Noisy Ford Racing Retrofit Roller Lifters

[1969 Mach1 14]

First of all this is in a 1969 351w block. I am running Ford Racing's (I think they are Crane) retrofit hydraulic roller lifters with a Comp Cam 284 Magnum hydraulic roller camshaft. Because I am using these lifters Comp ground this cam with a standard size lobe base circle instead of the small lobe base circle found on retrofit roller cams. I get very little oil to my rocker arms and the valve train is noisy. I am running Scorpion Platimun series rocker arms and have the adjusted the poly locks 1/2 turn past zero lash following both Comp Cam's and Crane's insrtuctions. Oil pressure is good, 40 psi at idle with a stock Melling oil pump and 10W-40 dino oil.

 

Anybody else have issue like this? I can tighten up on the adjustment to try to reduce the noise, but is very little oil to the rocker arms normal with this type of lifter? Before dropping in the lifters I spun the oil pump and the lifter oil passages are flooded with oil. But drop in the lifters and very little gets up to the rocker arms.

 

Any info is appreciated.

[LindenBruce 27]

That's not normal I would think. Is it possible the lifters at full lift are clearing the rim of their bores just slightly and bleeding out oil? You should be getting some good flow over your rocker arms. Bruce

[1969 Mach1 14]

That's not normal I would think. Is it possible the lifters at full lift are clearing the rim of their bores just slightly and bleeding out oil? You should be getting some good flow over your rocker arms. Bruce

 

Funny thing is I didn't have this problem when I was running Ford Racing's X303 cam in this motor. The X303 has slightly more lift which means a slightly smaller lobe base circle. There may other differences, I don't know. I suspect the problem is where these lifters are positioned in their bore with the Comp 284 Magnum cam. I will admit, with this Comp Cam, when priming the oil pump with the lifters and valvetrain installed and intake manifold off I could see oil bubbling out the top of some of the lifter bores.

 

My cheapest fix might be to reinstall an X303 cam again. I thought of trying the Z303 or a TFS stage 2 cam, but they seem slightly too much and street manners might suffer. Any other thoughts before I open the motor up again?

Edited March 15, 2012 by 1969 Mach1

[sportsroof69 13]

Did you measure for the correct pushrod length?

[Lemon Owner 11]

It could also be the lifters are sitting above the oil hole for most of their travel and not getting full pressure. I read somewhere that the retrofit cams have a much smaller base circle than the normal roller cams due to the lower lifter bore height.

[69RavenConv 286]

I read somewhere that the retrofit cams have a much smaller base circle than the normal roller cams due to the lower lifter bore height.

 

+1 ... I thought the reduced base circle is required on all vintage blocks because the taller roller rockers will jump the old-school bores designed for conventional (short) lifters. And, as sportsroof pointed out, a full size base circle cam with tall roller rockers would require shorter pushrods to compensate. I'm probably just confused, it happens a lot.:smile:

[LindenBruce 27]

Funny thing is I didn't have this problem when I was running Ford Racing's X303 cam in this motor. The X303 has slightly more lift which means a slightly smaller lobe base circle. There may other differences, I don't know. I suspect the problem is where these lifters are positioned in their bore with the Comp 284 Magnum cam. I will admit, with this Comp Cam, when priming the oil pump with the lifters and valvetrain installed and intake manifold off I could see oil bubbling out the top of some of the lifter bores.

 

My cheapest fix might be to reinstall an X303 cam again. I thought of trying the Z303 or a TFS stage 2 cam, but they seem slightly too much and street manners might suffer. Any other thoughts before I open the motor up again?

 

A little bleed off at the top as you said should not be the problem. As long as the oil groove around the lifter is not clearing the bore at max lift.

As you said, the problem seems to be with the lobe base circle on your 284 cam. If you had no problems with the previous cam then that's your answer given nothing else has changed.

