Author Topic: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel  (Read 23563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

427HISS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
I know,...there are many threads, video's and books about this very same discussion, but not by me.  :P

Please note, that I'm not talking about top high performance, same cam specs or exact apples to apples, but debating a fairly mild 500 HP, costs vs power vs sound vs feel, is 21.4 HP worth the added expence of a roller engine.

Say, $250 flat tappet vs $1,000 mechanical roller.
Having to lash valves vs seldom.

Also weigh in on this question.

Working on engines is fun, almost theaphy, so I don't mind lashing my valves a few times per season.
This question shouldn't be in this thread, but is there a difference betwern your muscle car, hot rod etc vs your race car, in having to lash your
 valve train ?

Or, to some it's a pain in the butt, so you have a buddy or a mechanic do it for you. No,...shame with that.

The guys on this video are split, and I am too.

What would change your mind ?

 Is gaining 21 HP worth the added money for the sound and feel of a roller motor ?
 No or yes and why ?

At what gain in HP is worth the expense, sound & feel ?

Doesn't matter, rollers rule !
Rollers suck and are too expensive !

What's your thoughts ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=17s&v=8VjFZMKvEwY ;)

Drew Pojedinec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
    • View Profile
I don't think 21hp is some sorta hard fast rule....

If you have a hotrod street cam that is .550 lift and 240@.050 that is vastly different than .900 lift, etc
For a daily driver, the only negative to a flat tappet is break in.  More aggressive lobes would make that harder.

I think you are approaching this all wrong, I wouldn't start a cam search based on type, I'd figure what I needed out of the engine and the type of cam would eventually be apparent, or at the least narrowed down.
That said, I drive a 63.5 Galaxie, and a solid flat tappet is what I wanted, so that is what that is. 

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
I have to ask too, which cam needs to be lashed regularly?

Loaded question because I don't think they are any different.  Lash on solid flat tappets rarely change unless you have loose rockers or damage and solid rollers you should check periodically to head off potential roller carnage if one fails (more unlikely nowadays, but when they fail, they fail big)

So I would say adjustment is rare with both and good to check periodically with both, so no real change.  More than once per year would be ral strange to me if you have good rockers

I will add this too, my 489 has been together with a flat tappet since late 2006.  Although I have checked it annually, and tightened them to make the cam act a little better, I have never had lash change from one adjustment to the next in 11+ years, and I run it all over Nebraska and never slowly, especially on I-80 :)

That being said, Drew gave you good info.  Cam for use, if you need the very high RPM capability of a solid roller, go for it, if you don't need it, go solid flat tappet, or if you intend to stay under 6000 rpm, go hydraulic, either roller or flat.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 07:12:47 AM by My427stang »
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Hyd rollers have come a long way and are making big power and big rpm these days. More benefits to a hyd roller than just lack of needed adjustments. The roller never leaves contact with the lobe so there is no jack hammer effect at the adjuster, albeit small. The hydraulic plunger in the lifter acts like a small shock absorber and helps with valve train harmonics. Shorter pushrods. Most hyd rollers are .700-.800 taller than a solid and therefore use much shorter pushrods. That's always a good thing. Quietness and smoothness of operation and yes, simplicity of not having to adjust lash. New lifter technology these days allows for higher rpm and higher spring pressures. I have hyd roller engines out there with 270#seat pressure that spin 7800 (not limited travel) and I think we can go further than that. There's also the availability of different levels (cost and performance) of lifters to meet different budgets. Street series "OEM" style lifters, drop in retro-fit, "pro" level .903". Cost is always a consideration but most of the time we're building an engine that isn't a "necessary" expense in the first place. Save a little longer, drink a few less beers...whatever... the difference in cost between a FT and roller is usually not a big percentage of an engine's budget but IMO the benefits are well worth it. As far as power, well...you can make the same power with either up to a certain point so IMO that really isn't the question. I personally don't like the risk associated with flat tappets these days and the failures are well documented, especially since the OEM's quit using them. For me, anything up to .650 lift and 6500rpm, a drop in retro hyd roller lifter will be my choice. Above that, for the FE, we might have to play some games to get a "good" hyd roller lifter but it can be done.

plovett

  • Guest
Here's another take on it.  The size or duration of the cam makes a difference in deciding whether a flat tappet or roller is better, too.

Flat tappets have basically unlimited acceleration and limited velocity.  Roller tappets have limited acceleration and basically unlimited velocity.  What that means is flat tappets can actually get off the base circle of the cam quicker, but the roller cam can catch up and pass it before too long.

In a practical sense, this means that the bigger the cam (duration), the bigger the advantage for rollers.  For a small cam, a roller may gain nothing.

In very general terms, I'd say for cams under 230 degrees @0.050" there is little or no performance advantage to using a roller compared to a modern flat tappet.  Somewhere around 240 degrees @0.050" the roller starts making significant gains.  Over 250 degrees, the roller is dominant.   

That's just looking at performance.  A small roller can be worth it to avoid wear issues and for the tiny reduction in friction.

JMO,

paulie

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
    • View Profile
Here's another take on it.  The size or duration of the cam makes a difference in deciding whether a flat tappet or roller is better, too.

Flat tappets have basically unlimited acceleration and limited velocity.  Roller tappets have limited acceleration and basically unlimited velocity.  What that means is flat tappets can actually get off the base circle of the cam quicker, but the roller cam can catch up and pass it before too long.

In a practical sense, this means that the bigger the cam (duration), the bigger the advantage for rollers.  For a small cam, a roller may gain nothing.


Paulie did a good job of summarizing why hydro rollers are the best of all worlds unless this is a real racer. Hydro rollers have, for example, run millions of miles in later model 5.0/5.8 Windsor motors, many with aftermarket wild cams using the OEM Ford rollers, dog-bones and spyders. The advent of drop-in rollers now even eliminates the dog-bones and spyders. The FE also benefits from the same advantages.
Bob Maag

plovett

  • Guest
That's funny because I'm the guy who can't bring himself to put a hydraulic roller in an engine.  I also can't put fuel injection in a hotrod.  Electric cars can out accelerate my old Cougar, but I just can't do it.  Still, I get that hydraulic rollers make sense for 95% of applications. 

Don't count flat tappets out for some combinations, though.  If, for instance, the engine in the Engine Masters video had cams with 224 degrees @0.050", the extra $700 for the roller couldn't be justified.  You could make more power spending that $700 somewhere else.  Or if they compared an inexpensive modern solid flat tappet to the 244 @0.050" hydraulic roller, you'd have seen a different result.  It's not so clear cut, is what I'm saying.

paulie
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 09:20:38 AM by plovett »

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports

In very general terms, I'd say for cams under 230 degrees @0.050" there is little or no performance advantage to using a roller compared to a modern flat tappet.  Somewhere around 240 degrees @0.050" the roller starts making significant gains.  Over 250 degrees, the roller is dominant.   

You can't make general statements like that regarding duration.   Displacement and cylinder head design have a huge bearing on what durations will do what. 

If you're going to try and make comparisons like that, you need to base it on rpm rather than duration, and even then, there's too many variables to do so reliably.

The whole solid flat tappet argument all comes down to budget, long-term durability, and race rules. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Yes.  That is why I said "very general".  LOL!  Are you talking about a 2.0L engine or an 8.0L engine.  I think most people here deal in 350-500 cid V8 engines.  And even then I use "very general".   Don't miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.  The point, which you know very well, is the duration of a cam significantly affects how much advantage a roller tappet has. 

JMO,

paulie

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
The point, which you know very well, is the duration of a cam significantly affects how much advantage a roller tappet has. 


Ehhhhhhh..................may want to rethink that statement.   ;D

That's like saying long stroke engines won't rev.....
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2017, 10:36:19 AM »
  Don't count flat tappets out for some combinations, though.  If, for instance, the engine in the Engine Masters video had cams with 224 degrees @0.050", the extra $700 for the roller couldn't be justified. 

Whoops.....thought you were talking about the EMC.  I get that you were talking about the video now......
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2017, 10:37:26 AM »
Yes.  That is why I said "very general".  LOL!  Are you talking about a 2.0L engine or an 8.0L engine.  I think most people here deal in 350-500 cid V8 engines.  And even then I use "very general".   Don't miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.  The point, which you know very well, is the duration of a cam significantly affects how much advantage a roller tappet has. 

JMO,

paulie
Aren't the valve events what really matters? Does the valve really have any idea what's making it go up and down? I don't think it really matters how one type of cam does that compared to another until we get to where one method is compromised and another is more efficient. Until then, I don't see that one has any more "performance" benefit over the other as far as getting the valve events accomplished. If both can accomplish a goal, say 450hp, will one be able to make more power under the curve than the other? Both can achieve fairly good peak power numbers up to a certain point, but within that limitation, what about average power numbers?

TJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2017, 10:48:31 AM »
I know next to zero about cams so hope I'm not asking something too silly.  I think scott foxwell's comment about average power is similar to the question on my mind.

Can either cam make a wider powerband than the other?  In other words if a roller cam and a flat tappet peak at 450hp.  Can the roller cam be cut to make a flatter/broader torque curve than the flat tappet due to how a roller contacts the cam?  The reason I ask is if this is true, perhaps this would cause someone to lean more toward one type of cam versus the other.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2017, 11:31:59 AM »
I know next to zero about cams so hope I'm not asking something too silly.  I think scott foxwell's comment about average power is similar to the question on my mind.

