Print Page | Close Window

Comp Roller Lifters Problem

Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: AMC V8 Engine Repair and Modifications
Forum Description: AMC-made V8 engine mechanical, ignition and fuel from basic repair to high-perf modifications
URL: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20378
Printed Date: Mar/28/2024 at 11:36pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Comp Roller Lifters Problem
Posted By: 73XBGT
Subject: Comp Roller Lifters Problem
Date Posted: Jun/15/2010 at 9:56pm
Would appreciate some advice guys.
 
I bought a new Comp Cam solid roller (.608/.614 valve lift) and their 861-16 roller lifters a few months back.  I did not bush the lifter bores in my block (my mistake).  I just assumed Comp's re-design of the AMC lifters had fixed the oil pressure bleed-off problem due to the "eyebrow" at the bottom of the lifter skirt being exposed at max lift.  I talked with Nick Alfano last night and thank goodness he told me to check for this.  I checked, and the bottom of the lifter skirt is exposed in the oil passage when the cam is at max lift.
 
Now, what to do??  Bushing the bores means disassembling my partial buildup, getting the machine work done, and reassembly.  I'm not even sure if the local speed shops here in Alabama are set up for bushing an AMC V8.  If they are, I think typical cost is $400-$500, plus bushings.
 
Does anyone else make a roller lifter that will work for AMC yet?  If I can get my money back from Comp, I would even consider getting Crower or somebody to build some custom lifters with a long enough skirt.  Anyone have connections with a company that will do custom lifter work?  This option might be less expensive and less trouble than bushing the bores. 
 
What would some of you experienced engine builders do at this point?  This is my first engine build, so I'm having to learn the hard wayOuch   



Replies:
Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jun/15/2010 at 10:13pm

Have you tried priming to check the leakage?  Maybe get the cam re-ground with a small base circle if it's only an issue at max lift?  If Comp said the cam and lifters would work without bushing the bores, maybe they will do the regrind at no cost?  Crane 86518-16 lifters seem to work, but don't know if you can still get them?

Pretty disappointing that Comp didn't fix the problem.  Could you please post a photo or two of the new lifters?  Maybe you got old stock (old design)?


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/15/2010 at 10:47pm
[QUOTE=Red Devil]

Have you tried priming to check the leakage? 

I did not try priming.  I figure if I can see a gap, then there's no point - it's a long sad story, but I have .003" main bearing clearance, so I need all the oil pressure I can get.  I know .003" is too much for a street engine, but I went through two different crank grinds and purchased .010" and .020" bearings.  The first crank grind was .0045"!!  After the second guy missed the tolerances on .020", I just decided to run it like it is with 20w50 and some good cooling capacity. 
 
Maybe get the cam re-ground with a small base circle if it's only an issue at max lift?  If Comp said the cam and lifters would work without bushing the bores, maybe they will do the regrind at no cost?
 
Actually, I sent the cam back to Comp for a re-grind last month, because I didn't like the DCR number that I was getting with a 10.5:1 compression ratio.  Right now the base circle is almost the same diameter as the cam's shaft diameter, so I don't know if they could make the base circle any smaller.
 
Pretty disappointing that Comp didn't fix the problem.  Could you please post a photo or two of the new lifters?  Maybe you got old stock (old design)?
 
The lifters are definitely the newer design.  I need to figure out how to post pics.  In the meantime, I'll attach a pic that I borrowed from a forum member's older post.  They look just like this:
 They have the taller shoulder above the oil groove.
 
They do not look like the older short shoulder version, like this:


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/15/2010 at 11:15pm
I have talked with Crower Cams about this issue and can get custom made lifters with a big shrouded roller if you like...  I am a dealer for Crower and am on the phone with them every week, several times a week...   PM me for more info if you want..    Forest

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jun/15/2010 at 11:24pm

Hey forest, any chance of getting Crower to develop an off-the-shelf AMC solid roller lifter, since Comp doesn't seem to be making progress ... and one that gets decent street life?

Edit:  Is Crower 66384H-16 a viable option?
 
Thanks! RD.


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:27am
Originally posted by Red Devil Red Devil wrote:

Hey forest, any chance of getting Crower to develop an off-the-shelf AMC solid roller lifter, since Comp doesn't seem to be making progress ... and one that gets decent street life?

Edit:  Is Crower 66384H-16 a viable option?
 
Thanks! RD.
 
Yeah, or perhaps Crower could set up and do a limited (minimum order) production run.  Maybe there are enough AMCers and vendors that would make it worth their while, especially since they would own the market, albeit small.  Forest, can you pull some strings??Big smile


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 10:01am
 
 Call Barry Allen and discuss what you're concerned about, he tested the new Comp design and gave his blessings. Something aint right, I compared the origional Comp lifters to Crane's and found that the Crane lifters allowed only about .040 cam lift than Comp's before starting to bleed off at the bottom too. Some people are running much more lift than you without modifying the lifter bores. If I remember correctly, you should be able to run you're cam with the old style Comp lifters, particularly with a reduced base circle camshaft.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 10:18am
This is the same #$%#$% problem that I had with my Comp solid roller lifter cam that I fixed with Crane solid rollers.  Take forest up on his offer and get a set of the Crower lifters and your problem will be solved.  Based on your experience here, I am through with Comp. There is no excuse for getting it wrong the second time around and they don't deserve our business as a result.

-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 11:28am
Skeown, obviously he can see a gap between the bore and lifter...  what does he have "wrong"?   did he somehow install things wrong and get this problem,? no, its pretty straightforward, too much lift = comp sucks...     Ill call Crower today about it and see what it will cost for a set of shrouded roller lifters to be made.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 11:47am
Forest, I'll sign up for a set as well as I really liked the solid roller I had the bad lifters on but will look for Crower to make me a similar grind rather than comp

-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 12:13pm
ill be on a conference call with Matt Crower, Dave Crower, and Lauren, the guy who cuts the lifter bodies in a few minutes...   looks like we will have some lifters soon...   shrouded all the way around the roller..

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 1:54pm
 
 There you two go talking out you're a$$es again. Huey & Duey!! I'll bet either of you stooges real money that the current Comp lifters will be fine with a cam lift of .380", any takers?
 
