Lifter recommendations needed
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
LOL
Why spend $99 when you can spend $12,000? After all it's 11,901 better.
Internet knowledge is not actual knowledge. The sooner people realize this the better off they will be in the long run.
Making things work and last a long time requires attention to detail, not slapping something together without due diligence. Slaptastic builds are the cause of most failures, and the blame is focused elsewhere, because, internet knowledge is not actual knowledge.
Why spend $99 when you can spend $12,000? After all it's 11,901 better.
Internet knowledge is not actual knowledge. The sooner people realize this the better off they will be in the long run.
Making things work and last a long time requires attention to detail, not slapping something together without due diligence. Slaptastic builds are the cause of most failures, and the blame is focused elsewhere, because, internet knowledge is not actual knowledge.
Let me try and break this down another way.... A hydraulic lifter holds oil and uses that as a fluid pistons to keep the cup up in the body to actuate the valves. An ls7 lifter uses a ball design internally to make this happend unlike better lifters which go to a disk based design.
Now big spring pressures needed to control violent lobed cams like an lsk lobe are needed. couple that with a heavy stainless valve found in most aftermarket heads or roller rockers with stock valves, or in some cases even just with stock rockers and stock valves and you get a noisy valvetrain at idle. This is because the the added spring pressure is pushing down on the lifter causing it to bleed down...If anyones curious go search and see how many "noisy" ls7 lifter threads there are, some are due to bad preload but there are plenty that dont go away no matter what you do.
The other problem that comes in with ls7 style lifters becomes apparent at high rpm, again thanks to heavy valvetrain components a lot of stress gets placed on the lifter this causes the lifter to partially bleed down and then pump back up causing severe havoc in the high rpm curve often resulting in the curve nosing over. This of course gets rectified by running a better lifter made to handle the pressures. This usually isnt a problem for people running cam only setups with stock valvetrain but in some cases it still is. Personally I'd rather do it once and not worry than doing it twice, no?
Now correct me if im wrong but spending 200-300 more on a set of lifters that alleviates that problem sounds like "good attention to detail to me. I am well aware that some people do it and it works, however you will find a lot that it doesnt work for, and also I'd much rather have the safety of a lifter knowing that it will take anything that i can throw at it. people spend 300 bucks on arp head studs "just because" but suddenly more expensive lifters that keep the valvetrain together are just out of this world lmao
Now big spring pressures needed to control violent lobed cams like an lsk lobe are needed. couple that with a heavy stainless valve found in most aftermarket heads or roller rockers with stock valves, or in some cases even just with stock rockers and stock valves and you get a noisy valvetrain at idle. This is because the the added spring pressure is pushing down on the lifter causing it to bleed down...If anyones curious go search and see how many "noisy" ls7 lifter threads there are, some are due to bad preload but there are plenty that dont go away no matter what you do.
The other problem that comes in with ls7 style lifters becomes apparent at high rpm, again thanks to heavy valvetrain components a lot of stress gets placed on the lifter this causes the lifter to partially bleed down and then pump back up causing severe havoc in the high rpm curve often resulting in the curve nosing over. This of course gets rectified by running a better lifter made to handle the pressures. This usually isnt a problem for people running cam only setups with stock valvetrain but in some cases it still is. Personally I'd rather do it once and not worry than doing it twice, no?
Now correct me if im wrong but spending 200-300 more on a set of lifters that alleviates that problem sounds like "good attention to detail to me. I am well aware that some people do it and it works, however you will find a lot that it doesnt work for, and also I'd much rather have the safety of a lifter knowing that it will take anything that i can throw at it. people spend 300 bucks on arp head studs "just because" but suddenly more expensive lifters that keep the valvetrain together are just out of this world lmao
The other problem that comes in with ls7 style lifters becomes apparent at high rpm, again thanks to heavy valvetrain components a lot of stress gets placed on the lifter this causes the lifter to partially bleed down and then pump back up causing severe havoc in the high rpm curve often resulting in the curve nosing over. This of course gets rectified by running a better lifter made to handle the pressures.
Thanks for the comic relief. I'm done here. I hope you aren't a mechanic for a living.
what a relief.....lol but no, although with the way you're talking im bettint that 5th gen is held together with dollar store parts and rubber bands. i expect that you must design rockets for a living though also. btw that was martin that conversed with me about that when i was redoing some things so please give him a call to give him your .02 
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
Attention to detail is NOT spending more money on parts.
Attention to detail IS checking all your measurements to ensure you have the correct clearances, correct assembly procedures, correct whatever, etc. In this situation, parts that are good enough are good enough, and parts that are fantastic, are also good enough.
There is a distinct difference between having something to say, and having to say something.
Attention to detail IS checking all your measurements to ensure you have the correct clearances, correct assembly procedures, correct whatever, etc. In this situation, parts that are good enough are good enough, and parts that are fantastic, are also good enough.
There is a distinct difference between having something to say, and having to say something.
