BritishV8 Forum

Isn't it about time? I suspect if "forward" thinkers from this forum and say, V8 Buick(sbb), ask a company "like" Doug Herbert etc.-not a plug," how much to make say qty. 10-50 of ROLLER billet cams, with/with-out stepped bearing dias'"? These companies have many cam" masters" specifically for the sbc. hyd/mech. lifters,(the lifter of choice). Volume talks and they "retail", #8620 material, rollers at $230., just an example. "If" there were enough interest, I could build the tooling to readily, "bronze bush" our beloved motors, making low cost sbc. lifters suitable. Anyone? roverman.

Yeah, I was wondering when the BOPR engine was going to enter the 80's and get a reasonable set of roller cam hardware. The lifter bore is the same as the Chevy, so that end of the hardware shouldn't be hard to come up with. What's left? The camshaft?

They make link-bar lifters, so just use those lifters on a roller grind of your choice. Yet, there's nothing out there that's off-the-shelf.

The shaft rocker system should be rigid enough to bear the higher spring rates needed for roller lifters. Roller rockers would be a help. Beehive springs will reduce the spring pressures needed. Seems like a slam dunk, but I guess things look easy to me because I don't really know how they get done.

Regardless, I'd like to see something like this happen. Art, I'll commit to buy a cam or two, just tell me where to send the money. BTW, my application would be hydraulic roller cams for emissions-legal engines.

Edit; a post-script - on the subject of rigid rocker shafts, I heard an idea from Ted Eaton over on the y-blocksforever forum. Gun drill a solid bar to make a heavy walled rocker shaft. Then chrome the shaft for a durable finish.

Doing this one-at-a-time would be spendy, so it might make sense to have a place like that rocker arm rebuild company job the project.

We'd have to get our British cousins on board with us. I only just finished this engine with a nice Erson cam from Woody. On the 360 I'd be in though.

The BOPR engines have the oil galley too close to the bottom of the lifter bore to use a standard roller lifter so it's necessary to use a "skirted" design where the roller is recessed into the body of the lifter. These are more expensive to produce due to more complicated machining processes and the prices for them tend to be higher. That would be the first thing to source. It has been done. TA sells a billet roller cam for the 350 which isn't much different. But it'll set you back nearly $1500 for the cam and lifters.

Jim

Sweet. Are those like the ones GM was using back in the 80's? I think I remember seeing some that looked like that in my Dad's Olds Diesel the 3rd time we were rebuilding it. What a pile. Anyway, maybe we could use something like that??

Jim, is it something like these http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/prod/large/lun-72400lun_w.jpg ? I am trying to understand the design you are talking about.

The Wedge shop do a custom Erson roller cam and the correctly shrouded roller followers for the princely sum of $1759.00

I have seen the shrouded roller followers from other sources, TA Performance and elsewhere for reasonable money so if one of the cam producers was prepared to do a custom roller cam for sensible money it could be worthwhile, might be worth asking comp Cams as they do make roller cams.

rollercam.jpg

Kevin.

Those are the type, as Kevin posted. Notice how the rollers are recessed up into the body of the lifter. Without this feature there will be huge leaks when on the lobe. Also I'm pretty sure Olds used larger diameter lifters but you might check it.

Jim

That's exactly what they looked like. I wonder how big they are. I think my Dad's probably got a lifter laying around. It was a pretty cool looking part. Fun to fiddle for the ADD mind with while talking on the phone. I'll give him a call and find out what the diameter is. Can't hurt.

I believe Crower also has the correct roller lifter ( solid) and the ability to custom grind.

Forum Folks, My main point was, once the lifter bores are bronze bushed, we run any @##$^^&&**, sbc. lifter we want-Cheep! I suspect this will lead to reduced bleed-off and pressure loss oil from lifters bores,(better fit when hot), plus some beneficial pre-stress of the bores? BOPR. lifter dias. are same as sbc. @ .842",(also our rod width).I haven't done a bleed-off check of the OEM sbc. hyd. roller lifter yet,anyone? It looks a "lot" like the roller pictured except for tie bar. Want cheep mech roller lifter? Take hyd. guts outta  sbc., put the "lid" back in to bottom, add longer push rod and "viola", you"ve just made a lighter/stronger mech. lifter. T&D made thick rocker shafts for B/R. Not cheep but good. I know of no rocker mfgr' that makes "rollers" with "needles" on shafts. Crane and Kenne Bell had alum. bores. This kind of $, I want needles in there.Since TA moved their valve angle to 13 deg., this "should" have made room for needle/roller rockers. Can we get a "want" list together and get ball/roller, goin? roverman.

Lets do it! No answer from my Dad yet but I suspect the lifters fit the stock lifter bores for a 350 chevy. I'll keep digging. Good idea about homemade solid lifters. COOL!

Art,

Yella Terra's have needle bearings but again are not cheap.

http://www.yellaterra.com/products/car-performance/product-detail/roller-rockers.cfm

Kevin.

Ok, So if we've taken the plunge to use sbc lifters...why not lube thru the push rods? "If we do this, can we not use sbc roller/needle rockers on a "smaller" dia., solid shaft? Probably strong enough with-out "end supprts". IF you must have end supports, why not each end of the head, simpler and the strength is already there. While we're on this sbc. stuff, we need to stop comparing our valve spring needs to that of sbc's. Most of us will not be using 2.02 and 1.6 dia. valves. Most of us will not be running the radical "ramps" as raced in sbc's. For most of us, our valve train requirements will closely resemble Buick V6, after-market parts.Let's narrow this down. Lets get a consensus.Let's focus and then go-for-it. roverman.

I've already converted for oiling though the pushrods for my engine. It just took getting hollow push rods and blocking off the oiling ports in the head.. I like the idea of going with a solid shaft. I think a hollow one might be stronger... Wait that's true for bending but we're probably talking about more shear force than bending force. Lighter though.

SO you're talking about those shaft conversion thingys the Chevy guys use, right? The little shafts that bolt into the stud mounts or whatever? Just ditch the little shaft thing and use one shaft per side mounted on the existing perches. We could make mounts that resemble the D&D gussets for the ends of the shaft...

Peep these:

http://www.kmjent.com/cart/product.php?productid=454

Nic-et-all, yes. Gives us cheep/good rockers with ratios uo to 1.7/1. Remember our small base circles for 3.85" strokes? In leiu of support bracket on ea. end of current design,  affix a "support plug" in the end/rocker cover support wall. Make the "new" shaft reach this. More -simple, I like simple.

That'd work well with an o-ringed cast valve cover... now who can we get to make those for us?

Jim

Peep these:

[www.kmjent.com]


Nic. Are those 289 for the whole set of do you need 8 pairs of them?

I know some folks poo-poo on T&D but I love their stuff.
You have choice of steel or Aluminum and choice of rocker ratios as well...( the steel rockers isnt available for the SBB/Rover yet)
 since the Buick 215  stuff uses the stands on the heads its about 1/2 the price of a SBC setup. T&D says they can do up to a 1.7 ratio for the rocker, their shafts are solid gun drilled.. and due to the design of their rocker you can either oil through shaft like factory or through the pushrod. Like a SBC...

 I run their stuff on the Chevelle and its very high quality.. see below.

(http://www.usfamily.net/web/hoffbug/T&D%20shaft%20rockers.jpg)




Nic..Look at the horrible finish on the rocker body next to the adjusting nut.. And this is on a site that they are trying to sell something!

(http://www.kmjent.com/ebay/Pro%20Comp/PC2346y.jpg)

I suspect on our sbb/Rovers, rocker loads will be approx. 60-70% of sbc's with 2.02/1.6 valves? I'm thinkin the "bargin" roller rockers have a good chance of holding up, provided we supply a good shaft and mounting? Comp.Cams stainless rockers at $259. I think that beats "Wildcat"?  I'm ready to build shafts. What say? roverman.

Whoa! I just pressed-apart a "Pro Form" needle/roller, rocker for sbc. Bad idea! Not made to disassemble, rebuild/etc. Some of the needles-gone. Shaft is stepped-down ea. end from .720" to .466 dia's.(bearing id).Unless someone finds rockers with a straight shaft through them, this won't fly. I'm considering counterboring alum rocker for bigger needles, but this rocker is already weakened by huge slot in middle. Anybody? roverman.

Look into aluminum extrusions. There is bound to be an extrusion company that has a shape that will work for rockers. (maybe even with a near net size bore) Slice them to length, drill and ream the needle bearing bore, slot and drill for the roller and pin, drill and tap for the adjuster, and all you need is the shaft. Don't pay $700 a set, it's one of the easiest engine parts to make.

Jim

Jim, sounds pretty simple. How much do you want for 1-2 sets with-out shafts? roverman.

Depends on how much you want to do Art. Find the extrusion and the hardware and I can do it fairly cheap. If I was making some for myself, same thing. But I'm not. So, how much do you want to do yourself?

Jim

Jim and all, My first choice,still digging, is to use a sbc. design with a one dia. shaft. I simply have too much on my plate, "907", Silver State Classic, etc., to build rockers from scratch. Maybe their out-there. I'm waiting to hear back from "Herbert".   Thanks, roverman.

That's bitchin', Jim.

GOod point, Tony. I was just ripping something from online to stimulate a response. I guess I got my wish!!

Nic..
Not trying to be a dick....Its just a relex effect of working 24 years in the pest control industry.. :-)

 I can tell you first impressions do mean something... If I see a restaurant with greasy windows and a crappy dining area I can guarantee you they dont give a rip about kitchen sanitation....

 If I see someone post an obviously crappy casting on a site that they are going to sell something that tells me something about their commitment to proper machining and QC.... Ive seen enough stuff fail over 21 years of hotrodding/drag racing... their isnt any free lunch as far as Ive ever seen.

