I could be wrong, but my thought on this is, the chevy has pushrod oiling,that helps flush out any small debris & also would let air bubbles out of the lifter, IE foamy oil, just a thought, I really think the foamy oil kills the lifters.

Thread is a reminder of how many pitfalls mopar can have and the deep in the weeds experience needed to avoid them is hard to get building on or two engines at home in a decade. Checking parts tediously is about all one can do, but I suspect our stuff isn't given as much thought and qc as bow tie material.

As noted earlier I will be researching further the work performed on my Eddy heads by machine shop to ascertain if +.050 keeper were used as required, and follow your recommended method to check for coil bind on those valves where lifter collapsed was experienced.

Following up on your comment and another forum member regarding oil foaming as a possible cause. In each instance of lifter collapse, I experienced following immediately after or during a highway Cruise of 25 miles or so at about 80 mph(3,200rpm) with short bursts not exceeding 4,200 rpm(just over 105 mph or so). 4:10 rear axle, Passon .8 overdrive 4 speed, 28 inch tire giving 3:23 final drive. Also using fairly light 5W20 oil which as suggested more prone to foaming.

Your analysis of the chain events that can lead to ultimate failure is an excellent post mortem of possible cause. As I noted earlier, was very difficult to even remove pushrod cup from lifter barrel, it is impossible to remove inner piston as it is completely jammed in place. I have considered heating.


Nevertheless these all add up to nothing more demanding than normal driving that any properly engineered hydraulic lifter should handle with ease,,,,witness Z06 Corvettes, Hellcats and a myriad of other pushrod driven engines.

I had suggested earlier that I thought that Morel Morel offered 2 differing quality lifters.

This is what I found on their website.

http://morel-lifters.com/6072-mopar-sb-racing-903d-t-b-hi-rpm-hyd-roller/

Photos below of the two products.

It is obvious that the Morel product that Howard resells as their lifter would be the lesser expensive one at 450 dollars,,,,a hell of a deal compared to the Crowers that I recently purchased at about 800 dollars, or my failing Scorpions at about 550 dollars.

You mentioned that you have jobber or some such arrangement with Morel where you have discount status. Does this also apply to their high priced and reasonable to assume higher quality lifter?

Would you know what reliability or performance advantage they offer over their lesser offering? I have been unable to find any information at all. I do plan to contact them,,,however it appears that email is only option that I have found.

I will be calling Crower today to find if their lifters that I have recently acquired differ in any way from Scorpions,,,their appearance is identical, I believe both were made by Johnson SEC. Perhaps improvements in internals,,,,who knows. I would not have to change pushrods would be a plus,,,,but if they fail too, as have the Scorpions, I prefer to change lifter vendor and pushrods.

In re-reading my prior postings on this thread, I noted a number of silly typos and grammatical errors. One finger pecking on an iPad and spell check guesses and sketchy proofreading, I apologize.

I think Chris at Staub would be able to answer your questions about the benefits of the more expensive Morels.
I really don't have any experience with them myself, so nothing I say would be from first hand experience.

However, I still stand by my first recommendation......
The std Morel/Howard's lifters and Driven Hot Rod synthetic 10w40 oil, and make sure the springs are set up to the correct height.

Trying to compare late model oem valvetrains with retrofit aftermarket parts, and thinking because it works in the oem application it should be fine in a completely different platform will lead you astray IMO.

For one thing, I'm sure there isn't any passenger car motor(hp or not) that uses a cam profile as aggressive as what most of the aftermarket stuff is.
The OE stuff is designed to be able to run with less spring pressure, which just means less wear and tear overall.

I know of a few LS motors that have aggressive aftermarket cam profiles and the associated valvetrain components that go along with that type of cam, and they don't enjoy oem type reliability either.

That's certainly a possibility, and might even be a good argument for pushrod oiling in one of these applications........ Although, the hyd flat tappet lifters would have the same lack of flow "through" the lifter, and this internal damage problem generally isn't an issue with those.

Another "fwiw"....... Even the manufacturer of all those LS motors and Corvettes, that probably use 0w20-5w30 oil, recognizes that not all platforms are candidates for "thin" oils.
The recommended oil for the zz572 crate engine is 20w50.

Everyone thinks they're an expert on what oil to use(I'm as guilty as anyone of this), but there is no way I'd even consider running passenger car, API certified 5w20 oil in my big block stroker motor.
I don't feel a stroked BB mopar has any kind of new technology in it that would exclude it from using similar weight oils as it would have when it was new.

Oh, and my 93 Dakota with a 3.9 in it, makes all kinda of valvetrain noise when it's got 5w30/10w30 in it........ But it just as happy as can be with 20w50 in it.

5w20?? Sure........ In my Civic.

Just asking, but don't most bb mopars have a RPM problem when running any hydro lifters when running big cams. on mine I went solid FT because of all the complaints I read about ?

After a couple of days tending to other matters of less importance, I have gotten back to the task st hand.

