solid roller?

[simple]

whats the deal with them in these motors?
i'm debating using one for my build over an HR cam.
i'm not looking too spin more then ~6500rpm but am looking for the ease of setting the valve lash over HR lifters (they were a pain in my LT1 @.002-.004" lash)
whos "the person" too talk too about them?

 

[gnxtc2]

I'm assuming it's on a 109 block. Got $,$$$ to spend.

Need to bush the lifter bores. Once the lifter bores are bushed, the bushing then block the oil passages. Now you have to drill new oil passages. That's if you want to run big lift cam.

or

Get a small base circle cam and use a specific brand lifters (forgot which brand) so they don't uncover the oil passages. Going this route, your limited on the lift.

Even with solid rollers, you still have to check lash

Do a search, its been discussed before. Also call DLS, Bamford uses solid roller.

To me, the gain is not worth the $$$ unless money is no concern. Spend your money elsewhere.

Billy T.
gnxtc2@aol.com

 

[disco stu]

I use a small base circle cam with Crower 66286H-12 hi po oiling lifters. You are limited to .350 lobe lift.

 

[V6RACER]

I use a small base circle cam with Crower 66286H-12 hi po oiling lifters. You are limited to .350 lobe lift.

That is still .5775 valve lift with a 1.65 rocker

 

[disco stu]

Yep. Also keep in mind that you will have to run larger diameter, higher pressure springs. Which means cutting the spring pockets, and milling larger reliefs in the rockers if using stock style rockers, stock diameter rocker shafts.

 

[simple]

i know valve lash still has to be checked and usually more frequently then an HR. but you dont get the bleed down with a SR like the HR which makes it more difficult too nail down the valve lash. atleast i found that to be true with the old car, especially at the tighter requirements of the lifters i was using (CC-875's)
i believe i'm doing a production 4.1. i would imagine all the same issues would arise with that block as well?

thanks for the input fellas, seems like there is alot of work too be done.
the head work required, i dont like too hear.
guess i'll just stick with an HR valvetrain

thanks again for killing my dreams :tongue:

Steve

 

[norbs]

Hold on here..........I've been running a hyd roller cam with solid lifters for 3 years adjusted the lash twice...007 lash. Stock Dia springs too. Just don't go too big on the cam not over 540 lift. There is no real advantage except you wont pump up a lifter!

 

[Turbo1dr]

Hold on here..........I've been running a hyd roller cam with solid lifters for 3 years adjusted the lash twice...007 lash. Stock Dia springs too. Just don't go too big on the cam not over 540 lift. There is no real advantage except you wont pump up a lifter!

Thank you very much for saying that.

 

[simple]

Thank you very much for saying that.

wow, thats an interesting idea! that i like.

was there anything special that needed to be done to do it that way?

what lifters are you using?
springs?
lift on the cam?

 

[Blazer406]

Hold on here..........I've been running a hyd roller cam with solid lifters for 3 years adjusted the lash twice...007 lash. Stock Dia springs too. Just don't go too big on the cam not over 540 lift. There is no real advantage except you wont pump up a lifter!

The reason norbs is saying that about 540 lift.... is that HR cams have a real agressive ramp at the beginning right off the base circle.... right where the valve begins to open..... cause they (the cam grinders) know that there is a built in "shock" in the HR as opposed to the SR lifters. While I am sure it is possible on mild relatively low RPM engines (the buick falls in the low RPM category IMHO)..... larger HR cams probably would have some issues by running solid roller lifters on them.....

Just food for thought.....

I guess I should add that the SR cams are more agressive on overall lift and duration than HR cams (as the should be to give a 7000+ peak RPM) .... just not the lobe ramp right off the seat....

 

[norbs]

OVer 540 lift the lifters will uncover the oil gallery hole resulting in 0 oil pressure, unless the cam is ground on a small base circle, then you can get away with a larger cam. There is no need to go to a large cam for the street. Cars have gone in the 9s with a 210 cam. I presently run a billet 210 cam but am putting the other 224 cam back in as i have lost a solid 3 mph, also the smaller cam has a tendency to knock more i have found at lower boost then the larger cams. The choice is yours. The new comp cams drop in roller cams like your best choice, but they are not billet.

You will have to machine your guides down, because i think around 470 lift is the max before the retainer will hit the valve seal. SO the heads will have to come off.

I use k-750 springs 1.700 installed height, crane soild roller lifters 62518-12, harland sharp roller rockers, pte billet cam 210 or 218 0r 224 will work , rollmaster timing chain. PTE thrust bearing setup.

The lash is set to .007 cold the knock sensor will not pick up any noise.

good luck!

 

[Turbo1dr]

wow, thats an interesting idea! that i like.

was there anything special that needed to be done to do it that way?

what lifters are you using?
springs?
lift on the cam?

I just done some measuring before I used the lifters since I didn't want lifters to be pushed above the oil gallery. I found you are limited to a lobe lift of .350 or less with stock ratio rockers. My ATR 214-210 is about .332 lobe lift and puts the actual lift with 1.65 rockers to .547. I'm using Crane 62518-12 lifters. Tom from Champion set the springs up for solid roller when I bought the GN1-R heads. Don't know what they are at but I trust that he done it right. If this doesn't seem to work then I'll just switch back to hyd lifters. No big deal.

 

[simple]

so you arent using HR springs like the other guy?
what do you think about an HR cam, solid roller lifters and HR springs?

side note, are you putting the GN1R's on a 109 block? what bore size?

Steve

 

[norbs]

That cam he mentioned is a Hyd roller from ATR?

 

[Turbo1dr]

Yes it's a HR from ATR. What I said above is what I was planning to use. If you guys that have already been down this path see something that I should change please let me know. Now is the time for me to change it since the engine is still on the stand. I'm no genius when it comes to mixing a matching parts.

 

[Turbo1dr]

side note, are you putting the GN1R's on a 109 block? what bore size?

Steve

See this thread.

http://www.turbobuicks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41444&highlight=GN1-R

 

[simple]

thanks for that link, my machinist actually mentioned doing that to my 109 block. but i was weary about it until i read that TA recommends it also. guess i'll be scrapping the 4.1 block idea.

you dont think you'll have any issues with SR springs and an HR cam? i guess there really shouldnt be since the lifters are solid also.

i do like the idea of no pump up and easy lash adjustment.

what part# are those rockers you are using?
EDIT; in that link the pic shows 2.0" intake valve but you mention a 2.02". which are you using?

again, thanks for the info. good stuff
seems like we will have similar setups. turbo will be the only difference i can tell

Steve