Ok, "I" waz deadasleep at the engineering wheel. How would we "individually" adjust ea. lash with "no" adjuster?u-no,sbc? Mabe we could mount all the studs on a rigid plate bolted to rocker pedastles? When we consider the rocker loads of sbc's, studs should be adequate. Anybody? roverman.

Up-date, Doug Herbert is working up a quote for qty's: 10,25 and 50 roller cams. Lobe centers approx. 102/114deg avail.Hyd./mech. 215's through 350's. Anybody ready for serious? roverman.

Update, The lifter-of-choice, oem. hyd. roller may well be Buick 3.1L V6, fwd. eng. You can "peep" on the GN. V6 webb site for details. Looks similar to sbc but specific for Buicks. Perhaps this Buick lifter is convertable to mech.? At $600 from TA for V8 set of aftermarket's, this might be worth a look. roverman.

Ok getting closer. Here's some pix from a GN website using Chev 3.1L 60º V6 roller lifters. In this pic they are set into a 3.8L Buick:

(http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/attachments/engine-tech/45665d1207014525-fwd-roller-non-roller-cam-parts-gn-motor-w-pictures-img_0130.jpg)

(http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/attachments/engine-tech/45666d1207014636-fwd-roller-non-roller-cam-parts-gn-motor-w-pictures-img_0110.jpg)

Here's a couple comparo pix of the stock 3.8 lifter and the Chevy roller lifter. I guess the benefit is the height:

(http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/attachments/engine-tech/41943d1201794498-fwd-roller-non-roller-cam-parts-gn-motor-w-pictures-img_0021.jpg)
(http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/attachments/engine-tech/41944d1201794524-fwd-roller-non-roller-cam-parts-gn-motor-w-pictures-img_0024.jpg)

Here's an excerpt with the spec data:

QuoteThe lifters out of a 1995 Chev Lumina 3.1L V-6 measure .842" wide and 2.228" high. The stock lifters are .842" wide by 2.005" high. When used with a Comp Cams 258HR (ductile iron) specs. 206/206 .498 lift, 110 LSA ......there is lots of ramp-up clearance (where the roller touches the cam,) lots of shoulder clearance top at max lift (.160" to be exact....... so the shoulder doesn't hit the dog-bones) and bottom or base circle ( .115" above flush deck....for the dog-bone retainers to stay in place) Use the retainer and bones out of a 1986 Vin "3" 3.8 roller block as shown in the photo's above (personally I would shorten the length of the spacer a little to put a little more pressure on the dog bones, but only about .200" inch less than the 1.00" suggested, you don't want too much pressure on them either)...........the only thing left to get are pushrods.

Good job Nic. Now I need to compare sbc,oem roller to these. Maybe there same? If so, Bingo!  =megacheep. "take-outs" are dirt cheep, so they tick?-gut-em! New ones $99(16), all day. Everbody sing..."Rollin ona River", roverman.

Just make sure the top of the "neck" and the oil hole don't uncover at full lift. One other thing, the Buick V6 may use different bore spacing that the BOP/R as it could be based on the 350. Don't know that it is, the heads are more like the 340 but you'll need to make sure because most of the rest of the engine is.

Jim

In the pic it looks like the guy was trying to setup the shot to compare from the bottom of the roller. It looks like the oil holes come close to matching. Your point is that maybe the other lifter's oil hole might pop out the top too, right?

My Erson solid cam's lobe lift is 340ish. Art, you're talking about making the base circle bigger and that would put the lifter higher in the bore, right?

Nic and clan, To my knowledge, late V6's and 350' sbb's used (1) bearing journal dia.-same as early front. This would theorectically allow .12" larger base circle over stepped design. I can't tell you if same will automatically bump the rods with 3.85" stroke. This is why I suggested "peeping" the upside-down VW style rod= waay more room at bottom of rod. We've thought about volumetric effieciency of these large strokes with,"marginal", a kind term, air flow to feed 350+ inches in na. mode? roverman.

Rolling, rolling, rollin' on a Rover.

Looks perfect. Extra lifter height to fit into the dogbones, oil hole in the right place.

Check out the spring-loaded cam button in the top picture. What is that gear on the end of the cam for?

That's the distributor/oilpump drive on the earlier Rover/Buick front cover. I totally missed the cam button... So if the later Buick 350 used one bearing dia. why wouldn't there be room? OH I see, you're saying if we make the base dia 1/8" bigger dia that will push the lobe out another 60 thou, right?

Larger base circle will make cam stronger/work the "valley" less and be less hostile to the lifters. OEM 350's/late V6's should already have larger base circle? I would think the cast iron folks would want Rover cam retention plate? roverman.

I think this is the rods you were talking about. Wouldn't that put the nut nearer the cam though??

(http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-1438-1258943954.jpg)

Nic and clan, pic is of a "stocker"? Look similar to my 907,"deisel" rods,900 grams must be, right? VW ,aftermarket, is quite thinner/rounded on bottom. Depends on where they bump. Buick V6 with "even fire" crank, reportedly they bump on top near bolt. "Fat Performance" or "Empi" might have pics'.rovermn.

Looks like our "threads", are getting  twisted? Jim's talkin why flat tappets in "rockers" and Nic's bespeakin rods in the "rollers". I'm about to get confused. One way to enhance street-use power is to improve "lift/flow under the curve", meaning heads with good low lift flow and open the valves faster. Faster in flat tappet Buick/Rover,sbc is limited by smallish .842" dia of lifter. OEM. didn't go to hyd. rollers because they "like" to spend $'s needlessly. Longevity, reduced emissions and better performance are some of the reasons. Limiting a Merlin,TA or Wilcat head to under .500" lift and 7k redline may prove counter productive compared to a skilled roller set-up. In my experience around OEM. 215's, the best thing a flat tappet cam did was go flat! Fortunately, our oils, "with zink", have improved since then. Long live Diversity University, roverman.

As Art says, it's 'area under the curve' that helps build torque. Since flow in the ports of stock heads seem to hit an inflection point in the .400/.450 lift range, improvements below those lifts will help with performance. Also, with the faster ramp rates possible (and better low-lift flow) with roller lifters, overlap can be reduced and LSA can be widened.

This helps with electronic fuel injection, and for those of us who live in areas where emissions are tested, this helps with emissions.

To recap and make sure I'm on the same page, it's Chevy 3.1L 60^ V6 roller lifters and dog-bones. What was the retainer/spider? Looks like it bolts down, so it might be a stock Buick v6 part. getting two and cutting/splicing them should work, right? And, obviously, all this stuff will work on 215's, 3.5, 3.9, 4.0, 4.2, 4.6, 300ci, 340ci, and probably 350ci.

Paul and all, Yes it must be Buick V6, as to what years? (2) V6 retainers/spiders, overlapping?-maybe. As to why example used chev 3.1L vs. Buick? In leiu of sheet metal conversion, I shall investigate alternatives, including if 3.1L is identicle to sbc hyd. roller. Anybody know if 350 Buick and late V6 use larger base circle on cam? Thanks, roverman.

I have been following this thread and read all 9 pages on the V6 roller conversion. It uses the dog bones and retainer from 86-88 Buick V6 roller engine. The Chevy V8 lifters are too tall. The 3100-3400 (3.1 and 3.4) rollers are the perfect height and same diameter as the Buick and Chevy V8. The Turbo Buick V6 3.1 roller thread says it works with the stock base circle for Buick V6 (1.234) . Also move the spider mounting bolts a little to avoid the oil gallery. Here is a picture of that and a picture of a SBC with the 60 degree 3.1 lifters from a Corvette forum.
rollerlifters4213.jpg
0730080031_2.jpg

I guess twisted enthusiasts just can't help making twisted threads.... but isn't that what threads are? Twisted I mean?... anyway,
On my scat rods, which were capscrew type, the shoulders interfered with the cam lobes. The upper shoulder and one capscrew had to be trimmed to clear.

MVC-748S.JPG

 On the bottom, they hit the pan and I will need a pan spacer or girdle plate there, about 1/4" thick. Someone on the Buick board has started working on a cad file but may not get it done by the time I need it.

From Kurt's old article on the D&D 300 based 340 stroker it looks like the same issues came up, along with the need to trim the piston skirts. With the BOPR based build I'd guess it'd be about the same, and the shorter rod might mean more of the shoulder would have to be trimmed.  The stock 350 rods used a capscrew type rod bolt which gave more clearance at the cam I believe.

Paul's comments make sense. Enough to justify the extra cost though? That's the part that is hard to say. For me, no. For others of you maybe so. But then, I'm not hampered by reliance on atmospheric pressure to do the cylinder filling so as usual I'm off on some tangent that only has a little relevance to the mainstream. Consider this though, if you plan to put a whole lot of miles on the engine,  when the time comes  to rebuild you will probably be able to reuse your roller gear with minimal servicing whereas the flat tappet cam, lifters and rockers will probably need replaced or rebushed. So that's another advantage worth considering.

Jim

That's a good point about longevity. I've spent a bit extra on lifters with little oil holes on the lobes because of the aggressive cam I'm using. The reality is it's not gonna last. That's $350 down the drain just for the cam.

So the cap screw rods you guys were talking about have the holes threaded. Huh. Make sense.

HEY! You brought up the VW rods first, Art. LOL!


Whatever happens you've got to admit this is fun, right??

Something we haven't discussed, aluminum as a lifter bore material vs. ci. We know ci. is superior as a wear surface, right. How many of us check "exact" clearance, lifter/bore? We know oil requirement will increase to "square" of clearance increase. I'm thinkin that alum. bore that has a flat tappet, rotating and sliding will likely wear faster than a roller? Nic, please don't fret that the roller set-up weighs 31.7 oz. more.roverman.