 SKeown
 
 


Posted By: whizkidder
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 1:59pm
Any chance that there are different dimensions between block castings/years/etc. for the cam bore centerline to the lifter galley bore holes?  Might explain why some work and some don't?

-------------
Ron Frost
marne1ancient @ gmail.com
910 nine two two 0563

"There is no limit to what a man can do, so long as he does not care a straw who gets credit for it. Charles Montague


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 3:11pm
Man, Skeown, you just really dont like it when somone other than one of your gods does something good for the hobby do you?  What is the harm in having a good american made lifter for AMC on the market? Just because I am the guy that is going to push the new part, you just cant handle it. Like I said once before, I hope you live forever, so you will stay even more miserable than the rest of us, for longer. Have a nice day.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: poormansMACHINE
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by whizkidder whizkidder wrote:

Any chance that there are different dimensions between block castings/years/etc. for the cam bore centerline to the lifter galley bore holes?  Might explain why some work and some don't?



These blocks weren't hand drilled so chances of that much variation isn't likely.


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 3:34pm
probably in the lifters...

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by forest forest wrote:

ill be on a conference call with Matt Crower, Dave Crower, and Lauren, the guy who cuts the lifter bodies in a few minutes...   looks like we will have some lifters soon...   shrouded all the way around the roller..
 
Cool!  With pressurized roller axle oiling, please (... their "H" option).  Thanks! RD.


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 5:30pm
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 There you two go talking out you're a$$es again. Huey & Duey!! I'll bet either of you stooges real money that the current Comp lifters will be fine with a cam lift of .380", any takers?
 
 SKeown
 
 
Hey there Steve old buddy, glad to see you crawled out from under your rock to share some of that classic Skeown grumpy old fart nastiness with forum. We've all missed you there buddy! So what's the matter there you old coot, having a bad hair day, the new grandkid keep you up all night, the girl friend tell you that she can't stand your snarl anymore? LOLLOLLOL
 
The facts are I had Comp solid rollers on a cam also custom ground by Comp on the same order and those lifters pissed oil out of the bores like a fire hose.  After some haggling, Comp agreed that there was a problem with my cam's even modest lift in an AMC block and agreed to refund my money. I went out and bought some Crane solid rollers and viola, problem solved.  No disputable facts there grumpyWinkWink so no Steve stomping his feet cause someone disagrees with him just facts!
 
And here now another forum member says his "new" Comp lifters are doing something similar, something you have absolutely no first hand knowledge about his particular situation by the way, and Forest has gotten a highly regarded company in Crower to get a set of lifters made that we can all use if we so chose to do so.  So help me out here angry old man, what is wrong with getting the problem solved and as a result having a new alternative to support our brand by a company who wants to work with us to give us more options? 
 
If we are huey and duey then you must be plain old screwey LOLLOLLOL if you fail to see the benefit and logic of what has just transpired.  So what's your beef, you didn't think of it first OR that it is not made by one of your beloved Chinese suppliers that will do it on the cheap?  
 
Man, you'd think a racer like you would be thrilled to have some good old American made parts that you can order off the shelf for your engine builds....geeez what a GROUCH!  Forget the screwey part, I think we'll just have to start calling you Oscar like the character on Sesame Street you watch with the grandkids. Yeah, that's the ticket, Oscar the Grouch!ClapClapClap
 
 


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:03pm
I havent had any issues with Comp's since last spring. I wonder if you actually took the eyebrow and made it lower would it hit the ramp on the lobe....most likely not. That picture looks like the same spec as the original Crane I keep on my desk. Crane eyebrow edges are about .500 from the roller end.

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:05pm
Ok, I just measured everything.  Maybe this will help y'all decipher my "problem".
 
Skeown, you mentioned needing a smaller base circle in one of your earlier posts.  I'm wondering if that's would solve my problem.  I ordered the cam and lifters direct from Comp.  They also suggested the grind that I purchased, so I figured they would know what base circle size to use.  But maybe not.
 
Base circle on my cam is 1.168"
The cam's shaft diameter is 1.125"
 
At max lift (.385" lobe lift, .616" valve lift), you can see the bottom of the lifter "skirt" protruding into the oil passage.  This would certainly result on some pressure loss.  In addition, the lifter's oil band is now completely hidden (it's just barely above the oil passage and is not visible).
 
At no lift, when the lifter is on the base circle, the lifter's oil band is almost centered in the oil passage (maybe slightly above center).
 
Not sure how small of a base circle I can run safely, but I would think the lifter needs to be another .125" in the hole to effectively seal the bottom of the skirt without too much pressure loss.  Also, about half of the oil band would now be exposed to supply constant oil to the pushrods and valve train. 
 
That would reduce the base circle diameter to .915".  I have no idea what size base circle is safe but feasible, so I'm open to suggestions.  I'll also call Comp tomorrow after hearing back from some of you guys.
 
Thanks
 


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:14pm
Im on the phone right now with Crower..  we will discuss the shrouding coming too close to the camshaft lobe as well...    no reason to start running small basecircle cams unless your really looking for some serious lift...

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:18pm
Gee do you think they really know what they are doing?  After all, they've only been in the Cam business for 3 generations so maybe they are still learning how to do it right! Big smileBig smileBig smile

-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:22pm
Originally posted by 74Bubblefender 74Bubblefender wrote:

I havent had any issues with Comp's since last spring. I wonder if you actually took the eyebrow and made it lower would it hit the ramp on the lobe....most likely not. That picture looks like the same spec as the original Crane I keep on my desk. Crane eyebrow edges are about .500 from the roller end.
 
I measured one of the lifters.  From the bottom of the eyebrow to the tip of the roller itself, it's .570".  From the corner of the eyebrow to the roller tip, it measures .610".
 


