I had my mind set on the hughes solid flat 268/272@50-.650 cam for my new 511 build, which will look something like this. 511,victor heads cnc'd by hughes flow 359@.600 and up, 332 port window, 11.5:1, 3350# weight, 8" vert, 727, 28" tire, currently a 4.30 but i have a 4.10 i can throw back in. This will use a 1100 dom as well.
Now i'm also looking at a solid roller of 276/281@50-.680/.660 on 108.
Performance wise what are the pros and cons of these two cams in this 511? Hughes used to advertise there solid flat cams as equal performance to a solid roller if using a 1.6 rocker arm on their solid flat cams. Not sure i can believe that, but i'm just looking for some input on this subject. This combo will be a street/strip deal or a street car i can race. Might see the track once per season. I guess what i'm asking is would this be a good pick if i go roller? Thanks

The Lunati 3 bolt drag race 901 cam is pretty close to what you are looking for. I just had them grind me one on a 114* LSA at 48* for my 500", short stroke KB/B1 low deck 11-1 street motor. It has 1.7 rockers.

http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=1556&gid=370

Can't see that a flat tappet has any Pros over a roller these days

The only pro a solid flat tappet would have is cost. But you would be giving up reliability and HP.

Didn't think so, but thought i would put that out there. Lobe sep on a 511, does it need to be tight like 108 or would 110 be a better n/a street/strip combo being you have mega low torque anyway?

I would say the 912 is closer.

I also wanted a 912 but the other cam that fit my 48* motor had been sold, so I didn't have 2 cores for them to grind on. With my 1.7 rockers a 912 would also have been harder on the valve train hardware. I don't like regrinding cams but cores are getting very hard to find unless you want to buy a billet.

But back to your question, I vote for the roller over the flat tappet. Less risk of wiping a lobe, less oil requirements. But there are a lot smarter guys here than me on this subject.

I may spray this motor again with just the fogger so I kept the 114*.

Dave I went with a solid roller in my small block this time. My last two have been flat's, the 408 had a flat solid and the 340 had a flat hydraulic. Both engines were ran with diesel oil and were ran for 5-6 years. Not a ton of passes or street miles on either, but in both engines the cams were starting to go. Both cams had worn lobes with porosity on the nose of the lobes that would catch your finger nail and the lifters from those bores showed more wear than the others. Both were Hughes, not throwing rocks, I like Dave and he has always been very helpful to me. I attribute the wear to the oil, maybe they would've survived with something like Brad Penn.

Unless one is using composite or tool steel lifters the pitfalls still remain. I run over #500 open on a solid cam some cores wear some dont and ive a couple billet cams with solid lobes.

Just different pitfalls with a roller with tips.

Some solids are not that far behind.

But its fun picking off other brands with a solid because for some reason people mention solid roller and some think super fast race car, kind like the old "3/4 cam in my 350 chevy"

But if all my stuff didnt match and interchange as it does now id of used a roller, have in the past and its sorta a different feel.

ok, so does the size of the roller i listed look to be inline with what i would need for my 511 combo?

Take a careful look at a solid roller cam ground with between 260 and 265 @.050 on the intake lobes with as much lobe lift you can get and from 264 to 270 @.050 on the exhaust ground on a 108 LSA installed from 104 to 106 on the intake lobe centers. Buy the roller lifters with the .820 or larger wheels also. I had a very similar solid roller custom ground Comp Cams that I ran a set of the Mopar brand solid roller lifters with the .750 wheels at first (two of the wheels ended up breaking in half ) with a set of Harland Sharp 1.6 ratio rockers and them switched to a set of solid rollers with the larger .820 wheels and never had another lifter problem. The larger wheels make the cam appear bigger to the motor due to opening the valves faster and with more lift in relation to the crankshaft That motor ran faster with the bigger wheels in the lifters with no other changes

I like that roller myself..............

That roller is to big for what you want IMO.Id go with a roller closer to what Cab suggests, around 265 @ .050 and as much lift say 650 or so. You really Don't need to go as big as you would with a flat tappet to get great performance. 512,s with around 12.5 comp and a 265 @.050 650 lift can make around 750 HP or so.

For a car like yours that will see the track about Once a year, the above cam would be ideal IMO Negative on the 276/280.

That roller is in my baby 470 and drive the snot out of it.........NOT too big at all.............

My original thought of the 276 cam was lower cylinder pressure to run pump gas on 11.5 comp. And still have good performance and a nice sounnd as well. Your saying 265 for max performance. I understand. I want something easy on springs as well.

Call Dwayne Porter.