Hello pro-roller people. 48 lifters on-the way. Still no "rockers". Waiting on cam quote. rollin on a ...........roverman.

Awesome. Are those the Buick 3.1 roller lifters from 86-88? Did you order them new?

Paul and all, Yes, thanks to this forum and to those that keep it real. One of the next steps will be what "masters", Doug Herbert has. "Dog bones and retainers" also available for good prices. Paul, you have your desirable cam spec's. yet? roverman.

Art,

IO/IC/lift:15°/67°/0.283
EO/EC/Lift: 65°/21°/0.283
Duration int/exh: 266°/266°

These were based on Ford 5.0 cam specs. I think this has a LSA of 112.

Whoa! I was looking at the picture of the Chevy block with the roller lifters. The glyptal painted valley looked similar to the Chevy engine I have for my 55 Chevy, but I was assuming that it was a 305 or 350 roller block. Then I noticed the steam holes. It's a 400 (which means it's non-roller) like my small block. So, some of the parts are retro-fitted.

I'll have find out more about what parts they used. Looks like a pretty slick installation.

3100 and 3400 FWD and 2.2 four cylinder Chevy,also used in other GM cars for the rollers. The spider and dogbones from 86-88 Buick 3.8 roller FWD engine on older RWD turbo 3.8.The spider and dogbones in the Chevy are factory newer Chevy retro fitted on 400 .

Wide Open Throttle (WOT-TECH V6 Performance) sells the small V6 lifters with LS springs installed for high lift cams and stiff valve springs. Supposed to be twice as stiff as the stock lifter springs.They sell just the heavier springs for $29.95 for 12, I imagine you could get 16 from them.  More stabilty at high RPM,anti-pump up?.
TCEliftersprings20001.jpg

Sounds like a decent price. I'll be investigating beehive/ovate springs too. The higher mass of the roller lifter makes 'heavier' springs necessary, but beehive springs avoid spring harmonics and you can get away with lighter springs. Considering the relatively smaller base circle of the Buick/Rover cam, seems like lighter springs are a good idea to help with cam life.

I wonder if that's why Olds used beehive spring on their 215?

Latest Supercharged Buick V6(Series 3) has Beehive springs. Supposed to be good to .480 lift.

Actually, I think the first "beehive", in real production, (some antique engines used a similar design), for GM, may have been the Olds 394". I believe slightly pre-dated the 215. I have a theory, un-proven, that a 1.6 rocker ratio will return the push rod side of the valve train, easier than a 1.5, all else being equal. IE., harder for same parts to open/easier to close. I find it "entertaining" that Comps Cams was blowing, "orfice smoke rings", by claiming "they" invented the beehive.  Ok, spring on far right is stock MGB valve spring?-explains the "tilt".Not that long ago, I bought my 1st. set of beehives from Comp Cams, $57.They sure got "pricey" since then!  Doug Herbert is still diggin for a quote for roller cams. Rollin On A Riv.....roverman.

Roverman, All those springs are the small springs inside hydraulic roller lifters. The 2 left small and large are V6 the 2 right LS7-mucho stiffer. I was thinking the newer beehives might work on the Rover. On another thread I have a picture of Mopar 318-360 shaft mount rockers that may be modified to work.

British Car Conversions also sell the upgrade LS internal springs for the small V6 roller lifters. A guy on the J body forum also recomends replacing the internal wire clip with a 5/8" internal snap ring. The mods would be good for 7000+ RPM. Are you guys doing the roller lifter swap planning on overlapping two 86-88 Buick V6 spiders. I presently have neither a 215 or Rover,but have over the years had 215's,Buick V6's,Buick 300 and 350 V8's. I am interested in the strokers also because in my opinon the 215 was just too small.

Jim and clan, My 1st. set will be,gutted/converted to mech. I would "definately" go with the circlip for serious roller work. I just don't believe I will need more than oem., to do the job, in a racing Rover eng. I have Buick V6 "dogbones" on the way and will pursue the Buick V6 hold-down arangement, perhaps spliced/welded. We shall see. roverman.

After seeing the picture of the Chevy 400 with the conversion, I bought a spider and dog-bones for the Chevy V8 roller. When finances permit, I'll be buying the V6 roller lifters for both a Rover V8 and the Chevy V8.

Regarding splicing the spider, I expect that it's spring steel. I have tried to weld metal like that before and it's not simple. I'd guess that gluing and screwing are what's going to happen.

I'm a little confused. Have people done roller cam conversions on BOPR V8's before? Using the V6 lifters?

There was one guy talking about doing a Buick 350,lots of Buick V6 and Chevy V8 conversions.As for the spiders, I would just bolt both halves down and overlap.

Paul, I think this forum is it. Previous conversions were mega $'s , skirted mech. rollers. Race car , only stuff. roverman.

Art, I guess I'm a little compulsive and impulsive. So far, I've purchased 20 roller lifters. 12 left to go. I have the Chevy spider and dog-bones. Now I'm searching for the Buick V6 spiders and some more dog-bones.

12 new lifters for $77. It's a better price than the normal Chevy roller lifters, but it's going to add up.

Paul you might be the first to get it done with the Rover! Are you planning to beef up the springs and circlip in the lifters too?

Paul, do you think? Got Cam? I will need word from Herbert this week or move-on.I would like one cam with bolt pattern for sbc. and bolt Buick distributor gear on top, using wet belt, sbc cam drive with(dynamic cam timing). I believe hyd. rollers will really shine, in most of the builds, for our little friend. roverman.

Jim, until you asked, I hadn't even thought about it. My applications will be relatively mild, but I should probably consider the interplay between the valve springs and the lifter springs. The upper end of the planned operating speed was 5500 rpms.

At this point I was only thinking in terms of beehive springs. If titanium retainers are cheap enough, I'll use those. Stock rockers. Pushrods will have to be custom, but I'm not going to gold plate them.

Because the circlips are cheap enough, I'll probably go with that.

Art, the cam will have to be a custom/prototype job. I suppose if this works, the cam grinder can use the information to provide a retrofit option for Buick small blocks - 215/300/340 and Rovers. So maybe we can cajole Comp or Herbert into selling for a reasonable price in exchange for the information about how to do it.

Art, I know you were considering VVT in the past. I think I'm on to what you're saying with the dynamic timing. Are you thinking of putting a servo on the tensioner? I suppose  you could use the fuel pump port on the front cover for something like that. Have it change timing based on RPM or demand?

Nic, and clan, mentally I'm invisioning an adjustable spring-on-tensioner,(lead/right side), upon which,oil pressure/cylinder assem. would oppose to, "retard" cam as rpm/oil pressure increases. Real basic, might work. There are many ways to make it more complicated. I like simple. This brings up a complication. In this set-up, I think I want crank driven ignition timing,rather than following the cam all over. We'll see. roverman.

I had always thought that flywheel timing would have to be much more accurate than distributor or damper timing. The pick-up would make a heck of a hall-effect signal at the speeds it goes at its periphery.

Re; VVT, how's about a Rhodes-type lifter, maybe tweak it with cold (viscous) oil feeds to the lifters upon demand. A two-stage lifter that has its basic pump-up but then pumps up more when colder oil is supplied via a oil cooler/bypass system. You'd have to be rather picky about the oil you use.

I'm thinking something like Mobil1 15w-50 could have its viscosity altered enough at operating temperatures to do the job.

Paul, Good Luck with that. The main complaint with, "Rhoades"/Hi leak-down lifters is no (2) are exactly alike in how much they pump-up. Reports on fairly serious bbc's is "never". Off course they reduce duration by reducing lift,(TICK), not a good thing for "flow under the curve". I've used them and now consider them a, "noisy band aid". Item #1, I believe Rover, crank trigger uses the flywheel. roverman.

Jim, Could you tell me the URL for the Buick web ring with the roller conversion information?

Thanks.

Wait. I found it.

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?p=1549390

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/engine-tech/224567-fwd-roller-non-roller-cam-parts-gn-motor-w-pictures-3.html

I agree with Art on the Rhodes lifters. I thought I needed them to extend the rpm range but the lifter tap drove me nuts. At least if it had been all of them it would have sounded like a loose solid lifter cam, but no...

Jim

Post from Jim in the Big bore thread. It's a good one...

QuoteHey Art, I bet you could take some weight out of that roller cam and make the engine a little lighter. Wonder how much trouble it'd be to run a hole down the middle of it? Come to think of it, with your Rotus heads you might save a whole lot of weight that way.

Jim

What do you think? Cut it before heat treating... Has anybody done this before? Seems like a good way to reduce weight and increase bend strength. I was thinking there is less shear force then bend force. It works on the rocker shafts...

Nic,Jim and clan, I'm magnetically opposed to cast iron. It's best left for those 300-350 sbb folks. Getting over zealious with large bores and "tractor strokes"-Nic, only leads to problems like, bad cracks-internally. I shall shun Detroit wonder metal in favor of a lighter path to Nirvana- Ravhi Shankhar-Rover.

Volume changes everything. Looks like at 50 cams in a run could get the cost to approx. $250 ea.? Latest up-date on potential LCA's would be approx .106-112deg. Probably adequate spread ,especially with dynamic cam timing. Which snout, early/late? I like late for  varicam potential. Consensus time, roverman.

I'd prefer late snout for the cam retainer. $250 is pretty good.

As I recall, The early style flange can be machined to fit Rover retainer plate. "Early" not possible for sbc belt drive.roverman.

I would be using one to replace the cam in a 4.0 cross-bolted engine. I assume that's a 'late' style. But I would also be thinking of replacing a cam in an Olds 215.

Jeepers, Art, $12,500? No promises, but I might be able to help a little with that but not that much.