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:29pm
 
 This lifter thing got my curiosity up, so being my engine is apart I did some measurements. From the bottom of the oil galley that runs through the lifter bores (soonest to be uncovered from the bottom) to the (spot faced) top of the lifter bores is 1.215" and that runs consistant from front to back. Crane lifters measure from the highest point in the wheel cutout (soonest to intersect the oil galley) to the top of the lifter body is 1.195". The exact lift at my cam is .411" and that puts the top of the lifter body within .015" from the top of the lifter bore. Synopsis based on those measurements is that the highest part of the wheel cutout is exposed to the oil galley by .005 at the moment of full lift on crane lifters. That means that .406" lobe lift is max to not  be uncovered at all, or a max valve lift of .650" using 1.6 rocker ratio plus lash.
 
 Old style Comp lifters allowed .040 less lobe lift than the Crane's, so that would only allow .596 valve lift plus lash. I haven't held the new Comp lifters, but if they lowered the cutout by only .009" you could run the new lifters and most likely with the reduced base circle you could use their origional lifters. A quick check could be made by knowing that from the bottom of Crane's .750" roller th the earliest area that could be exposed is .590". Please compare that to you're new style lifters and let us know what you find.
 
 I hope this helps, SKeown  


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:39pm
 
 After submiting my post I see where the new Comp lifters allow .020 less lobe lift than Crane's, that's a .020 improvement. You can run those lifters with you're cam and be better off than me with my Crane lifters and more lift. I say with the reduced base circle you're way ahead of the game. Good deal!!
 
 SKeown


Posted By: 4015spdJavAMX
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:46pm
I'm the other forum member mentioned in the post on the first page, along with my hand holding the lifter. My Comp cam has 0.688/.711 lift and survived 30 plus dyno runs with no oil pressure issues using the pictured Comp lifters. You either have the old lifters or something is off with your cam. If you want to read all about it search for "dyno daze" thread.

-------------
1972 Jav-AMX 401 4-speed....T56 next?
1970 AMX 390 auto, now 5-speed
1970 AMX 390 4-speed, stock


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 6:55pm
so should i quit getting the Crower lifters made??  Ouch

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 7:06pm

I guess I'd better take some more measurements on my block and try to see what's going on.  I guess it's possible that the dimensions vary from one block to the other where the lifter bores intersect the oil passages.  My block is a '70 390.



Posted By: 4015spdJavAMX
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 7:06pm
Originally posted by forest forest wrote:

so should i quit getting the Crower lifters made??  Ouch

Forest, it can't hurt to have more than one source. I keep hearing things like Crane is gonna make their own stuff again, somebody associated with Performance American Style is doing something, yada yada. Seems like Crower can do it pretty easily, but I talked to them last year this time at your recommendation and didn't get much traction. 

Go for it if you've got some pull with Crower.


-------------
1972 Jav-AMX 401 4-speed....T56 next?
1970 AMX 390 auto, now 5-speed
1970 AMX 390 4-speed, stock


Posted By: 4015spdJavAMX
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by 73XBGT 73XBGT wrote:

I guess I'd better take some more measurements on my block and try to see what's going on.  I guess it's possible that the dimensions vary from one block to the other where the lifter bores intersect the oil passages.  My block is a '70 390.


For what it is worth, my block was a '72 401 block, but I'm not aware of any differences between that and the '70 390 block.


-------------
1972 Jav-AMX 401 4-speed....T56 next?
1970 AMX 390 auto, now 5-speed
1970 AMX 390 4-speed, stock


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 7:10pm
 
 I just went and confirmed what my measurements told me. What I did was using a dial indicator I brought my #1 EX lobe to full lift, removed the front galley plug, inserted the lifters and using a pin light I could see that the very upper tips of the cutouts are barely exposed. Now keep in mine that's at the very max lift only and this engine crosses the line at 7600 rpm.
 
 4015spdjavAMX is running much more lift than either of us and maintains good oil pressure. Even though his lifters have to be bleeding more oil than mine, you'rs shouldn't have any problem.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 7:10pm
Skeown, what is your base circle diameter??
 
Thanks


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 7:12pm
[/QUOTE]

For what it is worth, my block was a '72 401 block, but I'm not aware of any differences between that and the '70 390 block.
[/QUOTE]
 
Do you know what your base circle measured?


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 7:38pm
 
 I had to get the cam out, anyway, the base circle is 1.175". I'm going to have it re-ground, but there's no way it will ever raise the lifters higher than now.
 
 SKeown 


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 8:05pm
When I was using the faulty Comp solid rollers I had plenty of oil pressure at the upper rev range but dangerously low at the lower RPM ranges, particularly at idle when it would drop down to 5 and flicker the pressure dash light when the oil got hot even with Castrol 20-50.  It ran fine and with no problems on the dyno right up to 6800 RPM when it was fresh and new and had multiple pulls using different intake and carb combos to find the max output that was streetable. 
 
In that I was planning to run on bothe the street and strip, it didn't matter what the high speed oil pressure was.  The low speed oil pressure was a starved bearing waiting to happen. 


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 4015spdJavAMX
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 9:04pm
Dan:

Your low idle oil pressure sounds like a separate problem, such as the lifters didn't fit the bores well, or they were undersize (which could be Comps fault). You are talking about the older lifters anyway, the new ones are clearly different.  Did your problem cure itself immediately when you went to a different lifter? Did you check the lifter size relative to the lifter bore? The fit is critical.

It seems like I can't be the only one that is running the new Comp lifters. Has anyone else seen any issues? I know Barry Allen thought they were fine, and would suspect he continues to use them, but he may bush the lifter bores..


-------------
1972 Jav-AMX 401 4-speed....T56 next?
1970 AMX 390 auto, now 5-speed
1970 AMX 390 4-speed, stock


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 9:26pm
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 This lifter thing got my curiosity up, so being my engine is apart I did some measurements. From the bottom of the oil galley that runs through the lifter bores (soonest to be uncovered from the bottom) to the (spot faced) top of the lifter bores is 1.215" and that runs consistant from front to back. Crane lifters measure from the highest point in the wheel cutout (soonest to intersect the oil galley) to the top of the lifter body is 1.195". The exact lift at my cam is .411" and that puts the top of the lifter body within .015" from the top of the lifter bore. Synopsis based on those measurements is that the highest part of the wheel cutout is exposed to the oil galley by .005 at the moment of full lift on crane lifters. That means that .406" lobe lift is max to not  be uncovered at all, or a max valve lift of .650" using 1.6 rocker ratio plus lash.
 
