[71 T/A]

Maybe it where I live, but all the Pontiac people I run into at the track are running rollers or hydraulics. I'd like to hear from racers running hydraulic rollers and how these cams have worked for them.

[71 T/A]

Maybe it where I live, but all the Pontiac people I run into at the track are running rollers or hydraulics. I'd like to hear from racers running hydraulic rollers and how these cams have worked for them.

[BVR421]

I personally have NO experience with rollers but I have to ask, why would you want to use hydraulics? Roller followers are really heavy to start with and hydraulics even heavier? What advantage are the hydraulics? Is the drivetrain going to be more stable? As far as why more arent being used, I would guess its the $1200 price tag.

[Will]

BVR421 nailed it.

In a race engine, I see no reason to run a hydraulic roller. If you want to make serious power with a roller and have the bucks to spend, get a solid. It'll rev higher and make even more power than a hydraulic would due to the more aggressive ramp profiles and less valvetrain weight.

I only know a couple guys running hydraulic rollers and they were talked into them by their engine builders (desire to make more profit). Those engines are also strictly street engines.

If you have a modern, aggressive flat-tappet hydraulic grind, like an Ultradyne or Comp, and you run high ratio rockers on it to get lift comparable to what you'd see with a hydraulic roller (if that's even necessary, some hy-rollers don't have a lot of lift), then how much power are you gaining with the roller's ability to get the valve open faster? I'm sure the roller is worth some power, but how much, and is it worth the extra $700 it costs, or could you spend that money elsewhere and make even more power with the cheaper cam?

That's why not a lot of people run hydraulic rollers.

Cheers,
-Will

[Flowjoe]

Strange this should come up just now. I am building an engine (400) for my '67 firebird. I am considering a hydraulic roller because the research I had done for the 427/'68 RS camaro project I was working on (pushed aside by the acquisition of the firebird project) told me that hydraulic rollers were the best of both worlds. Very mild mannered at idle with good street manners while maintaining lots of power for the obvious reasons. I hadn't considered the weight issue. Something I will have to think on.

$1200 seemed high (maybe because I am thinking Chevy prices?). I figured @$500 for cam and lifters plus @$300 for roller rockers. Since most people are going to run roller rockers (like the alliteration?) I figured that one could not add the cost of the rockers into the price of the roller cam. So the cost of a roller is only 3.7 times the cost of a normal cam (@$135 normal cam + lifters). What else can one do to gain that kind of performance and maintain streetability - i.e. pump gas, idle vacuum, strip punch (serious question - not rhetorical).

Sure, on a race motor who cares about streetability, all you gotta do is get to the line. Go for solids. I have a solid lifter car (restored '69 Z/28 w/ the 302) and I wouldn't build another car like it unless I was strictly racing...sounds wicked but very unfriendly around town. I figure the current crop of hot motors from Detroit are using hydraulic rollers so maybe their engineers know something.

PS Just for the record. I, like an idiot, spouted off with my two cents worth without checking which forum I was actually in (not like that stops many other members around here [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] ). I just checked I realized my error. Given the context of the forum I am probablly out of line - it is, after all clearly labeled (should one bother to look) 'RACE'. In general I stand by my comments but acknowledge that they may be pointless here in the race only environment.



[This message has been edited by Flowjoe (edited 10-18-2001).]

[Half-Inch Stud]

Roller HYD is superior, but that seems to test my seriousness in this hobby. The Costs don't make it for my efforts.

Do FORD 302 HYD Rollers fit the Poncho? If they so, what does it take to make them happen?

[Goatman]

Hydraulic rollers are much more efficient (friction and lift) than a "regular" hydraulic cam and much more gentle on the valve train than a solid roller. That is why OEM's use them and that is two VERY good reasons you should use them in your Pontiac.

Sometimes, to get better results, you must think and act outside the box. Those cams have been proven to far exceed what can be done with "old" technology hydraulic cams and, like I said, they are much easier on the valve trains then a solid roller.