I'll PM you.

V6 type lifters, Chevy V8 dog-bones
IMG_0263.jpg
IMG_0266.jpg

By-the-way, I started getting some lifters today, the V6 type. They look like they'll work fine. I also recently got some Chevy V8 hardware. The 'dog-bones' will work, but I'll be going to the boneyard to find some Buick V6 spiders. The Chevy spider isn't going to fit.

I don't think the Chevy dogbones will work with the Buick spiders. They might fit the lifter spacing but, the Buick ones stick out  more in the valley. Narrower spider.  If you look at the pictures you will see what I mean.You better pick up the Buick dogbones when you get your spiders. Also don't be tempted to try the Buick lifters as they are too long like the Chevy V8 lifters. Looks to me you would use the front 4 part and the back 4 part of 2 spiders. Remember to move the bolt holes in a bit to avoid the oil gallery. I would stagger 2 more bolts where the 2 halves overlap. Now I'm going to have to find a 215 or Rover to bore and stroke and convert to rollers! I'm thinking 3.78 bore(4.8/5.3 LS liners) with 300 Buick crank and heads.Has anyone done a main bearing stud girdle like the Ford.

Have you guys checked with Delta cams for regrinds. They do one for the 4.9 Cadillac aluminum V8 based on the Ford E303 roller for the Fiero guys. I'm thinking the popular Crower 50232 specs but with the roller ramps like the Ford with stock base circle for the shorter V6 rollers. The smaller base circle used with the longer V8 roller lifters in the retro cams flex and are unstable at high RPMs.Delta spray welds to build up the lobes and induction harden similar to what GM did for it's unleaded valve seats.The  factory hydraulic roller cams are hardened iron anyway,not billet steel like the aftermarket.(which normally require a special distributor gear also)

I don't know if this will work but when Paul goes to get his Buick spiders he should try and check out a 4.5/4.9 Cadillac V8 spider.It is shorter and narrower than SBC V8. Maybe we will get lucky! The lifters are the long Chevy V8 style, or Ford 302 NOT the dogbones.Here are pics of the spiders:
Torque_to15.jpg
BfjKKqQ2kKGrHqMH-DEEreEq4qeoBLBvmi4-5g_35.jpg

Jim, if I understand your previous post correctly, your suggesting having Delta, spray- weld the Rover cam to use as a roller? We know it is a, lump of iron, right ? What years of the Cad used hyd. rollers? Thanks, roverman.

88-93 4.5/4.9 Caddy had the longer Chevy V8 rollers. Give Delta a call at 800-562-5500. Their website shows the process. I live about 2 hours away, they are in Tacoma,WA.

I forgot about the open area over the cam in these engines. I would use a piece of channel full length over the cam for the spider to bolt to.

Jim, How will you attach the channel to the block and get it, below the spider?

Bend a tab up on both ends and drill and tap block. The channel would have the pattern of the spider with flanged nuts welded on. That's if the Caddy or Ford spider will work.The 2 piece Buick V6 idea I would add crossbars for the spider pattern.It would be a little more complicated.

The Ford 5.0 spider can be made to work. Flipped upside-down it's close enough. However, some trimming and some creative rebending will be required. The spacing is just a touch too wide, so the end hold-downs might need to be trimmed.

As far as holding it in place, my Olds block has two ears in the middle of the lifter valley that can be drilled without compromising the strength of the block. And the end pairs of lifter bores have a cross-bar that can be clamped onto.
spider001.jpg

Excellent Paul! I told you,you would be first with a solution.

Good job, Paul.  That spyder looks like it will work. I'm thinking 1 long, alum. bar , turned to approx. 312"dia x .25 long,1 end and 5/16-18 bolt other end, with head cut-off to use unthreaded portion to lock inside of bolt towers(2), your describing 1 hole each, wouldn't need threading. Insert hold-down bar. Unscrew bolt till assembly is tight and lock jam nut. This bar would have corresponding threaded holes over each Ford hold down hole. Bolt size same as holes. Jam nuts  below bar ,on bolts would apply preload onto spyder. Things are coming together here. Rollin On A Riv'.....for Christmas?  roverman.

Take notice, the pads on that upside down spider are formed to allow a certain amount of "spring" from the metal holding the dogbones. Flipping it upside down that way might work, or it might be rigid enough that it causes problems like cracking or noise. I take it the spider is formed of spring steel and the rib extends out to the bend? So what happens if one breaks?

Jim

I think Paul bent them up to clear the block. I would cut the pads off where the ribs end. The retaining bolts would give enough tension to hold down the dogbones. The spider just keeps the dogbones in place to stop the lifters from turning. You might have to touch it up with a dremel to narrow it between the lifters so they don't rub. You might be able to pin clevis's where the ribs are on the block with studs and nuts. The hole in the picture looks to be right over one ,I don't know about the other end.

Jim Blackwood is right about the metal being spring metal. I'll try my hand at re-bending the springy tabs to hold down some lifters. They might not survive the bending, but I did try un-bending one of the tabs just to see how tough the spring metal would be. My conclusion is that it might work, but, again, it's spring metal and giving it the radical 360 flip bend might fatigue the metal too much.

I'll give you all more information soon as I try my hand at metal bending.

Art, I've been pondering what the best solution would be to make it as simple, easy to repeat, inexpensive, and reliable. My best thoughts are something similar to what you are proposing. In the end, it will look like a gypsy rig, but it should be reliable.

Is anybody going to call that shop in Tacoma tomorrow? I'm going to call unless someone beats me to it and posts an estimate for the price of a reworked camshaft. I'm hoping it will be less than $300.

I'm also going to cruise by the boneyards in the coming week to scrounge some Buick V6 spiders. That might be a better solution (cutting and splicing two V6 spiders).

I took a couple more shots of the spider for reference.

This shot might show the tweak I put on one of the pads to see how easily it bent.

spider1001.jpg

Closeup of the pad.

spider1003.jpg

This shot shows the ears that stick up in the middle of the valley.

spider1006.jpg

Although I have successfully jimmied stuff, I'm thinking a machinist like Jim Blackwood or Art might know better what the optimum solution is. I'll continue to do some legwork, but I'm listening to the real experts here.

Spring steel can be funny stuff. Sometimes you can bend it, sometimes the only way is by heating it. When you heat it, sometimes it loses it's temper and sometimes it does not. (certain grades are "air hardening") Watch for any sort of stress lines inside the bend as you are straightening it out, as that is where the cracks form that will cause it to break. You may be able to just heat it a little in the bend, with a propane torch for instance, and soften it just enough to bend without breaking and not lose a lot of strength, or it may just have to be annealed.

Jim

Jim, if I do heat it, can I do something like quench it to restore some of its toughness?

Paul, It looks like on the Ford spyder, there is room underneath for holdown bar? Perhaps there is enough material in those two "ears" in middle of valley to drill/tap for additional stability? It looks to me like much of the "spring" is available in the "legs"? Overall, the Buick V6 spyder(s), may require less work? Regarding "spray welded", cast iron, flat tappet cams, I'll wait for proven durability. If I can buy 8620, billet cams for 250-$300, the decision will be an easy one. I'll be performing torsional/deg.deflection test on 8620 billet vs. oem. Rover and that, out-there thing-Nic.roverman.

Make the cam out of aluminum.

I called Delta. No dice.

Art, yes, there is room underneath for a hold-down bar. Yup, the legs will provide lots of spring. They do have a stiffening rib pressed into them.

I'm thinking that I'll go get some Buick spiders, cut off the very end pair of legs so that I leave a lot of the middle rib to overlap the two parts. Then I'll take the cut-off legs and try my little Lincoln WedPak welder on them to see if I can possibly weld the spring steel parts together.

Lobotamy-Nic? Thaaatz jus "silly". You can't believe "everything", in a tell-all-alien, abduction. Can we just focus heere? roverman.

Paul, TIG I hope? Both sides? Rollin on Riv....

Art, I don't yet have my 110v welder set up for gas. I do know a gear-head that's a retired welder. I'll see if I can interest him in the project.

Paul, If not, I'm thinkin brazing with map gas or ox/acet. This process will likely anneal the local area,(little heat as possible).Good Luck,roverman.

LOL

Paul and all, I got 54 lifters so far,(16) soon-to-be mech.I hope their enough. No dog bones as yet. 3.1/3.4L chev. V6- right ? Amusing spyder-Nic?.

Art, GM V6 lifters, Chevy V8 dog-bones, Ford 5.0 or two Buick 3.8 90^ spiders. The cam is going to be pure custom.

I'm still waiting for 24 Chevy lifters to be delivered.

We need to find something Mopar to use in this gypsy lash-up. Pushrods? Rockers?

You wouldn't do much good quenching the ends, as it'd leave a soft zone in between that and the part that wasn't heated. Really the whole thing would need to be heat treated at once unless you could come up with something really clever. No ideas here though. The Buick V6 spiders sound like the best plan to me.

Jim

Paul, Because the motor just would'nt be expensive enough with-out something Mopar in there? How bout a "Ram" wearing a "Bowtie"? Less frustrating, because these two never play-well together.roverman

Art I'm tempted to use the Ford spider, instead of using Buick V6 spiders, just to get that brand into the combination.

Paul, I thinkin this"melting-pot" theme is a little overcooked at this point, for being half-baked, that is. If you just halft to have Ford in there, go- with- the- flow, and use Henry's crank. An don't forget those Volvo rockers. "Swan Neck" intake would be nice touch.You go too far here and "someone" may rat you out to the (smog natzi's). Not a pleasant thing?

Guys, I E-mailed Schneider Cams to see if they would do a hyd. roller grind. We will see.