On The Tree
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 157
Likes: 2
Clearly there are some people that haven't paid much attention to the posts I've made here in the past. The internals of a hydraulic lifter is very precise and definitely has a roll in what sort of cam/valve spring package one can run in their engine....reliably and consistently anyway. This is probably going to get winded...so I apologize in advance!
First and foremost I want to drive home the logic of a hydraulic lifter being more than just a roller with an oil buffer. I guess if you're trying to dumb it WAY down you could use that description...but far more goes into these things. I'll start out with leakdown rates. Leakdown is a measurement of time the piston takes to travel a certain distance while the lifter is filled with a given viscosity fluid with a given amount of weight being applied. Read that again and really try to grasp that statement...there's a lot to be learned. Focus on the words I put in bold, as those will be important later.
I’ll be using the word piston multiple times. This is the piston inside of the lifter body. For the 1st part of this, think about the piston as being the only component tying the cam and valve together.
Now we'll start going into how this means anything inside a performance engine. While you’re accelerating, particularly coming off idle, the lifter is seeing a drastic change in seat timing. This is where seat pressure, valve spring rate, and “nastier” cams come into play. With fast leakdown rates, higher seat pressures and more duration create a greater chance of bottoming out the piston inside the lifter body. Once the piston bottoms out and RPMs continue to climb, it’s difficult to recover and pump back up. With stock lifters, things clean up after the valves float enough to allow the oil to flow back under the piston and pump-up. This area is called the high pressure chamber. Aftermarket lifters should have a higher flowing piston to be able to control this anomaly...and usually stop this from happening period. Along with the higher flow piston, reduced travel lifters are designed to minimize the time it takes to fill the high pressure chamber and keep valve timing in-check. Controlling all this has a direct effect on throttle response and starts to mimic a solid roller in the process. I’m sure most of you have experienced or read about the “ticking” people hear around 2-2,500 RPM. This is the reason why, and while this is happening you’re doing nothing but **** power and drivability away. While the weight of components does have some effect here…my testing has shown it’s not too much of a concern until you’re above 3,500-4,000 RPM. Of course there’s always an exception to this and why it’s smart to contact the manufacturers when thinking outside of the box for your engine build.
As you move past 4,000 RPM the dynamic changes slightly. The valvetrain is starting to get into a certain harmonic. Everything I mentioned before still has an effect on the lifter…but open pressure, weight, lift and oil pressure really start coming into play. The higher the spring pressure and component weight, the more the piston wants to bleed down causing net lift and duration loss. The more lift and duration you have, the more “time” the piston is seeing the spring rate/open pressure and weight. Once again the timing to recover the high pressure chamber and ability to stay pumped up is imperative! If the oil pressure is low and viscosity is too thin, the manufacture spec’d leakdown rate doesn’t mean much. Same applies on the opposite end of the spectrum…too much oil pressure with too thick of oil. Either of these scenarios will cause the piston to become unstable leading to valve float and/or net lift loss. The only way to combat these problems is with higher flowing pistons, controlled leakdown rates, and reducing the piston travel. The “slow” leakdown rate thing has been slightly blown out of proportion. It’s basically meaning the leakdown rate is slower than the average OEM lifter (insert LS7 here). There is a point where too slow of a leakdown leads to valves hanging open…especially with deep preloads.
Now for the roller debacle. There is a point where a larger roller is beneficial, I don’t even want to pretend like I’m arguing that fact. I’m in the middle of a new solid roller design right now using some larger diameter rollers. The hot topic always seems to be .700” vs .750” rollers with standard GM lifter bodies. From our testing and producing 100’s of thousands of lifters for performance applications…the strength you give up for the marginal gain in pressure angle is a downfall. Just like this debate on LS7 lifters and surviving applications outside their design criteria…there are just as many people having issues with .842” diameter lifters with the “forks” spreading in the bores or worse breaking completely off. I hear it every day on the phone and it’s not something I’m lying about to push sales. Although the roller is slightly more expensive, the cost and time to produce the body is greatly reduced. Take that how you want to…it is a fact! The numbers don’t start swaying into our favor until you get into the .875”, .904”, and .937” lifters with .810” diameter rollers and above.
What this all boils down to is there is an optimal range for a given application. This makes manufacturing a lifter to cover all of these combinations difficult. OEM lifters have a far greater production tolerance that work for OEM vehicles. Yes, they can and do survive in applications they’re not supposed to. Doesn’t mean they’ll consistently be able to do so…that evidence is plastered on every LS forum on the net.
Hopefully this was not too hard to read. I just scratched the surface of everything involved.
First and foremost I want to drive home the logic of a hydraulic lifter being more than just a roller with an oil buffer. I guess if you're trying to dumb it WAY down you could use that description...but far more goes into these things. I'll start out with leakdown rates. Leakdown is a measurement of time the piston takes to travel a certain distance while the lifter is filled with a given viscosity fluid with a given amount of weight being applied. Read that again and really try to grasp that statement...there's a lot to be learned. Focus on the words I put in bold, as those will be important later.
