaks, these have merit. Since they don't chase every gap that opens up in the valve train they can tick a bit on the lobe backside of more aggressive cams.

Personally I like 'em including their tick but then I also like listening to Pete Jackson floating gear cam drives and Muncie rock crusher 4 speeds winding through the gears. These are things that are music to my ears.


Bogie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I would also question why just 383 cubes when purchasing an aftermarket block....smart move is to get it in 4.125" bore and use either a 3.75" stroke and build a 400 or use a 3.875" stroke and build a 414.

Unless you waste money boring the new 4.00" bore SHP to 4.030" right off the bat, with a 3.75" stroke crank it will only be a 378, not a 383.

It would be smarter to use the more reliable link bar style lifters.

How big is the cam you are planning to use??
I hear what you're saying... I already had the 383 parts before I decided to go with a Dart block. Not too concerned about the cost of boring... I'd have to do that if I bought a new or used 350 block anyway.
I went with the Dart block when I had a .030-over factory 4-bolt block sonic tested, and they said it was already too thin. So I decided to spend the extra money and get something that I expect to be "the last block I'll ever buy".

I'm not looking for "maximum power" at this point, and my car is much more street than strip. I'm just planning to do some "street legal" bracket racing, so a 425-450HP 383 will work well for my purposes.

If the track stays open long enough, and I decide that I just have to get in the 12-sec. range, then I can go to the 4.125 bore, and a forged crank, at which point I'd most likely go with at least a 3.875 stroke.

OK, all that being said, your numbers on the max lift are probably correct. I see that Skip White uses the regular lifters up to their 510/525 cam, which is what I was planning on getting. But they seem to go with the Tie-Bar lifters beyond that. So it may be "smarter" to just pay extra up front for the tie bars.

I hadn't run across tie-bar lifters that specified "reduced travel", but I'm assuming they would have them as well... the question being "would it hurt?", even if they may not be necessary, as I won't be going over 6000 with that cam. The price on the non-tie-bar ones was about the same, so assuming the same is true for the tie-bar ones, would it be a "may as well" situation?

Thanks for the interrogation... I mean input! :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Personally I like 'em including their tick but then I also like listening to Pete Jackson floating gear cam drives and Muncie rock crusher 4 speeds winding through the gears. These are things that are music to my ears.
Bogie
Yeah, a little good noise never hurt... ;)

At the local street legal drags, there were a couple of Tesla S Coupes running 11-seconds, but it was pretty boring. Like watching a drag race on TV with the sound turned off.

So you don't see any real downside to the reduced travel lifters, even if I'm not going over 6000?

Thanks! :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
I used the short travel Comp Cams rollers in my 383 (600 hp) and had the roller explode in one, destroying my engine. When I talked to Comp Cams about them, they blamed the spring pressure in my heads (AFR competition series 210's). When I rebuilt the engine I used Isky's EZ roller lifters, which have bushings, not needle bearings. I've been really happy with those and I run my engine to 6800-7000 often. The Isky rollers are good for more than twice the spring pressure as the Comp Cams units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I used the short travel Comp Cams rollers in my 383 (600 hp) and had the roller explode in one, destroying my engine. The Isky rollers are good for more than twice the spring pressure as the Comp Cams units.
Were the Comp ones tie-bar, or just the regular type?
What about the Isky ones? Part Number?

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Auto part Gear Drive shaft Automotive engine part Camshaft Here's a shot of the Comp Cams lifter that failed. I have two friends that have had the same problem.

The Isky part number is 2 DEGREE CAM ADV. 1 0 1 2075HYR EZHYDRO HYD EZROLL BRG RLR LFT. They are pricey, but a lot less than a full rebuild.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
So guys, I see link bar lifters that say "Retro-Fit", and the ones that don't say that are the more expensive ones. I'm assuming that the "Retro-Fit" ones work in roller blocks as well... Correct? They're all the +.300 body height that Dart specifies for the SHP...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
If you end up looking at the Isky ones, talk to Ron Iskenderian at Isky and give him your block specs, just to be sure. That's who I dealt with when I ordered mine, mine are in a GM factory stroker block.
 

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
20,462 Posts
I'll agree that I've heard a lot of horror stories concerning Comp Cams quality as of the last few years is not that great, and they wouldn't be my choice.

Johnson(not Johnson HyLift) is probably the best right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,588 Posts
I'll agree that I've heard a lot of horror stories concerning Comp Cams quality as of the last few years is not that great, and they wouldn't be my choice.

Johnson(not Johnson HyLift) is probably the best right now.
X2 on Johnson!

To the OP:

- Retro roller lifters work fine in blocks that accommodate factory dog bone alignment guided rollers, BUT always check your clearances for roller alignment guides to their lifter block once lifts creep over .520 to be sure there is no contact or binding.