 
 
I took measurements and had these results:
From the bottom of the oil galley that runs through the lifter bores (soonest to be uncovered from the bottom) to the (spot faced) top of the lifter bores is 1.180".  The Comp lifters measure 1.580" from the highest point in the wheel cutout (soonest to intersect the oil galley) to the top of the lifter body.  My cam's exhaust lobe lift is .385", and that puts the top of the lifter body .430" above the top of the lifter boss spotface. Based on those measurements the highest part of the wheel cutout is exposed to the oil galley by .030 at the moment of full lift on the new Comp lifters. That means that .355" lobe lift is max to not be uncovered at all (at least in my block), or a max valve lift of .568" using 1.6 rocker ratio plus lash.
 


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 9:54pm
 
 Based on that, the 70 390 either had a larger diameter galley or it was placed lower in the block? There appears to be .035 difference there, but with a .025 lesser lift you should be seeing only .015 exposure, that's provided my measurements were correct. I was carefull, but it's difficult to be exact in that area with callipers. I can't double check mine, it's all appart now. Do the view test through the front lifter galley plug hole, make sure everything is oil free so you can see clearly. In any event, javAMX is exposing more than either of us.
 
 If after real carefull re-examination, you're mule is still scared, you might want to have the cam re-ground to produce less lift. .030 less lift with the same duration is something you probably wouldn't notice performance wise. You could allways get it back to over .6" lift with 1.7 rockers anyway. I ran 11.30s in a 3200# stick AMX with a .57" lift flat tapit cam.
 
 I'm sure you've noticed by now that creating performance AMC engines is a real challenge, you have all these little stumbling blocks along the way. Once they are together and setup right they work pretty darn good though.
 
 You might want to put it together and run the oil pump with a 1/2" drive drill while monitering the oil pressure and turning the engine. That can be done on the stand, if you don't like you're findings, have the cam ground then. I run .0025 rods and .003 mains in my street/strip AMX. You definately need to find a good crank grinder though, those guys are supposed to work in the .0001". I get exact rod & main bearing measurements and specify exactly what I want in the finished crank.
 
 SKeown
 
 


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 10:08pm
Originally posted by 4015spdJavAMX 4015spdJavAMX wrote:

Dan:

Your low idle oil pressure sounds like a separate problem, such as the lifters didn't fit the bores well, or they were undersize (which could be Comps fault). You are talking about the older lifters anyway, the new ones are clearly different.  Did your problem cure itself immediately when you went to a different lifter? Did you check the lifter size relative to the lifter bore? The fit is critical.

It seems like I can't be the only one that is running the new Comp lifters. Has anyone else seen any issues? I know Barry Allen thought they were fine, and would suspect he continues to use them, but he may bush the lifter bores..
Yes, mine were the older ones and no I did not check the lifter diameter because once I pressed Comp, and I really had to press them at the home office because their zone guy was clueless, they admitted that the lift on my cam was more than their rollers could accomodate in the AMC block even though I specifically went through their engineering department to get the split grind that I wanted and told them exactly what I was using it in and what I was trying to accomplish. 
 
The issue with Comp that I see is that they are pretty much GM, Ford and Mopar knowledgable but are not at all up to speed with AMC so I finally concluded that I would not use them again for a roller.  I will still use them for hydro cams until I use up all the NOS Comp cams I have on hand but once they are gone or if I need a another custom grind, Crower is who I will use from now on.  Additionally, Crower made a set of one of 1.7s 7/16ths stud roller rockers for the hipo book engine and gave them to us basically at their cost so why on earth would I even consider anyone else? 
 
Crower wants our AMC business, will make any cam grind, lifter or rocker we want and even volunteered to make a billet 401 crankshaft if we wanted one.  They want our business, are willing to work with us and give us very competitive pricing so I encourage anyone who wants a kick as custom grind cam to take a look at them and see what they can do for you.  I have heard periodic complaints about their being unreachable but Forest never has trouble hooking up with them and he has the best pricing they offer so when all else fails, contact Forest and let him work with them to get what you want. 
 
Heck, I'll bet he'd even work with Skeown if he stopped being a grumpy old fart!LOLLOLLOLLOL


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 10:09pm
Originally posted by forest forest wrote:

so should i quit getting the Crower lifters made??  Ouch
 
Forest,
 
Can you tell us about the lifters (features, price) that you discussed with Crower today?  I guess they would use a smaller diameter wheel if they are going to either shroud it or lower the eyebrow further.    
 
My opinion - the ideal roller lifter would work with a street roller, as well as a big cam (maybe up to .500" lobe lift), and would not require bushing the lifter bores.  A true .904" diameter, pressurized oiling for the shaft/bearing.  Not sure about the direction of the pushrod oil feed hole (perpendicular vs. parallel to the oil passage).


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 11:11pm
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 Based on that, the 70 390 either had a larger diameter galley or it was placed lower in the block? There appears to be .035 difference there, but with a .025 lesser lift you should be seeing only .015 exposure, that's provided my measurements were correct. I was carefull, but it's difficult to be exact in that area with callipers. I can't double check mine, it's all appart now. Do the view test through the front lifter galley plug hole, make sure everything is oil free so you can see clearly. In any event, javAMX is exposing more than either of us.
 
 If after real carefull re-examination, you're mule is still scared, you might want to have the cam re-ground to produce less lift. .030 less lift with the same duration is something you probably wouldn't notice performance wise. You could allways get it back to over .6" lift with 1.7 rockers anyway. I ran 11.30s in a 3200# stick AMX with a .57" lift flat tapit cam.
 
 I'm sure you've noticed by now that creating performance AMC engines is a real challenge, you have all these little stumbling blocks along the way. Once they are together and setup right they work pretty darn good though.
 
 You might want to put it together and run the oil pump with a 1/2" drive drill while monitering the oil pressure and turning the engine. That can be done on the stand, if you don't like you're findings, have the cam ground then. I run .0025 rods and .003 mains in my street/strip AMX. You definately need to find a good crank grinder though, those guys are supposed to work in the .0001". I get exact rod & main bearing measurements and specify exactly what I want in the finished crank.
 
