New HR lifters...... first test

Had a motor on the dyno yesterday.
505 BB, stock block, unbushed lifter bores, HR cam.

We’ve only had a few of these on the dyno, and I haven’t been thrilled with the lifter function of those earlier builds.
No failures, but fairly noisy operation, and I was underwhelmed with the upper rpm capabilities.

With the internet filled with reports of failed FT cams over the last 2 years or so, I thought it was time to try and embrace the HR’s.

A lot of BBC marine engines go on the dyno here, and pretty much all the higher HP ones use HR cams/lifters.
Even on some of those we’ve had some builds where the lifter noise was pretty objectionable.

So, Comp came out with their new Evolution HR lifters that utilize a replaceable hyd cartridge(89211-16 for the BBM).
There is a YouTube video on them, if you’re interested.

Anyway, I wanted to try a set in this particular build.
I was looking for at least reasonably quiet operation, and a stable valvetrain to over 6000rpm.

I’m happy to report that they were a success on both fronts.
Very reasonable in the noise dept, and no signs of any valvetrain unhappiness thru 6300rpm(as high as we went).

The cam used had rpm friendly .380 lift lobes, coupled with 1.6HS rockers, and dual springs set up at 150/400.

There’s a Pontiac going on the dyno soon(waiting on a couple of parts) that’s also going to be using these lifters.
The cam in that motor has lobes that aren’t as rpm friendly, and both 1.5 and 1.65 rockers will be tried.

Awesome news

That's encouraging

It wasn’t my build.

I would have taken it to 6500 just to see how the valvetrain behaved if I’d have built it.
The power was peaking around 6k, so there wasn’t really any reason to go higher than we did.

He got bit by sneaking up on the rpm with one of the other HR combos when a lifter bled down....... and stuck there.

Sounds nice!! Good to hear as a friend of mine is in need for his build soon.


If you don't mind sharing what did you run for preload and did you measure plunger travel?

The instructions claim .150” plunger travel, and to run them down .100”......... I assume that’s where he set them.

I would like to do some more dyno testing with one of those new sets to see if they like .150 preload cold versus .030 to .045 preload cold
Not this year though

Good to hear! What heads were you using?

EZ’s

That is great to hear. Any comparison to the Howards Max Effort (Gatermans) HR lifters? On the 6bbl eng we did last year (with your help) , they performed real well and not too noisy. I just followed up with the guy who owns the engine and he is very happy with those Howards and says he also doesn’t think they are that noisy.
Any direct comparison that you have to those? Great that there is another option out there.

Thx

Most of the HR cams I’ve sold for BBM’s have gone into engines I’ve never heard run......... so I have no personal experience to draw from WRT the Gaterman lifters.
Most reports have been positive on them.

Two fairly recent 440 builds got the Howard’s normal HR lifters(street morels). Both were noisier than the new Comps...... with one of them being louder than I think I could live with.

The attraction for me with the new lifters was the idea of improved upper rpm capabilities along with quiet operation from a lifter that retains the normal hydraulic function.

I think the upcoming Pontiac might be a better test for their capabilities.
The cam is more aggressive, and coupled with the 1.65 rockers should give the lifters more of a workout.

I have a customer with a BBC that had a HFT cam eat several lobes during break in, so that build will be getting a HR now.
This customer is not really a fan of HR cams......... so I used some soft lobes for that one too.
I think it’ll get these lifters as well.

Now you know my pain with the Morrels in my small block. I ended up putting the Comp solids in my truck but they were twice as loud. Fine for a race car with open headers but not a street driver with a quiet exhaust. I put the Morels back in and gave it .085 preload instead of the .060 I had previously. Not quiet but not too bad. If I ever put a bigger cam in it I'll try those Comp lifters. Thanks for the heads up, just wish it would have came sooner.

I recall remarks by David Vizzard about how different oil formulations (same weight) affected lifter function. I wonder if any difference would show up on the new Comps.? Might be interesting, but very time consuming to do all the testing.

I have the Morel race Hydros, mine were VERY noisy , I set them .020 from bottomed out, nice & quiet, BUT I should not have had to do that for $1300.00 lifters GRRRRRR, I also think if running any roller lifter the block should be bushed

These new Comps weren’t “silent” like an OE 318......... but I felt the noise level was better than “acceptable”.
The 2 440’s with the Morels ........ one was marginally acceptable....... and the other was unacceptable(imo).

My interest in these isn’t to recommend them for racing use. For that I’d always prefer solid lifters.

I was looking for a viable alternative for the hot street, street/strip builds where the customer wanted to have confidence in the engine not eating the cam, and not try to run a solid roller cam on the street in a vehicle that sees considerable annual mileage....... and wouldn’t have the noise/rpm issues that can often come with HR cams/lifters.

In this engine at least........ I’m calling it a win.

I will admit, I did stack the deck somewhat in that I did use lobes that I expected would get over 6k if the lifters behaved.

The Pontiac with the faster cam and 1.65 rockers will probably be a better test for the lifters, since it’s the type of cam more commonly used by the “masses”.

