“Video” Another Possible Hydraulic Roller Lifter Failure?

[RemCharger]

I went back through my post and re read everyone’s comments and this one struck me. What would cause the lifer being so far in the lifter bore?

View attachment 1851027

The roller bearings smashed out

 

[70ChargerRT]

The roller bearings smashed out

Nice!

 

[RemCharger]

Nice!

I went over the thread,, it had been mentioned, but no one caught the trashed lobe. It all makes more sense why the tie bar ripped in half. And the hyd lifter would cover the noise as ot was dying. A solid would not

 

[70ChargerRT]

I went over the thread,, it had been mentioned, but no one caught the trashed lobe. It all makes more sense why the tie bar ripped in half. And the hyd lifter would cover the noise as ot was dying. A solid would not

Just tore it apart. Cant get both lifters out but the roller wheels are still there and they still roll. Just not all the way because they are flat.

 

[PRHeads]

The way I look at it is……..

The HR cam in a street/strip type build is appealing
because, in addition to the extra high lift area the roller lobe profile can provide(potentially allowing increased power output)….. it gets you away from the cam failures that are fairly prevalent these days.
The down side, in addition to the extra cost is……..you’ve added a lot of extra parts to the valvetrain system.
A SFT lifter is basically one piece.

The HR lifter has wheels, axles, needle bearings, link bars, and link bar attaching hardware.
And every one of those extra pieces creates an opportunity for a failure.

 

[PRHeads]

Mancini rockers and hold downs?

 

[King Kong]

Here is some interesting information that may pertain to your failure:



and

Lifters, Lash and Preload. What you don’t know won’t hurt you, or will it? - Gwatney Performance


I suspect even the Trickflow Flow Dyno results were limited by valvetrain stability rather than the trick flow heads flow capacity ... look at the valve train specs 1.5 ratio rockers and 1.6 ratio rockers between the two builds and RPM attained. I doubt the TF heads were limiting the RPM.

270 1.6 HS rockers
https://static.trickflow.com/global...1*vtude9*_gcl_au*MTIxODkxMTU5Ni4xNzQ0NTg3NDI1

240 1.5 HS rockers
https://static.trickflow.com/global...*12o4032*_gcl_au*MTIxODkxMTU5Ni4xNzQ0NTg3NDI1


TF claim the cam peak is 6500rpm but the valvetrain is limiting it to under and just over 6000rpm respectively is my theory. I believe the cause was the wrong valve springs were used for the HR lifters.

 

[PRHeads]

There’s been one TF top end combo on the dyno here.
TF heads, cam, lifters, rockers.
Started showing signs of unhappiness by 5800.

The TF heads with the “middle” spring package have plenty of load for their HR cam to go over 6000, but the lifters are a big player in whether or not that can be achieved.

Also, higher ratio rockers will amplify that situation as they give the lifter more of a workout(the lifter sees the spring pressure x the rocker ratio).

 

[70ChargerRT]

Mancini rockers and hold downs?

Yes 1.6

 

[PRHeads]

Before removal, did you check to see that the rocker pairs had “some” side to side clearance?

The reason I ask is, on Ede or Stealth heads…….they’re “snug” without relieving something.

I wouldn’t be worried about the rub marks on the hold downs, as long as I knew they had some clearance.

When bolting together a top end consisting of parts from various manufacturers……….it rarely doesn’t need something “finessed”.

 

[King Kong]

There’s been one TF top end combo on the dyno here.
TF heads, cam, lifters, rockers.
Started showing signs of unhappiness by 5800.

The TF heads with the “middle” spring package have plenty of load for their HR cam to go over 6000, but the lifters are a big player in whether or not that can be achieved.

I have been told by Howard's tech person the TF/Howards/ Morel 91767 have a design open LBS limit at just over 380lbs and seat limit of 180 lbs. Lifters call for open install of between 130 and 140 lbs and on the nose of 380 not less not more. Need the correct light weight oil too.

1.6 ratio rockers caused the dyno peak to nose over earlier because of the higher spring pressure on the HR lifters. Springs were also likely further from coil bind than desired.

