Interesting video on current lifter quality
 

Interesting video from a YouTuber who looked at current lifter offerings, while not terribly scientific they come to their own conclusions that echo what a lot of folks say regarding the Hylift Johnson’s

https://youtu.be/m3A8uMQ2d1U?si=X0u4QtTuTF-gnmmc

I don’t know how old the video was. But my recollection is Hughes engines (Mopar only)has always used HLJ for their lifters. There cams are currently ground by Howard’s, before that they were ground by Engle cams. Hughes also offer HLJ’s “S” lifter, which is an extremely expensive slow bleed flat tappet lifter, and exclusive only from HLJ. I don’t think Lunati has used HLJ lifter for several years. I have a set of micro-trio’s from 2018, I do not recall them being the same as HLJ’s, I had HLJ’s at the same time. FWIW…We had some 80’s Standyne lifters and some late seventies Johnson’s we source for a couple other engines. The late 70s Johnson’s have a very nice finish compared to any of the other lifters, the foot is polished like jewelry.

I would have preferred if they tested a Hy-Lift Johnson lifter rather then relying on speculation that the other brand lifters were in fact using the Hy-Lift Johnson body. Suppliers over the years frequently change suppliers depending on price and availability. Why didn't they test Comp lifters? It would have been nice to know when these lifter were manufactured but nothing in the study to indicate if it was 1995 or 2020? They all had hardness within spec but many speculate failures are due to soft lifters. I saw another video recently and tests indicated the lifters had hardness within spec but crown was an issue. Another factor, the surface anomalies in the photos, would they be considered within limits by the manufacturer? Would they actually contribute to Lifter/cam lobe failure? I would not use them based on the photos but I don't know if that condition would contribute to a failure if the hardness and crown was correct. Nevertheless interesting information.

'Justin Lotspeich' Poly 318 Website - (https://poly318.com/) looks like a legit Mopar guy to me, the video is 4 months old so I'm guessing the info is current.

"I produce content to help educate others about automotive topics ranging from vintage Dodge, Chrysler, Plymouth, DeSoto, Mopar to modern vehicles."
https://www.youtube.com/@Poly318/videos

Best way to expect or stand behind a warranty is through quality.
I utilize the kit option from Lunati so there's no confusion.


Frank

Is there a way to tell JHL visually from other brands , other than face? After years of tinkering a person may have 3 or 4 sets of used lifters matched to cams and 3 or 4 sets of new lifters all from various souces and decades..

plunger build ?

Yes, it’s a very current video & he verified with tech support for each manufacturer that they are in fact using Johnson lifter bodies for all except for Melling & Howard’s who would only state made in the US. What struck me was the difference between the lifters even using the same bodies, showed me that it’s all in the finish machine work/assembly.

Here is a photo, starting left to right, HLJ - Melling- NOS GM.

I also had a set of current AC-Delco lifters which appear to be Melling.

Note the large chamfer on the face of the NOS GM.

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...9&d=1707223542

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...0&d=1707223640

Morning Dataway. The last melling lifters I ordered came without the hard faced cap on the foot of the lifter. Stellite? might be the name and have never had a failure using the old style.

Bummer...

The plant making the Delphi GM hardened foot lifters quit mfg them a couple years ago. I think it was in Mexico.. Easy too spot them by the groove above the foot.

I haven’t bought a Lunati HFT lifter for several years. They are always out of stock, Summit does not even list Lunati lifters at all. It could be Lunati went back to HLJ since the last time I used them, I have noticed their prices went up a lot on Jeg’s site, seems like right now you can tell which companies source HLJ by just comparing prices. If they appear cheap, likely not HLJ. From what I recall the Mopar Lunati lifters I had in 2018 the lifter body was different.

I bought those Mellings about five years ago, I think from Rock Auto. Made in USA, and they appear the same as a somewhat older set of AC-Delco lifters.

The capped Mellings are what is installed in my engine right now, and doing fine. I kept a set of GM NOS just in case. After careful examination and measuring the GM NOS were by far the most accurate, consistent and well machined, the Mellings came in second, the HLJ third.

