|
Author
|
Topic: Fitting an Hyd. Roller Cam in early SB
|
Pierre
Gearhead Posts: 661
From: Near Paris, France
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 04-08-2005 05:58 AM
 
So far I have identified the following issues/point with this conversion:=> Special Lifter kit, with a spider holder or a bar connecting 2 lifters of the same cylinder
=> Heads must be remove to fit lifters (whatever lifter scenario)
=> Push rods must be changed & hardened style (due to longer lifters)
=> Distributor drive gear must be replaced with hardened one(for compatibility with cam gear) And of course checking all springs / piston-valve clearance so on & so forth..... Is all of the above true ?
Is there any other issues to be aware of before doing this ? Thanks in advance for your help guys
|
whiteknight289
Gearhead Posts: 1391
From: Wheaton, IL, USA
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted 04-08-2005 08:29 AM
The cam bearing sizes are different so you will need a roller cam made for the year of the engine block you are using.You shouldn't have to remove the heads. Scott
|
Pierre
Gearhead Posts: 661
From: Near Paris, France
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 04-08-2005 09:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by whiteknight289:
The cam bearing sizes are different so you will need a roller cam made for the year of the engine block you are using.You shouldn't have to remove the heads. Scott
The Cam is a retrofit style. Now on a 302, it seems like the deck height doesn't allow you to install the lifters with the heads on....I'll check with the lifter manufacturer
|
65EhCode
Journeyman Posts: 17
From:
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted 04-08-2005 11:51 AM
What I found from researching this conversion was that the head only needed to removed for lifters connected by a bar (not the spider retention lifters). What I'm not sure about is if the bar style lifters are compatible with the reduced based (retrofit) cams, that is will the bar interfere with the block since the lifters are lower in their bores. Also I thought that the all the cams (flat, roller, retrofit etc) used the same size cam bearings.
|
Pierre
Gearhead Posts: 661
From: Near Paris, France
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 04-08-2005 12:04 PM
Edelbrock makes a retrofit style cam and lifters with a bar. It may just depend on the manufacturer.
|
whiteknight289
Gearhead Posts: 1391
From: Wheaton, IL, USA
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted 04-08-2005 01:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 65EhCode:
Also I thought that the all the cams (flat, roller, retrofit etc) used the same size cam bearings.
I'll admit to maybe being confused, but if they were all the same size, why would you need to manufacture a retro-fit cam to fit the earlier blocks? If they were the same size you would simply change the firing order like the 302 vs 351w.
|
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 3058
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-08-2005 03:41 PM
Use a solid flat tappet, and put the money saved towards a good set of heads or something.------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
|
Pierre
Gearhead Posts: 661
From: Near Paris, France
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 04-08-2005 04:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by n2oMike:
Use a solid flat tappet, and put the money saved towards a good set of heads or something.
Well, the car is pretty much fully equipped (see link below)and I know there has been debates about the real improvement of these cams over regular cams. The guys at the Dyno shop also agreed that a roller cam would be the last power improvement I could make without having to go with a full on racing cam or some other radical technology. You may be right, but I will give it a shot anyway....I love trying out new things  https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/014720.html
|
BornInAFord
Gearhead Posts: 610
From: Bend, OR, USA
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 04-08-2005 08:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by whiteknight289:
I'll admit to maybe being confused, but if they were all the same size, why would you need to manufacture a retro-fit cam to fit the earlier blocks? If they were the same size you would simply change the firing order like the 302 vs 351w.
He's right, the cam bearings are interchangeable (and thus late model cams can be used in early blocks). Here's the deal. The roller lifters are taller than their flat tappet counterparts, and if installed in a block not designed for roller lifters (roller lifter bores are also "taller" than the earlier flat tappet blocks), the lifter would come out too far, exposing the oiling groove around the lifter and also banging against the "dogbones", pushing them out and allowing for rotation of the lifter. This is not a good thing. To compensate, a retrofit roller cam shaft uses a smaller base circle with the stock length roller lifter. This means that the bearing surface is the same, but the entire base circle (the parts where the lobe and lift are) is much smaller. This allows for the same lift, but the lift starts closer to the center of the camshaft. If you look at a smaller base circle camshaft you'll see what I mean. The lobes are the same height from the centerline, but it looks like someone shrunk the circle  If a standard hydraulic roller cam is used (for example an original HO cam or an E-cam), links must be used. The links keep the lifters in the correct perpendicular orientation so the roller rolls with the camshaft (which is the function of the dogbones in a retrofit cam or standard roller block setup). They also have the oiling ring lower in the lifter than the stock (HO) roller lifters. You can use solid rollers with the links to bypass any hydraulic pump up issues, BTW. If you decide to go standard roller cam and link bar rollers, I think Racer Walsh has some of the best prices on the link style ($395 ?). You also get more (and better,IMO) cam choices (look at the 5.0L crowd). If you have vintage heads, you will have to remove the heads to drop the lifters in anyway, but this is true for any head with the longer link lifters. The E7, GT40 and GT40P heads for the roller blocks have indentations at the inside base of the head for installing stock hydraulic roller lifters, but even these don't allow the link style to fit without removal. Also, don't forget to get a hardened steel cam gear for the distributor. The roller cams are heat treated and would wear out the stock cast gear. Stay away from the bronze gear unless you want to replace it more frequently and want to deal with ground brass in your oil. Make sense? Daniel PS: Lifters (flat tappet) are one of the major sources of friction and heat (outside of combustion and rings) in an engine. If your engine has less drag, it will make more power... :grin: If you don't believe me, turn a roller engine over by hand, then turn a flat tappet by hand. [This message has been edited by BornInAFord (edited 04-08-2005).]
|
Scott H
Gearhead Posts: 1480
From: Chicago area
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 04-08-2005 09:56 PM
Daniel,
That all makes perfect sense, thanks for clearing up the physical difference in the cams.