I’ll be using the word piston multiple times. This is the piston inside of the lifter body. For the 1st part of this, think about the piston as being the only component tying the cam and valve together.
Now we'll start going into how this means anything inside a performance engine. While you’re accelerating, particularly coming off idle, the lifter is seeing a drastic change in seat timing. This is where seat pressure, valve spring rate, and “nastier” cams come into play. With fast leakdown rates, higher seat pressures and more duration create a greater chance of bottoming out the piston inside the lifter body. Once the piston bottoms out and RPMs continue to climb, it’s difficult to recover and pump back up. With stock lifters, things clean up after the valves float enough to allow the oil to flow back under the piston and pump-up. This area is called the high pressure chamber. Aftermarket lifters should have a higher flowing piston to be able to control this anomaly...and usually stop this from happening period. Along with the higher flow piston, reduced travel lifters are designed to minimize the time it takes to fill the high pressure chamber and keep valve timing in-check. Controlling all this has a direct effect on throttle response and starts to mimic a solid roller in the process. I’m sure most of you have experienced or read about the “ticking” people hear around 2-2,500 RPM. This is the reason why, and while this is happening you’re doing nothing but **** power and drivability away. While the weight of components does have some effect here…my testing has shown it’s not too much of a concern until you’re above 3,500-4,000 RPM. Of course there’s always an exception to this and why it’s smart to contact the manufacturers when thinking outside of the box for your engine build.
As you move past 4,000 RPM the dynamic changes slightly. The valvetrain is starting to get into a certain harmonic. Everything I mentioned before still has an effect on the lifter…but open pressure, weight, lift and oil pressure really start coming into play. The higher the spring pressure and component weight, the more the piston wants to bleed down causing net lift and duration loss. The more lift and duration you have, the more “time” the piston is seeing the spring rate/open pressure and weight. Once again the timing to recover the high pressure chamber and ability to stay pumped up is imperative! If the oil pressure is low and viscosity is too thin, the manufacture spec’d leakdown rate doesn’t mean much. Same applies on the opposite end of the spectrum…too much oil pressure with too thick of oil. Either of these scenarios will cause the piston to become unstable leading to valve float and/or net lift loss. The only way to combat these problems is with higher flowing pistons, controlled leakdown rates, and reducing the piston travel. The “slow” leakdown rate thing has been slightly blown out of proportion. It’s basically meaning the leakdown rate is slower than the average OEM lifter (insert LS7 here). There is a point where too slow of a leakdown leads to valves hanging open…especially with deep preloads.
Now for the roller debacle. There is a point where a larger roller is beneficial, I don’t even want to pretend like I’m arguing that fact. I’m in the middle of a new solid roller design right now using some larger diameter rollers. The hot topic always seems to be .700” vs .750” rollers with standard GM lifter bodies. From our testing and producing 100’s of thousands of lifters for performance applications…the strength you give up for the marginal gain in pressure angle is a downfall. Just like this debate on LS7 lifters and surviving applications outside their design criteria…there are just as many people having issues with .842” diameter lifters with the “forks” spreading in the bores or worse breaking completely off. I hear it every day on the phone and it’s not something I’m lying about to push sales. Although the roller is slightly more expensive, the cost and time to produce the body is greatly reduced. Take that how you want to…it is a fact! The numbers don’t start swaying into our favor until you get into the .875”, .904”, and .937” lifters with .810” diameter rollers and above.
What this all boils down to is there is an optimal range for a given application. This makes manufacturing a lifter to cover all of these combinations difficult. OEM lifters have a far greater production tolerance that work for OEM vehicles. Yes, they can and do survive in applications they’re not supposed to. Doesn’t mean they’ll consistently be able to do so…that evidence is plastered on every LS forum on the net.
Hopefully this was not too hard to read. I just scratched the surface of everything involved.
Last edited by Havoc40; Jul 2, 2015 at 02:12 PM.
LS1Tech Sponsor
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 819
Likes: 561
Nice post Havoc....
I will simplify it even more for folks in an effort to help.
If you want your HR valvetrain to act more like an SR (giving you perfect valve control, smooth power curve even at high RPM, and max power)....which should be the desired goal in ANY performance hydraulic roller set-up, a true performance lifter with tighter internal tolerances, low internal bleed down rates, and a limited amount of plunger travel is the only way to fly. While technically never achieving the level of perfection a solid roller offers, with the rest of the valvetrain optimized (lighter weight valves and a lightweight rocker arm assembly), the difference is almost immeasurable and you have zero maintenance and a quieter valvetrain with the optimized HR set-up which for a street car is a nice perk.
Look at the shape of the power curves of some of the combos I have built with the principles above applied....all of these are HR engines that carry to 7K like a solid roller with perfectly smooth curves....no herky jerky high RPM power BS that you see routinely on many of the results posted on the various boards.
And Vader....the big guns....LOL
I could post dozens of these but you get my point. Some folks don't realize how much power and valvetrain stability a high quality performance lifter can bring to the table. Its one of my "secrets to success" and I push people to spend the money there in an effort to help their own cause.