Rock Auto still lists two varieties of Melling lifter, both capped, one standard, one "high performance" ... no data on where they are made.

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...3&d=1707235715

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...4&d=1707235728

I don’t know what this means for the guys lifter video, right from Hughes site. I guess HLJ isn’t immune from QC issues either.

Sadly, everything thing today has the potential for being subpar.

That large chamfer would worry me.

This is exactly why I stopped building for others.
This crap never used to be an issue.

Interesting Data. Here is a picture of what they are selling as the melling JB951. Let me know what you guys think.

last two orders were the new style as well and had to find a local old supply. Truman Fields had some interesting posts about the hard faced lifters.

I think that maybe be an Eaton lifter made in Mexico. Eaton does not have the hardened foot.

I think you are correct on the Eaton style Jay and what they are now selling as JB951.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/mel-jb-951

That chamfer is direct from GM .. both sets of original GM lifters I have, have that chamfer. Not sure how it would play with modern cam profiles but evidently it was SOP back in the day.

Looking closely you can see the OEM GM has the most chamfer, the Melling has less, and the HLJ the least.

I guess it would depend on lobe profile as to whether the chamfer would even come into the equation?

Yep Melling is currently showing an uncapped lifter as their JB-951 lifter.

Can look it up here: https://www.melling.com/parts-lookup/

Any insight as to the current SFT. offering from Comp 2900-16 Series... Actual MFG.

Iam trying to find a good EDM solid .. not much out there IN STOCK so might have to go solid face

It doesn't say where they are made so maybe off shore

https://butlerperformance.com/i-2445...tegory:1234787

Bigger the chamfer the better chance you have of destroying a lobe. A lazy lobe with a large chamfer is the worse case scenario. About fifteen years ago I noticed Pontiac had a new part number for RAIV lifters. I ordered a set and they were re-boxed Hy-lift 951R's. Not sure why your lifter has such a large chamfer but I doubt it's within the original GM spec.

Don't know what to tell you, I opened the sealed boxes myself. Original 40+ year old GM parts in GM boxes. Both sets the same.
Would be curious to see other examples of original GM lifters in this age range.

I don’t know for sure, but my best guess is they are being made at the C.C.P. plant in Bronson, Michigan.

I have used the EDM comp SFT’s (800-16) and the 2900s. I kind of recall the oil band maybe is a bit low, they work though.

This question may be a bit off topic but since the discussion is about lifter quality/design and you fellows appear pretty knowledgeable so here goes.

Does anyone know who supplied the HFT lifters to HO Racing Specialties?

HO sold name brand items such as MSD, Power Forge, etc. and their catalog states their cams are made to HO specs by Crane Cams. The lifters don’t list a manufacturer, but I’m guessing the lifters are Crane also??????

I have a set of VL-11 lifters purchased back in the early 80s before the offshore invasion and quality issues.

H-O sold original Johnson lifters before they became Hy-Lift...... Not the same as Crane

Paul K...Thanks for the info. Since I purchased these way "back in the day" as they say I would guess these are good quality lifters compared to some of the lifters available today???? BTW, you're no longer in Sugar Grove????

The chamfer upgrade may foresee higher lift and RPM's. Seems to me if things start floating around at higher RPM's through effort or even accidentally the big chamfer could be disastrous. If not all at once, over time it would make the valve train unstable, possibly leading to a harmonics issue, premature wear and eventual failure.


Frank

I have an original 067 cam and lifters from my 1970 400 if your interested i can dig them out for pics

I remembered those details wrong on the Michigan plant. It went by C.P.P., and there wasn’t anything done with flat tappet stuff, focus was more on axles for roller assemblies. Compcams owned the company.

It would be very interesting to see. I mean the chamfer is pronounced enough that it appears to be a "feature" and I use that word sarcastically :)

In my head (not the best way to do things) I have a hard time seeing how a chamfer would cause big problems. On most used lifters I've removed the wear pattern often doesn't even intersect with the edge of the lifter. And wouldn't the lobe/lifter contact pressure be very slight at that point in lobe rotation?

Does the sharp edge of a lifter face ever contact the lobe under high pressure?