So I should say the roller cam will be specific to the year of the block because of the size of the base circle and the location of the lifter oil groove, but not because of the bearings, right?
Scott
|
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 3058
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-08-2005 10:39 PM
Hotrod 289/302 engines have no problem revving past where hydraulic lifters are efficient. They (especially those heavy hydraulic roller lifters) just don't work nearly as well as solid lifters above 6000 rpm. Solids also out pull hydraulics all the way through the rev range.If you want to be 'trendy' and install a hydraulic roller... have fun... but don't expect it to make any more power... especially at higher rpm. ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
|
BornInAFord
Gearhead Posts: 610
From: Bend, OR, USA
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 04-09-2005 12:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Scott H:
Daniel,
That all makes perfect sense, thanks for clearing up the physical difference in the cams.
So I should say the roller cam will be specific to the year of the block because of the size of the base circle and the location of the lifter oil groove, but not because of the bearings, right?
Scott
Scott, sort of... :grin: it actually has to do more with the lifter/cam combo. The small base circle for the early blocks with retrofitted late roller lifters and the spider/dog bones; the stock flat tappet cam with stock flat tappets (whether cam is for hydraulic or solid flat tappets); late roller cam in early block with link roller lifters (whether cam is for hydraulic or solid rollers); late roller cam in late block with spider/dogbones.That said, there is nothing that sounds like a solid lifter small block.  At the races, the vintage K-codes and Shelbys and Falcons accelerating through a cork-screw at the vintage races at Laguna Seca at 7 grand... :grin: Imagine what they could do with decent heads! Agreeing with n2oMike, solid lifters have less power loss (don't have to "pump up" the hydraulic lifter, nor deal with the extra weight of oil, springs, etc in a lifter). At higher RPMs (at which racers make their horsepower, but us daily drivers rarely experience), the extra weight makes a huge difference. If you go solid roller, you kind of get the best of both worlds, don't you think? But, if you reallywant to rev, get a two, three, or four valve modular from the last few years of Cobra. They start making power at 4k and scream at 7k from the factory. The lifters and cam are the "brain" of the engine, but are only part of the power equation. Think about the other components of your engine... Roller rocker arms can be a good way to remove another source of friction... My Crane full roller rockers (another trendy, yet power effective choice) as extruded aluminum weigh
much less than the stamped steel and tend to have more accurate ratios. The stock heads are pitiful in the breathing department, especially the exhaust end. Pierre's Edelbrocks will outflow nearly any ported stock head. If you upgrade the heads, you have to have better exhaust, too. And with better exhaust, what about the carburetor and intake? In our quest for power, we can empty the pocketbook very quickly.
Daniel
|
Pierre
Gearhead Posts: 661
From: Near Paris, France
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 04-09-2005 02:18 AM
Thanks Daniel for your detailled response. It really cleared up the subject on my end.Last decision now is on the cam profile. I may start a different post on this but here is the one I am looking at: #2221 (Performer RPM Roller retrofit cam)
Specs:
298?/302? (224?/234? @0.050)
.52/.52 lift
112? interlobe
107? Intake center lobe Edelbrock says it is power matched with the Performer RPM set and supposed to be good from 1500 through 6500 !! If you guys have any feedback/opinion on it don't hesitate !
|
Pierre
Gearhead Posts: 661
From: Near Paris, France
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 04-09-2005 03:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BornInAFord:
That said, there is nothing that sounds like a solid lifter small block. At the races, the vintage K-codes and Shelbys and Falcons accelerating through a cork-screw at the vintage races at Laguna Seca at 7 grand... :grin: Imagine what they could do with decent heads! Agreeing with n2oMike, solid lifters have less power loss (don't have to "pump up" the hydraulic lifter, nor deal with the extra weight of oil, springs, etc in a lifter). At higher RPMs (at which racers make their horsepower, but us daily drivers rarely experience), the extra weight makes a huge difference. If you go solid roller, you kind of get the best of both worlds, don't you think? But, if you reallywant to rev, get a two, three, or four valve modular from the last few years of Cobra. They start making power at 4k and scream at 7k from the factory.
Daniel
That 270S cam made a big power difference over the hydraulic 214/224 I had before. I just loved that sewing machine sound of the engine. And at 5500+ it keeps on going and going....until the rev limiters brings you back to reality  I did consider going 282S which may make more sense (and may still do it) but I was concern on loosing low end power.
|
DocVoodoo
Gearhead Posts: 164
From: Plainfield CT USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 04-09-2005 09:32 AM
I have a 270HR in my Car. we had to do it with the heads off due to the fact you had to drill and tap the bloc to place in the keeper for the lifters. ( spider Holder )
They sent me the push rods with the kit from Comp Cam along with duel Springs that had to be installed in the heads.------------------
1966 GT light blue VERT
1966 GT light blue Convertible
Blue Standard Interior A code
I am running a 289 with a comp Cam 270HR roller , C9OX COBRA Intake , Holley 650 DP Mechanical Secondarys , Tri Y headers , roller tiped rocker Arms and over sized 351 Valves that are in 289 heads that have been polished and ported. Hooked to a T-10 4 speed and 3.25 traction lock 8 inch rear end.
|