Can either cam make a wider powerband than the other?  In other words if a roller cam and a flat tappet peak at 450hp.  Can the roller cam be cut to make a flatter/broader torque curve than the flat tappet due to how a roller contacts the cam?  The reason I ask is if this is true, perhaps this would cause someone to lean more toward one type of cam versus the other.

The shape of the hp and torque curves are really more dictated by the specs themselves than the type of lifter that's used.   

With that being said, there's a ton of variables there too.   At a lower rpm range, however, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find a difference between the two lifter types.   You can make a very aggressive roller lobe, but the valvetrain requirements (and performance) may be compromised as a result. 

One thing to make note of, is that the advertised durations of a roller cam are often longer than a flat tappet.  That's a general statement, as there are differences between solid rollers, hydraulic rollers, and variations of the like, but if you compare hydraulic cams for instance, your flat tappet will probably have a much shorter advertised duration (roller will be much longer) and the engine will need to be designed with that in mind, as it affects fuel requirements, vacuum requirements, etc., etc. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Falcon67

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
    • View Profile
    • Kelly's Hot Rod Page
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2017, 12:37:37 PM »
I have one flat tappet engine left here - if it ever gets a cam change, it will be roller.  The expense is well worth not having to sweat the break in anymore.  IMHO, most of the expense is in the solid roller tappet area because you really want to pop for pressure oiling.  Hydros tend to take care of themselves.  And we hit 6500 regularly with hydro rollers so it's not that much of a limiter.  I will not be using flat tappets anymore - there is just better tech out there.  As for the "$1000" I think we have about $700 in the 351C in the Mustang for the cam, lifters and springs.

As far as power, a roller can get the valve open quicker and keep it open longer so builds a lot more area under the open curve for things to happen - vs a flat tappet.  So in most instances a roller has the potential to make better use of the heads than a flat tappet grind.

Lash - use quality components and you should not have to tinker with a solid roller or a solid flat tappet setup.  I've run my solid roller all year and not had to make any adjustments.  The last solid flat I ran went two years racing, lash never changed.  Get it right from the get-go and you really don't need to budget any extra time to mess with a solid cam setup.  You do throw a feeler gauge under some once in a while - any change notes a problem.  But here I've yet to see one. 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:43:49 PM by Falcon67 »

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2017, 12:40:24 PM »
Yes, I am talking about the original poster's question and the Engine Masters video link in it.

The guys in the video aren't dumb.  If they used 224@0.050" cams the difference would be different.  if they used 212@0.050" cams I doubt you'd see anything.   On the other hand if they went much bigger than 244@0.050" (and 7000 rpm), then they might start getting into valve train control issues.  They picked the right cams to prove the point.

Now, as to Engine Masters Challenge, I don't know if I would ever make a general statement.  That's because a lot of those guys are so good that they could make you eat your words with their creativity within the rules.  Tell somebody like that they can't do something and it just might happen.

JMO,

paulie

andyf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2017, 12:40:54 PM »
To the OP - for a fairly mild 500 hp engine just save your money and use a flat tappet cam. The only reason not to use a flat tappet cam on an engine like that is if you are really concerned about lobe life. In that case you could run a street friendly hyd roller. The hyd roller setup is very reliable but it will add some expense to the engine build. Leave the solid rollers to the race guys. No need to use one in a mild build, especially if you are on a budget.

ACHiPo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2017, 02:24:37 PM »
At the risk of asking a stupid question, how do flat hydraulic lifters compare to solid flat tappets or hydraulic roller lifters?  I originally wanted hydraulic roller lifters (seems to be the popular thing to do) in a mild 482 FE side-oiler (BBM block), but my engine builder claims to have had a lot of issues with hydraulic rollers in FEs so he put in hydraulic flat tappets.

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2017, 04:42:14 PM »
At the risk of asking a stupid question, how do flat hydraulic lifters compare to solid flat tappets or hydraulic roller lifters?  I originally wanted hydraulic roller lifters (seems to be the popular thing to do) in a mild 482 FE side-oiler (BBM block), but my engine builder claims to have had a lot of issues with hydraulic rollers in FEs so he put in hydraulic flat tappets.

Here's my take.  In general hydraulic flat tappet cams are less "aggressive" than solid flat tappets and hydraulic rollers.  By aggressive I mean the steepness of the lobe, how fast the cam moves the pushrod up as the cam lobe turns.  I have to say in general because there are all sorts of cam grinds in each type of lifter.  There are some pretty aggressive hydraulic flat tappet grinds and there are some very mild solid lifter and hydraulic roller cam grinds. 

I don't know what issues your engine builder had with hydraulic rollers, but they're used all the time.  Maybe he had valve control problems at higher rpm?  If you're under 6000 rpm it doesn't seem to be a problem.

My opinion is that on a big engine like a 482 you're probably going to have a cam with a good amount of duration, even if it is a fairly mild build, just because of the cubic inches.  In that case I would think a hydraulic roller could make some significant gains over a hydraulic flat tappet.  The greater duration gives the roller cam more time to blast by the flat tappet and create more area under the curve.   It can hold the valve open further for longer, even if the 0.50" duration is similar.

JMO,

paulie

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2017, 04:50:18 PM »
The point, which you know very well, is the duration of a cam significantly affects how much advantage a roller tappet has. 


Ehhhhhhh..................may want to rethink that statement.   ;D

That's like saying long stroke engines won't rev.....

Well, I won't say long stroke, or big inch engines, won't rev.  I've never believed that.  What I am getting at with the cams is if you have a 205 degree @0.050" cam.  The roller version is not going to have a lot more area under the curve than a modern flat tappet version.  Again, speaking in generalities because either type can be ground an infinite amount of ways.  If you have two 260 degree @0.050" cams the roller has more time(duration) to use it's higher velocity, to create more area under the curve.  I think with big cams the difference can be dramatic.  With small cams, not so much.  I think it's even conceivable that a flat tappet could outperform a roller if the cams are very small. 

JMO,

paulie

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2017, 05:49:31 PM »
I think we're talking in circles.....

Seems like we're thinking along the same lines but there's too many variables to be making comparisons between the two lifter designs.  I wouldn't even say that duration affects the advantage. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2017, 06:00:16 PM »
I think we're talking in circles.....

Seems like we're thinking along the same lines but there's too many variables to be making comparisons between the two lifter designs.  I wouldn't even say that duration affects the advantage.

We might be talking in circles.  I'm not a great communicator.   :)  But I maintain that duration affects the advantage of a roller cam.  And yes, you're right, there are lots of variables.   That's what makes it fun!  Thanks for the conversation.  I enjoy it. 

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2017, 06:23:08 PM »
The point, which you know very well, is the duration of a cam significantly affects how much advantage a roller tappet has. 


Ehhhhhhh..................may want to rethink that statement.   ;D

That's like saying long stroke engines won't rev.....

Well, I won't say long stroke, or big inch engines, won't rev.  I've never believed that.  What I am getting at with the cams is if you have a 205 degree @0.050" cam.  The roller version is not going to have a lot more area under the curve than a modern flat tappet version.  Again, speaking in generalities because either type can be ground an infinite amount of ways.  If you have two 260 degree @0.050" cams the roller has more time(duration) to use it's higher velocity, to create more area under the curve.  I think with big cams the difference can be dramatic.  With small cams, not so much.  I think it's even conceivable that a flat tappet could outperform a roller if the cams are very small. 

JMO,

paulie

We wish it were that simple....

A flat tappet can actually out accelerate a roller for a small increment of time as it starts on its way up the ramp.  Think about the way and the angle in which the flat tappet attacks the lobe compared to the roller.  Now look at the rollers axle as a pivot point - its potentially being pushed sideways for a short while more so than its going up on a radical ramp.  Pressure angle... part of the reason its hard to do a real comparison based on .050 numbers.  You would really need to do a valve motion trace on one and reverse engineer the other to match to isolate the frictional gain - and the impact on idle characteristics would be interesting at that point.  Every OEM went that way despite the expense multiplied by millions of vehicles.  Probably not an accident.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2017, 06:29:15 PM »
I think we're talking in circles.....

Seems like we're thinking along the same lines but there's too many variables to be making comparisons between the two lifter designs.  I wouldn't even say that duration affects the advantage.
  But I maintain that duration affects the advantage of a roller cam.

Based on what data?

I'm trying to think if I've ever done two engines with the only difference being flat tappet/roller.   

My point is that duration can't be a constraint because the effect of duration is based on displacement and head flow, among other things.  You're saying that duration affects the advantage of a roller cam, but what if the cams were in a 1000 cube engine where something like a 260-280° @ .050" camshaft only produced peak hp at 2500 rpm? 

I'm getting ready to do a 428CJ that is almost identical to one that I did a little while back.  The difference will be in the camshaft.  Oddly enough, the first CJ was a 227/233 @ .050" hydraulic roller on a 112 LSA.  The one I'm working on now is a hydraulic flat tappet, with almost identical .050" durations and LSA.  Obviously, there's more to a camshaft than that, but it's basically impossible to grind a hydraulic flat tappet and a hydraulic roller exactly the same.   Advertised durations will be different, .200" durations will be different, and lift will be a little different.    It will be good data as the first engine peaked at 5500 and I expect that this one will as well. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2017, 07:10:53 PM »
My assertion is based on the fact that flat tappets are limited in their maximum velocity while roller cams are not.  A flat tappet can only move up so much per amount of cam rotation before the lifter digs into the lobe.  A wider lifter affects this maximum rate.  A Chrysler/AMC 0.904" lifter has a higher maximum velocity  than a Ford 0.875" lifter which is better than a GM 0.842" lifter.

