Vinny P

I am in the process of researching the parts necessary to build a 540 motor. I have most of the parts picked out. I am presently working on the valve train. I know about the failures associated with standard needle bearing roller lifters. Since I am not creating a killer motor, I can get away with running a relatively mild cam profile.

Intake Exhaust
.566 lift .566 lift
242 duration @ .050 248 duration @ .050
112 lobe seperation

I am planning on 5500 r.p.m. @ w.o.t.


I have been looking at and also talked to Joe Schubeck about his lifters and rockers. I did a forum search here on O.S.O. and came up with mixed opinions. Most of the threads were old. I know Joe has redesigned his parts with his new Roller "X" design.

What do you guys know abnout this??

cstraub69@comcast

What is your HP/Torque goal? What heads?

Chris

jdnca1

Don't know about his "roller X" lifters, but I have a set of his "radius lifters" in my 632. They have worked great to date, but not a lot of time on them. They made great power on the dyno and my builder was impressed with the technology....not much impresses him either.

Vinny P

According to my Dyno 2000 program, this motor will produce 645 h.p. @ 5500 r.p.m. and 687 ft.lbs. torque @ 4500

Mr Gadgets

I am presently running Joe's flat tappet lifters with the ceramic discs. My cam has problems and I just replaced it. I believe the lifters let it live as long as it did without damage to the engine. My impression is it was a bad cam. see my post "pot holes in cam"

I am considering using Joe's Roller X's. People say the killer with roller lifters is idling. And with no axles.. well it seems to be a good plan. I am looking at it. for this winters rebuild.

paradigm shift

I am running same lifters as Mr Gadgets and same problem with wear on one cam lobe only. I to like the ideas behind how Roler X is designed. I would really like to try the new Roller X design lifters so I hoping someone here will and post results. Not enough coins to try this winter for me.

I have 160 plus hours on this set of solids and the lifters look brand new. Sorry I can not say the same for the cam. The ceramic on the bottom of lifters don't have a mark or any wear I can see or measure. Nothing, no wear trully amazing I think.

Vinny P

Dick,
I read your post regarding your cam problems. Glad you caught it before you had a catastrophic failure.
I agree with you about the roller lifters taking a beating while idling around. The way I see it, the lower roller is not well oiled unless you have some r.p.m. It seems to me that it gets most of its' oiling by oil that is splashed off the cam. I would think that the oil that goes through the main oil galleys that feed the lifters, gets mostly pumped up the push rods to the rockers.
I talked to a reputable local engine builder about Joes' Roller "X" lifters. He likes the idea but is a little unsure of the endurance, solely because of the lack of real world testing results. He said they look great for the drag racers but wasn't sure for us boaters.
While I am not an engineer, I must admit that I am a little skeptical about those little ball bearing looking things that holds the lifter straight in its' bore. I was hoping to see something a little stronger looking.

MAG502NUM

Check- I think you should find very good reliability with the std GM roller lifters. Remember, your whole valvetrain gets a break as spring pressure requirements diminish. Your cam choice, which I think is excellent, will have a lower #/inch rating spring than is what is required for the HR1 series lobes and up due to the .566 lift. High spring pressures on a small journal is a punishing ride for a hydraulic roller lifter. Good Luck.

Vinny P

Magnum502num,

I agree about the spring pressures. I just like to build overkill. I have decided to go with a roller hydraulic cam from Isky. Below are the specs,

Intake Exhaust
.578 lift .608 lift
238* @.050 248*@.050
114* Lobe seperation

This gives me only 15* overlap, where the above mentioned Comp Cam gives me 21* overlap.

While I will loose some of the rump to the idle that we all love, this grind will be more forgiving as far as reversion. Plus the fact that Isky Hydraulic Roller Cams are ground from a billet core. They then press and pin on a cast distributor gear so you don't have the problem of wearing out a bronze gear every couple of hours. Comp Cams hydraulic roller core is cast not billet.

Mr Gadgets

Check,
I am glad I caught it also. I intend to pull the motor down this winter for a rebuild and will look at the new cam at that time. I am hoping the Lunati cam doesnt mimic the Ultradyne.
I have heard that different manufactures are working at getting the oil to the axles on the rollers with different techniques. I like the idea of the Roller X's because the wheel rides on a cushion of oil. Not sure how long it will last if the oil film goes away. Maybe about the same amount of time as a main or rod bearing. I have seen Jessel roller lifters with the pins on the side and a grove in the lifter bore to locate. Doesnt look that bullet proof, but they seem to work. Seeing that I have the .904" lifter bore now, I only have two choices. The Schubeck's or Isky's new ones. OR goe back to a chevy lifter bore size. I am hoping some real world time will prove the Schubecks and I can rely on them. But time will tell.
I ran the boat yesterday and it seems to run pretty good. I only made one wot pass on the river to look at top end and it still seems soft up there. Have to over trim to get the speed. I can feel the need for about one or two hundred more hp, so the roller cam may have to be the answer. Not that I will make up all that much power with rollers, but I know when I first ran it, it pulled much harder than this flat tappet.