I'm not even sure if Randy touched on the wide range of internal tolerances the OEM lifters have (aka LS7 etc.). They are inexpensive mass produced parts that are meant to do a certain job on a certain OEM application and for the most part they do that well but when it comes to the stuff most people here are concerned with (higher RPM, higher spring pressures, much more aggressive cam profiles, etc.), looking into an aftermarket high quality alternative better suited to the job at hand is smart money spent every time to help guarantee your own success.
-Tony
I will simplify it even more for folks in an effort to help.
If you want your HR valvetrain to act more like an SR (giving you perfect valve control, smooth power curve even at high RPM, and max power)....which should be the desired goal in ANY performance hydraulic roller set-up, a true performance lifter with tighter internal tolerances, low internal bleed down rates, and a limited amount of plunger travel is the only way to fly. While technically never achieving the level of perfection a solid roller offers, with the rest of the valvetrain optimized (lighter weight valves and a lightweight rocker arm assembly), the difference is almost immeasurable and you have zero maintenance and a quieter valvetrain with the optimized HR set-up which for a street car is a nice perk.
Look at the shape of the power curves of some of the combos I have built with the principles above applied....all of these are HR engines that carry to 7K like a solid roller with perfectly smooth curves....no herky jerky high RPM power BS that you see routinely on many of the results posted on the various boards.
And Vader....the big guns....LOL
I could post dozens of these but you get my point. Some folks don't realize how much power and valvetrain stability a high quality performance lifter can bring to the table. Its one of my "secrets to success" and I push people to spend the money there in an effort to help their own cause.
I'm not even sure if Randy touched on the wide range of internal tolerances the OEM lifters have (aka LS7 etc.). They are inexpensive mass produced parts that are meant to do a certain job on a certain OEM application and for the most part they do that well but when it comes to the stuff most people here are concerned with (higher RPM, higher spring pressures, much more aggressive cam profiles, etc.), looking into an aftermarket high quality alternative better suited to the job at hand is smart money spent every time to help guarantee your own success.
-Tony
__________________
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; Jul 2, 2015 at 10:19 PM.
Stiffer pushrods help too, and this doesn't mean hardened. Larger OD on the pushrod will help keep the valve train stable which in turn helps keep the lifter in contact with the cam and helps with valve bounce.
LS1Tech Sponsor
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 819
Likes: 561
Yes....stouter pushrods (larger diameter thicker wall) are another unsung hero and part of my recipe to success. A standard 5/16 .080 wall behind a spring approaching 400 lbs open will flex and springboard at high RPM inducing valve control destroying harmonics into the valvetrain. Every combo I featured above in the graphs also featured beefier 11/32 rods (and 3/8 in the last one).
All part of optimizing the valvetrain for max performance and more reliability as well.
Good stuff
-Tony
__________________
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
Attention to detail is NOT spending more money on parts.
Attention to detail IS checking all your measurements to ensure you have the correct clearances, correct assembly procedures, correct whatever, etc. In this situation, parts that are good enough are good enough, and parts that are fantastic, are also good enough.
There is a distinct difference between having something to say, and having to say something.
Attention to detail IS checking all your measurements to ensure you have the correct clearances, correct assembly procedures, correct whatever, etc. In this situation, parts that are good enough are good enough, and parts that are fantastic, are also good enough.
There is a distinct difference between having something to say, and having to say something.
Clearly there are some people that haven't paid much attention to the posts I've made here in the past. The internals of a hydraulic lifter is very precise and definitely has a roll in what sort of cam/valve spring package one can run in their engine....reliably and consistently anyway. This is probably going to get winded...so I apologize in advance!
First and foremost I want to drive home the logic of a hydraulic lifter being more than just a roller with an oil buffer. I guess if you're trying to dumb it WAY down you could use that description...but far more goes into these things. I'll start out with leakdown rates. Leakdown is a measurement of time the piston takes to travel a certain distance while the lifter is filled with a given viscosity fluid with a given amount of weight being applied. Read that again and really try to grasp that statement...there's a lot to be learned. Focus on the words I put in bold, as those will be important later.
I’ll be using the word piston multiple times. This is the piston inside of the lifter body. For the 1st part of this, think about the piston as being the only component tying the cam and valve together.
Now we'll start going into how this means anything inside a performance engine. While you’re accelerating, particularly coming off idle, the lifter is seeing a drastic change in seat timing. This is where seat pressure, valve spring rate, and “nastier” cams come into play. With fast leakdown rates, higher seat pressures and more duration create a greater chance of bottoming out the piston inside the lifter body. Once the piston bottoms out and RPMs continue to climb, it’s difficult to recover and pump back up. With stock lifters, things clean up after the valves float enough to allow the oil to flow back under the piston and pump-up. This area is called the high pressure chamber. Aftermarket lifters should have a higher flowing piston to be able to control this anomaly...and usually stop this from happening period. Along with the higher flow piston, reduced travel lifters are designed to minimize the time it takes to fill the high pressure chamber and keep valve timing in-check. Controlling all this has a direct effect on throttle response and starts to mimic a solid roller in the process. I’m sure most of you have experienced or read about the “ticking” people hear around 2-2,500 RPM. This is the reason why, and while this is happening you’re doing nothing but **** power and drivability away. While the weight of components does have some effect here…my testing has shown it’s not too much of a concern until you’re above 3,500-4,000 RPM. Of course there’s always an exception to this and why it’s smart to contact the manufacturers when thinking outside of the box for your engine build.
