| Slant Six Forum https://www.slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Hydraulic vs. solid lifter engines. https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15063 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | slanty6 [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hydraulic vs. solid lifter engines. |
What makes the difference between a hyd. lifter 225 and a solid lifter 225 ?? Can I put a hydraulic cam in my 1975 block or do I need an engine block that was originally a hyd. lifter motor ? Are the oil passages the differences ?? Thanks dave |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This has been covered in previous threads. The hydraulic-cam engines have differences in the rear cam bearing area to deliver high-volume oil to the top end of the engine. To use a hydraulic cam in a solid-lifter engine you have to have a groove machined in the camshaft's rear journal in line with the oil passages. You also have to swap in the hydraulic rocker shaft assembly with rockers, and the pushrods and lifters. Camshaft selection is much less with hydraulics...any particular reason you want to go this way? |
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: This has been covered in previous threads.
Dan, the hydraulic cams come with the rear cam journal already grooved.To use a hydraulic cam in a solid-lifter engine you have to have a groove machined in the camshaft's rear journal in line with the oil passages. And yes, the rest of the valve train does need to be converted |
|
| Author: | slanty6 [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
To be honest w/ you, I'm looking at building an engine for my Satellite that needs minimal attention.And I've yet to develop that feeler gauge hand that is required to set valve lash on the older engines.Are there any downsides to using a 1981 block and head ?? Thanks |
|
| Author: | Murch [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It depends on the parameters of the "build up". Wild or mild? The majority of this website (according to my previous readings) favor the mechanical valve train, however I'm willing to wager the majority of this website also likes to tinker (myself included). If you have no desire to adjust the valve train in the future, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with that. The first run of the famous 426 Hemi had a mechanical valve train, however to run at an optimum the valves had to be adjusted and tended to quite often. That is the main reason it was changed to a hydraulic set up (which by the way I would not turn down any hydraulic Hemi giveaways). I recall reading a build up to a hydraulic 225 set up in Mopar Muscle (as a matter of fact I checked my archives while typing) April 1999 "Power Package" that generated 175hp and 243lb-ft of torque. Sounds like enough for streetable fun for me! |
|
| Author: | slanty6 [ Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh, this car is just a daily driver. I was thinking of a slightly warmer cam, super six setupand 2.25" exhaust. But that would be it.This thing has to start every day-hot ot cold- be drivavle and get decent MPG. thanks |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|