A roller cam is not limited in this way.  It's velocity is not limited by the lifter diameter, though bigger diameter lifters have advantages for rollers, as well.  My understanding is that a roller lifter is limited in acceleration.  This has to do with the physical parts.  Flat tappet lifters are not limited in this way as they are just metal on metal.  I suppose hydraulic flat tappets are limited by their hydraulic mechanism, but not by the actual lifter/cam interface.

So a flat tappet lifter can accelerate faster, but reaches a top speed that it cannot exceed without digging into the cam.  The roller accelerates slower, but is not limited in top speed.  Well, valve train control will limit the speeds eventually, but not strictly because it's a roller.  Time and duration are the same thing here.  With a very small cam the cam is moving the lifter for less time (duration) so the initial fast start of the flat tappet is important.  With more duration (time) the higher peak velocity of the roller allows it to catch up and pass  the flat tappet.   The more duration the more time there is to gain advantage in area.

An analogy would be the sprinter vs distance runner.  A flat tappet cam is like a 100 meter runner.  It takes off fast, but that's all he's got.  A long distance runner will be behind at first, but will eventually catch up and pass him.   The longer the race the more the difference in times will be.   A longer cam duration is a longer race.  The longer race favors the roller cam.

I don't think this is a controversial issue.  But like I said, maybe I just can't communicate it well.

I guess we could look at 0.200" duration numbers vs. 0.050" and advertised.  Compare small cams to big cams.  I'm not sure how to quantify it, though.

JMO,

paulie
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 07:13:23 PM by plovett »

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2017, 07:21:17 PM »
Again,
Lets think about this from the valve point of view.
A cam is designed to give the valve a certain path.
Roller lifter, flat tappet lifter, mushroom lifter, no lifter...
It's all about the valve path and events.
If either roller or FT can provide the same valve path, there is no difference in performance. There is no performance advantage from one to the other. You're achieving the same goal, achieving the same performance. The lobe may be shaped differently, have different "numbers", but the end result is the same. Then, the choice becomes cost, maintenance, noise, or other non-performance attributes that may sway the decision. Up to the point where either can meet the goals of the build, I really don't see a way to compare them. They're different. Apple and an orange. Also, there is no benefit to opening the valve faster than needed. If the FT can do that (open the valve fast enough), the fact that a roller can have "more area" is meaningless. Once a FT can not open the valve as quickly and provide the area (duration) needed, then the roller becomes beneficial but if it's not designed right, a FT still might make more power. There are aggressive FT lobes that can make some serious power. Iv'e seen some that look like roller lobes, and there are roller lobes that are worthless. It's all about the valve path. The FT has limitations. That's just simple physics. The roller does too, but that boundary keeps getting pushed further and further with BIG lifter wheels and cam cores, but that's not what this discussion is about. At 4-500 hp (maybe more) and even up to 7000rpm, flip a coin. One is cheaper but has more risk. IMO that's about it.
Least that's how I see it.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 07:27:15 PM by scott foxwell »

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2017, 07:42:31 PM »
My hypothesis is that it would be more rpm based.  If that 400 in the Engine Masters video needed 244 @ .050" to get to a 5000 rpm peak, I think the difference would have been less noticeable. 

 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2017, 08:45:45 PM »
I agree with Scott on his major point.  That being the concept of valve motion being the main deal here.  Once you get past that you only have some incremental friction component and the risk versus reward on cost and break in.  On a ten grand build the insurance might easily justify the cost..

mike7570

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2017, 08:47:36 PM »
I'm more of a visual guy so I found this explanation on Isky's web site beneficial. If I have to use a flat tappet (for rules) how could a lifter be configured to be used on steeper roller style ramps?
Would the roller profile make more hp than the flat tappet at the same lift (lets say it's limited to .525)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 08:51:56 PM by mike7570 »

stroked67

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2017, 09:09:17 PM »
Back to the original question for me! I wish I knew as much about cams as some of you guys!  But my 463 is a solid roller, and I love it, I'm young, so I don't mind adjusting lash 3-4 times a year, I actually enjoy it. I also love the "sewing machine" sound at about 3500 rpm cruising down the highway. And at gas stations when I pull in to grab a red bull, people ask "what's wrong with your car, why does it sound like that. I tell them "solid roller", and they look at me like a deer in the headlights. 

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2017, 09:35:18 PM »

 Every OEM went that way despite the expense multiplied by millions of vehicles.  Probably not an accident.

The OEM's went that way because even a small mpg gain is worth a lot when you're trying to meet CAFE standards, and the added reliability.   Also, the costs are mitigated when it's spread out over millions of vehicles.  It wasn't primarily for performance with most of the little OEM cams, in my opinion.

paulie

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2017, 10:38:31 PM »
I'm more of a visual guy so I found this explanation on Isky's web site beneficial. If I have to use a flat tappet (for rules) how could a lifter be configured to be used on steeper roller style ramps?
Would the roller profile make more hp than the flat tappet at the same lift (lets say it's limited to .525)


Yes, that helps.  I think the blue line can be more vertical, that is diverge from the red line, at the very start.  That would be the flat tappet getting out of the gate faster, or at least having potential to do so. 

Now imagine those curves spread out horizontally.  The red curve would have even more area under it compared to the blue curve.  That would be a larger duration cam.  If you do the opposite and squeeze the curves horizontally inward, there were be less difference in area. That would be a smaller duration cam.

This is just geometry.  It has nothing to do with rpm.  It doesn't matter if you look at duration at the valve or at the cam, because the two are directly related, and caused by what happens at the cam.  All that matters is how much linear motion you can get per degree of rotational motion.  Flat tappets and roller tappets have different constraints.  One is acceleration and one is velocity.  Both of those are affected by time.   Sorry guys that I'm not able to articulate better.  I think maybe if we could overlay many different flat vs. roller profiles of varying durations it would be more clear. 

JMO,

paulie

Heo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3281
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2017, 03:03:54 AM »
Packard had Roller "cam" in the 20s on the flathead engines.
Think about it as a upside down OHC, they had a rocker arm
hinged on one side with a roller in the ""middle and the valve on
the other end. If the main goal was performance or reliability
i dont know. But i guess both to get 90 reliable hp out of a 348 :D
This thing about adjusting the valves on a  solid lifter cam.
I call it a myth i have never had a solid cam that i had to adjust
the valves regulary on. The european cars started to get hydraulic lifters
in the 90s and no one here adjusted there valvelash several times a year
before that.
And thats on daily drivers that run tens of thousand of miles each year
If you have to do that you have something wrong. Loose adjuster, bent pushrod etc etc
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 03:20:16 AM by Heo »



The defenition of a Gentleman, is a man that can play the accordion.But dont do it

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2017, 07:03:50 AM »
All good discussion.  In the end though, it goes back to valve events.  The area "under the curve" discussion leads to a change in cam profile, so you really cannot compare two cams with different valve events if you want to see the difference in power from a lifter design

My opinion is:
1 - The justification for going roller, hyd or solid, due to fear of cam break in is valid, and if the insurance is worth the money for you, go for it.
2 - When picking a camshaft, if the valve events you want require one lifter design or another, it also answers your question. 

In the end though, do not fear cam "wear" with either design, if it wore that fast, something would be seriously wrong
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2017, 10:53:25 AM »
All good discussion.  In the end though, it goes back to valve events.  The area "under the curve" discussion leads to a change in cam profile, so you really cannot compare two cams with different valve events if you want to see the difference in power from a lifter design

My opinion is:
1 - The justification for going roller, hyd or solid, due to fear of cam break in is valid, and if the insurance is worth the money for you, go for it.
2 - When picking a camshaft, if the valve events you want require one lifter design or another, it also answers your question. 

In the end though, do not fear cam "wear" with either design, if it wore that fast, something would be seriously wrong
For me, the fear of a FT failure goes past break in. Over the years we've seen plenty of examples of guys following perfect break in procedures including new break in oils, only to end up having a lobe failure. I think if you're getting a custom cam ground you have a much better chance of success, but even then, lifters these days are a crap shoot. As few miles as many of these engines get driven, the problem may not show it's ugly head for years. The 390 in my Fairlane was rebuilt 7 yrs ago with a Comp hft cam and lifters but probably only has a couple thousand miles on it. I was going to pull the engine to clean up the engine compartment but I also felt like there were a couple cylinders "not quite right", so I figured I'd pull the cam (my first suspicion) and I was right. Two lobes were on their way out. Worn less than .010 but you could see the wear on the lobe and you could definitely measure it. I don't know what the break in procedure was on that particular engine but these days, with ANY ft cam, the potential always exists. Again, JMHO.

Falcon67

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
    • View Profile
    • Kelly's Hot Rod Page
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2017, 11:06:07 AM »
I can offer some specific in regards to Brent's comments.  We ran a F238 solid in the 351C in the Mustang.  It ate a lobe for some reason and that was the end of that.  I replaced it with a Howards hydro roller and cam with close to the same specs. 

Crane - @ .050 238/248, adv duration 300/310, LSA 108, lift .554/.577
Howards - @.050 233/241 adv duration 286/294, LSA 110, lift .594/.611

Car ran same MPH, ET, 60', etc after the swap. 

Quote
Over the years we've seen plenty of examples of guys following perfect break in procedures including new break in oils, only to end up having a lobe failure.