[71 T/A]

Jim Butler told me they can't keep them on the shelf. They sell that quickly.

Someone else once told me "With all things being equal in an engine, hydraulic rollers are worth about 25 horsepower over a comparably sized hydraulic."

Yeah, and roller rockers makers say that just their rockers will make that kind of difference. Sure. I believe the hydraulic roller cams can make about that type of difference.

For racing only cars, I'd still go with a solid roller. My car is a mostly street, sometimes strip car.

[Jim Hand]

Goatman,
I would be interested in any examples where H roller cams have dramatically improved the performance in our Pontiac engines as compared to a similar grind standard hydraulic. Could you provide some specific examples of actual changes in performance or measured power when nothing but the cam was changed, and the cams are on the same lobe separation with identical, or at least reasonably close intake durations, and similar design lobes? In other words, a comparison of similar cams such as the CC Extreme Energy flat hydraulics vs the CC EE H rollers would indicate the actual difference, if any.

There is no question that modern engines that were designed for and with H rollers work very well indeed, but unfortunately, that is not the case with the retro fit rollers for our Pontiacs. We have even seen comments in magazine tests that state the added weight of the retro rollers have affected rpm, and also the acceleration rates designed into the lobes.

So we may be talking about several aspects on this subject. First, we can all agree that the concept of hydraulic rollers is excellent. But adapting them to our old design Pontiac engines is not quite as easy as designing newer engines on a clean sheet of paper. Jim Hand

[71 T/A]

Here's the costs involved:

Hydraulic roller cam: $275
Lifters: $325
Shorter pushrods: $85
Total: $685

Hydraulic cam: $135
Lifters: $80
Standard Pushrods: $30
Total: $245

Cost difference: $440

Of course, roller rockers can be used in either application.

[Goatman]

Jim, I wouldn't think that heads or any other combination that wasn't optimized for a particular cam, or intake or carb for that matter, would make a certain "gain" just from installing one part. You should know that already.

No where has anyone said that lobe separations or durations would have to match. Maybe hydraulic rollers like different separations and durations than a hydraulic cam. Untill someone has the "intestinal fortitude" to try, we'll never know what works and what doesn't.

I would imagine that ANY time you design a motor for a specific COMBINATION, that that combination would perform better when all the components of said combination were in use, as opposed to switching components. So I do not consider that a valid argument.

I figure, if you plan to use a particular cam and then adjust the rest of your components to accomidate the "advatages" of that particular cam's attributes, then you should have a "better" combination than with a hydraulic cam.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Gloatman,

Roller Cam/Lifter is not more efficient because there is significantly more Side-load imparted to the Roller Lifter - which translates to Lifter Bore Crack-outs.

Flat HYD Lifters perform a nice spin upon striking the Cam lobe. That combined with Flat Lifter attack on HYD Cam sidelobe shows less tendency to crack Lifter bores, less timing chain torque pulsing, less torsional pulsing seen by the distributor, longer cam&lifter&spring life, and decent perf.

In my opinion, Roller cam&lifters is better for all-race, <10sec 1/4mile activities.

For less money into the motor, I'm going with a blower.

Signature below features Flat HYD cam/lifers ready to bust into 10's if I had done the 6th run.

One of these days, I'll get a Roller Cam&Lifters for cheap and....naw, I'll just get the blower on top.

Have a nice day,

H.I. Stud



------------------
"11.00/123MPH 29.5"/4.10:1/10"/472 #48/DualQuad/3250Lbs
12.00/112MPH/26"/3.31:1/10"/472 #48/Q-Jet/3650Lbs"

[Goatman]

Half-wit. If you knew anything, you still wouldn't be dangerous. Talk about a broken answer to a question that wasn't even asked!

Since when does a BLOCK WEAKNESS have to do with a cam? I guess solid rollers must be REALLY inefficient then? They break blocks all the time.