The main reason I went with a solid flat tappet on my car is that since its a street car and see's alot of miles I did not want to pull my roller lifters every few years and have them rebuilt because I would have wanted a solid roller with a good bit of spring pressure. So I went solid flat tappet and broke it in right as its been in the eng since 2011 with no problems. I just did not want to worry about my roller lifters since I know I would want to check them every few years at least. If mine was a race car I would have went roller for sure. Ron

i agree and was my thinking with the flat tappet as well. Just a pain at break in.

IMO, "mostly street" tips it in the flat tappet direction. You will give up a small amount of HP for a lot less $, less valve train wear ( in particular springs ), and less moving parts to fail. Street is all about longevity, and when you are talking about lifts and durations that you are, light is right on the street. Hughes comments on flat vs roller cams was mostly based on the larger .904 lifter that Chrysler uses - which Hughes claims their cams are based on ( "real Chrysler cams")vs other cam manufactures.

The fact that you will be driving on the street over 90% of the time tells me that a solid F/T would be the way to go. My understanding is that solid rollers don't care too much for idleing in traffic due to lubrication issues. A Porter custom solid with nitride F/T cam and EDM lifters would make for a great performing, long lived street combo.

Well again boyz and girlz, been STREET DRIVING a .680-.660 276-281 @ .050 for 8+ years w/out ANY ISSUES what so ever kinda like my 8" vert and spool...........REAL WORLD not "I HEARD" BS...........

Cons of a solid roller cam:
High cost of camshaft, lifters, and springs.
Cost and labor to remove lifters to send in to be rebuilt every other season.
Cost and labor to replace springs every season, if they make it a whole season. I put 400/500 passes a year on my junk.

Where is the proof that a roller cam will make your car faster?
Two occasions I removed a comp cams custom roller cams and installed a Racer Brown STX-22, [.590" lift and 276* at .050"], one stroker sm block 408 c.i. and one stroker 400/512 big block. Both cars were faster with the solid flat tappet. One has since switched back to a roller and runs about the same as always or a tick slower. Friends cars, both members here.

I have the same Racer Brown cam in both of my track only cars and the Demon with stroker 360 has been 9.68 at 136mph with production cyl heads and weighing over 3050 lbs. The first cam did break, in front of the last lobe on the cam at 400 passes. I ordered an identical replacement and engine is now fast approaching 1700 passes on the second cam. 2100 passes total and on the 3rd set of comp cam springs, $150 a set. Just won footbrake at I-57 dragstrip two weekends ago and Super Pro at Gateway this past weekend. Have won over $50000 with that engine, $12K at wheelie contests, with a cost per pass for that engine at under $3.00 and dropping.

The Lebaron has a 512 RB with Indy SR heads and the same grind cam and lifters and has aprox. 1250 passes. Engine is on second set of Comp Cams springs, also right at $150. Car weighs 2580 lbs. and has been 5.44 at 127mph, 1/8th mile, and 8.58 at 157 mph, 1/4 mile. That engine was double the cost of the sm block in the Demon, mostly due to aftermarket block and heads, but still going strong, with a cost per pass of right at $10 at this time. I hope to go another 1000 passes with that engine, but will be looking at the bearings with engine in car later this week to make sure it still good to keep going.

If you have deep pockets and a lot of ambition, put a roller cam in your engine. If your a working man on a budget with barely enough money and time to race, put a flat tappet cam in and go play.

I am using a SFT in my personal DD because I used Pcar heads and didn't want to deal with installed height/geometry issues.

That said, there is no way I would ever do a SFT on what you are doing. Never. Ever. The only reason to not do a roller is cost, or if you are trying to use stock heads and the installed height is so damn short. With your heads you should NET at the minimum .700 lift. Thumper is running a bit less than that but I would shoot for more lift.

Roller hands down. Unless you are a cheep screw. Or, you are using production heads.

Install a hyd roller and never look back. It's well worth the extra bucks. Nothing is worse that that dreaded tap tap tap tap! Especially when you have done everything right. Been there once, never going back....

I went with Trend edm tool steel SFT for my street car, for the cost I could have gone CHEAP roller but I was concerned about failure of the rollers.

Wow. Alot of different opions here from people that build and race engines. I dont think a sft is the end of the world but money is going to determine what i do. Quite a schooling here. Thanks guys

Dave ,
big con on roller is cost and maintenance .
Potential is there for more power .
Will there be issues with city stop/start driving - lifter oiling ?
SFT as long as it runs in ok you should be good to go . No issues with low rpm/idle in city traffic . Easier on valve train components .
I guess each owner will decide .
I have fellow bracket racers who are reluctant to run their solid roller motors on the street in any regular time frame .
for me , like Ron , I will go SFT for my 505 just like my 440 .
good luck

Tex

comp makes some pretty fast rate solid lifter lobes for the .904 tappet, look in the master cam catalog, MM solids i think they are.

if it's gonna see alot of street miles i'd lean that way...but probably give dwayne a call and see what he says.