The F238 ran in my engine 2 years, no problems.  The lifters were Isky EDM lifters that use a oil hole in the face to help lube the interface between cam and lifter.  Good parts.  Pulled it out, stored it a year in plastic with the lifters numbered and stored, pushrods - washed, oiled, carefully packed, etc.  Installed in the other 351C, clean room install, break in lube used just in case, short run in, same adjustments, etc.  All good, take it to the track - car lost ET and MPH on the 5th pass.  Exhaust lobe on #8 lost about .200 lift and was mushrooming the lifter.   
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 11:12:09 AM by Falcon67 »

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2017, 11:50:33 AM »
I can offer some specific in regards to Brent's comments.  We ran a F238 solid in the 351C in the Mustang.  It ate a lobe for some reason and that was the end of that.  I replaced it with a Howards hydro roller and cam with close to the same specs. 

Crane - @ .050 238/248, adv duration 300/310, LSA 108, lift .554/.577
Howards - @.050 233/241 adv duration 286/294, LSA 110, lift .594/.611

Car ran same MPH, ET, 60', etc after the swap. 

Quote
Over the years we've seen plenty of examples of guys following perfect break in procedures including new break in oils, only to end up having a lobe failure.

The F238 ran in my engine 2 years, no problems.  The lifters were Isky EDM lifters that use a oil hole in the face to help lube the interface between cam and lifter.  Good parts.  Pulled it out, stored it a year in plastic with the lifters numbered and stored, pushrods - washed, oiled, carefully packed, etc.  Installed in the other 351C, clean room install, break in lube used just in case, short run in, same adjustments, etc.  All good, take it to the track - car lost ET and MPH on the 5th pass.  Exhaust lobe on #8 lost about .200 lift and was mushrooming the lifter.   
That's not surprising. Once a cam breaks in in one block, it's hard to be sure another block's lifters are going to have the exact same orientation. Fords usually seem to be pretty good but you sure won't get away with that in a BB Chev.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2017, 12:15:05 PM »
When I do a flat tappet cam, I always have them ground with a little more lobe taper than usual. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

ACHiPo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2017, 03:49:11 PM »
At the risk of asking a stupid question, how do flat hydraulic lifters compare to solid flat tappets or hydraulic roller lifters?  I originally wanted hydraulic roller lifters (seems to be the popular thing to do) in a mild 482 FE side-oiler (BBM block), but my engine builder claims to have had a lot of issues with hydraulic rollers in FEs so he put in hydraulic flat tappets.

Here's my take.  In general hydraulic flat tappet cams are less "aggressive" than solid flat tappets and hydraulic rollers.  By aggressive I mean the steepness of the lobe, how fast the cam moves the pushrod up as the cam lobe turns.  I have to say in general because there are all sorts of cam grinds in each type of lifter.  There are some pretty aggressive hydraulic flat tappet grinds and there are some very mild solid lifter and hydraulic roller cam grinds. 

I don't know what issues your engine builder had with hydraulic rollers, but they're used all the time.  Maybe he had valve control problems at higher rpm?  If you're under 6000 rpm it doesn't seem to be a problem.

My opinion is that on a big engine like a 482 you're probably going to have a cam with a good amount of duration, even if it is a fairly mild build, just because of the cubic inches.  In that case I would think a hydraulic roller could make some significant gains over a hydraulic flat tappet.  The greater duration gives the roller cam more time to blast by the flat tappet and create more area under the curve.   It can hold the valve open further for longer, even if the 0.50" duration is similar.

JMO,

paulie
Thanks.  I tried to send you a couple PMs, but not sure if they went through.
Evan

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2017, 03:58:43 PM »
I can offer some specific in regards to Brent's comments.  We ran a F238 solid in the 351C in the Mustang.  It ate a lobe for some reason and that was the end of that.  I replaced it with a Howards hydro roller and cam with close to the same specs. 

Crane - @ .050 238/248, adv duration 300/310, LSA 108, lift .554/.577
Howards - @.050 233/241 adv duration 286/294, LSA 110, lift .594/.611

Car ran same MPH, ET, 60', etc after the swap. 

Quote
Over the years we've seen plenty of examples of guys following perfect break in procedures including new break in oils, only to end up having a lobe failure.

The F238 ran in my engine 2 years, no problems.  The lifters were Isky EDM lifters that use a oil hole in the face to help lube the interface between cam and lifter.  Good parts.  Pulled it out, stored it a year in plastic with the lifters numbered and stored, pushrods - washed, oiled, carefully packed, etc.  Installed in the other 351C, clean room install, break in lube used just in case, short run in, same adjustments, etc.  All good, take it to the track - car lost ET and MPH on the 5th pass.  Exhaust lobe on #8 lost about .200 lift and was mushrooming the lifter.   
That's not surprising. Once a cam breaks in in one block, it's hard to be sure another block's lifters are going to have the exact same orientation. Fords usually seem to be pretty good but you sure won't get away with that in a BB Chev.

Yep, that's why the "cam break-in machines" don't always work. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2017, 10:26:05 PM »
Lifters in today's market are not hardened correctly to match the camshafts being produced, or the camshafts being produced are not treated properly to be compatible with the lifters available.  Ted Eaton won the EMC in 2016, but his entry for 2017 lost the camshaft and lifters on initial break-in procedures.  The camshaft and three sets of lifters were sent to a well known camshaft grinder for preparation to use on his EMC entry.  I will not get into the whole problem of the issues, but the lifters were not the same hardness as the camshaft, and wrecked the build.  Suffice it to say, that a professional engine builder that builds winning engines suffered a camshaft and lifter loss due to improperly matched parts from the camshaft supplier.  That is reason enough to go roller camshafts for me in the future.  Joe-JDC 
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

Falcon67

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
    • View Profile
    • Kelly's Hot Rod Page
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2017, 10:37:57 AM »
LOL, can now close the thread   ;D 

I just made the decision that I'd rather sit and watch until I can afford the parts I think are the better parts rather than save a little and maybe end up not saving anything.  A comp solid flat cam/lifter kit at Summit us $231.  If it fails, you buy another.  So you're at $462 plus all the gaskets, etc required because you had to take it apart and clean the crud out, plus down time, pulling the motor back out, etc, etc - assuming nothing else got hurt.  Similar kit, similar specs solid roller is $907, hydro roller $876.  The potential savings can be easily negated.

chilly460

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2017, 12:36:17 PM »
Another point is that, at least in my opinion, I would run a used roller cam without fear once it's checked out.  Same goes for the lifters.  So if a guy is willing to run used roller parts, he can get into the setup relatively cheaply.  Of course this isn't "apples to apples", but it's a legitimate point.  The used market for FE roller cams is so so, but you can literally find any used roller cam you want for a SBF so they'll become more available as more guys run them in FEs.  I bought two this year at the FERR. 

 

Tommy-T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2017, 04:23:49 PM »
OK, I was sitting on the sideline and watching the roller vs. flat discussion "roll" on. Wasn't going to comment BUT I'm just too dumb to shut up.
First of all, I've never had an FE flat tappet solid go flat. I know it happens...but not so far to me. I've run different brands, but most of my stuff has been regrinds. One regrind in particular, I've had in 3 different motors.
I ran a 308R in a 454 incher that I picked up on Ebay. I didn't know anything about running a solid roller cam on the street, but I learned. I bought some used lifters from a local circle track racer that was running a small block Ford. They were Comp lifters, and the link bar is the difference between FE and Windsor. Changed the bars, pushrods, valve springs, and slid in the cam...and started it up.
It ran great! Picked up 3 tenths at the track. Drove fine on the street. In fact, its mannerisms were about the same as the old flat tappet. Ran it for a year and all was great.
Then one day Mrs.-T and myself were running usual Saturday errands and my car made some "unfriendly" noises and quit running. Cranking didn't sound good.
Had 'er towed home. Pulled the valve covers and there were 3 Dove rockers busted on one side, and 4 on the other. Called a racer pal and he came over with a spring checker.
You've got 90 pounds seat pressure, Tommy. That's what beat-the-crap out'a your rockers. When you loose valve control with a roller all hell breaks loose.

SO, when you say the expense of a flat tappet compared to a roller goes away if you have one go flat, that is only partially true. I've had flat tappet cams go years and years with only annual lash adjustments.
But regular maintenance with a solid roller would probably go: valve springs every winter & new roller tappets every third year.
When you add in the real world wear factor of roller tappets on the street, it gets pretty expensive.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2017, 04:53:56 PM »
That would indeed be true with a healthy solid roller.  A street roller would go longer than your maintenance interval.  I’ve got guys who have been running the same solid roller cam, lifters, and valve springs for 4-5 years and one guy in particular with a 428 of mine that’s on year 10...

A hydraulic roller should go 100k miles.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 04:58:39 PM by blykins »
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Drew Pojedinec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2017, 09:00:48 PM »
LOL, can now close the thread   ;D 

hahaha, right?

For my daily driver, I'd seriously consider a hydraulic roller.  For my Galaxie, I just wanted that SFT sound :P

wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2017, 01:04:13 PM »
So you can run a solid roller on the street if get the spring pressure ok.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2017, 01:17:10 PM »
Sure.

It won't have the life expectancy of a hydraulic roller or a flat tappet, but it will work.   The degree of how well it works will depend on the cam lobes, spring pressures, and the quality of lifters.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Falcon67

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
    • View Profile
    • Kelly's Hot Rod Page
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2017, 10:36:01 AM »
So you can run a solid roller on the street if get the spring pressure ok.

Pressure oiling lifters are a must.  Spring pressure should be set based on the cam requirements IMHO.  I know guys running pressure oiling type lifters in race cars that they run a lot and they are getting good life out of them.  As much as two seasons running big springs and turning big RPM.  I still hear of the occasional fail but really not seeing much roller fails as I used to see maybe 5~6 years ago.  Better parts ad probably better maintenance.

