Big Hammer- solid rollers are great. Im not saying they not. So lets get that clear. I think both solid and hydraulic have they place. Factory rocker arms and big lift (more than likely the solid roller go be over 650 lift) cams just dont last no time. That last sentence is not my words. Its words of a engine builder that holds records for some of the fastest LS cars in the country!!

Brian Tooley have some hydraulic roller setup motors turning up to 8000 rpm or so with his TFS 245 heads. PROVEN!!

Again, I just dont see the point of running a solid roller and turning the motor to 7000-7500 rpm eithier. Thatll be like me buying the mast single plane intake with LS7 heads and shifting the car at 6200 rpm..... DONT MAKES SENSE AT ALL.
​​​​​

 

Tusky

You keep mentioning 8000 and 8500 RPM engines in numerous threads like even a small cross section of the guys reading these posts actually own, or want, or can even afford to build one. Lets be realistic....its a fraction of 1% of this audience and you don't need an 8000 RPM engine to justify a solid roller anyway if your interested in going that route. Even a milder SR set-up that idles and drives reasonably well and perhaps has an ideal shift point of say 7300 could still benefit from an SR set-up if the owner is willing to spend a few more dollars to get into one and deal with the occasional lash adjustments required. Hell Im that guy or was that guy.....in 2005 I built a 383 that would still be respectable today over a decade later that had a mild SR in it (242/248 @ .050 and SR's look bigger on paper). That engine ran great....drove awesome and pushed a 3400 pound C5 to 130 traps in not so ideal CA air (1700 positive DA). It was an excellent combo for the street....mild to moderately aggressive at best.

So yes....you can take advantage of more lift, more valve control, more lobe intensity and area under the curve that SR lobes can offer you without having to build a higher maintenance much more expensive and much less streetable high RPM race engine. Does that mean its the right play for most....honestly no IMO....a well designed HR set-up with short travel lifters and the right rockers and valve weights can rev to the same RPM easily and require zero maintenance (still making big power) which I feel is much more attractive to the majority of the guys reading these threads but for the guys that like to wrench and tinker and who have the financial means to get into an SR set-up great.....go for it, but that doesnt mean it has to drive unruly and be a high RPM set-up (although that's fine also if the rest of your combination is set-up properly to be reliable and effective at those types of RPM).

Different strokes for different folks....its great there are lots of choices and different ways to approach your individual builds.


What else....the OEM's putting 2.165 valves in small bore engines doesnt mean its correct or optimal (is everything the OEM's due optimal for all out performance....not even close but I would concede it's getting better year by year). If they had invested more time developing a better port and could get the same air or more out of a smaller valve that is less shrouded by the cylinder wall and has better low and mid-lift flow for that reason (and much more air speed and inertia), they would have given the end user something really special but alas that wasn't the case. They did get it right with the LS7 design however, a head that was far more developed than the LS3 and had the valve better positioned to take advantage of the ginormous 2.200 intake valve (an LS7 head with a 2.200 valve has twice as much room to the bore as an LS3 with a 2.165 valve due to the much more optimized/less shrouded placement of the valve with similar shrouding on the exhaust side).

The new AFR not being proven performers....hmmmmm....sure....if you take that at face value there aren't many people running them yet (they were released two weeks ago) but you would be foolish to think they wouldn't be at least as effective as the TFS (or better) or why would AFR even release them. Do you think AFR didn't do their homework and know exactly the height of the bar they had to clear before throwing their hat in the ring a couple of years later than they should have (and rumor has it the designer of that product has a few winners under his belt). Trust me the guys that buy them will be in great shape....and if there is some budget left over having me work my CNC plus program on them (aka Mamofy) will yield even stronger results but these will be very formidable heads right out of the box.

What else.....square port heads on a 388 with an HR....I would mostly agree with you on that one although if it were an efficient square port head (not a ported OEM casting) like one of the square port heads I offer or even a TFS or AFR LS3 head right out of the box....and the valvetrain was dialed in (short travel HR), I wouldn't hesitate to build a combo like that looking for bigger peak numbers upstairs. The end user would just have to know going in that the part throttle and tip in would never be as good as an efficient aftermarket cathedral on the same engine (with slightly less peak numbers being the compromise paid with the cathedral combination).


Guys....sorry I haven't posted in here as much as I used to. Running Mamo Motorsports is literally an every waking hour of the day gig (seven days a week) at this point. For you guys thinking of going into business for yourself....you need to be an extremely driven person that's also a workaholic (and really love and enjoy what you do)....or otherwise don't bother. If you need a "life balance".....don't bother....LOL Its alot of dedication and hard work but also rewarding when you speak with your customers that have had positive results using your products. Probably the best part of the gig for me

Anyway....that's it....seems my name kept popping up and I had a few things to talk about and perhaps set the record straight on a couple of items Im pretty experienced with and knowledgeable about.



-Tony

 

lots of guys have gone 8000 rpm on a hydraulic. Which is pretty cool. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't pick up with a solid setup.

It's like when guys say an ls6 intake is the best because they know a guy who does a guy who went 10's with one. Doesn't mean they wouldn't be faster with a better intake.

 

This forum needs 'Like' buttons.......

KW

 

Yep. Well said.

The thing is, hydraulic lifters only have one job and that is to maintain "0" lash. That is it. That is their only purpose. Beyond that, a solid lifter does everything better. So, if you never want to adjust lash or your rocker arms do not have the ability to adjust lash, then a hydraulic lifter camshaft is for you. That is where a hydraulic lifter's attributes end.

 

7500 is fine for an LS1.

But I keep looking at the D1X on my setup spinning to 7k or saying hmm... 440 Darton Sleeved LS7 combo and gunning for 650 to the tire that way.

Or now with these AFR 260s, they look good out of the box. Have a lighter valve without any extra cost. And the LS3-based 416 is much more economical than a 440. Based on flow numbers alone, this could be a 750HP motor at the crank, which would be well into the 600s at the tire. The 440/454 with the larger bore, as shown by Josh B, is capable of very close to 700 at the tire with LS7 heads that flow about 20cfm more. And that's well over 800 at the crank.

Of course, with a set of roller rockers and an LLSR with a FAST LS3 with mid-length runners, this would be an excellent head on a 416 seeing 7500.

Tony, would a swap to a 2" header be needed there? I know he larger AFR exhaust port and valve sometimes can get by with a slightly smaller header and still make power.

 

Appreciate the post Tony.

 

On the other hand, if some occasional measurements and minor adjustments are worth it to you for a better running and faster engine...

So hard to describe how much better the engine "feels" on solids

 

Does that translate when you have a Procharger forcing the engine to chug along? A 376 LS3 based combo with a solid roller, mid-length FAST, AFR 260s, and a D1X would be a crazy *** combo. I think that's what Detoxx is looking at right now. That should do 900 to the tire...

 

I agree. My old LQ9's valvetrain was quieter, the engine was smoother and much more consistent with the solid. It is an added bonus that is a nice extra benefit.

 

Quietness in the valvetrain has lots to do with preload, lifter choice and the oil of choice .... My buddie uses link bar morels in his 403ci motor a 247/251 over 600 lift hydraulic roller and i must say its way quieter than any cammed LS7 lifter motor ive heard.

 

And lobe design.

 

Exactly!!!

 

A good friend and cam guru dont believe in llsr. Don't mean i dont want one ��