If you are really worried about durability, use a hydraulic roller grind with solid roller lifters. Lash it cold .002 if you have an iron block and aluminum heads, maybe .001 if you are careful. It will out power the SFT and HRT and will be stone reliable. Been doing it for years, even though most say don't do it.

I don't remember but aren't you using aftermarket heads? If so there is no way I would screw around with a SFT.

Don't step over donuts to pick up dog turds.

#Winning

Look at it this way. You probably aren't going to go fast enough to need anything more then a flat tappet cam. Plenty of 8 and 9 second cars running flat tappets. I like the rollers as well, but look at the cost difference. Unless you're trying to run way in the 8s, or just anal about having a roller those would be the only reasons I could see why to have one... I really wanted to run a roller in my motor, but at least for now due to cost I am going flat tappet.

As far as the hydro roller, i think those lifters are very heavy and require stiff springs to keep things in control. i'v had many solid flat tappet cams in my small blocks and never had an issue with any of them. as far as the solid roller, i remember installing my first one in my 408 years ago after pulling the SFT cam. I was disapointed at first. not much seat of the pants difference that i noticed between the two. at the track i think there was a 10th if i remember right. alot to think about here, but it will come down to available cash when i get to it. Cab thinks the 276 solid roller is too large for what i'm doing. Does everyone else feel the same? Would like to dial in a size here if i should go roller. Thanks

guess that's why every car manufacturer today runs hydraulic flat tappet cams.Cause they ain't running 8's.

The big con with a flat tappet cam is, if your break-in procedure wasn't done perfectly, and/or you are not using the correct oil (which is getting harder to find locally anymore), you run the risk of some lobes going round, and really messing up your crank, bearings and piston skirts. It happened to me, and many, many others. I switched to a solid roller, and never had an issue.
To the people that want proof that a roller cam makes more power than a flat tappet cam, give me a break. It's been proven so many times, its not worthy of a response.

I broke in the solid flat tappet in my car now with the inner springs out and that was in 2011 as its still going strong. In fact I have never wiped a cam lobe on any flat tappet cam. Dwayne Porter told me the biggest enemy to rollers is valve float as you dont want the roller lifters slapping the cam in valve float which can damage a roller so you want to run enough spring pressure so that if you race your car you wont go into valve float which can damage a roller needle bearing. Ron

Thumper have you pulled your lifters and had them rebuilt any time ? Or are you saying you have run 8 years on the same roller lifters ? Course I dont know how much you drive on the street but I know you do drive it on the street. Ron

You can buy bushed roller lifters now (Lunati).

What about the new bushed rollers seems like the best of both worlds. The only problem is they are even more expensive.

Ron makes a good point. Solid rollers in a street engine that sees lots of low rpm can be a worry. I read lots of stories of lifter failure/engine damage. So I talked with Richard Isky and installed the bushed lifters with EDM oil holes. No more worries, but they were expensive.

Im glad to see a few flat tappet users out there having good results. I'm really not too worried about the amount of power loss with a flat tappet at this point as this will be 90% street driven. Just a pain to break in.
The roller worries would be with the valve spring and lift rebuilds. I used to have mine rebuilt every 3yrs which was about 2000miles and maybe 50 passes.

I will give you great advice.
Call Dwayne Porter, go with his suggestion, and have him order you a cam.
He knows 100% what he is doing and that takes the guesswork out of it.
I have personal experience using his help, and the cams worked perfect.

I just knew this one would come up. Apples and oranges!!

Had em rebuilt once just because they felt a little funny rollen em on my fingers and that was about 6 years ago when I drove it weekly. I drive it less now but what`s funny is the 276 cam mentioned is the cam in my car and it`s got gentle ramps w/low stable spring pressures. When I went 9.98 it had 210 on the seat and drove it that way for several years. ADD a [censored] and I think it`s been closer to to 10 years........

Only downside to the roller is cost IMO.

How so?

For race cars I think smaller motors benefit more from a SR in that a big motor can take more seat to seat duration down low and still be responsive "enough" below the torque peak while at the same time can get adequate .050-up cylinder filling for the heads/peak power RPM from the flat tappet. A comparable flat tappet generally needs more (beyond) peak lift to be comparable so you can get the same effective peak lift duration, and in some cases you can be limited by the steepness of the ramp you can put on a flat tappet. That was (in the early days) a Big part of the reason mushroom tappets were developed.