As you move past 4,000 RPM the dynamic changes slightly. The valvetrain is starting to get into a certain harmonic. Everything I mentioned before still has an effect on the lifter…but open pressure, weight, lift and oil pressure really start coming into play. The higher the spring pressure and component weight, the more the piston wants to bleed down causing net lift and duration loss. The more lift and duration you have, the more “time” the piston is seeing the spring rate/open pressure and weight. Once again the timing to recover the high pressure chamber and ability to stay pumped up is imperative! If the oil pressure is low and viscosity is too thin, the manufacture spec’d leakdown rate doesn’t mean much. Same applies on the opposite end of the spectrum…too much oil pressure with too thick of oil. Either of these scenarios will cause the piston to become unstable leading to valve float and/or net lift loss. The only way to combat these problems is with higher flowing pistons, controlled leakdown rates, and reducing the piston travel. The “slow” leakdown rate thing has been slightly blown out of proportion. It’s basically meaning the leakdown rate is slower than the average OEM lifter (insert LS7 here). There is a point where too slow of a leakdown leads to valves hanging open…especially with deep preloads.
Now for the roller debacle. There is a point where a larger roller is beneficial, I don’t even want to pretend like I’m arguing that fact. I’m in the middle of a new solid roller design right now using some larger diameter rollers. The hot topic always seems to be .700” vs .750” rollers with standard GM lifter bodies. From our testing and producing 100’s of thousands of lifters for performance applications…the strength you give up for the marginal gain in pressure angle is a downfall. Just like this debate on LS7 lifters and surviving applications outside their design criteria…there are just as many people having issues with .842” diameter lifters with the “forks” spreading in the bores or worse breaking completely off. I hear it every day on the phone and it’s not something I’m lying about to push sales. Although the roller is slightly more expensive, the cost and time to produce the body is greatly reduced. Take that how you want to…it is a fact! The numbers don’t start swaying into our favor until you get into the .875”, .904”, and .937” lifters with .810” diameter rollers and above.
What this all boils down to is there is an optimal range for a given application. This makes manufacturing a lifter to cover all of these combinations difficult. OEM lifters have a far greater production tolerance that work for OEM vehicles. Yes, they can and do survive in applications they’re not supposed to. Doesn’t mean they’ll consistently be able to do so…that evidence is plastered on every LS forum on the net.
Hopefully this was not too hard to read. I just scratched the surface of everything involved.
First and foremost I want to drive home the logic of a hydraulic lifter being more than just a roller with an oil buffer. I guess if you're trying to dumb it WAY down you could use that description...but far more goes into these things. I'll start out with leakdown rates. Leakdown is a measurement of time the piston takes to travel a certain distance while the lifter is filled with a given viscosity fluid with a given amount of weight being applied. Read that again and really try to grasp that statement...there's a lot to be learned. Focus on the words I put in bold, as those will be important later.
I’ll be using the word piston multiple times. This is the piston inside of the lifter body. For the 1st part of this, think about the piston as being the only component tying the cam and valve together.
Now we'll start going into how this means anything inside a performance engine. While you’re accelerating, particularly coming off idle, the lifter is seeing a drastic change in seat timing. This is where seat pressure, valve spring rate, and “nastier” cams come into play. With fast leakdown rates, higher seat pressures and more duration create a greater chance of bottoming out the piston inside the lifter body. Once the piston bottoms out and RPMs continue to climb, it’s difficult to recover and pump back up. With stock lifters, things clean up after the valves float enough to allow the oil to flow back under the piston and pump-up. This area is called the high pressure chamber. Aftermarket lifters should have a higher flowing piston to be able to control this anomaly...and usually stop this from happening period. Along with the higher flow piston, reduced travel lifters are designed to minimize the time it takes to fill the high pressure chamber and keep valve timing in-check. Controlling all this has a direct effect on throttle response and starts to mimic a solid roller in the process. I’m sure most of you have experienced or read about the “ticking” people hear around 2-2,500 RPM. This is the reason why, and while this is happening you’re doing nothing but **** power and drivability away. While the weight of components does have some effect here…my testing has shown it’s not too much of a concern until you’re above 3,500-4,000 RPM. Of course there’s always an exception to this and why it’s smart to contact the manufacturers when thinking outside of the box for your engine build.