 SKeown
 
 
 
Thanks for your input and advice.  By visual inspection, it doesn't look like .030" exposure in the oil passage...more like .005" or .010" at max lift.  Another thing that could cause variation between blocks is the depth that the spotfaces were cut.  My oil passage to lifter spotface measurement ranged from 1.180 to 1.220, but visually, the lifter eyebrow exposure visually appeared to be the same amount in all of them. 
 
Thinking back to one of your previous posts, the eyebrow is only exposed to the oil passage for a brief time during the entire cam cycle, so I suppose that's why most folks don't appear to have an oil pressure problem with the new lifters.  If Crower comes through with even more shrouding on the lifter, AMCers can run even bigger lift without oil pressure concerns, and without bushing.


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/16/2010 at 11:22pm
 
  You're right about the spotface thing. Consider this, when the little bit of oil is lost at max lift, there's no oil going through the pushrods, so in all likelyhood that effects the oil pressure less than feeding the rockers for that brief period. Besides that a little extra oil on the rollers and cam might be a blessing?
 
 I'm glad weve examined this so cloosely, I've wondered why the reliefs for the roller wheels weren't straight across rather than raised in the corners, but the engineers may have done that intentially to feed a bit of oil to the rollers during max lift? Unless you are running really big lifts, like over .7" at the valve (which would probably require bushings) the oil flowing from the bottom of the lifter wont exceed the ammount going upstares via a .080 hole in the pushrods when the oil supply groove is alligned with the oil galley.
 
 Okay, I just took a hot bath and pondered this more. I think we can put a difference in the blocks behind us. But to do it scientifically lets use both cam/lifter combos in the same block. Now, I discovered that I said the distance from the bottom of the roller wheel to the first possible leakage was .590 on Crane lifters, that's incorrect it's .580, I somehow added .010 from what I wrote down in the garage and what I posted here. Anyway the Comp's are .610, so I can run .030 more lift, but you're base circle is .010 less, so that reduces it to.025. Now consider that I'm running .026 more lobe lift than you, now your lifters roller reliefs will be exposed .001" less than mine. On that thought, I'm letting this horse go!! 
 
 SKeown


Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jun/17/2010 at 9:10am
Originally posted by 73XBGT 73XBGT wrote:

If Crower comes through with even more shrouding on the lifter, AMCers can run even bigger lift without oil pressure concerns, and without bushing.
Doesn't base circle normally get smaller with more lobe lift anyway, so as long as the max lift point is OK, more lobe lift shouldn't be a problem for reasonable lifts?  Understanding is a bigger base circle helps get faster rates of lift without getting into an inverse curvature lobe profile - e.g. if you grind a small Chevy profile on an AMC blank, you'll see more duration.  'Guess it depends who grinds the cam Confused
 
Also, a Crower lifter option would be great ... if it works well without bushing and has pressurized roller oiling.
 
Thanks! RD.


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/17/2010 at 10:22am
yesterday, Crower and I discussed this for  while and the only way they would offer the lifter would be with the high pressure option, and today we should be coming up with an orderable part number for everyone.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/20/2010 at 12:17pm

Allright, the horse isn't dead yet.  Here's another one for you engine guys - How small of a base circle diameter can you "safely" run in a solid roller cam with around .650" lift and 500 lbs. (open) valve spring pressure?  When I say "safely" I mean without too much camshaft flex or possible breakage.  Also, are there any other disadvantages to consider with having a small base circle in an AMC?  How small is too small?  Anyone ever run less than a 1 inch base circle.  It will be good if Crower comes through with a new lifter design with more shrouding for the roller wheel, but I'm still weighing my options.

I've been reading some posts on another forum where a guy's engine (with the old Comp rollers)had sufficient pressure on the dyno, but did not have enough pressure when he put it on the street.  At some lift point, even these new Comp lifters are gonna have pressure issues.  We need a design that will actually seal without having to bush the lifter bores, or worry too much about base circle diameters.
 
 


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/20/2010 at 12:51pm
we are working on the drawings right now, and should have a number by the middle of next week im thinking. they already have the lifter bodies ready to go, just need to decide how far down to bring the shrouding down around the wheel...  will keep everyone posted when they are ready.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jun/20/2010 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by 73XBGT 73XBGT wrote:

I've been reading some posts on another forum where a guy's engine (with the old Comp rollers)had sufficient pressure on the dyno, but did not have enough pressure when he put it on the street.  At some lift point, even these new Comp lifters are gonna have pressure issues.  We need a design that will actually seal without having to bush the lifter bores, or worry too much about base circle diameters.
 
 
I agree.  That old post may have been mine from a while ago as what you are describing is exactly what happened with my engine when I used the old Comp solid rollers.  They knew about it and only amitted to it after I figured out what the cause was.   


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/20/2010 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by forest forest wrote:

we are working on the drawings right now, and should have a number by the middle of next week im thinking. they already have the lifter bodies ready to go, just need to decide how far down to bring the shrouding down around the wheel...  will keep everyone posted when they are ready.
 
Forest, have you considered contacting somebody like Barry Allen to get his input?  He may be interested in offering up some advice on the lifter features, since he builds a lot of roller AMCs.  Example - what's the optimum metering size of the push rod oil feed holes, and their location on the lifter itself.  Also, what's the best location and width of the oil band itself.  I know with my setup, the centerline of the oil band on the new Comp lifter is still above the centerline of the oil passage when the lifter is sitting on the base circle (my base circle diameter is 1.168").  At max lift (.614"), the oil band is actually above the passage, possibly restricting oil to the rockers (probably not though).  I'll be glad to take any measurements you need on these new Comp lifters if it would help you or Crower.


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/21/2010 at 9:30pm
 
 A cam's lift plays nowhere near the importance in producing power in an engine as does it's duration/timing events. For every .010" decrease in the cam's base circle, you'll only alter it's ability to enhance the lift by half that amount.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: 73hornut
Date Posted: Jun/21/2010 at 10:29pm
By now, you could have bushed the lifters.