60^ mech. roller lifters on the cheep. This requires making a sleeve of "exact" length between internal step and original push rod cup in lifter. Up-grade to internal circlip. Mech. lifter will be considerable grams lighter. No final weight yet. Rollin on a riv.....roverman.

It's official. oem. lifter weighs 105 grams w.o. oil. "Converted" to mechanical,91 grams, with hd. circlip. So Nic, with carbon fiber push rods,(in-stock), "light weight" cam, carbon fiber wrist pins,(in-stock), 370 gram pistons, 550gram,1k hp.,6" rods, LS 1 firing order. I hear a song...Rollin on a Riv....Happy Hoidays,ya'll  roverman.

Peace, brotha. Rollin'!!

I love the idea of a roller cam in a RV8, my reservation would be can the heads flow the extra volume,, especially with the valves not being on the centerline of the bores making them shrouded by the bore sides, a lower lift, long duration cam would seem to make more sense,, what I do like the idea of it the Beehive springs, has anybody sorted these out to fit a RV8 yet???

I'm interested in a roller cam for my 300 project. currently in the parts research and gathering stage. plans call for a 300 shortblock, TA performance Rover heads and a procharger d1sc. looking for big power with street driveability. i'll be watching this thread with much interest

Welcome Ian and Rob. Regarding why a roller in a Rover. Net flow under the curve, is what wer'e looking for.The small base circle and small lifter dia. of .842"(sbc.),used in Rovers and sbb's., limits the lift rates to .007" per deg. cam rotation,Max. Thanks to Chevrolet,making low cost, reliable, hyd. rollercam hardare plentiful, ie. lifters, dog bones,and "spyders with mod's". Todays oem roller set-ups provide better power,economy with reduced emissions, while lasting longer with reduced friction, over previous flat tappet designs. Our next hurdle is getting cams made in enough volume to secure  good price for custom grinds. Regarding "pine cone" springs, I know of none that woun't require cutting the spring seats. At least "one" takes std Rover retainer dia.  Rob, How much hp/boost? You would do well to follow what Jim Blackwood is doing. roverman.

Cutting spring seats is not a problem, im a engineer, but finding the right info over here in the UK for info of "On  the Edge" bits and pieces is a big problem, I do like to experiment with oddball combos

Ian, If this forum has "anything" ,it's lots of combo's. You may want to "peep" ,Comp Cams webb site for springs, Update, Behive pn. 26918 might be useable..65" id/top and 1.31"od/base, .625 max. lift( enough for most Rovers),lol. If your building a "Nostalgia" motor, you might consider,"394" Olds(circa 1960),pinecone springs., possibly the first, production use of the basic design. When your  3.9L buzzed 8,200 rpm., I'm thinkin, it was, "on the edge"? Good Luck, roverman.

Art
 i'll most likely limit myself to 7-8 psi until i learn a little more about running under boost. using the turbo V6  engine as a baseline for hp estimates i would think it's safe to say that a 300 would make an easy 500 hp with that setup (remember the 231 is basically a 300 engine minus two cylinders( and a larger crank dimensions). the new TA heads are supposed to flow as good as or better than the aluminum V6 heads they currently produce.

Rob, I hope the TA heads work as well as projected(300 cfm@28")? My Home ported ,Stg II flowed 294 @ .7 lift. I believe Jim Blackwood has a similar build ,with 300" heads and a Ford, "Lightning" blower. Good Luck, roverman.

= 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3 Anybody? Sneider Cams,anybody? Hooked on Harmonics? At least we're not driving oil pump and dizzy, off the rear of cam.roverman.

What are you saying? We should move to a different firing order? What are the implications here...

Not me sayin-askin. SBB guys sayin best 4bbl., fuel equalization and least harmonics on crank. I have no experience of such. Anybody? roverman.

. started new thread..

The Buick boys are doing this and I don't remember the details but I do recall it is a trade off of induction against engine harmonics. The guys who are doing it are 350 builders IIRC and they already have a different intake configuration, so how it would work out for the BOPR I'm not sure. My personal impression is it's along the lines of the flat crank four cylinders. Might be good for racing but probably not that productive on a street engine.

Jim

Tony, tough question. I think I would start by weighing stock pistons/rods. My forged, +.03 os. 305 sbc pistons/pins are approx 447 grams before re-notching for stg.1, V6 valves. 1k hp., 4340x6",lg jrnl. rods are 599 before narrowing.Isn't the 4.6L crank internal? Anybody? If so, It might may a better option, regarding flywheels, fillet potential during off-set grinding, 1 pc. rear seal and ready for crank driven oil pump. roverman.

351 Ford and 302 roller HO firing order was changed for the same reasons. Helps if you have large diameter mains or turn high RPMs.Scheinder cams E-mailed back and said cast iron was wrong material for even hydraulic rollers,even if hardened. The factory cast cams are steel alloy. I imagine Comp cams or other aftermarket retro roller cams are also, thus more expensive blanks. I guess there is no cheaper way to do it. Iv'e looked at chilled Iron(when they pour molten steel into  a cold mold) and cryogenic treating. By the time you do all the custom stuff you would be better off ordering an expensive steel billet. I would still like a cast cam gear on it though.

1961 on had cast gear. I never suggested anything other than #8620 for cam,(publicly). For variable cam drive, I believe crank trigger ign. will prove best. I think volume price of $250 for custom 8620 billet will be tough to beat. I'll be using oem. V6 roller lifters in the "Huff" as mechanicals. Should be  good durability test.roverman.

Paul, You are being awfully quiet. You aren't getting secretive like Mike are you? Any progress on the spyder?

Jim, I got busy with my 54 F100. I recently got the engine back in it and I've been thrashing the fuel system to fix a problem there. I think I got that fixed today. Next will be the leaking heater core. Then get the windshield wipers working, then ...

I've been scanning the local Craigslist, looking for a Buick 3.8 that being parted out. Nothing so far. But I did find some 16" wheels for the F100. :)

Paul, as in Buick 3.8, V6 ? Your abandoning your V8 bretheren ? PS., I have 56' F100/440 Mopar.

Art, Nah, I'm going to splice two V6's to make a better V8. 440/F100? Welcome to the Dark Side. Nice choice of bodies, but I'll bet you had to box the frame. I've got the parts to swap in a Cordoba front suspension, but I'll probably stick to a Ford for power.

Box the frame? I'll "wrestle" with that later. It's comming back as a 40 yr.backburner.Eventually to get a "W16",(Rover of-course), in the bed. I was force-fed Mopars as a kid, hence the B-block.

Box the frame? I'll "wrestle" with that later. It's comming back as a 40 yr.backburner.Eventually to get a "W16",(Rover of-course), in the bed. I was force-fed Mopars as a kid, hence the B-block.

Art, why not one of those Chrysler tank motors? I heard they made pretty good power..

Jim

Jim, If Nic can have a 4X4 caddy and Mike can have a top secret- 4.02" then I can have a W16 Rover, I want it,I want it ! roverbrat.

Yeah, but weren't those something like 3 or 4 Mopar V8's all jammed together or something? Bet that'd have enough tork for yer truck.

Jim

Don't want,"torked-out-o'-shape", me want, "Rotus Brosom Sweet 16", kinda like, astro-glide for the hi-way.

Update, it's a new year, let's get it in gear!  1,677 "peeps" on this subject and (3)? ,people have said their interested?? Howard Cams is "workin a quote" for qty. 10 and 25 billet rollers. If I get enough positive feed-back from "this" forum, I may jump-start this. 215-340 and "noseless"-only. 350 sbb. folks already have rollers from TA ,and TA hasn't responded for this application.We know all about the low cost, other components , we're running out of excuses not to. Stay tuned, it will get-"bumpy". roverman.

I'll commit to one if we can get the price reasonable.

Update, Under $300. ea. based on qty. 25 in a run, "noseless" are less. All will accept retainer plate. How bout "bolt-on", a distributor gear/spacer, onto "noseless" cam, for those who want dizzy? Let's get "bumpy". roverman.

Looks like TA is making a little progress in that area, as Mike Jr says they are waiting on a Rover roller cam to test and if it checks out they will order.

Jim

I have (3) in stock, but I "loaned" MikeSr. a stg. II V6 billet roller, about a year ago- no word. Much as I'd like to help..........

I have (3) in stock, but I "loaned" MikeSr. a stg. II V6 billet roller, about a year ago- no word. Much as I'd like to help..........

Update. written quote, Flanged, finished complete,(5) in a run= $355. ea. No flange, finished complete, (25) in a run=$295. ea.

Not bad. Let me know when we order.

By flanged, I assume (making an ass of me and u) that you mean the cam has the distributor drive extension hanging off of the front of the cam. True?

I'll have to raise some money to buy some cams. I'm going to try to help get the volume up enough to get a full order. I'll sell the extras.

Are these cams finish ground to specification? Will they be surface treated after grinding? Is it safe to assume (there's that word again) these will be compatible with those nice, new, Delphi V6 roller lifters that we buy off of eBay?

I'll get in touch with Art via PM when I have raised the funds.

Paul, you know of an "inflection" occuring in oem, Rover head flow? I believe by lifting valve faster and more lift will keep the valve in the "sweet spot"/flow under the curve-longer? I'm not convinced that what works great in a sbf. will in a Rover. The more we lift the valves, the more they are unshrouded from chamber and cylinder walls,(their not centered in chambers). Clan, yes, when I say "flanged" = identicle to 215-340 Buick, oddfire V6 Buick and RV8's with distributors, BUT will accept RV8 retainer plate! I will make at least (1) to take sbc(3) bolt drive for belt. I don't "trust" that little notch in"noseless" cam for serious work. We will need "exact" lobe lift and LSA., and lift per deg. of cam rotation,(we're not limited to .007"/deg. now), for rough and finish grind. Finish grind will be .005"-.010" removal per side, occurs after carburizing to depth of .040". This should be adequate depth for hyd. rollers and mech.'s excepting RV8's in TF/TA drags? roverman.