In addition to speaking to other manufacturers and vendors attempting to determine who builds what lifter for what vendor I have now spoken to Crower, Competition Cams, Howard, Scorpion, Isky, Morel, Johnson SEC, and others, some more than one time.

What I have learned is that Johnson SEC manufacturers hydraulic roller lifters for Crower, Isky and at one time for Scorpion(my current collapsing lifters) and possibly others. However no long build for Scorpion who is out of the lifter business and is under new ownership.

Speaking with a very knowledgeable and helpful gentlemen tech at Johnson SEC I found the following.

Even though the external appearance of their roller appears exactly the same as my Scorpions, it has been modified internally to withstand greater abuse from higher spring loads and RPM's. So yes, current Crowers benefit.

However to further improve performance and reliability, they have modified installation instructions.

1. 3/4 to 1 full turn down from initial pushrod drag at lifter set point.

2. Recommended that. ,035 thousand longer pushrod than I now have with my Harland Sharps. I believe but not certain I understand totally the logic here...Details on request.

3. A slightly heavier oil just a Porter suggests(10/40), says 10/30 ok but no 20/50. I now understand full impact of oil aeration or as Porter suggested and some else here mentioned,,,foaming.

That logic goes as this. A lesser preload on lifter(I ran 1/2 turn down)' allows the lifter to ride higher in the lifter barrel, hence more oil under the lifter. Any tendency to foaming or aeration could allow the oil to compress(normally oil not compressible), which then could cause a gap between rocker arm roller and valve stem, just as is normal on a solid cam.

However on a hydraulic, this not suitable for what appears as two reasons. Number 1 is that this little metal disk that sits right below the lifter cup,,,and for you who recall from photos above is my failure point, which exposes this disc to severe pounding when this created gap is slammed shut, compounded by the fact that this aeration mitigates greatly the positive effects of the cam's ramping technology that eases gently the roller of the lifter to commence its travel of the lobes of the cam. So in effect the whole valve train of lifters, pushrods, rockers are getting thousands of these shocks every minute of operation.

I had earlier mentioned that both of my lifter failures only occurred after a 20 or 30 mile freeway excursion, where oil may have more of a tendency to foam.

I had mentioned all of this to a friend who is also an E Body owner, for better or worse with a very nice 2nd gen Hemi. He reminded me that I had eliminated my oil control shield when I switch to a Road Race pan,,,,and wondered if this might be a contributing factor to oil aeration. Possible excellent point in the chain of events.

I have checked beehive valve spring heights as advised by Porter. All with CC recommended as the photo below shows,,,given that measuring was done with a caliper.

I have ordered up from LSM a track side valve spring pressure tester, to double check open and closed pressures. Johnson SEC says I should easily handle over 450 and likely over 500 pounds.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003YF2EWK/ref...customerReviews

This tool looks extremely well made at about 250 bucks. Summit sells or you can buy direct from LSM,,,all USA made in Calyfornua,,,yes I know perhaps not a plus. Bruxtom sells the best but at 650 bucks. The others take your chances. I recommend strongly speaking directly to LSM on their model 100 SLC. Very helpful. Tool should be here tomorrow, be putting it back together thereafter.

There is a lot more that I have learned and quite pleased to have spent the time to do so. Thank you very much to those who chimed in and a particular thanks to Porter who offer a great deal of his expertise to the issue. Perhaps others on this forum will benefit also.

I do have an abundance of information on which manufacturers build for which resellers if anyone should be interested. Morel currently now offers a hydraulic roller of very high performance good for over 6,500 rpm, that sounds like a solid, using very little preload, at 11 o12 hundred the set.

Porter: To remind everyone of your earlier diagnoses: Worthy of a second reading.


The +.050 are gold, and have no lash cap recess, and when they are used the top of the valve barely stands proud of the retainer.
Yours look like std locks...... Comp 611-16.

I should add that even if the installed heights are on the short side, as long as the springs aren't being run into a coil bind condition, it's unlikely this is the cause of the lifter failures.

Speculating....... I can easily see a situation where you're using really thin oil, running for an expended period at highway speeds, which introduces air bubbles into the oil. The aggressive nature of the cam profile and the much higher than oem spring pressures work to marginally collapse the lifter plunger that's only being supported by this layer of now air infused hot thin oil, to the point where there is repeated internal metal to metal contact......... Which in time leads to the break down of an internal component of the lifter to the point of it failing........ And then the plunger sticks when a piece of debris gets lodged in the wrong place.

The only other way I see it happening is if a piece of debris gets into the check valve of the lifter, which doesn't allow it to stay pumped up, then that starts the chain reaction of the plunger being hammered into the lifter body until some pieces fail.

That measurement is from the bottom of the retainer, down to the spring cup?

If so, you chould be good.

One of the design criteria of the Driven oil is it's supposed to release air bubbles quicker.

I'm glad to see you're doing your homework.

Another little tidbit:
The cam you're running has fairly fast lobes, which can be a challenge for the lifters.

Yes did measurement from head surface(Eddy,s make it easy). Just a bit problematic at spring's entrance into upper retainer. Close enough for government work,,,no I did better than that.