-------------
71 Javelin
74 Gremlin
79 Spirit AMX
Rogue Valley Rumblers
Like Us on FB
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1602825606650796" rel="nofollow - https://www.facebook.com/groups/1602825606650796


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/21/2010 at 11:04pm
Crower is sent me out the first set of new lifters for a test fit in a block here....  will keep you posted when they arrive...

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: Jun/22/2010 at 10:21pm
Originally posted by 73hornut 73hornut wrote:

By now, you could have bushed the lifters.

Yea, I've been keeping out of this because I thought bushed lifters were evil or something. I have an .801" lift cam with these lifters & bushed lifter bores that everybody hates and have no problems. 
My opinion is once you start running roller cams, it's truly a race engine. 
Anybody that truly builds race engines knows that there are numerous components that do not fit as advertised and there are many complexities to race only parts that are above and beyond "drop in or bolt on"


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/22/2010 at 11:41pm
 
 Jeff, you need to bush you're block, the op doesen't. Now he may do it, but it's not needed in his case. He will be bleeding a miniscule amount for a miniscule period on one lifter at a time, just like I did for the last year. My oil pressure was over 25# minimum at idle and over 55# above 3000 rpm. With you're cam you would be experiencing a gap approaching 1/8" high all the way across and have other lifters coming into play at varing ammounts simultaneously. I doubt a lifter can be developed to work with a cam like yours that doesen't require bushings?
 
 SKeown
 
 


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: Jun/23/2010 at 12:09am
The bushings are flush with the lifter bores. I don't know the base circle size as it's 75 miles away but it is a 55mm cam. 
But the point is not "I don't have this problem" it's "race engines require more work"


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/23/2010 at 12:27am
 
 Race engines do require more work, that's a known fact. They don't call for unnecessary work though. Hell, I've known of people drilling small holes in a front galley plug to provide a supply of oil to the distributor drive gears. That is a constant bleed off that exceeds what he would be experiencing with his situation. I've heard of no ill effects from that. 
 
 The bottom line is I've run a strip/street car with the exact situation he's confronted with and it presented no problem for me. If our measurements are accurate, he will be exposing slightly less than me too.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: Jun/23/2010 at 10:42am
You would be amazed at the amount of "re-engineering" or "unnecessary" work I see at the machine shop. It's from relatively simple "bolt ons" like intake manifolds to bolts to everything in between. I've had to straighten new cams numerous times and have even had to complete the machining of cams that somehow made it out of QC. Yea, you could scream and yell and get it replaced (and wait 6+ weeks or so and it still may have issues) or fix it. 

-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/23/2010 at 11:13am
 
 You're telling me, I have a billet roller cam right now that came from Lunati that's 5.5* long on duration and .011 short on lift. Naturally that's something that must go back.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/23/2010 at 10:33pm
I appreciate everyone's help here.  Like I said in a post a while back, I'd be lost without this forum (or at least way behind the learning curve).  I'm 45 years old and this is my first car engine build.  I picked a good one didn't I?  I fell in love with AMCs when I watched Mad Max, the movie.  I made my mind up then that I would own an AMX some day.  For years I thought those crazy ass cars in that movie were Australian versions of AMC Hornets or Matadors.  Of course I was disappointed to learn later that they were in fact Ford Falcon XB GTs.  But that didn't change my mind about wanting an AMC someday.  
 
OK, I talked with a guy at Comp this week.  He offered to regrind my cam with a smaller base circle.  He will reduce the base circle diameter another .040", which will place the lifters .020" lower in the lifter bore.  The base circle will now be about the same diameter as the shaft itself, which is 1.125".  I was a little concerned about the cam being too soft after another re-grind, but the Comp guy says that the heat treatment depth is .080"-.100".  I guess we'll see.
 
Even with the lifters .020" further down, I'm certain they will still bleed off pressure...just maybe not quite as much.  After all, the push rod oil hole in the lifter is never directly exposed in the oil passage either, and look how well it oils the top side.  So plenty of oil should still be blowing out the bottom.  But if Skeown's been running his engine with similar clearances without problems, I might just give it a try also.
 
SuperStockAMX - I agree with you on the complexities of modifying engines for racing.  This is my first car engine, but I built and raced Open Modified kart engines for more years than I needed to.  I realize this is a big jump up, but it wouldn't be fun if it wasn't.
 
73Hornut - you're right...I could have bushed the lifter bores.  However, until two weeks ago, I didn't even know what bushing wasSmile.  If I had it to do over, I'd probably go that route, and I still might.  I'm not confident that anyone in my area (Huntsville, AL) would be able to bush an AMC block correctly.  I just don't think they have the proper tooling.  So after listening to you guys and talking with Tim Cole at Comp, I'm of the opinion that if you're going to spend all that money on a roller cam and lifters, you may as well do it right.  I may just disassemble my engine and head to Memphis with my block.  Heck, I needed an excuse to go eat those famous ribs at the Rendezvous Club, anywayApprove  BTW - bushing the lifter bores typically costs about $600, including the bronze bushings.
 
Now I know you experienced engine builders already know this stuff, but I'm putting it in writing, so hopefully rookies like myself can come up to speed faster when they read this stuff.
 
Advantages of bushing the lifter bores are:
1.  It aligns the lifter bores with the cam (alignment is often up to 2 degrees out from the factory).
2.  By bushing the lifter bores, you can meter the amount of oil going through the push rods to the topside.  I think Tim Cole said he drills a .060" hole in the bushings prior to installing them.  You definitely won't have a pressure loss around the bottom of the lifter when you go this route.
3.  You can install the bushing so that it protrudes further out the bottom of the lifter bore.  This will give the lifter more support, which is definitely a plus for larger cams.
4.  You can hone the bushed bores to exact clearances.  Cole says .002" is what he runs.
5.  If a lifter fails and damages the lifter bore, a bushing can be replaced a lot easier than trying to repair the original cast bore.  I spoke with Alfano earlier this week, and he says "It's not a matter of if a roller lifter fails, it's when a roller lifter fails."  By the way, Alfano is also having some new Isky Red Zone EZ-Roll and EZ-RollX lifters made for AMCs that will be shrouded.  They're expensive, but won't have the pressure loss problems that Comps may have.  Plus, they do not have needle bearings (supposedly more durable).
 
