Good afternoon all, safe to say if you pull the solid lifter cam out of say a 1965 289 K code and install a hydraulic lifter cam.... you'll need to install compatible rods, lifters etc ? ... also, if the claim is made that the solid lifter cam was replaced with a matching spec hydraulic cam but the original K code rods, lifters etc were left in it... how would that effect the motor's operation?
Thank you!
In my experience cam and lifters should be replaced due to differing manufacturing specifications. And it's a no-no to mix different brands.
When you say "rods" I believe you mean the pushrods. I'D advise the same. Things get messy if you mix these things.
And as usual, somebody is going to reply that they do it call the time with no issues. Good for them.
Hi Scott,
Just a few comments and I hope it will help with your questions. First and most important any cam replacement done should have matched lifters. Pushrod length will depend on type of lifter chosen. So simple:you can't swap a solid type with a hydraulic type of cam....same with lifters. Cam technology has changed and the main math you need to choose the best for your engine involves several factors like the rear tire size-gear ratio-type of trans.-and RPM range that is desired for the engine to operate within. Once this is factored you can think about available cam type. Many engine builders are now suggesting roller cams and they are available with solid or hydraulic lifters. It is very important to research this to choose properly. May also suggest you talk to a few cam tech lines to learn more. Expect a wide varience in price. Be patient it is worth it
Valve springs must also match with cam specs. The cam is like the Brain of the engine
And for the best in power/torque output you need everything in harmony.
R.R.
Thanks RoadReptile and roddster.... these questions surround a K code coupe, 65 that isn't mine, but is for sale. Previous owner is said to have swapped the solid lifter for the hydraulic.... problem is no one can definitively say pushrods, lifters, springs etc were changed to accommodate the new cam. I have driven the car and runs well, but I'm not interested in purchase unless can verify what's in it. IMO if the K code solid lifter cam, rods, springs, lifters are gone, that's alot of K code not there!
Scott
Quote from: SCOTTGTK on August 25, 2025, 02:12:13 PM. . . . if you pull the solid lifter cam out of say a 1965 289 K code and install a hydraulic lifter cam.... you'll need to install compatible rods, lifters etc ? ...
Note that the "mechanical" camshaft is engineered with what is known as a "take-up ramp" on the lobe in the grinding process; this intended to close the "lash" value established in the valvetrain gently, before proceeding to the more aggressive flank area intended to lift the valve from it's seating in the head.
Hydraulic camshafts, since they don't possess a lash value don't require this take-up ramp, as the lifter is intended to always be in contact with the lobe surface.
And it is this difference that would cause difficulties, even to the point of a the major problem if mixing. If for example attempting to utilized a mechanical camshaft with hydraulic lifters the resultant "off-the-seat" duration would be exaggerated, this possibly to the point of creating drivability problems; and if trying to run the mechanical lifters on the hydraulic camshaft, this being without the take-up ramp, would cause excessive impact loading and possibly damage to the valvetrain componentry. ;)
Pushrods are a mechanical connection in the valvetrain who's length is determined by that which is necessary to do such, and not being based on whether the camshaft might be mechanical or hydraulic in nature. :)
Scott.
Pbf777, thank you so much! Either way you slice it, not a good idea!
The only thing you can check without a whole lot of work is pushrod length and do that by checking the contact between the rocker arm and the valve tip to see if that is good or not. Lots of articles and videos on how to do that if you don't know how to. Other than that, if you like the way it drives, I wouldn't worry about it. Almost any cam, retainer, spring setup will allow you to rev the engine to 5000RPM but if you want to go beyond that, then you might start checking spring pressures, which is not too hard to do on the engine or just pull a spring and check it. Anything more will require quite a bit of disassembly.
Roy
Thanks Roy, very helpful! I do like the drive and seems I can always source correct K code cam, lifters etc and rebuild as original.... there's a member as we speak on SAAC under "parts for sale" with K code internals as well as block for sale. I asked for pics. Thanks again! Scott
I think a K code without mechanical lifters would be a non starter for me. There's something about a mechanical cam that changes everything.
Yeah, I struggle with that thought as well Royce Peterson, then I think, this is numbers matching confirmed, I could get my hands on internals and make it whole again and it does get up and go now... torn..
Quote from: Royce Peterson on August 26, 2025, 10:40:13 AMI think a K code without mechanical lifters would be a non starter for me. There's something about a mechanical cam that changes everything.
Yeah, without the tickety-tick something would definitely be missing in the experience! :)
But, being greedy, I probably would "cheat" on the profile, at least a little, for something a bit more aggressive than the original! ;)
Scott.
pbf777, not sure what you mean... don't go back to original? Keep it the way it is?
