[RH68]

Originally Posted by JC455

Very nice!
Do you have a source to build the sheet metal spider?

Yes I have a sheet metal shop I work with that can laser cut and bend these if anyone is interested. I doubt they would be very expensive.

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by RH68

So I've been quietly playing around with this as well and think I have come up with a solution for most of the issues. It seems like the issues are:
-The Comp Cams Ford dogbone sits too close to the cam. It will interfere with the lifter at max lift.
-There is not a flat surface for the dogbone to rest on like on the Ford block. The dogbone interferes with the radius in the block casting which makes it want to cock to the side.

By giving the dogbone something to sit on, it can be raised away from the cam so that it remains flat, doesn't interfere with the lifter at max lift, and doesn't interfere with the radius in the casting at the tops of the lifter bores.

The spider needs to go both under and over the dogbone so that it can space it away from the cam and hold it flat. Therefore, it needs to consist of piece the bolts to the 2 valley pan bosses, and then additional pieces that hold each dogbone in place.

The only issue I am still having is that the dogbones are so close to the block that they will still need some material ground off so there is no interference.

I 3D printed the parts shown to mock up the solution. Actual parts would be made out of sheetmetal the the spider would extend the full length of the lifter valley. Attached are a few pictures.

I notice that the dog bones you have are notched to allow the lifter to rise without lifting the dog bone. Did you machine them like that or are the produced like that?

[RH68]

Originally Posted by JC455

Very nice!
Do you have a source to build the sheet metal spider?

Originally Posted by JLMounce

I notice that the dog bones you have are notched to allow the lifter to rise without lifting the dog bone. Did you machine them like that or are the produced like that?

They come that way. They are the ones that come in the Comp Cams Ford spider kit. But, even with the notch they don’t have enough clearance to prevent the dog bone from lifting unless they are spaced off of the tops of the lifter bores.

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by RH68

They come that way. They are the ones that come in the Comp Cams Ford spider kit. But, even with the notch they don’t have enough clearance to prevent the dog bone from lifting unless they are spaced off of the tops of the lifter bores.

Good info. I like your setup here. Seems to solve some of these issues.

[pontbil]

Originally Posted by RH68

So I've been quietly playing around with this as well and think I have come up with a solution for most of the issues. It seems like the issues are:
-The Comp Cams Ford dogbone sits too close to the cam. It will interfere with the lifter at max lift.
-There is not a flat surface for the dogbone to rest on like on the Ford block. The dogbone interferes with the radius in the block casting which makes it want to cock to the side.

By giving the dogbone something to sit on, it can be raised away from the cam so that it remains flat, doesn't interfere with the lifter at max lift, and doesn't interfere with the radius in the casting at the tops of the lifter bores.

The spider needs to go both under and over the dogbone so that it can space it away from the cam and hold it flat. Therefore, it needs to consist of piece the bolts to the 2 valley pan bosses, and then additional pieces that hold each dogbone in place.

The only issue I am still having is that the dogbones are so close to the block that they will still need some material ground off so there is no interference.

I 3D printed the parts shown to mock up the solution. Actual parts would be made out of sheetmetal the the spider would extend the full length of the lifter valley. Attached are a few pictures.

Very nice now let get them LS lifters installed and hear some results

[afgun]

Originally Posted by Singleton

I found this info from Comp Cams referring to the instructions for the 31-1000 spider on using a special cam for Ford. They make a special line of Ford roller cams with a -RF, (Retro-Fit), at the end of the part number.

They don’t go into specifics concerning the measurements, but seem to imply that the cam lobe nose is indeed a lower radius than the cam journal to prevent the dogbone from making contact with the lifter body.
However, I’m not aware of any Pontiac camshafts made this way, or if they could be made this way. It would be interesting to test the different manufacturers of Pontiac roller cams by measuring the lobe nose radius against the cam journal radius to see if any of them are significantly different.

I'm very curious as to the comment about the lifter must not contact the guide as it goes up... if they're held down with a spring steel spider, would they not go up and down with the lifter contact? Does it create a situation where it might pop off by being pushed around?

Just trying to wrap my head around it...

--andrew

[JC455]

Andrew-
Talking to Jim Lehart, he has at least 20 setups running- some with a significant amount of mileage on them- he's had no issues with them moving up and down.
I'm thinking that if a better mousetrap can be made, make it...
I think the dog bones would work better when fitted more like a Harley lifter cuff, but if the current design works (it does) maybe we're getting too far off course.
Nothing wrong with the KISS design approach.

[afgun]

There's SBC retrofit trays derived from the LSx design that might also work... I'll take a look at these. 88958652 - VALVE LIFTER "THE QUICK CAM" GUIDE (TWO REQUIRED)
If the lifter spacing is right, they might work.