Use some brains instead of trying to be a smart ass and these little embarassments won't happen nearly so often. You are proving with every post how much you DON'T know about, well, everything.

You are DEFINITELY a 6:71 type guy. Woulda, shoulda, coulda, but you didn't, did ya?

['ol Pinion head]

DISCLAIMER: This should be in Street Forum,
but this topic touchs on similiar questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

What implications/advantage(?) would there be in running a small solid roller cam (split duration in the 240-250 degrees @ .050 range), mid .500's-.600 lift, over say, an Ultradyne 288-296 in a 10-1 C/R 87cc E-headed 462? What will vacuum characteristic's be with such a roller cam?

Vehicle:
68 GTO, T-400 Heavy car (3950lbs) w/AC & pwr disc brakes (they're staying on).
Intake-notched Performer RPM,
Custom 1 7/8" primary headers, X-pipe, Dynomax's, 3" exhaust.
axle- 3.42 HD 8.5

GOAL: High 11's or 12.0's with ability to run A/C in 462 87cc E-headed heavy GTO.



[This message has been edited by 'ol Pinion head (edited 10-18-2001).]

[Half-Inch Stud]

Gloatman,

8V-71, two setups.
Have a nice day.

OPH, The rolelr would provide better Idle, consistently cleaner plugs, easier starting after brief street run.

MY 68GTO A/C PDB 4.10 rear/28"tire went 12.7/103MPH in full street trim with the UD 257/263 Flat HYD cam/104 Lobe centers. Idle was OK only because of Rhoads lifters on Intakes. If I knew then wht I know now...I'd still have the Goat.

Suppose your E-Head approach along with the Hand's recipe would garner 1 less second than my antiquated effort - with a Flat HYD.
I truely believe the results [idle, Vacuum, 60foottimes, ET] would be better with the Roller Cam/Lifters.

H.I.

[Half-Inch Stud]

My Vacuum was 10 - 11 "Hg in gear at light.
I made my own version of a leaky lifter by then, because the Rhoads were too noisey.

Your Roller sounds small and would likely get 13 - 14 "Hg, or better, in gear at 1000RPM. Plenty for Vacuum Disc brakes.

Stud

[Half-Inch Stud]

Wanna sell that 68 [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Does it have a cage?

['ol Pinion head]

Mark, This is long time customer's car, but I have another '68 GTO coming together. No cage or bar in either.

[Goatman]

Half-wit:

"8V-71 two setups"

You're broken, is there a fix?

In fact, you remind me of Gach, but you use bigger words (not necessarily better) and you can spell, even though you don't say anything

Have a better day, you shoulda finished out the third grade instead of dropping out. Learning is fundamental. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

OPH, go for it. Don't be afraid to try something new. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The same guy who says its too expensive to run is the same guy who is looking to buy a race car, as we speak. But, he doesn't want a real race car, he just wants it to have a cage. You know, his car would have gone tens, if he had that extra Proton Pack on there.

[Dick Duclow]

Keep in mind, your engine is nothing more than a sophisticated air pump. The more air you can move through it, the more power you have tha opportunity to make. Don't waste that opportunity.
A roller cam (hydraulic or solid) will provide more "area undre the curve". In short, the valve will be open wider, longer. Yes, there is a weight penalty in the valve train, but with todays technology it presents no problem. We have done back to back tests of hydraulic cams versus hydraulic roller cams (sorry Jim, we did alter the specs) and found as much as 35 HP difference without sacrificing idle quality or responsiveness. A good point was made that you have to tailor your combination to work together with the cam. Changing from a Stromberg 97 carb (that old flathead Ford thingie) to a modern fuel injection setup without the rest of the package would do very little.
My vote is with the Hydraulic Roller. It's progress. We have a fantastic assortment of parts for our venerable Pontiacs at the door. Start using them, you'll be amazed.