With a smaller motor it can benefit more from a tighter seat to seat while using the roller lobe to "catch up" at the higher lifts, a smaller motor generally has a narrower powerband to begin with so anything you can do to broaden the powerband window tends to make it more consistent.

my .02 FWIW...interesting thread though...I'm enjoying it

I'm pretty sure those little bottles of ZDDP (zinc) are still available?



I can see the wear particles from the cam & lifters being thrown into the cylinder bores by splash, but how would they get through the oil filter to the crank and bearings?

Nobody's mentioned the old "Mini-Express" mushroom cam/lifters P3690588 (316 adv. @ 0.654) and there's a bigger one 328, 0.690. Lifters are a PITA to change but the few people who have run one have had good things to say about the performance. I think it's around 270 duration @.050. A lot cheaper than a roller setup...

Hydraulic rollers in production engines like the LS7 7.0L that turn 7,000 rpm with a 100k warranty wasn't in anybodies wildest dreams back in the '60s/70s/80/90s. Heck, 10 years ago we would have all thought that this kind of performance was impossible. These are street grinds with over 0.600-inch valve lift too. Sure, solid flat tappet cams can make more peak horsepower at the strip, but it can't touch rollers for the area under the curve and all round street performance. PLUS you can reuse roller lifters as often as you want.

yes i will give Dwayne a call, but when i'm ready to buy.

yeah, but whos making a hyro roller lifter for mopar that can spin 7000+ without heavy springs?

I understand where your coming from with that and i agree, but i do not want agressive ramps that eat up springs. I want longevity in this build as well.

beehives how yah think those engine make 100k without wearing out parts.

The roller Dwayne specc'ed for me was in the car 8 years when i sold it( and I raced it way more than you, and street drove it all the time) with only 1 spring change in all those years.
Never a single issue.

how many top performance cylinder head shops you know that are suggesting and using beehive springs? Not too common around here. I even asked Ryan Johnson about beehive springs and he wanted nothing to do with them. Maybe there more common now but i hear nothin g of them around here.

Cool? Ill be talking to him soon.

Been available for years.

http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticles/1beehivespringsretainers.php

But anyways it sounds like you already made up your mind, good luck

I will say I was on the beehive bandwagon for a while then got off it hard. Had way too many failures. If you call PAC and ask them for a spring for anything with what I would call a performance lobe, they don't suggest beehives. I was burned two years ago with beehives and that will be the last time.


Just becaus the OE's do something, doesn't mean it translates into the performance world.

I just broke in my SFT with 145 on the seat and 345 over the nose (.620 gross .606 NET) and used Torco break in oil with no issues. If you get it running and th lifters spin they won't go flat. I never use additives. I want th guy who designed the oil to put in it what he thought best.

BTW and FWIW I will use Torco 5w30 synthetic when it comes off the dyno.

You plan on spinning 511ci 7000+rpm on the street?
Why?

For some reason Mopar guys love over-reving their engines and doing wheelies that break stuff and oil down tracks.

My 517 routinely spins 6800+, went 7200 more than a few times. It has a Bullet 264/268 @.050 Hydraulic roller with the Crane lifters....BUT(!!!) These Heads also have the Race W2 Style billet one piece Shaft hold downs (Chapman stage VI's) which are much stronger and more stable than a Cast-In-Head Pedestal....and ports that are happy to feed it up there. Never rev'ed it higher than that...but with the new ported 337 intake it may want to go even a little higher.

I'm not sure it would rev that high or that stable with cast-in pedestals....I can't say 'cause I never had a 500" BB willing to rev this high. I do know the fact that they are Hydraulic rollers don't seem to hold it back at all, this one rev's just like a Solid roller. I think the HR (or any valvetrain) ability to rev has about as much to do with geometry and stability (and minimal oscillation) as it does with sheer mass.

all else being equal one would think a low deck might rev a little higher than an RB....the pushrods are ~3/4" shorter and proportionally a bit lighter.

It's 2016. 7k might as well be at idle.

Some day, it will occur dawn on some of us that RPM is just as important as torque, maybe more so.

If you can't spin a 511 7k may as well park it. Guys leave way too much on the table with tight converters, no gear and tow truck RPM.

I leave at 2200 rpm and shift at 6200, hit the stripe at 6700.
10.20's .30's thru thru the mufflers in street trim with the exception of 10.5 slicks. Don't know how much more for a mostly street car would need.