 

As someone else suggested it sounds like your lifters are not getting full oil pressure. We need further info on your valve train components and anything else that may have been changed when you did the cam. Bruce

[BigDuke6 17]

Did you measure for the correct pushrod length?

 

that is just what I was thinking after I read that he had a different cam in there before.

[1969 Mach1 14]

+1 ... I thought the reduced base circle is required on all vintage blocks because the taller roller rockers will jump the old-school bores designed for conventional (short) lifters. And, as sportsroof pointed out, a full size base circle cam with tall roller rockers would require shorter pushrods to compensate. I'm probably just confused, it happens a lot.:smile:

 

I did measure and install shorter pushrods. If I remember they are 7.600" long. The roller tip on the rockers are centered on the valve tips as the valves open and close. As far as what was replaced when changing cams, it was only the camshaft, gaskets, oil, and filter. No other valve train components were changed.

 

I wonder if the FRP camshafts (AKA Crane) have slightly smaller base circles than Comp's to begin with? I have called FRP's tech support and they tell me there should not be any issues. But, have they actually ran these liters in a 1969 351W block. I'd try a different brand of retrofit lifter but these things are just way overpriced to begin with. I also thought of going to a flat tappet cam but I don't think I can get my money out of these lifters.

Edited March 15, 2012 by 1969 Mach1

[1969 Mach1 14]

It could also be the lifters are sitting above the oil hole for most of their travel and not getting full pressure. I read somewhere that the retrofit cams have a much smaller base circle than the normal roller cams due to the lower lifter bore height.

 

 

That is exactly what seems like is happening. I know the newer roller lifter compatable blocks have taller lifter bosses. But, I haven't found anybody or other resource that knows if the lifter oil passages on these older non roller blocks are in the same location as on newer roller lifter blocks.

[Doogie 10]

You can not run retro roller lifters with a standard base circle cam. You will not get enough oil to the top end. The lifter is blocking the oil passage. You need a small base circle cam. I built a 351W stroker with a roller cam so I have been down this road before.

[BigDuke6 17]

You can not run retro roller lifters with a standard base circle cam. You will not get enough oil to the top end. The lifter is blocking the oil passage. You need a small base circle cam. I built a 351W stroker with a roller cam so I have been down this road before.

 

yours is the opposite of my experience. I am running a standard base circle cam with retro fit, link bar lifters, comp cams part number 8931-16. These are the spendy ones at $545 for the set. Engine has been torn down and inspected after 3k miles and everything looks fine. This was one of the things I verified with Troy Bowen at Avenger Cylinder Heads / Ford Performance Solutions who ported my heads and intake and custom ground me a hydraulic roller cam with a standard base circle. He assured me that in his experience, which I am certain eclipses mine and yours put together, there are no issues running a standard base circle cam with retro fit, link bar lifters.

 

If I recall correctly, the oiling holes on the retro-fit link bar lifters are relocated so that they can work with the earlier non-roller blocks.

 

You have to use a small base circle cam when using the spider or the dog bone and the non-link bar lifters.

 

If this is not the case, I am in for a heap load of problems in the near future.

Edited March 16, 2012 by BigDuke6

[1969 Mach1 14]

First, I have heard what BigDuke6 stated from Ford Racing's Tech,

 

"If I recall correctly, the oiling holes on the retro-fit link bar lifters are relocated so that they can work with the earlier non-roller blocks."

 

"You have to use a small base circle cam when using the spider or the dog bone and the non-link bar lifters."

 

 

Second, however, I am experiencing what Doogie stated in his post,

 

"You can not run retro roller lifters with a standard base circle cam. You will not get enough oil to the top end. The lifter is blocking the oil passage. You need a small base circle cam. I built a 351W stroker with a roller cam so I have been down this road before."

 

I will add, when this motor originally had a flat tappet cam the top end oiled significantly. I suspect if you run a standard base circle cam with enough lift these retrofit lifters will work and oil sufficiently. Simply because as the lift increases the base circle decreases allowing the lifter to drop down further into the lifter boss.