The measurement should be from the flat portion of spring cup(where the spring sits) to the underside of the retainer.......not from the head to the retainer(unless there are no longer any shims or cups being used......which would be its own problem).

Edit: I just looked at the pic of your heads without the rockers again, up close.
The Edelbrock spring cups have been removed, and it looks like I can make out the edge of what is likely an inner spring seat. The inner spring seats are usually .060 thick, so if you measured down to the head itself, and there is indeed a spring seat there....... you can basically take .060 off that measurement you got.

And if that's the case....... and you actually want to be in that 1.880 installed height range......you'll need the +.050 locks.

Eddy head has a very broad "spring cup" so easy to get abbreviated tip of caliper to head surface avoiding the shim that usually shifted a bit to one side giving access to top of head where shim makes contact.

At retainer could see where spring tucks up under the retainer and made a bit of judgement here. I do not have a installed height tool as such, but have a valve spring removal tool and compressed air chuck. When spring pressure tool arrives, I will measure out more accurately spring height. Perhaps I may find that to get back to recommended level, I may find I need to shim a bit.

A thought just occurred to me, that some enterprising tech could set up a smart phone app in conjunction with "FaceTime" to offer an onsite consulting automobile service via iphone..

There are no inner springs. I can see the very edge and pointy tip of the beehive where it tucks under the "track" on the underside of the retainer. I may be off a very few thousandths, this is a reason that I wish to measure current spring pressures.

Would .050 keepers tend to negatively affect rocker arm to retainer clearance is something that I will checkout.

If you look at the pic I posted of the E head with the beehives and +.050 locks, and look at the bottom of the spring, you'll see it's sitting in a stamped steel "cup".
Those are the cups that come on the assembled heads.
They are not on your heads, but it looks like I can see the edge of the other device used for locating the spring...... a spring "seat", under the spring.
I always figured they were called "inner" spring seats is because the located the spring off the "inner" diameter.
Comp actually makes a few different ones specifically for the beehive springs.

If you measured all the way down to the head surface itself, and there are spring seats there(and you hope there are, otherwise the spring would be chewing a hole into the head), the installed height is .060 shorter than what you measured.

Which is what that combination of parts(Comp 26120 springs, 795 retainers, 611 locks, spring seats) should end up being, on those heads.......about 1.825.

With the way the retainers are shaped for the beehive springs, there is no problem using the +.050 locks with regards to rocker clearance.
Plus, Harland's have pretty large diameter wheels that help keep the rocker body up away from the retainers.

I came across that pic of the RPM heads with the +.050 locks when I was searching for something else.
I'm pretty sure that's a pic of one of AndyF's motors....... and I think I actually did those heads.

There is a spring seat under each spring, I may in error referred to them as shims. As noted the spring sits squarely upon them, but they are all shuffled a bit one side or the other, thereby permitting me to find a spot at each valve to place the tip of the caliper directly on the head at the outside edge of the spring seat or shim.

I am certain this is koppa septic,,,,however at top where retainer is, I could be very slightly off.

You should be taking the measurement from the top of the shim/cup, and you've said it a couple of times that you're measuring down to the "head".

If you are measuring from the surface of the "head" to the bottom of the retainer........ that is not the installed height.
The installed height is the measurement from the top of the seat/shim to the bottom of the retainer.

You say you're sure the spring height is set up right, but going by how you say you're doing it, it's not.

Soooooo, if the installed height is actually closer to 1.825(based on how you say you're checking it), and the rocker ratio is really closer to 1.55(like most Harland's are)...... now how far away from coil bind are you?

My measurement is to the bottom of the retsiner. Unfortunately there is s very small lip on the outside perimeter of it that hangs down a tiny bit, so as I am unable to get the caliper to the actual surface that the top of the spring contacts.

However I believe that I am very close in judging just how much how much higher this contact point is than this so called hang over lip.

Visualize a pie pan laying upside down. This hang over is not that extreme, but that is an example. I will post a up close photo tomorrow.

Visually coil bind is non existent by a large amount. Same for open valve rocker to top of retainer.

I can't believe we're still talking about this.

I am not worried about your visual reference at the top of the spring.
It's what you say you're doing at the bottom ....... that you are either doing it wrong, or describing it wrong.

If there is a spring seat/shim between the spring and the head, and you're putting the caliper down against the head..... you're doing it wrong........period.
Doing it that way does not account for the thickness of the seat.
The caliper needs to be on top of the seat.........or you need to know how thick it is and subtract that from your measurement if you're measuring down to the head.

I'm not there watching you do it, so I can only go by what you say........ and you say you're putting the tool down against the head.........and when you do that you get 1.885.
The seats are usually .060....... so if you subtract the thickness of the seat from your measurement of 1.885.......the installed height should be 1.825...... based on how you say you're doing it.

Do you have a solid lifter adjusted to zero lash(or at least a bottomed out hyd lifter)when you're visually checking for space between the coils?