Art, I understand that after about .400" of valve lift the BOPR ports don't increase their flow by much. I've seen that inflection on Ford Y-block heads and Studebaker V8 heads. So the trick is to maximize low-lift flow to get the port flowing that much sooner (I think). With the roller lifters the valve timing can actually be shortened and still have a very good Area Under the Curve (AUC).

The down-side with roller cams would have to be reversion. Maybe that's why you always see factory HiPo roller cam engines using long intake runner tuning (TPI Chevy, SEFI Ford 5.0L, SEFI Ford 7.5L); it's probably because of the wicked air pressure pulses from snapping the valves open so quickly. The long runners would isolate the other cylinders from 'seeing' the pulses, and carbs have a bad time with tuning when the reversion is severe. But I'm not an expert on this by any stretch - I'm just guessing.

So, between increasing the intake valve size a bit, pocket porting the intake ports, removing any abrupt angles in both ports, and a roller cam, we can get big improvements in low RPM torque and still have ok power in the mid-range.

I'm modeling my specs on the Ford 5.0 SEFI HO engine because I drive one and it's got very nice low-RPM torque, excellent fuel economy at highway speeds, and uses electronic port fuel injection. The 4.0 that I got has port fuel injection.

I think the stock 5.0 cam has something like 114 or 115^ LSA. But the 5.0 has short rods (5.09" on a 3.0" stroke). With the low rod ratio, the piston gets to the top of its travel later and the exhaust and intake events are naturally closer, resulting in more reversion from exhaust pressure. Also, with a wide LSA, valve overlap is reduced and less fuel escapes during overlap, which improves economy and reduces emissions.

The rod ratio is higher on stock BOPR engines. My Olds has a 2.8" stroke and a 5.66" rod and the piston spends more time near the head during overlap, so blow-down will end sooner and reversion will be reduced, so I'm assuming that I can pull the LSA in a little tighter, to 112, to pick up some more mid-range torque. The Rover 4.0 has an even longer rod and it will have even less sensitivity to LSA and overlap.

But I'm only taking a swag at these numbers. I'm completely open to suggestions about valve timing suggestions. My goal is for a daily-driver friendly engine in a LBC with a 5 speed.

I have an Olds 215, a Rover 4.0, and I also have a Rover 4.2 crank that I might put into the Olds. Engine sizes will all be in the 3.5 to 4.0L range. The Olds heads have the valves centered in the cylinder better than the Buick-based heads, so the shrouding issue is different there, but it might not make much difference in my application.

Ok, So we got Nic,Paul and Art interested. Ian, anybody? roverman.

Art, I would be but I have a custom grind in my 340 that is yet to be tested and crank clearance in this motor is critical so I'll have to pass this time around. But I do hope it becomes available as a regular part. Better check with the boys over on the Buick board. Some of them may buy in, and if they could get them with the 350 journal sizes several of the 350 guys would I'm sure now that the TA heads are almost done.

Jim

Jim, Thanks for response and I understand. Only response I got for V8 Buick folks was for LS 1  pattern on 350 sbc's. As I see it, those folks already have resonably priced cams from TA. I think it's a good thing to have more than one supplier of a particular type of cam. I suspect more people will, "come on board", once"others" provide concrete results. Thanks, roverman.

I'm ordering #8620 mat. blanks, tommorrow. Paul Menton will have (5),completed cams, should anyone be interested.  roverman.

Art, I haven't yet come up with a ramp rate for the cams. I'm thinking that because the base circle is relatively small, and because the lifer bores are cast aluminum, I'd be looking at something that's lower than the typical Ford Windsor or Chevy SB ramp rates.

I was going to mine the Buick V6 site for potential information about cam specs, but searches of the web on terms such as 'cam ramp rate', 'cam lift rate', etc. never did produce any numeric values, only references to the subject as an abstract concept.

BTW, our friend who is building a turbo V8 Triumph might be interested in a cam with zero overlap and a wide (114 -117) LSA. Seems like a roller cam would be perfect for a turbo application.

Art..
 Is there a master catalog of ramp profiles for us to look at?

Paul and Tony, I'll ask Fri. bout lift rates and what "masters", they have in-stock. Good new is, as round lobe blanks, only thing final is "flange/no flange".For obvious reasons, we want to keep base circle as large as possible,while achieving enough lobe lift, and smaller than bearing #4. I "assume", you-guys,  have found a swinging deal on double roller chain drive for "no flange" Rover ?        Rollin on a riv.....   roverman.

Do you need any funds? Let me know.

Nic, thanks, but no thanks. Just buy a cam when your ready. Paul and all, I put a deposit in, to build (10) blanks, (6)flangeless and (4) with(215 style).I want to use 2.0" dia. on flange and a Rover retainer plate. If someone has a problem with this...tell me NOW. Contreras is  going to spec. an oem. sbf. roller cam coming into shop, prior to being ground-hotter. "Rollin on a riv."....roverman.

I would be/am interested in a cam for a TT 300, but I am currently laid off until April so no big $$ 'til then. Prolly a wide-ish LSA and no overlap... Would definately need setup for dist. drive.

By "using the rover retainer" do you mean a "thrust plate"?

If a stock thrust plate could be bolted to a 300 sbb, that would be awesome.. better than using a thrust button. I'm assuming that would work with a stock style 215-350 timing set?

Now, the "noseless" ones, would that be like the front end of a Turbo 6 roller cam?

(10 pages is a lot to read)


OH, I am sure THIS has been discussed before as well but.. Can the cam bearing journals all be bored out safely to 350 SBB size, to take advantage of TA's advanced bearings?

Art, outstanding work so far.

I lost a little free time when my SO went to the ER for a MI. IANAC (Cardiologist), but three trips with no real diagnosis tells me we're still in the dark ages of medical practice. All's well, so I'm back to work on projects like carpeting one of my rental units, and prepping an engine for a shiny new cam.

Paul

Thanks Paul. It's true, I joke a lot, but I have a serious passion for these engines ! Because of this forum and the and the working gene-pool, Rover just might become, "the lead dog", for a while, at least for some of us.  Wesley,#1, retainer = thrust plate. #2,215" style flange will be machined to take "thrust plate", but use is not mandatory. I have not attempted use of plate conversion on non oem. blocks.#3, I would "sonic test", areas of concern, around bearing tunnels for installing "350" bearings. A little "romance" for a "lot" of work. You would need a "one-off" cam be made,(expensive) ! The stock bearings can be re-drilled and rotated, if not available from TA/etc. This procedure is well defined in several Buick V6 books. Were I to go, off-the-deep-end, for cam bearings, I'd go to needles,  even "more" work. Onward, roverman.

For needle bearings you'd have to greatly restrict oil flow to the cam bearings. Otherwise oil pressure would plummet.

Jim

Jim, yes indeed. They need precious little compared to inserts. Were I to... I think, use machined outer housing/fractured, like modern con-rods and needles would run directly on 8620 cam, with undercut journals, mostly surrounding the needles and reducing "bleed-off. This would also reduce outside of housing for less "tunnel"boring. As a side note, Chevrolet experimented with needle bearings, on the sbc., for mains/rods. For the very reason you mentioned, Jim, they had too much volume required and "bleed-off". These might be handy on a "Coates" headded, sbc. Motor #1 blew-up at around 16,700 rpm. Reportedly #2, lived at 16,500 ! Anyone who has had heard a "Spintron", valve train dyno, at full gallup, can appreciate the "hellacious" forces of impact, with poppet valves. I believe, easily  70+% of all, professionally prepaired,  racing motor , catasrophic failures, "start" in the valve train.Further I believe, the future of the piston/recip. motor, lies with slide valve technology. Time will tell. roverman.

Prices quoted are for min. qty. of (10), each style nose, ie. flanged or flangeless. NO mix and match. Max of (2) different profiles in 10 cam lot or extra $'s. Regards, roverman.

If I were forced to choose between nose or noseless, I'd choose noseless. Although the cost will be relatively reasonable, I think swapping in a roller cam is going to be popular with the type of builder who wants to spend a little extra on an engine and a few goodies to get a peppy solution.

And I'd be fine with a choice between two profiles; first would be emissions/computer/efi compatible (relatively wide LSA, 112-114, and low overlap - maximize torque at 3750 RPM) , and the second is something sporty but streetable for a carbed engine (narrower LSA, 108-110, max torque at 4500 RPM).

Again, I'd model the first cam on something like the Ford 5.0 H.O. roller from 1989. Max lift to be compatible with stock valve gear (lift in the .420" range?). The dream is to swap out the cam gear on an otherwise stock 4.0/4.6 engine and see an improvement in torque throughout the RPM range.

The second cam would require valve work to increase max lift.

If the crowd wants the nose, then we're looking at slightly sportier profiles because we're dealing with a crowd who is doing more to tune their engines and wants more power (grunt, grunt. Rewire it for more power.) In that case, I'd be wanting something streetable for all my cams.

That sounds practical. I'd think the first LSA should be more toward 112º IMO. Maybe make the second one with some more aggressive lift. Over 500. Just pitching out ideas. I'll buy the second one. LOL!

Remember hydraulic and solid lifters have different ramps also.

Jim, Old drag racing trick, run mechanical lifters on a hyd. cam,(no clearance ramps). Drags only!  roverman.

Clan, until I get a "yes" for (10) of either, their on hold. roverman.

1

WOW, Kragen quoted(Cloyes) $449.! Did I miss something here? Should be close in price to early? I want to machine "late set" to fit sbc. nose. Anybody?  roverman.