HR valve train is scalpel
SR valve train is a sledgehammer

just my humble theory....

 

[70ChargerRT]

Before removal, did you check to see that the rocker pairs had “some” side to side clearance?

The reason I ask is, on Ede or Stealth heads…….they’re “snug” without relieving something.

I wouldn’t be worried about the rub marks on the hold downs, as long as I knew they had some clearance.

Yes they had clearance.

 

[70ChargerRT]

I have been told by Howard's tech person the TF/Howards/ Morel 91767 have a design open LBS limit at just over 380lbs and seat limit of 180 lbs. Lifters call for open install of between 130 and 140 lbs and on the nose of 380 not less not more. Need the correct light weight oil too.

1.6 ratio rockers caused the dyno peak to nose over earlier because of the higher spring pressure on the HR lifters. Springs were also likely further from coil bind than desired.

HR valve train is scalpel
SR valve train is a sledgehammer

just my humble theory....

These are the springs that were on it. Talked to to my engine builder. I remember him mentioning the lifters at 130-140 and cant remember the nose number and he absolutely argued with the oil weight didn’t matter. After the brake in oil he had me running the hot rod driven 15-50 i think but i made the switch to 10-40 around the 1000 mile Mark. Like i said this engine was almost getting ready to turn 2k miles.

 

[PRHeads]

Thus far, my impression of the OP’s situation is…….failed parts were not up to the job.

Fix what’s broke, get new “better” lifters, put it back together, and try to move on.

 

[King Kong]

These are the springs that were on it. Talked to to my engine builder. I remember him mentioning the lifters at 130-140 and cant remember the nose number and he absolutely argued with the oil weight didn’t matter. After the brake in oil he had me running the hot rod driven 15-50 i think but i made the switch to 10-40 around the 1000 mile Mark. Like i said this engine was almost getting ready to turn 2k miles.

View attachment 1851141

I looked at your Cam spec and the lobe lift was lower that then TF cam therefore reducing the load the HR lifter were seeing with the 1.6 rockers by comparison. If I recall correctly you were not too far off the 380lbs over then nose that was required. I will do the calc again and report back.

That all been said there is an option to substantially lighten the valve side of the rocker shaft assembly which is help the HR roller lifters at higher RPM.
Lighter oil will effect the response time of the HR lifter to system change especially at higher rpm. Howards said the lifters preferred the light weight oils.

 

[70ChargerRT]

I looked at your Cam spec and the lobe lift was lower that then TF cam therefore reducing the load the HR lifter were seeing with the 1.6 rockers by comparison. If I recall correctly you were not too far off the 380lbs over then nose that was required. I will do the calc again and report back.

That all been said there is an option to substantially lighten the valve side of the rocker shaft assembly which is help the HR roller lifters at higher RPM.
Lighter oil will effect the response time of the HR lifter to system change especially at higher rpm. Howards said the lifters preferred the light weight oils.

Ok thanks!

 

[70ChargerRT]

Thus far, my impression of the OP’s situation is…….failed parts were not up to the job.

Fix what’s broke, get new “better” lifters, put it back together, and try to move on.

So you think the lifters collapsed then broke the links, dropped in the hole and wiped the cam out?

 

[King Kong]

So you think the lifters collapsed then broke the links, dropped in the hole and wiped the cam out?

My guess is lifter lost control hammered the roller bearings then flat spotted roller and then took out cam lobe and then broke link bar.
just my theory again...

 

[King Kong]

So you think the lifters collapsed then broke the links, dropped in the hole and wiped the cam out?

My theory is all based on the premise that the engine saw anywhere near the RPM that would cause valvetrain instability. If this was not the case the cause of your failure lies somewhere else.

 

[PRHeads]

I’m of the opinion that the link bars just failed, and once that happened and the lifter turned in the bore……it was game over.

I don’t think it had anything to do with the springs.

That being said, I can see where the OP’s cam(which has a fairly high rate), coupled with 1.6 rockers and those Morel lifters could start to be problematic at rpm’s over 57-5800.
So, if that was happening regularly, there was likely some unhappy dynamics going on that could have contributed to the failure.