As you move past 4,000 RPM the dynamic changes slightly. The valvetrain is starting to get into a certain harmonic. Everything I mentioned before still has an effect on the lifter…but open pressure, weight, lift and oil pressure really start coming into play. The higher the spring pressure and component weight, the more the piston wants to bleed down causing net lift and duration loss. The more lift and duration you have, the more “time” the piston is seeing the spring rate/open pressure and weight. Once again the timing to recover the high pressure chamber and ability to stay pumped up is imperative! If the oil pressure is low and viscosity is too thin, the manufacture spec’d leakdown rate doesn’t mean much. Same applies on the opposite end of the spectrum…too much oil pressure with too thick of oil. Either of these scenarios will cause the piston to become unstable leading to valve float and/or net lift loss. The only way to combat these problems is with higher flowing pistons, controlled leakdown rates, and reducing the piston travel. The “slow” leakdown rate thing has been slightly blown out of proportion. It’s basically meaning the leakdown rate is slower than the average OEM lifter (insert LS7 here). There is a point where too slow of a leakdown leads to valves hanging open…especially with deep preloads.
Now for the roller debacle. There is a point where a larger roller is beneficial, I don’t even want to pretend like I’m arguing that fact. I’m in the middle of a new solid roller design right now using some larger diameter rollers. The hot topic always seems to be .700” vs .750” rollers with standard GM lifter bodies. From our testing and producing 100’s of thousands of lifters for performance applications…the strength you give up for the marginal gain in pressure angle is a downfall. Just like this debate on LS7 lifters and surviving applications outside their design criteria…there are just as many people having issues with .842” diameter lifters with the “forks” spreading in the bores or worse breaking completely off. I hear it every day on the phone and it’s not something I’m lying about to push sales. Although the roller is slightly more expensive, the cost and time to produce the body is greatly reduced. Take that how you want to…it is a fact! The numbers don’t start swaying into our favor until you get into the .875”, .904”, and .937” lifters with .810” diameter rollers and above.
What this all boils down to is there is an optimal range for a given application. This makes manufacturing a lifter to cover all of these combinations difficult. OEM lifters have a far greater production tolerance that work for OEM vehicles. Yes, they can and do survive in applications they’re not supposed to. Doesn’t mean they’ll consistently be able to do so…that evidence is plastered on every LS forum on the net.
Hopefully this was not too hard to read. I just scratched the surface of everything involved.
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Rockdale, TX
Lifters.... When I asked about lifters I had no idea that It would turn into a lifter analysis. Lol. Love you guys and enjoyed every bit of the posts. Thanks again for everyones feedback.
Also, the lq4 shortblock is complete now. Its just a low buck, 400hp ls swap for my 93 coupe mustang. Bought 228R, spring & rod kit and a upgraded pair of 862 truck heads.
Also, the lq4 shortblock is complete now. Its just a low buck, 400hp ls swap for my 93 coupe mustang. Bought 228R, spring & rod kit and a upgraded pair of 862 truck heads.
I am surprised you didn't go with the new 5.0 Ford motor, that is a screamer and might have been an easier swap.
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Rockdale, TX
Coyote swap With ls swap reflash ecu, ecu controlls 4l60e and your running.
Clearly there are some people that haven't paid much attention to the posts I've made here in the past. The internals of a hydraulic lifter is very precise and definitely has a roll in what sort of cam/valve spring package one can run in their engine....reliably and consistently anyway. This is probably going to get winded...so I apologize in advance!
First and foremost I want to drive home the logic of a hydraulic lifter being more than just a roller with an oil buffer. I guess if you're trying to dumb it WAY down you could use that description...but far more goes into these things. I'll start out with leakdown rates. Leakdown is a measurement of time the piston takes to travel a certain distance while the lifter is filled with a given viscosity fluid with a given amount of weight being applied. Read that again and really try to grasp that statement...there's a lot to be learned. Focus on the words I put in bold, as those will be important later.
I’ll be using the word piston multiple times. This is the piston inside of the lifter body. For the 1st part of this, think about the piston as being the only component tying the cam and valve together.
Now we'll start going into how this means anything inside a performance engine. While you’re accelerating, particularly coming off idle, the lifter is seeing a drastic change in seat timing. This is where seat pressure, valve spring rate, and “nastier” cams come into play. With fast leakdown rates, higher seat pressures and more duration create a greater chance of bottoming out the piston inside the lifter body. Once the piston bottoms out and RPMs continue to climb, it’s difficult to recover and pump back up. With stock lifters, things clean up after the valves float enough to allow the oil to flow back under the piston and pump-up. This area is called the high pressure chamber. Aftermarket lifters should have a higher flowing piston to be able to control this anomaly...and usually stop this from happening period. Along with the higher flow piston, reduced travel lifters are designed to minimize the time it takes to fill the high pressure chamber and keep valve timing in-check. Controlling all this has a direct effect on throttle response and starts to mimic a solid roller in the process. I’m sure most of you have experienced or read about the “ticking” people hear around 2-2,500 RPM. This is the reason why, and while this is happening you’re doing nothing but **** power and drivability away. While the weight of components does have some effect here…my testing has shown it’s not too much of a concern until you’re above 3,500-4,000 RPM. Of course there’s always an exception to this and why it’s smart to contact the manufacturers when thinking outside of the box for your engine build.