Hopefully an opportunity will come up before too long where I can try these lifters in a BBM with a faster cam.

I appreciate the info, I have HEARD but no personal experience that the Johnson roller lifters are very good & supply many OEM'S ,they have a few different hydros available, BUT they are pricy like the junk Morels I have

These new Comps are currently about 1/2 the price of what you paid for the high end Morels.

Do you happen to have a part number for the ones you used

It's listed on their website and the first post.

I see you are in Houston, I am in Pattison Tx, not many of us on these mopar forums

89211-16

I'm using the Gaterman lifters with the Comp HR cam and I don't think the lifters are noisy. I guess I could shoot a video to see what others think. I think the lobes on my cam are fairly aggressive, it is the 13452B/13481B lobes.

hi

how much pre load on the gatermans ?

i am looking at maybe replacing the noisy lifters on my hemi ?

do they have bushings or needle bearings ? .

cost ?

https://www.gatermanproducts.com/chrysler-retrofit.html

Unfortunately they don't make them for the small block.

Thanks for sharing this Dwayne! Maybe this will open the doorway to more better-performing dual-purpose motor combos?

They look like someone used their heads, and used a solid lifter body modified to use the new lifters from the new production V6 engines I see everyday. they are modified to use a ball end pushrod, but these are whats in say todays chrysler 3.6 cylinder heads.

I have installed several sets of Morel hydraulic roller lifters in builds this summer, Pontiac, GM and Mopar. Instruction sheet with the lifters mentioned required centistoke rating of the oil. After researching the spec, 10W30 oil is the thickest recommended. In comparing the lifters run quieter and oil better to the rockers with the thinner oil. I had been using 20W40 Rotella as a break-in oil. I changed to a mineral based 10W30 oil.

The problem explained on another mopar site is not necessarily to do with the hyd. roller lifters, its the stock blocks themselves. This is a just 1 post by challenger340.... PRH took part in this thread, most of you know all this anyway but it may be useful info for others>


The problem many face when using Hydraulic Rollers in BB Mopars, an Engine never designed or envisioned to use them, is the very short distance between where the very large Oil Gallery intersects the lifter Bore, and the bottom of the Bore itself, which is also the exact spot where maximum Lifter Bore wear occurs in old Blocks, allowing excessive lifeblood Oil Pressure leakage out, rather than into the Lifter maintaining preload.

Add to the above,
that Hydraulic Roller Cams require higher V/Spring Pressures to keep up with the increased ramp Roller Lobes, and you have a situation where lifeblood Oil Pressure to maintain Lifter preload and valvetrain stability is fighting against the worn Bores and higher Spring pressure trying to keep it out ..... clackity.... clackity... clackity.... or very poor rpm capability.

Interesting to note here:
is that when CRANE was initially doing the R & D for Hydraulic Rollers with FORD back in the early 80's.... one of the first identified Block design changes was to Lengthen the Lifter Bore castings themselves to assist in Lifter sealing.... hence the Mid-80's Ford "HR" smallblocks with the taller(longer) lifter Bores.
The same was done over at GM etc., as they were updating castings to run HR's... they all lengthened the Lifter Bores in the HR Blocks for this reason.

The best answer for trying to run HR Lifters in these old BB Mopar Blocks with the Short & usually normally Lifter Bore bottoms.... seems to be one of 2 things:
1.) Bush the Lifter Bores to control leakage, an extremely expensive proposition
or,
2.) Run the HR Lifter basically bottomed out for adjustment, with only about .010" or so plunger preload remaining.... so basically running as a Solid.

#2 is now the prescribed "FIX" at pretty much all Cam Manu's for BB Mopar's when you phone to complain as many do.... of "noisey valvetrain"
and,
begging the question, if so many are having to run the HR Lifter Plungers in BB Mopars down .080", .090", even .105" to shut them up, basically "Bottomed" with 3 & 4 Adjuster Threads hanging out the bottom of the Rockers, why not just run a tight lash Solid "Street" Roller Cam instead ? with even more power/Trq than the HR ?

Anybody with a dis-assembled Block ?
Take a flashlight and go LOOK at the bottom of the Lifter Bores and the distance between where the Oil gallery intersects it to out the bottom.... see what I am referring to here, even better put a Bore gauge in their for yourself if you have access to one.

Link to full thread
www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=128846.0;all

Good post rb446. That brings up a very interesting issue that seems to need more awareness.

I was wondering about this myself , I have a block that I bushed the lifter bores and want to run a HYD. roller in it , maybe I accidently fixed a potential issue ?

BUT how big a hole do you need to put in the bushing, I had 1/8" holes put in them?

There was a video I was watching on some guys who bought a reaming/bushing kit albeit for SB which showed them doing i, they put 1/8" hole in the bushings also.

The BB Mopar is THE BIGGEST candidate for lifter bore bushings when it comes to roller lifters in general, but specifically hyd. roller lifters...and once you do this, it's amazing how much more oil you'll have going to the rods and mains, and much better oil pressure at idle and low engine speeds (street driving).
It's all I recommend now days...it really corrects that engine's oil system.