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2017, 06:20:51 PM »
I think I am going to use a solid roller on my next build.  The main reason is I want the ability to change cams on the dyno, or in the car later, with no issues.

I also think the roller will make more power, even with the fairly mild duration (245+) I intend to use.

I could probably use a hydraulic roller, but I have a mental hang up with those, and I want to run a little higher rpm, maybe 6500 rpm.  I'm sure that is doable with a hydraulic roller with careful selection of parts, but it's a easy done deal with a solid.

paulie

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #50 on: December 10, 2017, 07:16:33 AM »
The ability to hot swap cams is the main benefit for you.  I don't see the roller making a discernible difference in power, but then again, it comes down to lobe designs for both cams. 

What size engine is this going to be again? 

If the engine is going to peak at 6000 or so, I wouldn't run the risk of running a solid roller on the street.  There's no benefit in them in that situation and there's more risk than reward.  For a lower rpm engine, I would either do a solid flat or a hydraulic roller. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #51 on: December 10, 2017, 08:47:09 AM »
It's not so simple as saying "it comes down to the lobe designs for both cams".  Sure, it is possible to have a flat tappet that is more aggressive and has more area under the curve, than a roller.  But, there are downsides to that, as well.  If you have a very aggressive flat tappet, you need more spring pressure to control it, unless the rpms are kept low.  Since increasing spring pressure eventually becomes problematic with flat tappets, that can be an issue. 

I once used a very aggressive solid flat tappet cam, 270/240/152 on the intake side.  Had some trouble controlling the valve train with the initial setup.  It started going uncontrolled around 6000 rpm.  We had to change to springs with more pressure and eventually went with titanium retainers.  The motor ended up peaking at 6200 rpm and pulled well to 6500 rpm.   I can't remember the exact pressures, but I think we started with around 360 lbs open and ended up around 390 lbs open pressure. 

I now run just over 400 lbs open pressure (150 on the seat) with another solid flat tappet combination.  I also have a nitrided cam, EDM'd American made lifters, and run good oil with a ZDDP supplement.   So yeah, it's doable to make a flat tappet run with a roller, up to a point, anyway.  But there are some downsides unless it's pretty mild engine.  So it's not so clear cut, in my opinion.

My current cam is 279/252/162 on the intake and 287/260/169 on the intake. Those are 0.020"/0.050"/0.200" numbers.  Lift is 0.340" on both.

Even if I use a extremely mild solid roller lobe like Comp High Energy 288, I can get 244 @0.050 and 158 @0.200.  The High Energy 300 gives you 255 @0.050 and 170 @0.200".  So I can get more at 0.200" but pay a penalty in longer advertised duration.   That's comparing an aggressive flat tappet to a very mild roller.  Peak lift isn't everything, but of course it's higher too.

Anyway, I'm not ruling out a solid flat tappet.  There's a Harold Brookshire (Berkshire?) flat tappet design with 277/244/157 degrees that I like.  I think that'd make a nice intake lobe. 

This will be a 471-474 inch motor if all works out well.  I know the cams I pick should peak lower, but the heads I have seem to help.  My old 240/246 cam peaked at 6200 rpm in a 433 inch version, for instance.

So long story short.  Yes, a solid flat tappet makes sense, and so does a hydraulic roller.  I don't like hydraulics and I want to be able to easily swap cams on the engine so I'm thinking solid roller.  I think it'll make more power with the roller unless I get fairly crazy with the flat tappet.   Of course it depends on the exact lobes used, but there you have it. 

Sorry for the hijack!   :)

paulie




blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #52 on: December 10, 2017, 09:06:23 AM »
It's not so simple as saying "it comes down to the lobe designs for both cams". 

Of course it depends on the exact lobes used, but there you have it. 

paulie

You started off rough, but came to your senses at the end...... ;)

Yes, it absolutely comes down to the lobe designs on each cam, if you're trying to compare a solid roller to a solid flat tappet.  You have placed emphasis on a magical duration that doesn't exist where the designs intersect and one takes over and is "better".  I will tell you first hand, based on more dyno scenarios than I can recount with both solid flat tappets and solid rollers, that it just doesn't happen like that.

So, you run a lazy solid roller and you lose hp plus you're still running solid roller lifters that, statistically speaking, can take a dump on you at any time, and at the very least will require an inspection at intervals. 

If you run a wilder solid roller, you're having to run stiffer valve springs, which put more stress on the rockers and will most likely require a different rocker arm setup so the studs won't be yanked out of the heads......AND.....you run an even higher risk of wearing the lifters out, which shortens your inspection interval. 

You're zooming in way too tight on this flat tappet vs. roller comparison.  You can't make blanket statements because every camshaft is different.

Switching subjects, your 433 inch engine with a 240/246 cam peaked at 6200 because it's a small engine.  You can't expect a 470 inch engine to do the same, even with 5 more degrees duration.  By the time you account for the duration you're going to lose because of lash, that 470 inch engine is going to peak at about 5500, based on what I've seen on the dyno.  That's a complete waste for a solid roller setup.  You're setting this combination up to be a long distance cruiser or a semi-daily driver, but you're considering parts with a short life cycle. 

Other than the fact that you already have a set of solid roller lifters, I don't understand the aversion to a hydraulic roller, because it seems to fit every bullet point of your presentation.......hot-swappable.......long life......extremely low maintenance, and you absolutely can put the peak hp and shift point where you want them.  A set of factory non-adjustable rockers with lightweight dual springs or beehives will get you there.

Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #53 on: December 10, 2017, 09:25:09 AM »
Oh my gosh, Brent.  We must be twins separated at birth.  I can say it's greenish-blue and you'll say "no, it's bluish-green".   I could say the sky is up, and then you'd stand on your hands and say, "no it isn't."   I'm sure I'm as bad as you are. 

The main reason I might use the solid roller lifters is to be able to swap cams.  I agree that a solid flat tappet or a hydraulic roller makes sense in most purely rational ways.  I just like driving down the road with solid tappet cam in my FE, ya big dork!  I'm gonna give you a wedgie when I see ya.   :P
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 09:28:53 AM by plovett »

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #54 on: December 10, 2017, 09:39:15 AM »
Paulie, my experience with solid rollers was from the early 2000s before pressure fed rollers, but I had a good bunch of street-driven Rat Chevies that I undid the carnage in Las Vegas when I was stationed there.  The group had their motors professionally built locally about the same time, and they all lost solid rollers.  They all got them rebuilt by me, and they ended up with a combo of SFT and HFT depending on the combo.  They were 500-600 hp machines, 462 cid and under.

When they did fail there was no warning, a little clickety-clack, then the wheel failed, jammed the body into to cam and took out big dollar cranks, spun a bearing on one, one chipped a block and made a general mess.  At the time, I called Comp and they said "75 passes" and they should be sent back to them.  Think of that in miles, then quadruple it, or multiply it by 1000 for the oiled pin, still is scary to me on a street car.

Does that apply here?  Lifters are better, Rats load lifters differently, oil fed rollers didn't exist, so maybe not, but I am still unwilling to run a roller wheel with lash in an engine that periodically runs low RPM, and would never do it if I don't have an oiled pin...regardless of whatever good luck other guys have

Truth in advertising though,, I will say though a buddy with a street solid roller in a 351C that ran forever, sold the motor and it kept running for years, same with Wes and a bunch of other guys.  I am just gun shy because of the lack of warning and the effects if they fail.

« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 09:41:46 AM by My427stang »
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2017, 09:54:12 AM »
Oh my gosh, Brent.  We must be twins separated at birth.  I can say it's greenish-blue and you'll say "no, it's bluish-green".   I could say the sky is up, and then you'd stand on your hands and say, "no it isn't."   I'm sure I'm as bad as you are. 

The main reason I might use the solid roller lifters is to be able to swap cams.  I agree that a solid flat tappet or a hydraulic roller makes sense in most purely rational ways.  I just like driving down the road with solid tappet cam in my FE, ya big dork!  I'm gonna give you a wedgie when I see ya.   :P

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult.  But when I was in engineering school, there was a saying......"Theory doesn't always mesh up with reality." 

It's nice to sit and run Desktop Dyno sims and compare durations at .200" lift, but putting combos together and dyno'ing them is what truly builds up the database.   

I'm just trying to help, as is Ross with his statements about solid roller lifters.  Quality, pressure-fed lifters can make a tremendous difference, but they still fail.   And you don't know when it's going to happen.  If you're setting your car up with a high rearend gear so you can go cruising on long trips, a solid roller just isn't the best scenario.    You can pick a lazy lobe and you can pick low spring pressure, but lifter failure is inevitable, and if you have to wimp-out on the cam to make the lifters last longer, what good is that?

If you like the idea of a hot solid flat tappet, run a nitrided cam with some tool steel EDM valve springs.  I've popped the lifters in and broke in cams without even reducing the spring pressures. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #56 on: December 10, 2017, 09:54:48 AM »
All good points, Ross.  I said "I think" am going to use a solid roller in my next build.  And I might.  I do have Morel bushed solid roller lifters that I got from Brent.  Good deal, by the way.  Thanks!

I would also use a milder solid roller profile.  I know that gives away some of the advantage of using a roller.  And the rpms would not be too high, so I would be able to use lower spring pressure.

And I would be able to swap cams on the dyno or later, which I something I think I want to do.  My engine with the heads it has peaks higher than most other people's with similar cams, so I'm not totally confident in my cam selections. 

I could end up with a solid flat tappet.  It makes sense and I'm not against it by any means.  I'm a guy that checks his valve lash pretty frequently.  I would likely do it more so with a solid roller, and I don't think the bushed lifters typically disintegrate catastrophically with no warning?