As you move past 4,000 RPM the dynamic changes slightly. The valvetrain is starting to get into a certain harmonic. Everything I mentioned before still has an effect on the lifter…but open pressure, weight, lift and oil pressure really start coming into play. The higher the spring pressure and component weight, the more the piston wants to bleed down causing net lift and duration loss. The more lift and duration you have, the more “time” the piston is seeing the spring rate/open pressure and weight. Once again the timing to recover the high pressure chamber and ability to stay pumped up is imperative! If the oil pressure is low and viscosity is too thin, the manufacture spec’d leakdown rate doesn’t mean much. Same applies on the opposite end of the spectrum…too much oil pressure with too thick of oil. Either of these scenarios will cause the piston to become unstable leading to valve float and/or net lift loss. The only way to combat these problems is with higher flowing pistons, controlled leakdown rates, and reducing the piston travel. The “slow” leakdown rate thing has been slightly blown out of proportion. It’s basically meaning the leakdown rate is slower than the average OEM lifter (insert LS7 here). There is a point where too slow of a leakdown leads to valves hanging open…especially with deep preloads.
Now for the roller debacle. There is a point where a larger roller is beneficial, I don’t even want to pretend like I’m arguing that fact. I’m in the middle of a new solid roller design right now using some larger diameter rollers. The hot topic always seems to be .700” vs .750” rollers with standard GM lifter bodies. From our testing and producing 100’s of thousands of lifters for performance applications…the strength you give up for the marginal gain in pressure angle is a downfall. Just like this debate on LS7 lifters and surviving applications outside their design criteria…there are just as many people having issues with .842” diameter lifters with the “forks” spreading in the bores or worse breaking completely off. I hear it every day on the phone and it’s not something I’m lying about to push sales. Although the roller is slightly more expensive, the cost and time to produce the body is greatly reduced. Take that how you want to…it is a fact! The numbers don’t start swaying into our favor until you get into the .875”, .904”, and .937” lifters with .810” diameter rollers and above.
What this all boils down to is there is an optimal range for a given application. This makes manufacturing a lifter to cover all of these combinations difficult. OEM lifters have a far greater production tolerance that work for OEM vehicles. Yes, they can and do survive in applications they’re not supposed to. Doesn’t mean they’ll consistently be able to do so…that evidence is plastered on every LS forum on the net.
Hopefully this was not too hard to read. I just scratched the surface of everything involved.
First and foremost I want to drive home the logic of a hydraulic lifter being more than just a roller with an oil buffer. I guess if you're trying to dumb it WAY down you could use that description...but far more goes into these things. I'll start out with leakdown rates. Leakdown is a measurement of time the piston takes to travel a certain distance while the lifter is filled with a given viscosity fluid with a given amount of weight being applied. Read that again and really try to grasp that statement...there's a lot to be learned. Focus on the words I put in bold, as those will be important later.
I’ll be using the word piston multiple times. This is the piston inside of the lifter body. For the 1st part of this, think about the piston as being the only component tying the cam and valve together.
Now we'll start going into how this means anything inside a performance engine. While you’re accelerating, particularly coming off idle, the lifter is seeing a drastic change in seat timing. This is where seat pressure, valve spring rate, and “nastier” cams come into play. With fast leakdown rates, higher seat pressures and more duration create a greater chance of bottoming out the piston inside the lifter body. Once the piston bottoms out and RPMs continue to climb, it’s difficult to recover and pump back up. With stock lifters, things clean up after the valves float enough to allow the oil to flow back under the piston and pump-up. This area is called the high pressure chamber. Aftermarket lifters should have a higher flowing piston to be able to control this anomaly...and usually stop this from happening period. Along with the higher flow piston, reduced travel lifters are designed to minimize the time it takes to fill the high pressure chamber and keep valve timing in-check. Controlling all this has a direct effect on throttle response and starts to mimic a solid roller in the process. I’m sure most of you have experienced or read about the “ticking” people hear around 2-2,500 RPM. This is the reason why, and while this is happening you’re doing nothing but **** power and drivability away. While the weight of components does have some effect here…my testing has shown it’s not too much of a concern until you’re above 3,500-4,000 RPM. Of course there’s always an exception to this and why it’s smart to contact the manufacturers when thinking outside of the box for your engine build.
As you move past 4,000 RPM the dynamic changes slightly. The valvetrain is starting to get into a certain harmonic. Everything I mentioned before still has an effect on the lifter…but open pressure, weight, lift and oil pressure really start coming into play. The higher the spring pressure and component weight, the more the piston wants to bleed down causing net lift and duration loss. The more lift and duration you have, the more “time” the piston is seeing the spring rate/open pressure and weight. Once again the timing to recover the high pressure chamber and ability to stay pumped up is imperative! If the oil pressure is low and viscosity is too thin, the manufacture spec’d leakdown rate doesn’t mean much. Same applies on the opposite end of the spectrum…too much oil pressure with too thick of oil. Either of these scenarios will cause the piston to become unstable leading to valve float and/or net lift loss. The only way to combat these problems is with higher flowing pistons, controlled leakdown rates, and reducing the piston travel. The “slow” leakdown rate thing has been slightly blown out of proportion. It’s basically meaning the leakdown rate is slower than the average OEM lifter (insert LS7 here). There is a point where too slow of a leakdown leads to valves hanging open…especially with deep preloads.