Art, Is that for a roller timing chain? I recently picked one up on eBay from a seller named BullDog or BadDog (or BadBullDog, or something.) I'll update when I get home from work, but it was reasonable.

I've gotten some nice roller stuff from an Oz supplier named Master something. (No, not baiter.) Availability varies.

Edit: RollMaster. Some of their stuff uses high quality German parts.

Paul,Thanks, I'll keep diggin. If your "up" for (5) flangeless cam blanks, I'll consumate the order. "if" I can mod the late Rover roller set,(machinable), I'll also attempt optional use of dizzy gear. roverman.

Art, yes, I'm on for five cam blanks. And when I get home, I'll try to dig up the info on the timing chain. Rollin', rollin', rolling on a Rover.

Yup,, Their started!  roverman

That's way cool!

Hey Art, I think it's worth thinking a little more about the built-up style of roller cam. That is very interesting. Using an alloy tube and sliding the lobes and bearings on would give you great flexibility. I don't think I'd use an aluminum tube though as aluminum generally has a finite life in terms of flex.

JB

Jim, Using alum. in cars is a tightrope- walk. Connecting rods,serious fatige cycle. Suspension "A'-arms, seem to last forever. Cams, who knows?  Push rod probably not, but what-if ? roverman.

Jim, Using alum. in cars is a tightrope- walk. Connecting rods,serious fatige cycle. Suspension "A'-arms, seem to last forever. Cams, who knows?  Push rod probably not, but what-if ? roverman.

Know anyone with FEA software? The properties are well established so it should be simple to run fatigue analysis. I'd bet that you could control it with adequate wall thickness in the tube.

JB

FEA software ? Fatigue analisis and"E" = ?  Alum. metal matrix ? Same weight as alum. with superior hot strength.  Less thermal growth than steel and better wear than ci.  I suspect  7075 T6 should prove adequate with proper "bridging" between lobes and journals. Hell, Vw's have used Alum. push rods forever.  roverman.

Ok, Then how about a, good priced source for "late" Rover, double roller timing sets ? Thanks, roverman.

FEA stands for Finite element analysis. Our engineering school has the program for use. I've messed with it a little bit but not much. First thing would be to create the part in solidworks or  similar cad program.

Thanks Robert. I might have chance with solid works. I haven't yet checked, "other" 90 deg. V8 firing orders, compared to 907 cams. roverman.

All (10), they look good. .397" lobe lift max. Root/min. dia. is .900",(strong), and use retainer plate. Just add HP.  roverman

Paul and clan, I feel next step is for a sbf. "owner" to measure actual lift in thousanths "/deg. , base on subject Ford hyd. roller. We then compare roller diameters and we're a lot closer to final product. In stock master is .290" lobe lift and 208 deg. at .050".Good Luck, roverman.

Paul,Art, Very interesting article on Ford cams:http://www.mustang50magazine.com/shop4parts/m5lp_0212_right_camshaft_ford_mustang/index.html

Also, Crane cams developed the Ford Racing "alphabet " cams. They are equivilant to the old Compucam.(computer design) The "E" is for emissions and works with the stock ECU. The "B" is higher duration and lower lift.(unless you use the 1.7 rockers)The newer Powermax are similar also. The Ford H.O. Paul likes is a good cam with 1.7 rockers(.470 lift then). It would be great if the lift was .470 with 1.5 rockers.(stock Buick/Rover) Unless Roverman has some trick 1.7 shaft rockers he's developing. That is about all I could find in my research.

Jim and clan, I see a very small market for .675" of valve lift,(1.7/1), rockers. Let's remember, this cam will go to .397" at the lobe. I don't see how even a TA head, available someday, could take full advantage of .675" at the valve. Let's move on. Thanks, roverman.

Art, I think you misunderstood me.I was thinking about Paul's idea of copying the Ford H.O. cam. The H.O. cam only has .444 lift with  the stock Ford 1.6 rockers so in a Ford it is much better with the 1.7 rockers. (aprox. .470 lift)I agree with you the factory 1.5 ratio is fine. I personally like a dual pattern  with about .010 more duration and lift on the exhaust. So if you copy the H.O. specs say .266 advertised duration on intake, change to .276 on exhaust, .470 intake lift (equivilant to the Ford with 1.7) and change to .480 on exhaust,other specs same as H.O.. Now that would be a strong midrange cam and pull to 6000 rpm. Remember same as LS firing order too.  Just tossing ideas out there.

I suppose this whole "romance" of automatically running more exh. lift, and or duration, came about by the "grinders" deciding to "prop-up" an underflowing exhaust. We're seeing, some heads, exhaust side, now flowing 85+% of the intake side. Also, higher compression, static/dynamic, requires "less" flow, because the energy was better expended in the "boom". Since (5) of the cams belong to Paul, he's the guy, to work this out, and he has stated there is an "inflection" above .400 lift in std Rover heads. Paul, will you cam-in please ?  Thanks for the input, roverman.

Paul,Dan and clan. Perhaps a "peep" of CompCams, webbsite for their cam masters is in order."Master Lobe Profile Cat." Getting (2) new masters made at $1,500 ea.(their quote), not viable. Getting what we want ,for a good price...priceless, roverman.

You guys ought to call Delta Cams. You just have to figure what specs.

Art, I just now saw your request for input.

Dan's ideas about exhaust duration vs. rocker ratio/valve lift was very interesting. But I would lean toward a higher ramp rate, especially on the 'down slope' to limit overlap, to get effective duration; leave the valve hanging open to maximize blow-down and scavenging without compromising either compression nor manifold vacuum. Minimize overlap. Application will include EFI, so I wanted to make sure intake signal stayed strong, and emissions remained minimal.

It's not clear to me what benefit higher lift on the intake would gain on our intake port restricted applications. Even with a Buick 300 head, there's only so much air you can squeeze through that port, and I'm likely to use stock Rover heads anyway (oversize valves). Why fight it, trying to make a high RPM engine out of a torque producer. I'll go along with the idea of a higher ratio rocker on the intake, but only because it gets more 'area under the curve' with a lower ramp rate on the cam. The down-side is having to manage the spring/valve resonances. I'm inclined to use beehive springs with light retainers to avoid resonances and reduce friction and forces on rocker shafts. I wish we could get Titanium valves for the intakes for the same reasons.

So, getting back to the subject, I need to pick up a stock Ford 5.0HO cam, get the ramp rate profiled, and work from that. The Ford head gets choked off like the Buick/Rover head, but Ford roller engines make wonderful torque, so they did something right.

On a related note, the experienced tuners of Ford 5.0 street engines would use the stock cam, but by using bigger valves, porting, higher ratio rockers, headers, and other tuning methods, would get better than 1hp per cubic inch. The stock cam, which seemed mild in a stock engine, would look 'bigger' when the intake and exhaust flowed better.

Paul, as I understand it, running higher lift than the port/valve supports, gives the valve more "hang time", or should fatten -up the area under the curve,(valve spends more time in the sweet spot). Orfice coefficient of flow for valve/ports, is lift equal to 25% of valve diameter. I suspect most who would spring for a roller set-up, will probably have head work done,(larger valves/bowl work), to better take advantage. CompCams lobe cat. ?  roverman.

Paul, The current Hot Rod magazine has a Pontiac V8 article where they use the brace plates over the lifter valley openings. Only necessary with .600 lift and high spring pressure. Pieces of aluminum plate on both sides of valley with bolt and nut clamping together. Maybe strategically locate to bolt down spider for roller lifters?

Clan, upon further thought regarding lifter bore/valley strength with roller cams, Rover/sbb. A well designed "rev. kit" is what this conversion needs. Roller lifters are usually heavier than flat tappets.They counter-act forces upon the lifter bores from cam/lifters,and allows smaller/lighter springs on the valves.In theory, 1/2 of spring weight, to be counted as valve train weight. Over 1/3 of valve train weight is on lifter side. Discussion ? roverman.

Rev kits have some definite advantages, especially in a high performance application. Higher RPMs and more stability at speed. Road racing applications for example. For daily driving, my concern with a rev kit is the added complexity of the additional parts. But to be honest, I don't have first hand experience with rev kits.

I would be inclined to compare the cost of a rev kit to the cost of lowering the mass of the various components in the drivetrain. Beehive springs, small retainers, lightweight rockers, and lightweight pushrods. I would also consider using smaller valves for their lighter weight depending upon the amount of flow/performance lost vs. weight loss. If the additional flow increase is marginal, then I'd start decreasing the head diameter until I hit the sweet spot of flow.

BTW, I've been striking out on finding a cheap 5.0 HO cam to get its profile, but I'll keep looking.

Paul and clan, Anyone "peep", Comp Cams Lobe profile catalog ? So far, they are'nt aswering emails I sent ,regarding grinding our blanks. Ferrea brand, 2v,4.6 Ford mod V8, stainless valves, are a nice lightweight up-grade for the Rover. They require guides or liners and seats to fit. Regarding cost/complexity of rev. kit, somtimes just a flange is attached to push rod to hold 1 end of spring. Other end of spring usually "nest" in a 1 pc. alum. plate, that will receive 8 springs per bank,(usually) approx. size of inner valve spring, Same plate could also nest 1 rod per dog bone to retain them, bearing down straightly, a good idea. roverman.

I'm converting .842 and .904 dia. hyd. lifters to mech.(internal sleeve). I like the "deep skirt" design, provided by powdered metal tech. They are also cheap compared to aftermarket. I don't know how much cam they can stand, but I like all that skirt to pick-up side loads. Thoughts ?  roverman.