Quote from: SCOTTGTK on August 26, 2025, 09:18:00 PMpbf777, not sure what you mean... don't go back to original? Keep it the way it is?
I read it as him saying he would go back mechanical but maybe to a slightly different mechanical cam with a slightly more aggressive profile for better performance. One that would not be very noticeably different sounding at idle. Just how his post came across to me.
Ahhh, I could see that also... thanks Bob. Do you have any thoughts on this Bob?
heck I would go with a nice hydraulic torque cam for the street.
forget about the solid ticking and mystique
that's what the old folks call nostalgia
these new modern torque cams will have your car blasting out like a rocket a the street stoplight derby's
use one of these torque monsters
Crower Torque Beast Performance Level 3 camshafts are an excellent choice if you require more power and an extended rpm range. They exhibit good low to midrange torque for normal everyday driving conditions.
And as always enjoy your day !
Quote from: SCOTTGTK on August 27, 2025, 04:18:59 AMAhhh, I could see that also... thanks Bob. Do you have any thoughts on this Bob?
My thoughts? I would stick with a similar to stock mechanical hipo grind if your car is about historic look and feel. You do what you think is best for you. ;)
Heard this at a show long ago about the solid litter tick: " they ain't supposed to sound like a sewing machine".
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 26, 2025, 09:37:16 PMI read it as him saying he would go back mechanical but maybe to a slightly different mechanical cam with a slightly more aggressive profile for better performance.
Correct. :)
Scott.
Quote from: roddster on August 27, 2025, 10:18:02 AMHeard this at a show long ago about the solid litter tick: " they ain't supposed to sound like a sewing machine".
If your familiar with and have an ear for engines, you'll know in a jiffy if it's got a mechanical cam! ;)
And if you were a racer back in the day, you learned real quick what to listen for! 8)
Scott.
still think this guy is correct with the hydraulic stump puller cam and everyone knows that in a street race you win in the first hundred feet
set it and forget it
but nostalgia keeps them all tied down
Quote from: FL SAAC on August 27, 2025, 07:39:29 AMheck I would go with a nice hydraulic torque cam for the street.
forget about the solid ticking and mystique
that's what the old folks call nostalgia
these new modern torque cams will have your car blasting out like a rocket a the street stoplight derby's
use one of these torque monsters
Crower Torque Beast Performance Level 3 camshafts are an excellent choice if you require more power and an extended rpm range. They exhibit good low to midrange torque for normal everyday driving conditions.
And as always enjoy your day !
I would never give up my solid lifters!
Someone it seems, is under the impression that "hydraulic" camshafts will automatically provide greater [low-speed] "torque" than a comparably intentioned "mechanical" example. ???
Well this just isn't true. Actually, as if taken advantage of, and the reason the mechanical cams existed and revered in the muscle car era (and beyond), is due to the fact that the camshaft's lobe profile can be more aggressive with greater acceleration imparted to the mechanical lifter vs. the hydraulic version. And this means that one actually has the option of being able to provide the same or greater valve opening area in equal or even less off the seat duration. ;)
So, since it's the "off the seat" valve duration that is probably the greatest consideration for drivability, and we realize that simply stated: "shorter = better", "longer = poorer", why would we just automatically expect poorer drivability from the solid? :-\
Of course, this is so long as we don't get 'greedy' in selection of the mechanical cam, aka. just don't go to the bottom of the catalog page for the the BIG ONE! ::)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on August 27, 2025, 01:36:04 PMSomeone it seems, is under the impression that "hydraulic" camshafts will automatically provide greater [low-speed] "torque" than a comparably intentioned "mechanical" example. ???
Well this just isn't true. Actually, as if taken advantage of, and the reason the mechanical cams existed and revered in the muscle car era (and beyond), is due to the fact that the camshaft's lobe profile can be more aggressive with greater acceleration imparted to the mechanical lifter vs. the hydraulic version. And this means that one actually has the option of being able to provide the same or greater valve opening area in equal or even less off the seat duration. ;)
So, since it's the "off the seat" valve duration that is probably the greatest consideration for drivability, and we realize that simply stated: "shorter = better", "longer = poorer", why would we just automatically expect poorer drivability from the solid? :-\
Of course, this is so long as we don't get 'greedy' in selection of the mechanical cam, aka. just don't go to the bottom of the catalog page for the the BIG ONE! ::)
Scott.
Sometimes you need to consider that just because a person knows how to jack up the post count doesn't mean that they understand anything about engines that someone else has spoonfed them. Of course ridiculous conversation with retired attorneys and accountants trumps 50 years of actually building engines. So maybe you need to adjust your expectations.
Sometimes you need to consider that just because a person knows how to jack up the post count doesn't mean that they understand anything about engines that someone else has spoonfed them. Of course ridiculous conversation with retired attorneys and accountants trumps 50 years of actually building engines. So maybe you need to adjust your expectations.