My 500 would spin over 9000 but that probably wasn't too good for it. I shifted it at 7000-7500 on the track to be "easy" on the motor. We'll see how it likes to rev with the steel rods I am putting in instead of the aluminum ones.

As for the beehive springs, I saw the springs on the Burick Monte works on one day at the track. They are really thin bee hives which blew me away as that thing probably has about an inch of valve lift.

@ Madscientist

Generally maybe but a lot heads today have the flow capabilities to push the Torque and HP peaks past where a lot of people feel safe pushing a stock block RB motor. Also not everybody runs MW heads on their 511's so the port flow/velocity is somewhat of an RPM "check valve" limiting the RPM no matter where the valvetrain could go.

and (opinions vary I guess but) many if not most 493-511's usually wind up dropping into heavy B and E bodies with automatics and mid 3 series carriers, so not everybody wants or needs to turn them much past 6200-6500 to have a fun and formidable torque monster. Ron's (383Man's) 63 B has a comparably mild Street driven 493 with ported EZ MW's and runs 10.70's through the muffs, not too shabby and he's not revving all that high. so I guess just because you can doesn't mean you should...or even need to.

And your stock blocks will thank you for it by lasting a lot longer

no, but thru the traps maybe.

I have only seen that in magazines.

i have made up my mind on the hydro roller. Really dont want to go that way. I put one in my dads motor and it wont rev past 5500 which is fine for him as hes 89 anyway. I doubt he revs it past 4000 anyway. Thanks for all the input on this subject. Gives me a bunch to ponder.

So, you say you can't afford one of them high dollar roller cam setups like the rich Ricky racers have? No problem, bro, just do what Joe Dirt did!

Who said anything about revving it to 7 grand? The LS7 was just an example.

@ mad scientist, there literally millions of beehive springs in use (and some pretty high horsepower high revving engines) with an almost next to nothing failure rate. IF you broke so many springs.. something else is at foot.

sweet. maybe i can get enough money for one of those fansy haircuts like that too.

I dont think I said that I do use the Comp EDM lifters and as said i have had great results with no problems so far in the almost 5 years my eng has been together. Ron

That is great advice as its what I did. I was considering a roller but after talking to Dwayne and telling him how much I plan to drive on the street he recomended that I would most likely be happier with a solid flat tappet which I am. He speced my custom grind solid flat tappet and I could not be happier with the results and great service it has given me.
Dwayne is a Pro who does this every day and knows what he is doing and I would say he is as good as anyone out there.
Heck I have been an auto tech all my life and been around hotrods and muscle cars most of my life and feel I know cams pretty well. But I dont do it (Performance cams and heads) for a living every day and I dont run my engines on dyno's like he does when he builds them so he gets to see what has worked best and he can test his work which helps him know what works good and best. You cant go wrong calling Dwayne and talking to him. Good luck with your build which ever cam you decide on. Ron

Thank you for the kind words Wize. I foot brake to about 2k on the line and shift about 6200 and trap around 6400. Thats when I look at the tach because I wont lie most of the time I shift when it feels right but its about 6200. Ron

I tossed around the idea of a hydro roller just for the low maintainence of it. thanks for the thought, but i have made up my mind on the solid lifter whether it be roller or flat, but i'm still leaning tward the flat. thanks

Thanks Ron, that is good advise. I will be calling him in the next few weeks. what comp and cam you running if ya dont mind?

for the record I do not like reving any engine past its point of making power. I was doing some calculations on Wallace for rpm thou traps with 4.30 gear and 28" tire. results were just over 7000rpm. may have to put the 4.10 back in.
anyone have Dwayne porter number?

802-951-1955

thanks

Say what? Don't know what you thought you saw, but it was no bee hive spring. What you saw was a Pac triple spring with 450lbs of seat pressure. And the cam is about 1.200 on the lift

1.2" lift.. holy [censored] lol

I am running a D-dish piston to get 10.6 pump friendly comp and it has .045 quench. The cam is a Dwayne Porter custom solid flat tappet that is 264 and 270 @ .050 with .585 & .592 lift and a 110 LSA. I have it in the eng at his recomended 106 installed centerline. It actually came out at 105.5 so of course I left it there. I do use Hughes 1.6 roller tip rockers which puts the lift around .630 before taking out the .020 valve adjustment.
Also I do run 4.30's as I had them with my old 440 and still use them but I run a 30 x 9 tire. When I run about 60 mph on the highway I turn about 3200 rpm. And I shift around 6200 and trap about 6400 with that gear and tire and the 9.5 Dynamic converter I use.
Ron

thanks ron