Hey Paul
I have an Edelbrock #3722 roller cam for the 5.0 ford that I can measure up for you if you like. It advertises at 282/282, 220/220 @ 0.050, 0.311/0.311 lift @cam, 110/110 lobe centers. It's the biggest stock EFI cam that they have.
Regarding rev kits. Unless your running some wierd old monster cam, rev kits are pretty old tech. They were invented to control lifter float back when cams were made by eye on a foot powered grinding stone. (stop laughing I have an old HD performance manual that has a picture of just that!) Valve spring and cam lobe profiles have developed far beyond the need for a rev kit. While they do reduce the load that the valve spring sees, they dramatically increase the valvetrain mass causing even more stress on a weak lifter setup such as ours. A better aproach to me is a short lobe roller with a longer ratio rocker. The spring can control the valve just fine, i'ts the push rod and lifter that cause all the trouble. This gives the spring more mechanical advantage to control the roller and removes stress from the lifter valley. I,ve done that lifter valley brace and it works well. Just get all your machining done after you install it and never undo it again.
Cheers
Fred

Can we get this going ? Forget the rev kit, plate and rod idea is merely to retain the dogbones, instead of hacking together (2) V6 "spyders". roverman.

Hey, sorry for not being around. My personal life is in chaos. The upside? I get to park my motorcycle in the living room and no one's going to squawk. I'm dragging the Olds engine into the dining room for some if its work. I get to do that now if I want.

Fred, if you're still around, I'd love to get the cam profiled. I need the ramp rates of a cam, any cam, before I can get one ground.

No problem Paul.
How much resolution do you want? Every 2' or 5' or....?
Sorry to hear about all the turmoil, but the Olds in the dinning room is pretty cool.

Remember, A positive attitude may not get you everything that you want in life.....but it will piss off enough people to make the effort worthwhile.

Cheers
Fred

I went thru a time,  many years ago, when I got to split the case on my RM 250 motocross bike in the kitchen. The whole apartment reeked for weeks.

Hang in there, Paul!

Fred, I don't have an intelligent answer to your question, but let's start with the 5^. Seems easier.

Thanks for the kind words. Life is an adventure and I'm not going to complain.

My Kawasaki 500 probably needs new crank seals, so I get to do that inside where it's nice and cool.

Guy's, the more good news is, practically "any" kind of auto oil/solvent, will squelch the squawking and those pesky fish odors, from the kitchen. I alway thought a, non salvageable 215 would make a nice, glass table base. lol. Hey Paul, I'd rather send you the cams, when their done. What say Buddee ?  roverman.

Art, this project is taking longer than I thought it would, but I'm going to hang in there if you do.

Hey Paul,
Sorry for the wait. I dug out the cam and found my degree rig hiding under my dusty golf clubs. Monday the dishwasher quit (the mechanical one) and the A/C spit water all over the basment last night.  Now I,m told that the Rangie doesn't sound right and I think I see the blower belt hanging from the lower control arm.
I might be just a wee bit longer.
Cheers
Fred

Fred, You don't suppose, if you had a "real" Rover V8 in "Rangie", she mite be less problematic ? Can't we just do the job "Au Natural" ? lol. roverman.

Art, the only problem is "The Lovely Lynne" has a finely honed maternal instinct and a right foot like a brick. As long as her Rangie (465hp) is faster than our daughters (440hp) then family harmony prevails and the world continues to turn nicely.
Last spring I put some 24x10 and 12 wheels on the truck and "The Lovely Lynne" said "they look sweet but the rangie is slower now. Give them to Megan (choke)and slow her down some. Can't you do that pulley thing some more?"  We now have 22's on the truck with a new fuel program and I'm off the sofa.

Jeepers, crazy web browser wouldn't let me post a reply until I hit the <Ctrl>(refresh) key sequence, even though I was logged in. Anyway,

Fred, I'm clearing my plate and I'll be ready to devote some more time to this project soon. I'll be grateful to hear what you're able to come up with.

The motorcycle's in the dining room and I'll be dragging the Olds engine in there soon.

Paul and Fred, I was hoping someone would be bold enough to fit an Old 215 into a mortorcycle. To be dragging an Olds, sounds like fun ! roverman.

Art, I've seen the little flathead Ford engine in a bike frame. Kind of a scary lash-up.

The Buick/Olds 215 makes slightly more sense. But not much more - it's still a pretty long engine. It might make sense in a trike. Bolt it onto a Volkswagen transaxle and attach a springer front end. Wheelies.

Y'all do know it's been done in a monocycle configuration?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8600389151928430302&q=buick#


Oops, the motorcycle has been done, as well:

http://www.richmondlabs.com/Automotive/RichmondV8/V8Registry.html

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2009/01/22/v8-motorcycles-from-sweden/

http://www.tremek.com/forum/car-pictures/15024-sweet-v8-motorcycle.html

I guess, it's the new math, anything goes into anything. What happened to my serious cams ?? roverman.

Paul, I gave up on the repairs and took the Lovely Lynne to Spain for a few weeks. Now we're back, heres your cam specs.
The base circle is 1.360"  lobe separation is 110'  and intake centerline is 110'  both lobes measure out exactly the same @
  0'    -0.000"
  5'    -0.002"
 10'   -0.010"
 15'   -0.027"
 20'   -0.050"
 25'   -0.080"
 30'   -0.115"
 35'   -0.150"
 40'   -0.186"
 45'   -0.215"
 50'   -0.244"
 55'   -0.267"
 60'   -0.285"
 65'   -0.296"
 70'   -0.305"
 75'   -0.310"
 80'   -0.310"
 85'   -0.305"
 90'   -0.292"
 95'   -0.274"
100'  -0.248"
105'  -0.215"
110'  -0.175"
115'  -0.133"
120'  -0.099"
125'  -0.065"
130'  -0.044"
135'  -0.028"
140'  -0.015"
145'  -0.009"
150'  -0.000"

These are in camshaft degrees not crank degrees
This is intended for a hydraulic roller and 1.6 ratio rockers.
hope thats useful for you.
Cheers
Fred

If this is a super computer. How come the bullets don't bounce off when I shoot it?

Fred, good work. We need to know your "roller " dia. ? SBC., oem. is .700"., unless their same, more math needed. roverman.

Hey Art, roller dia. is pretty standard for all the american v8's @ 0.700" The Ford lifter body is 0.875". For those of us on "roller quest"
the dogbone dimensions look to be the same between Buick Chev and Ford.
Cheers
Fred

Fred, previous post, we covered using Buick V6,(3100 and 3800) hyd. rollers. They drop-in without bleed-off issues. Dog bones also work. Questionmark at this juncture, is best way to retain ? Some propose,overlapping spyders, bolted to block valley area. Thanks, roverman.

I think Art means 3100 and 3400 ,not 3800. The 3800 uses longer lifters like Chevy and Caddy. Late 3.8 (86-88) roller Buick V6 spiders overlapped.Or Paul's upside down Ford 5.0 spyder.Or try the Caddy 4.9 spyder,shorter than Chevy,might be just right.Here is a picture of Caddy 4.9 spyder.
4_9_rebuild_037_1.jpg

Thanks Jim, Perhaps you could a. measure or b. loan/sell one to Paul ? I'm thinkin a "spyder" in the kitchen...not too weird? This is how we roll. roverman.

Hey Art, totally aware of the lifter issues. Just "threw the dog a bone" to offer some options. The Buick dog bones are hard to find up here. But the Ford ones seem to grow on trees.
Roll on
Fred

Fred, Isn't the Ford about .875" dia. ? I bought "lots" of lifters/dogbones on ebay(Detroit take-outs from GM. assembly line). Never run. Chevrolet 60 deg. V6. .842" dia./good-to-go. I'm starting to convert these to mech.(internals), less weight/more zip. roverman.

Yep the Ford body is 0.875" but the upper portion necks down to what appears to be an industry standard size. The only difference looks to be in the lifter bore spacing. I ordered up a full complement of bones from comp. and they all fit the lifters, they just don't all fit the block.
By the way, how tight do you intend to spin your engine? A hydraulic lifter should be able to out rev your crank and head with ease. Any weight advantage would be lost with the addition of an adjuster on the rocker.
However if we made them out of plaidmium like Mikes door panels............
Cheers
Fred

Paul, 4.9 Caddy spider dimensions: 14 1/4" length longest point to opposite longest point, 5 1/4" wide finger end to finger end, lengthwise spacing between finger centers 4 1/2". 11" bolt hole center to bolt hole center. Look at picture in message above. How does that compare to the 5.0 Ford?

Fred and clan,how did this thread get so twisted ? FYI, hyd. lifters tend to "bleed-off" hp. above 5k rpm.The "converted" lifter is 11 grams lighter. Reference, Engine Masters Mag., bbm lost 30hp. by 6,200 rpm.? My 4.0L , with skinny cast crank would road race, up to 8k and LIVE.To build a Rover that only runs to 5k, is under-mining the purpose of a small light weight V8 ? roverman.

Jim, thanks for the specs. I'll dig into that this weekend.

Art, in re: engine tuning, my 86 Mustang with roller cam has massive low-end torque, probably much more than a flat-tappet cam. Flat tappet cams can be designed to spin 8k and make power like a roller, but the flat tappet cams just don't make the low-end torque.

The other problem with tuning for 8k is the exponential increase in cost as engine speed goes up; titanium retainers, lightweight rockers, titanium pushrods, beefy con rods, etc.

I'm thinking a roller 4.0 will have low end torque like a 4.6, and a roller 4.6 would pull like a locomotive.

Paul

More than 5, less than 8k ? Non of this matters with-out a bump-stick. Anyone find a grinder with matching masters ? roverman.

Clan, anybody got one to spec-out like Fred did , on the Ford roller ? It's time to knock their cam, off the perch !  I'll check for a suitable cam "master", with Contreras Cams. "Rollin on a Rover"....roverman.