I can "see in my head" the point at which a lifter face contacts the flat'ish portion on the side of a lobe and then starts to transition to the ramp of the lobe but hard to imagine the edge of the lifter face ever seeing any appreciable force .... now carry it to the extreme, a lifter face the size of a pencil eraser ... yes the edge would see a lot of force, but wouldn't the contact of a lifter face edge on the lobe depend greatly on lifter diameter and lobe profile? IE ... a mushroom lifter the edge would never contact the lobe, a ridiculously small OD lifter the edge would contact the lobe a LOT.

I mean look at heavily worn lifters ... it's the center that dishes from wear ... not the edges.

So perhaps with the OEM lobe profile, and the lifter diameter in use circa 1968 that chamfer is not an issue?

Can someone help me understand how the size of the chamfer plays into this?

Is it about what happens if the cam lobe starts wearing?

Or does the chamfer somehow affect stability or lubrication?

How far from the center of the lifter (peak of the crown) is the "ideal" or "as-designed" contact point on the lifter? What is the offset from the center of the lifter face if all the parts are new and "in spec"?

I have zero experience looking at the wear patterns and thankfully, even less experience with lifter failure but this is my perception of the contact geometry, which makes me think the chamfer SHOULD BE far away from the contact zone:

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...1&d=1707405453

Mike

Well I thought Paul was talking about the chamfer in the cup not the edge?


Frank

Wouldn't be the first time I wandered off a trail.... my apologies if I misinterpreted!

Mike

pics of 1970 OEM 400 / 067 cam lifter

Thank you.

Hmmm, definitely a chamfer there, not as pronounced as the set I have though.

I can certainly see how as a chamfer gets larger it reduces the diameter of the face, but if the geometry is such that it doesn't contact the lobe anyway, or contacts it with very little pressure ... I don't know, can't see much harm in it. Seems like the sharp corner of a lifter wouldn't last very long against a lobe with any real pressure on it.

However .. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, there may be other forces at work I'm not aware of.

I sourced my lifters from Elgin. The lifters were purchased in "tray" lots of 128 lifters. I then modified them with "Tru-Arc" snap rings. Back then there were very few lifter failures, so nobody cared who made them. According to the identification chart from Sealed Power, they were Johnson's

Havent recently seen this info and for future reference,
Are there any definative tell tale signs that positively ID a lifter as a specific brand?

Not sure how to explain that chamfer is a bad idea. I once waisted time trying to explain millions of vehicles make it to work everyday with pressed in rocker studs and it went over the tops of a lot of folks heads, but I'll give it a try.

Flat tappet camshaft ramps are designed for a
specific diameter lifter. The opening side has to
open as fast as possible but is limited to the
diameter of the lifter. If a lifter has a large chamfer
you no longer have the same diameter lifter at the
liifter face than the cam is designed for. With a
larger chamfer the lifter jumps part (or all) of
opening ramp and wants to dig into to the part of
the ramp that raises the lifter, rather than glide over
it. This starts to chip away at the lobe itself and the
lifter wants to dig into the lobe rather rotate and
follow the lobe. On the closing side of the lobe the
lifter will drop off of the lobe and skip the trailing
end the closing ramp.

Thanks Paul ... that makes sense. I can certainly understand that the smaller diameter the lifter face is, the more side loading it will encounter as it contacts a steeper part of the ramp than it would if it was a larger diameter.

Again to use a ridiculous example ... if the lifter was the diameter of a pencil it would contact the ramp at a very steep location and just break off the lifter. If the lifter was 2" in diameter it would contact the ramp at the earliest point and have a gentle ride up the ramp.

Appreciate the explanation.

Other than floating out or unless mismatched or extensive wear, taking into consideration the profile of the lifter and cam, this shouldn't be a issue that far out should it?


Frank

That's kinda what I was thinking. Do we know that the lifter diameter WITH the chamfer taken into consideration is not within the design limits of the lobe/lifter geometry?

Worn OEM lifters used with OEM cam often show no wear indications that would show the lifter contacting the lobe in the area where the chamfer is. I certainly understand Paul's explanation, but wouldn't it depend on if that area of the lifter face is actually in contact with the lobe? The smaller the base circle of the lobe, and the less steep the ramp, the less chance the lobe would ever encounter the very edge of the lifter face.