So, to bush or not to bush....that is the question.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: Jun/23/2010 at 11:08pm
I have a good relationship with Tim and he knows what he is talking about. And he knows AMC's better than you might know. 
Since your asking advice, I would do one of two things. 1) I would bush it. So what if it takes more time. I've been down these roads MANY times and as much as you think you "need" to get the wheels on the road, it's just not true. Everyone of us has used a cheaper part or gone for the quicker turn around only to have it bite us in the rear big time. And in the end it's more money and more time off the road. 
2) Purchase the latest roller lifter that doesn't have this issue and drop them in. 

Regarding the Red Zone lifter wheels with no bearing, I personally need to see more reports. I've heard of a few failures. I went down the road with Schubeck lifters which were (supposedly) state of the art composite body lifters and also their composite puck grafted to a steel body lifters. Super expensive. And when they broke (both versions); super expensive repairs to the short-block. 


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/23/2010 at 11:30pm
 
 No, actually the real question is why are you jumping through all the hoops for no viable reason? I would be more concerned about ending up with a soft cam. Yes, the saying about "not if but when" applies to everything, but if a lifter did fail and did damage the block, you could then bush that bore. I do admire the relentless pursuit of you're lifter concern.
 
 "If it's a core with copper between the lobes, it's 8620, and it's been carborized.
If you try and re-carborize it, it will warp. You can touch up the lobes, but since the journals are already finished, they'll be junk.
We've tried masking off the journals, but that only worked about half the time.
Nitriding kills the case hardness, and the shell hardness is too thin for using with roller cam spring pressures.
There are a couple options that work, but it's cheaper to buy a new cam."
 
 CamKing
 
 
 
 Good luck, SKeown


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jun/24/2010 at 7:41pm
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 No, actually the real question is why are you jumping through all the hoops for no viable reason? I would be more concerned about ending up with a soft cam. Yes, the saying about "not if but when" applies to everything, but if a lifter did fail and did damage the block, you could then bush that bore. I do admire the relentless pursuit of you're lifter concern.
 
 "If it's a core with copper between the lobes, it's 8620, and it's been carborized.
If you try and re-carborize it, it will warp. You can touch up the lobes, but since the journals are already finished, they'll be junk.
We've tried masking off the journals, but that only worked about half the time.
Nitriding kills the case hardness, and the shell hardness is too thin for using with roller cam spring pressures.
There are a couple options that work, but it's cheaper to buy a new cam."
 
 CamKing
 
 
 
 Good luck, SKeown
 
SKeown,  I talked briefly with Mike Jones (CamKing) today.  He says I should still be ok with the shell hardness.  Still, after re-reading his quote above, I realize there are no guarantees.


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/24/2010 at 7:59pm
 
 73XBGT, I never harp on anything that I haven't had personal experience with. I feel that's what the forums are about. Naturally I do post questions and appreciate responses from those that have real life experience on the topic. I've not experienced issues with reground cams, but understand you've already had the base circle reduced by what appears to be .010 and now considering an additional .060". Hopefully it will be fine, but I don't feel it's necessary. That's all.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: 4015spdJavAMX
Date Posted: Jun/25/2010 at 5:25pm
For what it is worth, here is a picture of my cam mentioned earlier in the thread (0.688/0.711 lift with 1.6 rocker arm ratio, ground by Comp cams): Note that the heel of the lobe is very close to the base circle diameter.




-------------
1972 Jav-AMX 401 4-speed....T56 next?
1970 AMX 390 auto, now 5-speed
1970 AMX 390 4-speed, stock


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/29/2010 at 8:20pm
well guys, got a lifter in my hands that will go .398 on lobe lift before it starts to expose the roller wheel. I will be in contact with Crower tomorrow and will talk about getting one that will go to .420 lobe lift or higher??  What do you guys need? Please post up what kind of lift you are looking to run at the lobe and Ill get it done. The lifters I have here are ready for production if anyone wants a set, if not, I will get a set made that will go higher. With a .398 lift and 1.7:1 Crower rocker you will get .675 lift - the lash of the solid roller setup....

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/29/2010 at 9:08pm
 
 What you have discribed (.398) is likely a Mopar lifter that they already had. That doesen't equal what Crane or probably the current Comp lifter's range. If you can persuade them to make the needed alterations to allow at least .750 valve lift using 1.6 rockers, or .470 lobe lift running a std base circle cam. Then they would likely corner the AMC roller lifter market.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/29/2010 at 9:32pm
I think a nice even .500 lobe lift is what Ill ask for.. this is simply a lifter that can be easily modified before it is put into production likeit sits now.. They make their own lifter bodies in hous and can cut them however is needed..  will post more after Im done with them on the phone tomorrow.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: Hornet_X
Date Posted: Jun/29/2010 at 9:40pm
Yes Forest, the more the better, I have sleeved bores but run .750 lift in my iron block. and imo the bigger the wheel the better as well.
hey if you don't ask??
Thanks
Mike


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/29/2010 at 9:57pm
 
 Mike, I'm affraid going to a larger diameter wheel than .750" would be counter productive in terms of what the AMC community is trying to achieve.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 8:52am
Ill probably stick with the wheel they have to make things simple, but I will have this shroud brought down another .100.. Ill be talking to them today about it and letting them know what is needed.

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 11:44am
Here's a small roller (0.390" lobe) next to a stock cam.  Notice the base circle and nose?  So, does the base circle just get smaller with more lobe lift?  If you have sufficient shrouding for max lift, or the "nose" of the lobe, do you need more shrouding to get more lift, or does it depend on the grind, i.e. do they grind some off the nose for lower lifts?  Confused
 
 
If you could use a bigger roller wheel, and have the same or more shrouding as a smaller wheel, seems like it would be the best option. Comp typically has less shrouding than Crane because of the larger wheel, so with clearance for the wheel it cuts more into the shroud area.  Need to have either a small wheel or a close clearance cut for the wheel to get more shrouding.  


