Lifter differences

[PRHeads]

The lifter on the left appears to have a pushrod seat correct for the 68-newer pushrods.

I would be inclined to get two to match those, and update all the pushrods to the 68-newer style.
Rather than risking breaking in 16 new lifters.

Besides the 67-earlier pushrods having the smaller tip on one end, they’re also slightly longer than the 68-newer ones.

The lifter on the left is the Sealed-power HT-2011(or equivalent) style.

 

[roadrunnerh]

I saw this thread, and thought I might add these lifters to the mix.

Howards Cams 91711 Howards Cams Performance Hydraulic Lifters | Summit Racing

Free Shipping - Howards Cams Performance Hydraulic Lifters with qualifying orders of $109. Shop Lifters at Summit Racing.

www.summitracing.com

Howards Cams makes the purple shaft cams for Mancini Racing. These are also identical in appearance as the Mopar Performance lifter offered by Mancini.
Comp Cams 812-16 has a slightly lower seat height, 1.880 vs Howards 91711, 1.892.
Any problems if running stock pushrods?

 

[nutz4spd]

So I swapped in two of the new lifters on #8 cylinder and the knocking went away. So far. It's not idling smoothly though and when I was breaking the new lifters in it popped through the exhaust twice during the 20 minutes. After taking the stethoscope around it after break in, I'm hearing faint "off" sounds around some of the other rockers. I'm going to install the other 14 lifters and give it a go. Worst case I'll end up with a good excuse to rebuild it.

 

[PRHeads]

I don’t know what lifters came with more recent actual “MP” brand of BB Hyd purple shaft cams, but the last ones I had my hands on still came with the “correct” BB style 68-newer lifter.
That is, 5/16” pushrod seat, thin & high oil band, no pushrod oiling hole in pushrod seat.

Take a good look at the bottoms of the old lifters when you pull them out.
Look for tell tale signs of some unhappiness.

 

[nutz4spd]

For reference, the old lifter is on the left. The HT-2011 is on the right. Seats are different and accommodate the newer push rods. Mine are not. The HT-2011 is also shorter like the original early BB lifters I picked up. I'm going to assume that these lifters came with whatever cam he put in here. Do cams have part numbers on them that you could see without having to pull it out? Just wondering...

 

[RemCharger]

For reference, the old lifter is on the left. The HT-2011 is on the right. Seats are different and accommodate the newer push rods. Mine are not. The HT-2011 is also shorter like the original early BB lifters I picked up. I'm going to assume that these lifters came with whatever cam he put in here. Do cams have part numbers on them that you could see without having to pull it out? Just wondering...

View attachment 1657900

View attachment 1657902

View attachment 1657903

No, but if you had a dial indicator with an extension, you could measure lift.. and possibly extrapolate the grind. Signs of purple paint?

 

[nutz4spd]

No, but if you had a dial indicator with an extension, you could measure lift.. and possibly extrapolate the grind. Signs of purple paint?

Yes.. the front of the cam is pink.

 

[RemCharger]

Yes.. the front of the cam is pink.

View attachment 1657913

Since you have the lid off, get a dial indicator and measure them up! Could be a .455 .480 .484 .509 etc etc

 

[nutz4spd]

Since you have the lid off, get a dial indicator and measure them up! Could be a .455 .480 .484 .509 etc etc

Actually that's an older picture from last year. The lid is on tight right now. I'll have to pick up a dial indicator anyways.

 

[PRHeads]

You’re right.
The one on the right is the HT-2011 style.

I don’t recall ever seeing a “small block” style body with that type of pushrod seat, like the one on the left.

 

[Geoff 2]

If only you could look at a lifter.....& see if it is 'good'. But you cannot.......
A junk Chinese lifter looks just as good next to an American made lifter of 25 yrs ago....
I would NOT use the lifter shown on the right in post #25. It has a huge chamfer on the base. If the chamfer eats up 0.030", then the .904 lifter becomes a 0.844" lifter. Chebby size.
Some of the lobes for Chrys cams utilise the full 904 diam....for more lift & area under the curve. Using a lifter with a large chamfer could cause the lifter to 'dig in' to the lobe.
It just makes you wonder how many times it has to be said on this forum & others: if you not want lobe/lifter failure, have some 25 yr old factory lifters re-faced.

 

[Krooser]

If only you could look at a lifter.....& see if it is 'good'. But you cannot.......
A junk Chinese lifter looks just as good next to an American made lifter of 25 yrs ago....
I would NOT use the lifter shown on the right in post #25. It has a huge chamfer on the base. If the chamfer eats up 0.030", then the .904 lifter becomes a 0.844" lifter. Chebby size.
Some of the lobes for Chrys cams utilise the full 904 diam....for more lift & area under the curve. Using a lifter with a large chamfer could cause the lifter to 'dig in' to the lobe.
It just makes you wonder how many times it has to be said on this forum & others: if you not want lobe/lifter failure, have some 25 yr old factory lifters re-faced.

You are preaching the Mopar Gospel my friend .

A cam ground on a core made for a Mopar 903 lifter offers almost the same performance as a roller lifter yet so many guys downgrade to the Chevy size shelf grind cam.

Most every serious Chevy race build includes machining the lifter bores for a 903 or larger lifter. There is a reason for that.

Keep the faith...

 

[PRHeads]

I would NOT use the lifter shown on the right in post #25. It has a huge chamfer on the base. If the chamfer eats up 0.030", then the .904 lifter becomes a 0.844" lifter. Chebby size.

That one is pretty bad.

I don’t understand how that got to be the norm these days.
Used to be there was barely any chamfer at all. Just something to break the edge.
I have a set of nos Crane lifters that are at least 30 years old.
Almost no chamfer.

 

[nutz4spd]

The ones I bought didn't have a chamfer on the base. They measured either .900 or .905.. . I can't remember which.

 

[padam]

That one is pretty bad.

I don’t understand how that got to be the norm these days.
Used to be there was barely any chamfer at all. Just something to break the edge.
I have a set of nos Crane lifters that are at least 30 years old.
Almost no chamfer.

View attachment 1658445

My guess is the chamfer is put on by hand.
Where I work one of the parts we wake gets the final side deburred by hand on a belt sander, only .010” required.
Over time some of the guys get heavier and heavier with the deburring. It seems a common problem to me.

 

[PRHeads]

In one of the last Powell Machine lifter videos, he shows some up close looks at the edge of a few lifters.
Magnified, you can see there is some noticeable fracturing of the edge.

My guess is the heavy chamfering is an effort to mitigate the edge fracturing………without regards for what that does to the usable “foot print” of the lifter.

I was a dealer for Ultra Dyne when they were still around, and remember when they introduced their fast rate cams(NF series) for the various lifter diameters(.842, .875, .904.
Harold(the owner and lobe designer) told me those lobe designs would get to within about .017” of the edge of the lifter size it was designed for.
And the “Super NF”(which were .842 only) got to about.013” from the edge.

The lifters with the large chamfers can reduce the available diameter enough to where the profile gets all the way to the edge of the chamfer.
When that happens, failure is imminent.

 

[oldkimmer]

You’re right.
The one on the right is the HT-2011 style.

I don’t recall ever seeing a “small block” style body with that type of pushrod seat, like the one on the left.

View attachment 1657940

Neither have I. Kim