I can certainly see how on more radical profiles the diameter of the lifter face would be a major consideration, the larger the better.

The main concern with using a lifter with a large chamfer is it will dig into the lobe (because it misses the opening ramp) and gouge into the lobe while not wanting to rotate. If you can some how manage to survive that situation you need to control the lifter as it closes because it's going to miss all or part of the closing ramp and want to

bounce off the seat.

A lifter shows most wear towards the center of the face because that is where it sees the most spring
pressure and has the least amount of contact.

A lazy lobe creates a worse case scenario because it has a smaller opening ramp.

I probably have thirty sets of lifters on the shelf here by various manufacturers. Most of them have no chamfer at all on the edge of the lifters. Some have a very small chamfer. There are none with a large chamfer.

So weak springs or higher RPM's and bouncing with higher spring rate? I can visualize what your saying I'm just trying to confirm the cause and appreciate the insight.


Frank

Frank I'm not sure I'm following you.... If your asking for tips on how to avoid issues when you have a lifter with a large chamfer on them my best advice would be to throw them in the dumpster. Plan B
would be to contact the manufacturer of the lifter, then contact the manufacturer of the cam. If they are both one in the same and they say it will be fine and you trust them.... Run'em ..... IMHO your odds of getting a full life out of them are about as good as your favorite team winning the Super Bowl tomorrow if it's not the Chiefs or 49ers.

I feel you're narrowing my odds, shame they both can't lose. My lifters don't have that big of a chamfer. I guess what you're saying is, the chamfer is the problem, the entire bottom of the lifter is engaged, so actually the lifter is rolling off the lobe losing contact, good enough. Always trying to understand what I don't can be a lengthy process although worthwhile.


Frank

I agree ..... Maybe it'll be a zero-zero tie.... Yes the chamfer on the lifter is the issue. The larger the chamfer the worse the situation.

Paul - Thank you for taking the time to explain.

It makes a LOT more sense now. Here's a couple snapshots I took off a Youtube video that illustrates how the cam profile can cause the contact point on the lifter face to cover a large radius. I'm sure this cam lobe is make-believe, but I think it illustrates at least some of what can go wrong.

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...1&d=1707588062

After having the risk explained, I conclude this is another situation that cannot be "generalized". Clearly, the risk for the contact zone reaching the chamfer is totally dependent on the cam geometry and lifter width.

I can only assume the factory geometries had more than enough design margin to tolerate larger chamfers. To Paul's point, put that same lifter on a different cam lobe and the margin may evaporate.

A comparison of "maximum contact radius" on the lifter for commercial cam lobes would enable some "informed" decisions... anyone ever publish this ?????

.................................................. ........

Warning noted and visual seed planted! To me, this is similar to adjusting a pushrod length by keeping the contact path centered on the valve stem face.

The people like Paul and all of you that share your thoughts and knowledge are why this forum is like The Force for me.

Mike

Personally I feel the chamfer issue is overblown. GM designed them to work with GM camshafts. They most certainly knew what they were doing. Once you step outside that realm you're on your own hence why you take the time to verify your parts by doing what is known as "Blueprinting".

Personally I believe that time spent with your choice of cam and lifter installed with some gear marking grease would answer the question if the lifter chamfer was touching the lobe.

My guess is that GM had its own reason(s) for adding the chamfer as GM never does something that adds cost without recouping that cost somehow. Maybe GM had problems with nicks on the edges from being dropped during assembly or shiping. Maybe GM decided assembly time was reduced when the lifter had a chamfer. This is one of those never to be known answers.

Well I thought it was a great topic for discussion, I'm sure there's folks out there that's never considered it. Many actually source OEM lifters with quality at the forefront of their thoughts, possibly to their detriment. Could be a issue with trying to use OEM lifters and aftermarket Cams. To get the right answer you must ask the right question.

Many Thanks Paul! I took some notes for future reference... :)

https://live.staticflickr.com/5816/2...deeb6b22_z.jpg


Frank