I'm listening, though. 

How much open and closed spring pressure do you all think this cam would need if running to say 6200 rpm on an FE with 11/32" 2.20/1.68" valves and Harland Sharp rockers?  I'd like to run steel retainers, but I'm not averse to titanium as I've been running them for years. 

http://lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2284&gid=284

I know it seems small for a 470+ engine. 

thanks,

paulie





plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #57 on: December 10, 2017, 10:00:15 AM »
Oh my gosh, Brent.  We must be twins separated at birth.  I can say it's greenish-blue and you'll say "no, it's bluish-green".   I could say the sky is up, and then you'd stand on your hands and say, "no it isn't."   I'm sure I'm as bad as you are. 

The main reason I might use the solid roller lifters is to be able to swap cams.  I agree that a solid flat tappet or a hydraulic roller makes sense in most purely rational ways.  I just like driving down the road with solid tappet cam in my FE, ya big dork!  I'm gonna give you a wedgie when I see ya.   :P

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult.  But when I was in engineering school, there was a saying......"Theory doesn't always mesh up with reality." 

It's nice to sit and run Desktop Dyno sims and compare durations at .200" lift, but putting combos together and dyno'ing them is what truly builds up the database.   

I'm just trying to help, as is Ross with his statements about solid roller lifters.  Quality, pressure-fed lifters can make a tremendous difference, but they still fail.   And you don't know when it's going to happen.  If you're setting your car up with a high rearend gear so you can go cruising on long trips, a solid roller just isn't the best scenario.    You can pick a lazy lobe and you can pick low spring pressure, but lifter failure is inevitable, and if you have to wimp-out on the cam to make the lifters last longer, what good is that?

If you like the idea of a hot solid flat tappet, run a nitrided cam with some tool steel EDM valve springs.  I've popped the lifters in and broke in cams without even reducing the spring pressures.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd agree, Brent.   :P   I am already doing the nitrided cam, EMD'd lifter thing.  My lifters aren't too steel, though.  I run somewhere between 400-405 lbs open pressure on my flat tappet and have for years and several thousand miles.  It seems like it's pushing it to me.

And yes, I do agree that real world experience trumps a desktop dyno.  I don't have one by the way, but I get the dig.    That's why I posted a couple of real examples. 

Post some of yours,

paulie

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #58 on: December 10, 2017, 10:00:46 AM »
If not titanium, you can run tool steel. 

That's a pretty aggressive lobe.   Most "street rollers" have 38-50 degrees intensity and a lot of them can be used as a hydraulic roller....

I have ran a 428 to 6500 with a custom Comp solid roller, with 225/525 lbs of spring pressure. 

Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #59 on: December 10, 2017, 10:08:29 AM »
I will default to Brent on spring pressure, but your repeated referencing to a 240s-250s cam in a stroker as being "small" hurts my feelings :)

Please don't tell my Mustang, because at this point it acts like it has plenty of cam and I don't want it to know the truth!
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #60 on: December 10, 2017, 10:08:47 AM »
Oh my gosh, Brent.  We must be twins separated at birth.  I can say it's greenish-blue and you'll say "no, it's bluish-green".   I could say the sky is up, and then you'd stand on your hands and say, "no it isn't."   I'm sure I'm as bad as you are. 

The main reason I might use the solid roller lifters is to be able to swap cams.  I agree that a solid flat tappet or a hydraulic roller makes sense in most purely rational ways.  I just like driving down the road with solid tappet cam in my FE, ya big dork!  I'm gonna give you a wedgie when I see ya.   :P

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult.  But when I was in engineering school, there was a saying......"Theory doesn't always mesh up with reality." 

It's nice to sit and run Desktop Dyno sims and compare durations at .200" lift, but putting combos together and dyno'ing them is what truly builds up the database.   

I'm just trying to help, as is Ross with his statements about solid roller lifters.  Quality, pressure-fed lifters can make a tremendous difference, but they still fail.   And you don't know when it's going to happen.  If you're setting your car up with a high rearend gear so you can go cruising on long trips, a solid roller just isn't the best scenario.    You can pick a lazy lobe and you can pick low spring pressure, but lifter failure is inevitable, and if you have to wimp-out on the cam to make the lifters last longer, what good is that?

If you like the idea of a hot solid flat tappet, run a nitrided cam with some tool steel EDM valve springs.  I've popped the lifters in and broke in cams without even reducing the spring pressures.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd agree, Brent.   :P   I am already doing the nitrided cam, EMD'd lifter thing.  My lifters aren't too steel, though.  I run somewhere between 400-405 lbs open pressure on my flat tappet and have for years and several thousand miles.  It seems like it's pushing it to me.

And yes, I do agree that real world experience trumps a desktop dyno.  I don't have one by the way, but I get the dig.    That's why I posted a couple of real examples. 

Post some of yours,

paulie

What kind of real examples do you want?   

I've got a 487 in a Cobra in California with a set of CNC Pond heads, 10.5:1 compression, with a ported Victor FE intake, and a custom Bullet solid roller.  It made 640 hp @ 6500.  Owner got tired of the cam and intake because it was soggy where he did most of his driving.   Since he had Isky bushed lifters and T&D race rockers, we switched to a custom Comp solid roller and a Blue Thunder MR 1x4 intake and he was much happier....picked up a ton of bottom end.   Went from 700 lb valve springs to 550 lb valve springs.     

Got a ton of 427's with custom solid flat tappets out there, EDM lifters.....

Got several 445's with hydraulic rollers and non-adjustable rockers that spun to 6500 on the dyno without losing control of the lifters.   

Got a 347 in a local drag car that runs a solid roller with 600 lb valve springs.   Comp "Endure-X" lifters with Harland Sharp roller rockers.  Refresh after 200+ passes, rocker arms had to go in for rebuild and a couple lifters had some draggy spots in the wheels. 

Pick your poison.


 
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 10:12:53 AM by blykins »
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #61 on: December 10, 2017, 10:15:06 AM »
Oh my gosh, Brent.  We must be twins separated at birth.  I can say it's greenish-blue and you'll say "no, it's bluish-green".   I could say the sky is up, and then you'd stand on your hands and say, "no it isn't."   I'm sure I'm as bad as you are. 

The main reason I might use the solid roller lifters is to be able to swap cams.  I agree that a solid flat tappet or a hydraulic roller makes sense in most purely rational ways.  I just like driving down the road with solid tappet cam in my FE, ya big dork!  I'm gonna give you a wedgie when I see ya.   :P

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult.  But when I was in engineering school, there was a saying......"Theory doesn't always mesh up with reality." 

It's nice to sit and run Desktop Dyno sims and compare durations at .200" lift, but putting combos together and dyno'ing them is what truly builds up the database.   

I'm just trying to help, as is Ross with his statements about solid roller lifters.  Quality, pressure-fed lifters can make a tremendous difference, but they still fail.   And you don't know when it's going to happen.  If you're setting your car up with a high rearend gear so you can go cruising on long trips, a solid roller just isn't the best scenario.    You can pick a lazy lobe and you can pick low spring pressure, but lifter failure is inevitable, and if you have to wimp-out on the cam to make the lifters last longer, what good is that?

If you like the idea of a hot solid flat tappet, run a nitrided cam with some tool steel EDM valve springs.  I've popped the lifters in and broke in cams without even reducing the spring pressures.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd agree, Brent.   :P   I am already doing the nitrided cam, EMD'd lifter thing.  My lifters aren't too steel, though.  I run somewhere between 400-405 lbs open pressure on my flat tappet and have for years and several thousand miles.  It seems like it's pushing it to me.

And yes, I do agree that real world experience trumps a desktop dyno.  I don't have one by the way, but I get the dig.    That's why I posted a couple of real examples. 

Post some of yours,

paulie

Why do you think it's pushing it?  Are you gaining lash?  Springs losing pressure?  If there is no wear or loss of integrity, I wouldn't have any negative feelings about it. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #62 on: December 10, 2017, 10:36:33 AM »

What kind of real examples do you want?   

Pick your poison.

I'd like to see examples like the one in the Engine Masters video the thread started with.  They used a hydraulic flat tappet cam and a hydraulic roller cam both with the same duration @0.050"  I think the peak power was in the same rpm range, too. 

Now I know they used an old school flat tappet cam and a newer roller cam, so there's that.  I did say earlier that if they compared a modern solid flat tappet to the hydro roller the results would have been different.  I'm not sure if they would have made up the difference with a modern hydraulic flat tappet.  But, that is what the original question was about;  flat tappet vs roller. 

So if by chance you have had almost identical engine combinations, except one was a flat tappet and one was a roller, that would be good to hear about. 

thanks,

paulie

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #63 on: December 10, 2017, 10:43:04 AM »
Why do you think it's pushing it?  Are you gaining lash?  Springs losing pressure?  If there is no wear or loss of integrity, I wouldn't have any negative feelings about it.

I have gained lash over the years.  Tiny bits at a time, but I see it. 

Maye when I get through the nitrided layer on the cam it will start to wear much faster?  Or maybe my lifters are too soft in comparison to the cam.  Tool steel might help there.  Or maybe nitriding is not a silver bullet.  My understanding is that nitriding hardens the surface, but weakens the interior.    Yes, you pick your poison.  Pluses and minuses to almost everything.

JMO,

paulie

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #64 on: December 10, 2017, 10:47:03 AM »
I'll take a look.  Gotta go salt the driveway and knock the ice off the cars first....