- I like a bushed roller wheel over needle bearings, I'm the same way with cam thrust bearings. The slight, possible, increase in friction is worth the peace of mind over what happens if those itty-bitty roller needles get dumped in the pan. Same thoughts go to roller rockers, but here you can use magnets and screens in and by the valley drain back holes to catch the worst of the mess if somebody pukes their bearings.


Bogie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Thanks Bogie... you guys really know how to kill a guy's budget though...
Do you have any suggestions as far as something reliable with bushed rollers that costs in the ~$400 range?
The cheapest things I saw from Johnson were almost twice that!

Also, I had started off asking about "short travel" hydraulic FT lifters, but haven't noticed any hyd rollers mentioning that... is it a moot point with rollers?
 

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
20,462 Posts
Thanks Bogie... you guys really know how to kill a guy's budget though...
Do you have any suggestions as far as something reliable with bushed rollers that costs in the ~$400 range?
The cheapest things I saw from Johnson were almost twice that!

Also, I had started off asking about "short travel" hydraulic FT lifters, but haven't noticed any hyd rollers mentioning that... is it a moot point with rollers?
Your first post started out asking about reduced travel/short travel hydraulic roller lifters for the stock style spidertray and guides, not flat tappets….so I guess I don't understand the part I underlined above??...we've been talking about hydro roller lifters all this time.

From your very first post that started the thread
…. "So I'm in the process of putting together a 383 SBC with a Dart SHP block, and I need to purchase the hydraulic roller lifters now. This will be a Street/Strip motor.
I was looking at a couple of sets of Comp Cams roller lifters, the 850-16 and 875-16. Both are the "spider tray" style lifters."


You won't find low cost bushed solid rollers, as they or the premium, top of the line solution for very radical solid roller cams when roller needle durability becomes suspect or a past proven problem due to real high spring pressures necessary for those really big cams, or a large amount of lower rpm street use.

I know of nobody making a bushed hydraulic roller lifter....spring pressures for hydraulic roller cams aren't high enough to warrant needing the ultimate strength of the bushing type wheel...simply because the hydraulic guts won't survive those pressures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Misinformation Overload

Your first post started out asking about reduced travel/short travel hydraulic roller lifters for the stock style spidertray and guides, not flat tappets….so I guess I don't understand the part I underlined above??...we've been talking about hydro roller lifters all this time.

You won't find low cost bushed solid rollers, as they or the premium, top of the line solution for very radical solid roller cams when roller needle durability becomes suspect or a past proven problem due to real high spring pressures necessary for those really big cams, or a large amount of lower rpm street use.

I know of nobody making a bushed hydraulic roller lifter....spring pressures for hydraulic roller cams aren't high enough to warrant needing the ultimate strength of the bushing type wheel...simply because the hydraulic guts won't survive those pressures.
Yep, I screwed up on that one.
I had just been reading an article that mentioned short travel flat tappet lifters, and I confused myself.

To Bogie: Sorry man, disregard that last transmission!
I actually already had a hyd flat tappet cam that I was planning on using, to see how the duration suits my needs.
However, with the Dart SHP block, they warn you about using "iron solid flat tappet lifters", and that you would need to use tool steel lifters.
So I had been re-visiting that issue, trying to determine if using my FT cam is an option. I think my confusion stemmed from trying to find hyd flat tappet lifters that mention the lifter body material. I've seen roller lifters that mention that they're steel but all of the hyd flat tappet ones don't mention what they're made of.
Not sure how I got the material search mixed up with the short travel thing... I haven't even had a drink or anything for a couple of days... maybe that was the problem! :confused:

Eric: thanks for setting me straight on the "bushed" thing too. I didn't realize that's a "premium" feature. In transmissions, the Torrington bearings are an "upgrade" from bushings, so I was thinking that was the case with the lifters. My trans guy's opinion on using bearings instead of bushings was the same as Bogie's opinion on the lifters.

Speaking of confusion, I had read something on a vendor site, before I bought the flat tappet cam a year or so ago, that said "you can use roller lifters with a flat tappet cam... in fact, we recommend it". I thought it was whiteperformance.com (not Skip White), but now I can't find whatever it was that I had read...
So I recently searched on that subject again (just before I started this thread), and found an explanation of why that's apparently a really bad idea. The explanation seems to make sense...

Anyway sorry, my bad...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
So are there any hydraulic roller lifters that you like, that are in the ~$400 range?
That's why I was revisiting whether I could use flat tappet lifters and cam, since at least you can get decent ones for a much lower price, and you don't have to worry about the roller falling apart.
Keep in mind that I'd be going with 510/525 lift in a roller cam, so base your suggestions on that please.
I'm not doing .600+ lift, so I'm not spending $1200+ on Isky rollers, and I'd rather not spend $750+ on Johnsons... any suggestions?
One more thought... whereas you have to get new flat tappet lifters when you switch cams, can I assume that you can use the same roller lifters when you switch cams? At least that would help ease the pain of spending more to get decent roller lifters.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top