 

I have heard of alot of people running these retrofit lifters with standard base circle cams but don't know what type of lift their cams had. I am curious how much lift the cam has that BigDuke6 is running?

[BigDuke6 17]

I am curious how much lift the cam has that BigDuke6 is running?

 

Well, I'll tell you. While it is not a huge cam, I would it call a healthy cam. More duration and intake lift than a Magnum 290 but only slightly less lift on the exhaust

 

- 108 LSA

- LIFT: INT 560 , EXH 540

- DURATION AT .50 DEG: INT 236 , EXH 240

Edited March 16, 2012 by BigDuke6

[BigDuke6 17]

ONe thing. If I understand correctly, there were no issues when you were running the X303, correct? From what I have read, the X303 is a standard base circle cam. It may very well be that Comp sent you a reduced base circle cam. If so, my uninformed opinion is that your problem may very well be that you have the wrong lifters mated to your current cam. Those lifters worked fine on the X303, which should be a standard base circle cam and which is what they were designed for. Now, they are not working on a supposedly custom grind Comp Cams 284, which may actually be a reduced base circle cam.

 

are you certain you got a custom grind cam from Comp with a standard base circle?

Edited March 16, 2012 by BigDuke6

[1969 Mach1 14]

BigDuke6,

 

The story goes like this. This motor originally had a small custom grind flat tappet solid lifter cam. With that I had plenty of oil to the rocker arms even though the cam manufacturer told me the solid lifters he supplied with this cam had build in restrictors to reduce oil to the rocker arms. Well, it didn't take long for me to get tired of having to adjust the valves on a hot motor.

 

I then converted to a hydraulic roller cam setup. I purchased the FRP retrofit lifters and as my first of a few cam choices, an off-the-shelf Comp Cam 281HR Magnum standard base circle hydraulic roller cam, correct length push rods and valve springs. This 281 HR cam has 0.512" valve lift and the result was absolutely no oil to the rocker arms and as much valve train noise as the original solid flat tappet cam had. I then pulled the 281 HR and replaced it with an FRP X303. The X303 has 0.542" lift and with that I had a fair ammount of oil to the rocker arms and very little valve train noise. Not completely happy with the X303, the FRP cams seems to act alot smaller than their advertized specs would indicate, I special ordered the Comp Cam 284HR with a standard base circle. Now I have more valvetrain noise and very little oil to the rocker arms.

 

The pattern with these retrofit lifters and standard base circle cams has been: increasing the lift reduses the lobe base circle size and the smaller the base circle the more oil I get to the rocker arms and the less noise there is.

 

I know this is not what tech support tell me but it is what myself, and it seems Doogie, have experienced.

 

I am not sure how to proceed yet. I definetely don't want to keep running the motor as it is.

Edited March 16, 2012 by 1969 Mach1

[Lemon Owner 11]

I think it is time to take some measurements of the lifter oil hole height. Then cross reference it to the cam base and full lift heights. That will give you the real truth. It will only cost a little in a new intake gasket set.

[PaleRider 12]

I'm running a XE 274 Comp cam and my valve train is noisey also. I had it checked by local engine builder and he said it was normal and some cams are noisier than otheres. I did a search on Comp Cam XE cams and found a lot of posts on having similiar complaints. You did not menton it but I'm assumiong you are running and Xetreme energy cams also.

[BigDuke6 17]

I'm running a XE 274 Comp cam and my valve train is noisey also. I had it checked by local engine builder and he said it was normal and some cams are noisier than otheres. I did a search on Comp Cam XE cams and found a lot of posts on having similiar complaints. You did not menton it but I'm assumiong you are running and Xetreme energy cams also.

 

I am sure he can live with just noisy. I think his issue is that he is not getting oil to the lifters.