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 12:19pm
 
 You need a larger base circle for flat tapits, otherwise the lifter's edge will scrub. The larger diameter the roller wheel is, the further the lifter body is raised. It's all about properly balancing everything. Notice how the roller cam doesen't have an oil groove on the front journal, it relys on grooved bearings only.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 12:45pm

Does a 0.390" flat tappet have a taller nose than the 0.390" roller?  IIRC, the nose on the roller wasn't much lower than the rear cam journal ... but didn't measure it, so not sure?

For shrouding, guess it depends on wheel diameter, wheel width and how they can machine it?  Be interesting to see the results and also the oil band design.
 
Thanks, RD.


Posted By: Hornet_X
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 1:29pm
I think RD is on to what i was trying to say.
put a old crane and Comp next to each other. other then were the oil bands were different, the Comp lifter had a bigger (read beefier) wheel, wich handle spring pressure better then the smaller Crane wheel did.
And the bigger wheel mean that the lifter lives longer before needed Maintance Swap out.

Skoewn, i run .750 lift, not .750 diam. Wheel, unless that is the diam of the old Comp wheel. Dont have one close by at the moment to measure the size of the wheel, but could if needed. I have a spare set at the house.
Mike


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 1:43pm
 
 I just measured a Crane roller, it's exactly .750, measure a Comp if you get a chance. I cain't deny the old Comp's looked better than Crane, unfortunately they presented problems with big lifts. I haven't held their new version.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 1:56pm
IIRC, a Comp is 0.820" ... but they list a few different diameters.
 
Based on 73XBGT's base circle of 1.168", assuming #4 cam journal is the limit for the nose (nom. 2.030" dia. ??), could go to max 0.431" lobe lift vs. his 0.385", so + 0.046" before needing to reduce base circle ... but likely needs a bit less lobe lift with that base circle just for some installation clearance.  So a bigger wheel, axle and bearings, pressurized axle oiling and maybe 0.020" - 0.040" more shrouding than a Crane would likely work for most.
 
Thanks, RD.


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jun/30/2010 at 2:17pm
 
 It's all about meeting you're particular needs, some have the cam bore enlarged for larger cam journals along with bushed lifter bores. Those like you & me, we don't need any of that. You're cam can be safely run with the new Comp lifters.
 
 Unless a persons heads flow better than 99% of the those being used at the big lifts, there's not much to be gained by getting into all the clearance issues. The cam's timing events and lift rate plays much more roll than lift after a practical amount. Yes, we like to brag about big lift cams though.
 
 SKeown 


Posted By: Hornet_X
Date Posted: Jul/01/2010 at 9:44pm
.798-.799 with my dial caliper.
Very nice size wheel, and all the would have had to do was move the oil band for that lifter to work in a iron block.
(old comp amc part number i am refuring to)
Mike


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Jul/01/2010 at 9:53pm
 
 The oil band isn't the problem, it's the cutout for the wheel that exposes the oil galley.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: Jul/01/2010 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 The oil band isn't the problem, it's the cutout for the wheel that exposes the oil galley.
 
 SKeown
 
I agree.  When I pulled my comp lifter equipped engine back apart and watched the fountain of oil coming out from around the lifters, it was clear the cutout was the culprit. 


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: forest
Date Posted: Jul/01/2010 at 10:20pm
got a new lifter here today, will go to .418 lobe lift with a base circle of 1.168...   with a .811 dia roller wheel...   working on an even bigger shroud next week..

-------------
setting guys out by car lengths....


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Jul/20/2010 at 9:28pm
Forest, any new developments on the Crower lifters yet?


Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Aug/06/2010 at 11:38am
... bump for update on the Crower lifter?


Posted By: JD
Date Posted: Sep/04/2010 at 6:36am
Originally posted by Red Devil Red Devil wrote:

... bump for update on the Crower lifter?

?


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Sep/04/2010 at 10:31am
 
 I understand that Johnson Lifter Co has completed their AMC solid & hydraulic roller lifters and they are availiable now for sale. The pictures I've seen look good and have addressed the issue everyone is concerned about.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Sep/05/2010 at 10:52am

SKeown,

Where can we get some info (pics/prices/dimensions, etc) on these Johnson lifters?  I couldn't find much on the net.


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Sep/05/2010 at 11:18am
 
 Randy Guynn (Performance American Style) posted info & pictures on Hornet_x's AMC Drag Racing site.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: Aljav
Date Posted: Sep/05/2010 at 8:21pm
I was at the AMO meet in Michigan, They had a rep there and looks like the real deal. Problem solved. Jonson lifters  contact Joe Lewis product manager 1-800-860-4233 Taylor MI or Email  jlewis 5226 @aol.com, Joe is a really nice guy. He spent a lot of time talking to me and others and explaining the correction and the benefits of Johnson lifters over other brands and I agree they do like a very high Quality piece. A little bit more in cost but problem appears to be solved.

Allan 

-------------
69 AMX 9.86 132 mph 71 JAV/AMX and 69 Javelin, .. NAMDRA member #1106


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Sep/08/2010 at 7:18am

Judging from the pics, it appears that the length of the lifter skirt is still about the same as the old Crane or the new Comp Cams lifters.  It does not fully shroud the roller wheel.  So wouldn't the Johnson lifters still have the same "oil bleed-off" problem as the others do with cams approaching .700 valve lift.  Would still have to bush the lifter bores to avoid dumping oil pressure at max lift. 



Posted By: Aljav
Date Posted: Sep/08/2010 at 7:37am
What pics are you looking at?  the new lifter extend deep over the rollers and eliminate the bleed off with all other lifters.

Allan


-------------
69 AMX 9.86 132 mph 71 JAV/AMX and 69 Javelin, .. NAMDRA member #1106


Posted By: 73XBGT
Date Posted: Sep/09/2010 at 6:56am

My bad....I went back and looked at the pics again on http://amcdragracing.freeforums.org/post7182.html#p7182 - http://amcdragracing.freeforums.org/post7182.html#p7182

You're right - oil pressure problem solved for higher lift camsSmile
 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net