Now for the roller debacle. There is a point where a larger roller is beneficial, I don’t even want to pretend like I’m arguing that fact. I’m in the middle of a new solid roller design right now using some larger diameter rollers. The hot topic always seems to be .700” vs .750” rollers with standard GM lifter bodies. From our testing and producing 100’s of thousands of lifters for performance applications…the strength you give up for the marginal gain in pressure angle is a downfall. Just like this debate on LS7 lifters and surviving applications outside their design criteria…there are just as many people having issues with .842” diameter lifters with the “forks” spreading in the bores or worse breaking completely off. I hear it every day on the phone and it’s not something I’m lying about to push sales. Although the roller is slightly more expensive, the cost and time to produce the body is greatly reduced. Take that how you want to…it is a fact! The numbers don’t start swaying into our favor until you get into the .875”, .904”, and .937” lifters with .810” diameter rollers and above.
What this all boils down to is there is an optimal range for a given application. This makes manufacturing a lifter to cover all of these combinations difficult. OEM lifters have a far greater production tolerance that work for OEM vehicles. Yes, they can and do survive in applications they’re not supposed to. Doesn’t mean they’ll consistently be able to do so…that evidence is plastered on every LS forum on the net.
Hopefully this was not too hard to read. I just scratched the surface of everything involved.
I'm literally dumb founded by some of the other posts in this thread.
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Schererville, IN
Then I have a question to ask in here as well.
Guess this would be best directed to Tony, Martin and Havoc: At what point do you guys draw the line on which lifters, pushrods and spring setup?
Stock rebuild to 700 NA is obviously very different, but what would you guys go with on a cam only setup versus heads and cam versus the ***** to the walls build like Tony was posting dyno sheets of?
Guess this would be best directed to Tony, Martin and Havoc: At what point do you guys draw the line on which lifters, pushrods and spring setup?
Stock rebuild to 700 NA is obviously very different, but what would you guys go with on a cam only setup versus heads and cam versus the ***** to the walls build like Tony was posting dyno sheets of?
On The Tree
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 157
Likes: 2
Nice response Tony...always love seeing the curves from your builds! 
I have witnessed plenty of lifters pump-up at high RPM. It rarely happens outside of some form of valve control issues (bounce/float/separation). If it does happen by itself, it's from the internal pressure exceeding the forces being exerted on the lifter (slow leakdown). Outside of the leakdown rate we control it with our pushrod seat design...but there is still a certain balancing act to make sure this doesn't occur. Most of the time you see it from too deep of preload on full travel lifters and momentary valve control problems. Due to poor machining practices of some lifters, people have this misconception you need to preload lifters at half travel to keep them quiet...no matter what lifters are bought for the build. I could write another novel on this subject but I'll keep it short for now. I've been writing a bunch of content with illustrations to put on our website, just haven't had enough time to get that finished!!! Eventually I'll be able to point to those in the future.
Thanks Martin! I was in the same boat...figured I'd bring some fact into this!
Most of us answer these questions by having years of experience with various combinations.
For lifters...I draw the line once I know all the details. Along with components, the intended purpose of the engine has just as much importance to the equation. With a lifter you really can't "over build". Even a stock engine could benefit from a set of short travel lifters with axle oiling...but it's probably not worth the extra cost and effort. Everything in-between is a juggle of performance, cost, and reliability.
Thank you randy, so very similar to what I was saying happens at high rpm, now when I spoke with Martin over this phenomenon in great detail and thats what sold me on the 2116's. Do you have any thoughts about the lifter momentarily trying to pump itself back up in the higher rpms and causing issues? When we were talking that was an issue he was seeing with the ls7's and high valvetrain demands which caused the curves to drop off sharply.
Then I have a question to ask in here as well.
Guess this would be best directed to Tony, Martin and Havoc: At what point do you guys draw the line on which lifters, pushrods and spring setup?
Stock rebuild to 700 NA is obviously very different, but what would you guys go with on a cam only setup versus heads and cam versus the ***** to the walls build like Tony was posting dyno sheets of?
Guess this would be best directed to Tony, Martin and Havoc: At what point do you guys draw the line on which lifters, pushrods and spring setup?
Stock rebuild to 700 NA is obviously very different, but what would you guys go with on a cam only setup versus heads and cam versus the ***** to the walls build like Tony was posting dyno sheets of?
For lifters...I draw the line once I know all the details. Along with components, the intended purpose of the engine has just as much importance to the equation. With a lifter you really can't "over build". Even a stock engine could benefit from a set of short travel lifters with axle oiling...but it's probably not worth the extra cost and effort. Everything in-between is a juggle of performance, cost, and reliability.