Solid lifter oil restriction
 

I recently purchased as set of NOS SPEED PRO AT2213R solid flat lifters, just wondering about the need for oil restriction of some sort or are these similar to the way the crower lifters operate in that they do not need restrictors. I have the new short block already assembled so lifter bore restrictors are not really an option if i do need restrictors possibly look at restricted pushrods.

Thanks

I would call Smith Brothers and get some restricted pushrods.
Its good to have oil in the pan.

Look at the old HO Racing books if you have them. You may find the answer there. To me, a restriction is a restriction. Pick where you want it to be.

probably what I'm really asking is does anybody know if these particular lifters require restriction of some sort

If they are vintage, I bet they are not restricted. You are not going to hurt anything putting a restricted pushrod in there.
You can pump a LOT of oil through a .030 hole. It shoots across the garage.

Who would sell lifters that don't have a metering valve to regulate the oil going up the pushrod?

Some folks want to restrict the top-end oil even more; Chevy sold "Edge Orifice" lifters to do exactly that. My understanding is that then you need to plumb valve spring oilers to control the heat generated by the springs. So what are you really saving by choking-off the oil supply to the top-end via the lifters, if you then have to spray the springs with tubes in the valve cover?

Don’t screw yourself and use restricted push rods!

Here’s your answer.

In my Speed Pro catalog from the 80s any lifter part numbers that end with the letter R indeed are restricted, and the catalog clearly states that such a lifter is only to be used with fully rollerized rocker arm’s.

I'm in the cooling the springs boat, and no restrictors (unless it's a max effort race app). You can help drain back by doctoring the drain back areas in the head, and block if it's not already assembled. If you're concerned about it, but it's not a bad idea for any build.

If you're running an OE pan, and it hasn't been modded with a baffle, restrictors, restricted lifters, or restricted pushrods could be required regardless of what type of cam it is, because extended RPM has the potential of pumping everything in the pan out anyway. Fix the problem, the pan, and windage.

Or run an extra quart in the pan.


.

Over the years it has been pretty much standard procedure to use restrictors either in the block or in the pushrods when using solid lifters. The engine was designed for hydraulic lifters that has specific metering built in to operate the hydraulic action of the lifter and limits oil to the top end. Now you install a solid lifter that does not have the metering you want to slow it down.

In my 455 engine that I ran for many years street then evolved into a low 10 second bracket car. It had .030 restrictors in the block, I put them in when I went to a solid flat tappet cam on the street, many miles like that. Then stepped it up to a solid roller and E-heads and raced it for many years. I recently checked the springs and they all are holding pressure to my surprise. The lifters also are in great shape so that system worked great for me. The engine I'm building now i put in .030 restrictors in the block, then decided to drill them out to .125 and will run either .030 or .040 restricted push rods. The reason I drilled out the restrictors a bit was to make sure I'm getting enough oil to the pin oiling for the lifter but still restrict some on the top end.

One can tap and restrict the feed hole in aluminum roller rockers ensuring everything up to that point has full oil access.

Why would a solid lifter flow more than a hyd lifter?

.

Thanks for the response Steve just to be sure are you saying to use restricted pushrods or not?

Thanks

No need for restricted anything with those lifters , but fully roller rocker arms are mandentory.

I don’t understand some of these other things posted here in light of what’s in my catalog.

https://www.enginebuildermag.com/202...st-on-lifters/


"Oil Restrictors

Theoretically, with roller rockers and solid lifters, the valvetrain doesn’t need as much oil. Installing an oil restrictor limits the oil flow and reduces the windage from excess oil draining past the rotating assembly. It also keeps more oil flowing to the rod and main bearings. This is a specific application where some feel it improves performance.

The folks at Jesel point out that with the spring pressure and ratios being used in today’s racing engines, the lifters need as much oil to them as they can possibly get. They recommend plumbing the block, so oil is fed equally to the lifters through the front and rear of the oil galley, and in the event there is excessive oil to the top end, they recommend improving oil drain back to the pan through external scavenging lines or internal drains.

Restricting the oil flow to the lifters also limits oil flow to the cylinder heads. Since the oil cools the valve springs and other components, it’s not recommended to restrict oil flow. "


.

Come on please!

The OP is posting in this street section, so I am sure he's not running a.750" lift valvtrain at 8500 plus rpm for a 3 hour 500 mile race at Daytona where spring life needsto be taken into account.

Not sure what this comment was directed at?

I will say that emptying the pan would only occur with an extended higher RPM, so to restrict to prevent it is just like using the same reasoning as this statement.

If you're having a concern, and trying to decide to restrict or not, try calling the cam manufacturer and ask.

HFT lifters and SFT lifters flow the same amount of oil, hence the hypothetical question I asked in post #12.

Would you restrict flow if using a HFT lifter? (Another hypothetical question)


.

Maybe run an accusump or moroso accumulator instead of restricting oil to the top.

I am curious what you guys are expecting out of restricting a push rod or rocker arms on a mechanical cam? The lifter spends a lot of time on the base circle, the gap for the lash is probably canceling out most of what you are trying to gain by restrict things much there? It would help a some, but probably not like on a hydraulic set up that has no lash, or a restricted bore. Do you guys have back to back comparisons for that?

On a Pontiac I can’t think of any good reason not to restrict a lifter bore on a mechanical lifter set up, roller or flat tappet, at least to some degree anyway. Maybe if the lifter bore is getting abused to much it could be detrimental. I have ran both .030” and .040”, personally like the .040”, especially on engines that see some colder temps or thicker oils. FWIW..Without priority feeding, feeding the crank on the middle throws too me is by far Pontiac’s biggest weakness on oiling, it isn’t overheating the springs. Pontiac still pumps a ton of oil to the top of the engine, even with .030” restrictors.

I think people generally misjudge how much oil it takes to lubricate needle bearings. Flooding them with oil won’t add life too them. If the engine has much for constant RPM’s I am not even sure the needles need much more than splash oiling. A bushing though I think is completely different, I would tend to want at least a .040” on them, not a .030”.

I also have gathered that HWYSTR455 beats the snot out of his engines and has had good life out of them… so.. more than one answer to this.

Years ago I dynoed a 455 before the allum-heads, had roller lifters
I was told that I didn't need oil restricters; well it didn't make it past
the first pull kicked a rod out the side of the block a very hard lesson
learned. sense then I have resticters in all of my mechanicle cam motors
So for those that want to run with out restricters try it but beware of
the consequences as they might not be what you want. just a for whats
it worth.

GT