It would most likely be solid vs solid as I don't do hardly any hydraulic flat tappet builds.  I'm getting ready to do a 428CJ with a hyd flat tappet that has almost identical engine and cam specs (as identical as you can make a flat vs. a roller), but I won't have it done for a bit.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #65 on: December 10, 2017, 10:48:51 AM »
Why do you think it's pushing it?  Are you gaining lash?  Springs losing pressure?  If there is no wear or loss of integrity, I wouldn't have any negative feelings about it.

I have gained lash over the years.  Tiny bits at a time, but I see it. 

Maye when I get through the nitrided layer on the cam it will start to wear much faster?  Or maybe my lifters are too soft in comparison to the cam.  Tool steel might help there.  Or maybe nitriding is not a silver bullet.  My understanding is that nitriding hardens the surface, but weakens the interior.    Yes, you pick your poison.  Pluses and minuses to almost everything.

JMO,

paulie

Gotta look at things relative to how many miles you plan to drive too.   If you're really planning on racking the miles up with this combo, then there are a lot of short-term situations out there. 

Seems like I remember you saying that you were trying to get a combination together to go on extended road trips, but I get you and Ballinger confused sometimes..... :P
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #66 on: December 10, 2017, 10:51:08 AM »
Does that apply here?  Lifters are better, Rats load lifters differently, oil fed rollers didn't exist, so maybe not, but I am still unwilling to run a roller wheel with lash in an engine that periodically runs low RPM, and would never do it if I don't have an oiled pin...regardless of whatever good luck other guys have


Regarding rpm, I hear ya.  I set my idle high, even with my current flat tappet, for that reason.  If I had a street roller I would also set the idle high, maybe 1000-1200 rpm.  Going down the road I'm not worried about it even with high gears as the rpm's will likely be 2500+ at all times except for idle.

I'm still listening.

JMO,

paulie

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #67 on: December 10, 2017, 10:58:48 AM »

Gotta look at things relative to how many miles you plan to drive too.   If you're really planning on racking the miles up with this combo, then there are a lot of short-term situations out there. 

Seems like I remember you saying that you were trying to get a combination together to go on extended road trips, but I get you and Ballinger confused sometimes..... :P

Maybe Bill and I are the same person???   Ever see the movie,  Sybil?   

Anyhoo, if a bushed solid roller can go 20-30K with the right selection of parts that is plenty for me and my extended road trips.    I also like solid flat tappets.  In fact I like them better in most respects.  I still would like to be able to swap cams at a moment's notice.   Hence, the indecision....


plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #68 on: December 10, 2017, 11:13:20 AM »
How much open and closed spring pressure do you all think this cam would need if running to say 6200 rpm on an FE with 11/32" 2.20/1.68" valves and Harland Sharp rockers?  I'd like to run steel retainers, but I'm not averse to titanium as I've been running them for years. 

http://lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2284&gid=284

thanks,

paulie

I just looked at the recommended spring for this cam on the Lunati website.  If I'm doing the math right it ends up at 153 lbs closed with a 1.92" installed height and around 394 lbs open at a 0.600" net lift.  That ain't chump pressure for a flat tappet.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #69 on: December 10, 2017, 11:53:01 AM »
Whoops, then disregard my previous post about valve spring pressure for that cam.  I thought it was a solid roller.....

The manufacturers say 20-30k on a set of bushed lifters but I don’t have any customers with more than 6-7k on a set.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #70 on: December 10, 2017, 12:10:55 PM »
Why do I feel like I'm trapped in the 60's when I read all this... :o

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #71 on: December 10, 2017, 12:24:45 PM »
Ok, I have some combos that were *close* to each other, but I can't find anything identical and only difference was lifter type.   

I have found:

*A 428 with out-of-the-box Edelbrock heads, Tunnel Wedge, camshaft was solid roller 248/254 @ .050", 286/292, ~.680" lift, 110 LSA, 11:1 compression, 533 hp @ 6400, 472 lb-ft @ 5400.
*A 427 with 280 cfm LR heads, ported C3 2x4 intake, camshaft was solid flat tappet, 252/260 @ .050", .640" lift, 106 LSA, 510 hp @ 6100, 511 lb-ft @ 4200.

So basically I have nothing.... LOL  I use so many custom camshafts though, and I rarely use the same one twice. 

Something that I did find that was fun to note....the difference between cylinder heads.

First combo was a 430 cube combo, out of the box Edelbrock heads, Blue Thunder 1x4 intake, 10.7:1, 240/246 @ .050" solid flat tappet, 108 LSA, .620" lift, made 476 hp @ 5700, 489 lb-ft @ 4400. 

Second combo was a 433 cube combo, CNC Pond heads, Performer RPM intake, 10:1, 243/249 @ .050" solid flat tappet, 108 LSA, .620" lift, made 529 hp @ 5800, 552 lb-ft @ 4300. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #72 on: December 10, 2017, 12:25:34 PM »
Why do I feel like I'm trapped in the 60's when I read all this... :o

Maybe I should ask for a clarification before I post....................
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 12:37:48 PM by blykins »
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2017, 12:32:21 PM »
Ok, I have some combos that were *close* to each other, but I can't find anything identical and only difference was lifter type.   

I have found:

*A 428 with out-of-the-box Edelbrock heads, Tunnel Wedge, camshaft was solid roller 248/254 @ .050", 286/292, ~.680" lift, 110 LSA, 11:1 compression, 533 hp @ 6400, 472 lb-ft @ 5400.
*A 427 with 280 cfm LR heads, ported C3 2x4 intake, camshaft was solid flat tappet, 252/260 @ .050", .640" lift, 106 LSA, 510 hp @ 6100, 511 lb-ft @ 4200.

So basically I have nothing.... LOL  I use so many custom camshafts though, and I rarely use the same one twice. 

Something that I did find that was fun to note....the difference between cylinder heads.

First combo was a 430 cube combo, out of the box Edelbrock heads, Blue Thunder 1x4 intake, 10.7:1, 240/246 @ .050" solid flat tappet, 108 LSA, .620" lift, made 476 hp @ 5700, 489 lb-ft @ 4400. 

Second combo was a 433 cube combo, CNC Pond heads, Performer RPM intake, 10:1, 243/249 @ .050" solid flat tappet, 108 LSA, .620" lift, made 529 hp @ 5800, 552 lb-ft @ 4300.

It's not easy to find perfect data to prove a point unless you actually design a test like the Hot Rod guys.  Anyway, I'll add my old 433 here:

433 cid, ported Edelbrock heads, 1x4 Blue Thunder intake, 10.5:1, 240/246 solid flat tappet, 108 LSA, .580/.598" net lift.  517 hp at 6200 rpm, 521 lb-ft at 4200.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2017, 12:38:52 PM »
Fell right in there where I figured it would.   You have more cylinder head than the Edelbrock engine I posted and less cylinder head than the Pond headed motor I posted.

There's always a difference in dynos, difference in how the engines are loaded, etc., so if all the data is not from the same day on the same dyno, you just have to look for general trends.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 12:41:02 PM by blykins »
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Drew Pojedinec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2017, 12:59:08 PM »
Why do I feel like I'm trapped in the 60's when I read all this... :o

Maybe I should ask for a clarification before I post....................

Scott appears to be more of a roller fan.
I'm sure that makes sense, just not in my 63.5, as it is designed to be stuck in the 60's in many ways.  :P

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2017, 01:12:58 PM »
I'm probably more of a hydraulic roller fan, but I think there's a situation for each type. 

Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #77 on: December 10, 2017, 04:24:41 PM »
Paulie, is this in a 427 block without oil to the lifters? or a hyd block?
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #78 on: December 10, 2017, 05:38:36 PM »
I have a center oiler block.  So oil to the lifters unless I'm having an aneurism and not thinking right.  It has had a rod out the side and has been welded back together.  It also has a sleeve that has slipped down.  And it's 0.030 over.  I think all those things are okay or can be fixed.  It's going to need custom pistons anyway so I'll go with the absolute minimum overbore, 4.27-4.28"???  Somewhere in there.  I'm not averse to a little Hard Blok either, either a couple of inches or a half-fill.

paulie


wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #79 on: December 10, 2017, 06:40:56 PM »









Well i have learned a lot on this site i think i will sell my roller stuff and buy solid flat tappet set up it will just see street use.










scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #80 on: December 10, 2017, 07:45:55 PM »









Well i have learned a lot on this site i think i will sell my roller stuff and buy solid flat tappet set up it will just see street use.
That would be unfortunate.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #81 on: December 10, 2017, 08:34:09 PM »
I have a center oiler block.  So oil to the lifters unless I'm having an aneurism and not thinking right.  It has had a rod out the side and has been welded back together.  It also has a sleeve that has slipped down.  And it's 0.030 over.  I think all those things are okay or can be fixed.  It's going to need custom pistons anyway so I'll go with the absolute minimum overbore, 4.27-4.28"???  Somewhere in there.  I'm not averse to a little Hard Blok either, either a couple of inches or a half-fill.

paulie

Not sure if that is a typo and should say "no oil to the lifters"  but a center oiler unless drilled will not have oil to the lifters.

It will be splash (or windage) oiled only, so no pressure fed pins unless the block is modified.
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #82 on: December 10, 2017, 08:50:32 PM »
That’s a good point.

If it hasn’t been drilled, options are extremely limited.  EDM lifters won’t do any good, and a non pressure fed solid roller will be short lived.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #83 on: December 11, 2017, 04:53:26 AM »
Thanks guys.  I'm new to 427 blocks and not entirely sure what I'm talking about. I will do some investigating to see what I have.

paulie
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 05:04:30 AM by plovett »

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #84 on: December 11, 2017, 05:07:31 AM »
Post a pic of the lifter valley or the rear of the block and we can help.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #85 on: December 11, 2017, 05:37:08 AM »
Post a pic of the lifter valley or the rear of the block and we can help.

