Solid lifter cam VS Hydraulic lifter cam

[Bob Gaines]

Ahhh, 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.

[roddster]

Heard this at a show long ago about the solid litter tick: " they ain't supposed to sound like a sewing machine".

[pbf777]

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.

    Correct. 

    Scott.
   

[pbf777]

Heard 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! 

    Scott.

[FL SAAC]

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

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 !

[hertzz350]

I would never give up my solid lifters!

[pbf777]

    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.

[JohnSlack]

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.

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.

[Lincoln tech]

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 

[shelbydoug]

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.

[pbf777]

So 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.

[SCOTTGTK]

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

[SCOTTGTK]

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

[JohnSlack]

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

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

[FL SAAC]

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

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