Now that's a Solid point :)
I just find solid lifter cams easier to deal with, more precise specifications and that logic is clearer to me.
With a hydraulic lifter cam, you aren't getting 100% of what the lift specs are and because of the varying possibilities caused or controlled by oil pressure in the lifter, you never will know exactly what you are getting.
The only untruth in a solid lifter cam is that no one has told you the actual lift at the valve is minus the lash setting.
Now if you asked about a hydraulic roller lifter, that would be more logical but there are give aways there also.
First off, the lifter has the same lack of accuracy of actual lift per cylinder and second, some systems like the Ford roller lifter system are limited to about .550" valve lift because of the lifter retaining horse shoe.
So if you are attempting to come closer to maximizing power by maximizing lift and keeping duration at a comfortable level, with an FE you are actually handicapping yourself since you really are looking for actual valve lifts in the .588 to .600 area.
I'm not sure what the fear is of a solid lifter cam since the lash is adjusted with the engine off and is set that way quite accurately. It will stay that way with a roller lifter rocker arm for at least 25,000 miles and even then, you are just adjusting for wear in the valve train.
A definite plus with a roller lifter though is that they usually are cut with a steeper ramp which enables a smoother idle with the same top end as the solid or "performance hydraulic" does. That is a good thing it offers.
Picking a hydraulic lifter cam because it is quieter is also not necessarily true. That depends on the type of lifter you use and the anti-pump up versions often sound just like a solid lifter engine. Those also wear faster then a standard production hydraulic lifter and much faster then a solid. That effects actual valve lift specs, that being, NOT what the manufacturer has told you that it is.
So really, it isn't a simple answer as to which to use and often just depends on your personal preferences based upon your previous experience.
Quote from: JohnSlack on August 27, 2025, 02:29:38 PMSo maybe you need to adjust your expectations.
Probably right; but I was thinking, since this is suppose to be a "technical" forum subject of possible learning or to just be informative aid for some individuals, this perhaps utilized as a reference both now and in the future, it would be better if postings were at least a somewhat accurate representation of the facts. :)
But then as for others, there might still be hope; after all the idea of "No Child Left Behind" at least sounded good! ::)
Scott.
All, this is amazing info and insight and I greatly appreciate it. At the end of the day, this car I have my eyes on is not a concours, but is done very nicely, has a few modern updates with the interior, but the engine bay is very stock in appearance and I like that personally. Should I buy this car and down the road sell it, I worry if it's not solid lifter tickey tacky that would detract from someone looking to buy it. that being said I also enjoy the thought of more modern performance internally to keep that 1965 stock appearance. I'm currently trying to determine what actual cam and lifter, spring etc configuration is in it... it runs very strong as it sits now so I can enjoy for the time being and plan next move. The bottom end is hipo(confirmed). T
The carb while not the original is a 4100 C4GF-E from GottaFish and works well! Again, very helpful and if you think of anything else, please post!
Scott
Quote from: SCOTTGTK on August 28, 2025, 11:25:37 AMAll, this is amazing info and insight and I greatly appreciate it. At the end of the day, this car I have my eyes on is not a concours, but is done very nicely, has a few modern updates with the interior, but the engine bay is very stock in appearance and I like that personally. Should I buy this car and down the road sell it, I worry if it's not solid lifter tickey tacky that would detract from someone looking to buy it. that being said I also enjoy the thought of more modern performance internally to keep that 1965 stock appearance. I'm currently trying to determine what actual cam and lifter, spring etc configuration is in it... it runs very strong as it sits now so I can enjoy for the time being and plan next move. The bottom end is hipo(confirmed). T
I'm sorry but I believe you are overthinking this. Perhaps it's because as a motor guy a cam swap is a small job. Yes there are factors to be considered, however we know that there are good HiPo cams around and we know that someone still has a box of old NOS lifters around. I no longer build customer engines with a solid lifter cam, due to the deteriorating ability to buy a good cam core and lifters are suspect now as well. So for the present I only use solid roller cams. There are a couple of those that would work in a stock HiPo build.
John
Quote from: SCOTTGTK on August 28, 2025, 11:28:32 AMThe carb while not the original is a 4100 C4GF-E from GottaFish and works well! Again, very helpful and if you think of anything else, please post!
Scott
Scott if you would be as kind to provide the contact info for the carburetor repair shop, I and others would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advance
FL SAAC, I didn't have anything to do with the carb, it's just what the previous owner used.. The Company is Gottafish Carbureators... sorry.
Scott
My final comment on this: If I was going to go with a hydraulic cam, it would certainly be a hydraulic roller. New technology baby. Then yes, pushrods are different.