[P@blo]

Originally Posted by JC455

Andrew-
Talking to Jim Lehart, he has at least 20 setups running- some with a significant amount of mileage on them- he's had no issues with them moving up and down.
I'm thinking that if a better mousetrap can be made, make it...
I think the dog bones would work better when fitted more like a Harley lifter cuff, but if the current design works (it does) maybe we're getting too far off course.
Nothing wrong with the KISS design approach.

Can you list the combination of parts that are used in these set-ups that are running now. Also, are the modifications used the ones in the original video?

I was going to PM you John but figured the information would be better posted here, if Jim doesn't mind.

[JC455]

Let me ask him and see...
I'll get back to the group with it.

[ponjohn]

Originally Posted by P@blo

Can you list the combination of parts that are used in these set-ups that are running now. Also, are the modifications used the ones in the original video?

I was going to PM you John but figured the information would be better posted here, if Jim doesn't mind.

This is a photo from FB in which the LS lifters were used with success.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by JLMounce

Fwiw I’ve had Lunati link bar lifters on my comp hr for about 15000 miles. I’ve not had any performance or reliability issues with them. They clatter terribly when the engine is warm however. Clearly collapsing.

It’s not just the lifters that are a concern here. The oiling system in basic street builds seems to be an issue as well.

I’ve followed everyone of of these threads and from pulling ideas, thoughts and observations from them all, not only do we need a quality lifter with good internal tolerances and QC, but the engine also needs to be able to supply (by my estimate) 30psi of oil pressure at hot idle.

If like me you have an engine that will only hold 15 psi on a 10/40 oil at 900 rpm hot, and you match the system with a set of lifters that have looser internal tolerances. Well, that’s a recipe for a noisy valve train.

While I haven’t had any reliability issues with my lifters, the constant hammering of the lifter internals at idle as the lifters collapse can’t be good for them.

Given my experience and research I believe that a modernized, well built and blueprinted oil pump, setup to supply 30-40psi at 800 rpm is a requirement to a successful hydraulic roller cam conversion. Along with choosing good quality lifters that have a correct oil band height. Whether those lifters are link bar or using a dog bone as it’s capturing device.

There are obvious cost and weight advantages to this setup being discussed that makes it so intriguing.

Just to add to this on ticking hydraulic rollers problem, Tom S had mentioned on one of these threads, that one of the manufacturers had said the fine dirt in the oil is also a culprit, and it was essential to keep very clean oil in the engines. Having worked on hydraulically operated machines as part of my job, the spec for most of the hydraulic filters is 10 microns because of exactly how these lifters are built internally, and tight tolerances, the same as most hydraulic valves and spools in any hydraulic system will stick with virtually any contamination.

Just a suggestion that some of the inferences are that the oil filters may not be fine enough to keep fine materials out of the oil, and cause ticking lifters. 10 microns is not attainable with a conventional oil filter. I'll just leave it there, so I don't stir up the anti by pass oil filter groups. It may or may not be a factor, just throwing it out there that fine particulate could also be a factor that is causing some of the ticking problems.

I have roller lifters in both my LS2, and my 6.5 diesel equipped with by pass oil filters, and have never had any ticking with 140,000 miles on the LS2 or 270,000 miles on the 6.5 diesel. My 3.1 V6 in my 118,000 mile 99 GP does not have a by pass filter, and I do occasionally have lifter ticking with it. It will get a by pass filter as soon as the weather warms up a little bit.

[rohrt]

RH68 Thanks for the pics showing notching of the dog bones. I like your idea of boosting them up a little if that keeps them from lifting.

I'm not a fan of the dog bone cuffs idea. It just seems to me if the lifters were to catch the cuff during upward travel it would be absolute carnage. However I do like the idea of a taller dog bone.

[JC455]

Ok, I spoke w/ Jim. He welcomed sharing his info, so here ya go!

[hojs69]

Good info for Pontiac faithful here. Great series of posts by all.

[tempest1964]

I understand Jim is dealing with some health issues. Please convey to him that the Pontiac community appreciates this information he has shared as well as all he has done for the hobby. I think it is safe to say we all wish him the best.

[P@blo]

Originally Posted by JC455

Ok, I spoke w/ Jim. He welcomed sharing his info, so here ya go!

Thanks John and Jim for your posts and contributions. Hoping all is well with Jim and I had no idea he was dealing with a health situation or I wouldn’t have asked about the retrofit details.

There will soon be 21 set-ups using this modification.

[GoatZillaRacing]

https://www.facebook.com/PontiacSpee...5126593248928/

[tempest1964]

Randy, I looked at that picture and I just don’t get it

[RH68]

So since you say you will be milling a 45 on these plates, does that mean the long edges of the plate will rest against the flat on one side of each lifter? Is the idea that you only need the guide against one flat, not both like the dog bones do?