WILCO and thanks.   I'll try to have pic later today.

paulie

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #86 on: December 11, 2017, 08:09:31 AM »
All this talk about lobes and spring pressures and control...and not a single mention of pushrods. Something Jay needs to keep in consideration with a much taller head and one reason I like hyd rollers...if for no other reason, they shorten the pushrods considerably.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 08:11:47 AM by scott foxwell »

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #87 on: December 11, 2017, 08:41:03 AM »
Yes sir, pushrods can be a good place to add weight in the valvetrain.  I once had a spring harmonics issue that I THINK was exacerbated by weak flexing pushrods.  I got thicker wall pushrods (and different springs) and all was well. 

paulie

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #88 on: December 11, 2017, 08:49:01 AM »
I have a center oiler block.  So oil to the lifters unless I'm having an aneurism and not thinking right.  It has had a rod out the side and has been welded back together.  It also has a sleeve that has slipped down.  And it's 0.030 over.  I think all those things are okay or can be fixed.  It's going to need custom pistons anyway so I'll go with the absolute minimum overbore, 4.27-4.28"???  Somewhere in there.  I'm not averse to a little Hard Blok either, either a couple of inches or a half-fill.

paulie

Not sure if that is a typo and should say "no oil to the lifters"  but a center oiler unless drilled will not have oil to the lifters.

It will be splash (or windage) oiled only, so no pressure fed pins unless the block is modified.

No you're right, Ross.  It should say "no oil to the lifters".  I typed "oil to the lifters" on purpose but something in the back of my mind was reeling.  That's why I was wondering if I was having an aneurism.  I think I have a '65 block which would not have pressure fed oiling to the lifters?

I'll look after a while.

paulie

chilly460

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #89 on: December 11, 2017, 08:50:41 AM »
Good point on the pushrods.  Few years ago I swung through Charlotte and hit some NASCAR shops.  Obviously the new engines they utilize are clean slate engineering, so the cam tunnel is way up in the block to shorten the pushrods.  I was surprised how big they were, though, even being that short.  My thought was they'd run as small a pushrod as possible to knock weight out of the valvetrain but the guide said the tradeoff for stiffness was worth it.  Obvously running 9000rpm for long distance changes the requirements, but the theory stuck in my head. 

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #90 on: December 11, 2017, 09:11:42 AM »
We've learned that weight on the lifter side of the ocker is far less a concern than system rigidity. The last thing you need in a pushrod valve train is another spring in the system which is essentially what a "weak" pushrod becomes. I would never put a performance FE back together with the stock dia. pushrods. It's pretty hard to run "too big" of a pushrod and cross sectional diameter always trumps wall thickness. Look at the cup guys running way more lift than anything discussed here at 9000rpm for 500 mi...with 80# seat pressure. Yes, their stuff is developed on a spintron but none the less..."intuitively" throwing more spring pressure at a system is not always the best solution. They have .500"+ dia. pushrods with that 80# seat pressure. And they're short. VERY rigid.
One other thing to consider...I keep hearing comments about the spring pressure needed with a solid roller, yet with a hyd. roller's much heavier lifter, we get away with less spring pressure. It's the lobe that dictates the spring pressure, so if you have a very mild solid roller...something comparable to a hyd roller only with a lash ramp, then the spring pressures don't need to be anything unreasonable (for those of you who are adverse to a hyd roller, but willing to go solid). Finally, don't be afraid of a little spring pressure. While yes, you can usually get away with less, this is an area where a little more is not a bad thing. It's way better to have more than enough, than less than enough. Weak springs is the kiss of death in any valve train, especially a pushrod design. Sprig pressure is what keeps things under control, and it's when we lose control is when all the damage and breaking takes place.
Just some of my thoughts on the subject.

Falcon67

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
    • View Profile
    • Kelly's Hot Rod Page
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #91 on: December 11, 2017, 11:28:08 AM »
Echo.  The hydro flat in my 302 has dual springs, 130 lbs seat/400 over the nose which is a bit more than normal for a flat hydro.  And why I like to run 3/8 pushrods in my 351Cs.  A bit on the fat side is OK.

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #92 on: December 11, 2017, 12:58:50 PM »
Good point on the pushrods.  Few years ago I swung through Charlotte and hit some NASCAR shops.  Obviously the new engines they utilize are clean slate engineering, so the cam tunnel is way up in the block to shorten the pushrods.  I was surprised how big they were, though, even being that short.  My thought was they'd run as small a pushrod as possible to knock weight out of the valvetrain but the guide said the tradeoff for stiffness was worth it.  Obvously running 9000rpm for long distance changes the requirements, but the theory stuck in my head.

And I still get guys that want to run shell lifters - pushrods ends up even longer.....

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #93 on: December 15, 2017, 11:51:53 AM »
Just FYI if you're interested.  I posted this question on Speedtalk. 

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51713

Brent, feel free to disagree.  Or feel free to disagree that you are disagreeing.   ;D

paulie

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #94 on: December 15, 2017, 04:12:18 PM »
I'm holding firm on my previous thoughts.  It's all about the combination that the cam is in.   Nobody is looking at it like that, everyone is zoomed in on acceleration rates. 

I do agree with Mike Jones about Vizard though....
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #95 on: December 15, 2017, 04:57:37 PM »
From Mike Jones....

"There are multiple variables, that effect the advantage of going to a roller.
Duration, lift, tappet diameter, base circle diameter, available spring rates, Engine RPM.

You can't just say, the advantage will be bigger, with more duration."

Looks like he and I agree.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #96 on: December 15, 2017, 05:09:47 PM »
From Mike Jones....

"There are multiple variables, that effect the advantage of going to a roller.
Duration, lift, tappet diameter, base circle diameter, available spring rates, Engine RPM.

You can't just say, the advantage will be bigger, with more duration."

Looks like he and I agree.

See how easy that was?  I read it all of course, Brent.  However, he was talking about extreme examples as I read it.  And that was after he said that a roller is (can be) always better.   
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 05:15:26 PM by plovett »

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #97 on: December 15, 2017, 05:35:58 PM »
Easy?   I've been saying the same thing for the past 7 pages.   :o

"Always" or "never" are words that shouldn't be used.   Can be, yes.  Always, absolutely not. 
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #98 on: December 15, 2017, 05:50:04 PM »
Oh my gosh.    Okay, you're right, Brent.  I didn't understand that different cam types can be ground in different ways.  I think I finally got it. 

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #99 on: December 15, 2017, 05:55:23 PM »
I'm not following you man.  I'm not trying to be difficult at all, I'm just not understanding you. 

Your initial premise was that there was a duration where a roller cam surpassed a flat tappet.....right?

Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

scott foxwell

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #100 on: December 15, 2017, 06:25:00 PM »
Roller vs flat tappet...roller always wins. There are three reasons to run a flat tappet...1) you just feel like it, 2) you're either too cheap, or too stubborn to run a roller, or 3) you're racing in a rules limited class that requires one.

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2017, 06:32:01 PM »
There seems to be about 17 different arguments in this thread and I can’t keep track of any of it.

Y’all have fun arguing wirh each other.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

plovett

  • Guest
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #102 on: December 16, 2017, 10:28:51 AM »
I'm not following you man.  I'm not trying to be difficult at all, I'm just not understanding you. 

Your initial premise was that there was a duration where a roller cam surpassed a flat tappet.....right?

Kinda.  Not exactly.  You've worn me out.  No worries.  Cant talk any more...........must....... go.......drink........whiskey. 

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #103 on: December 16, 2017, 10:52:14 AM »
Good point on the pushrods.  Few years ago I swung through Charlotte and hit some NASCAR shops.  Obviously the new engines they utilize are clean slate engineering, so the cam tunnel is way up in the block to shorten the pushrods.  I was surprised how big they were, though, even being that short.  My thought was they'd run as small a pushrod as possible to knock weight out of the valvetrain but the guide said the tradeoff for stiffness was worth it.  Obvously running 9000rpm for long distance changes the requirements, but the theory stuck in my head.

And I still get guys that want to run shell lifters - pushrods ends up even longer.....

I hear you Barry on the 'old school' shells and long azz pushrods.

But I wonder, if they are running mild cams, even hotter, old, slow ramp, low spring pressure NASCAR-type cams, if it makes much difference in mild to warm builds. Obviously this is a much different animal with today's fast acceleration ramps and very high flat tappet spring pressures. But admittedly it's a tad foolish today to use that old stuff when so many better alternatives for the FE exist.   

Btw, it makes me wonder what Ford used in 1967 for the NASCAR-sourced tunnel port 427's used in the the world-beating GT-40 Mark IV's that so convincingly won LeMans. Anybody here know? 
Bob Maag

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Roller vs. Flat-Tappet Cams! - Engine Masters Ep. 16 Motor Trend Channel
« Reply #104 on: December 16, 2017, 03:09:16 PM »
A shell lifter actually is very light, and mechanically the cup for the pushrod puts a better angle on the pushrod to rocker arm.  The longer pushrod and shell lifter is not heavier than a solid lifter and a shorter pushrod.  I personally like the shell lifters when I ran a solid camshaft in my FE.  Never had an issue with them or lost either a lifter or pushrod when buzzing my 427 to 7600 rpm nearly every pass down the 1/4 mile.  Joe-JDC
Joe-JDC '70GT-500