[1969 Mach1 14]

I am running a Comp 284 Magnum camshaft that Comp custom ground on a standard base circle because their off-the-shelf 284 Magnum was a small base circle style.

 

I have also read alot of complaints of valvetrain noise when running a Comp Xtreme Energy camshaft. Isky Cams has an interesting tech article on the lobe profile style used on Xtreme Energy cams that explains its positive and negative attributes.

 

At this point I think I will open up the motor starting with the intake, a pair of rocker arms and lifters then start taking some measurements. I think I would tollerate some noise knowing everything was oiling correctly.

Edited March 19, 2012 by 1969 Mach1

[69gmachine 15]

I am running the comp cams link bar HR lifters and a regular base circle cam with no problems, but that doesn't mean that a batch wasn't made wrong. It does sound like the oil hole is too high causing the oil starvation, but it shouldn't be with these lifters.

 

I'm also quite certain that they don't adjust the base circle based on lift. It's either a production base circle, a reduced base circle (which I don't recommend as I blew an engine when I over revved it with one) and then there are large base circle racing cams that use a 55mm journal and roller bearings.

 

So take them out and measure them. I will take a measurement of one of mine that I replaced when it was damaged due to another issue.

Edited March 19, 2012 by 69gmachine
context

[1969 Mach1 14]

Using your terminology, the 284 Magnum I am running is a production base circle. The link bar HR lifters are from Ford Racing, made by Crane, that I purchased new 6 or 7 years ago whenever Crane first started making them.

 

Maybe I am not using the correct terminology as far as base, and base circle. However, I have seen alot of camshafts, both roller and flat tappet. As lift increases the nose of the lobe doesn't increase in height but material is removed from the base of the lobe. Thus, dropping the lifter further into its bore when the lifter is riding over base of the lobe. Is that correct?

[69gmachine 15]

How are you determining that material is removed from the base of the lobe? If they made cams that way then the oil hole on the lifter would have to be moved up or down for different ranges of camshift lift.

 

It's very possible that they changed the base circle when they went from a flat tappet cam to a hyd roller, as they changed just about everything at the same time; block, lifters and cam.

 

The only way to determine if the base circle is reduced (other than calling a cam company which is probably the easiest thing to do) would be to measure off the centerline of the cam, which would require some kind of fixture.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if all the link bar HR lifters weren't made by the same manufacturer, and everyone just puts their own label on them. They all look suspiciously the same and are about the same price.

 

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but if I was to wager a bet, I'm sticking with my original statement.

[Lemon Owner 11]

Using your terminology, the 284 Magnum I am running is a production base circle. The link bar HR lifters are from Ford Racing, made by Crane, that I purchased new 6 or 7 years ago whenever Crane first started making them.

 

Maybe I am not using the correct terminology as far as base, and base circle. However, I have seen alot of camshafts, both roller and flat tappet. As lift increases the nose of the lobe doesn't increase in height but material is removed from the base of the lobe. Thus, dropping the lifter further into its bore when the lifter is riding over base of the lobe. Is that correct?

 

I would have thought with hydraulic lifters and non adjustable rockers (351W/C) your base height is set by the deck height so to speak. If you reduced the base circle when going to a larger lift then you would have to change push rod length. Or alternatively reduce deck height. So I would think the base would remain constant and the lift would change.

[1969 Mach1 14]

Depending on how much lift increase you have when doing a camshaft change you often do have to increase the pushrod length. I have looked at many camshafts for stock motors to circle track late model stock car motors as a friend of mine owns an Automotive machine shop. Look at two cams of the same type for the same motor, i.e. HR or solid roller, one with low lift cam lobes and one with high lift cam lobes. From what I have seen the base of a high lift cam lobe is much smaller than that of the low lift cam lobe. The nose height of the lobes may be different as well but that is not obvious. And yes, the lifter will drop further down in the lifter bore when it is riding over the base of a high lift cam lobe. Unless something is wrong, valvetrain oiling is not effected.