solid vs. hydraulic lifters

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 14, 2005 | 06:33 PM

#16

longview1

Banned

Joined: Jan 2003

Posts: 1,457

Likes: 0

From: Grande Prairie, AB

Approximately how much more HP and torque are we talkin here anyway with solid cam?
Im gonna be doing a build here pretty quick, just getting as much info as i can.
Thanks

Feb 14, 2005 | 08:05 PM

#17

fordeverpower

Postmaster

Joined: Jul 2003

Posts: 3,934

Likes: 0

From: iowa

Not enough for a lazy man! So if you don't want to **** around use a hydraulic.

Feb 14, 2005 | 10:16 PM

#18

longview1

Banned

Joined: Jan 2003

Posts: 1,457

Likes: 0

From: Grande Prairie, AB

Hydraulic it is.....Im not entirely lazy, guess theres more to screw up with solid, Ill stick with hyd.

Feb 14, 2005 | 10:47 PM

#19

mlf72f250

Elder User

Joined: May 2002

Posts: 799

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by krewat

...I kept the 390. Still need something to put it in

I'm used to mechanical lifters, I drove Triumph TR7's with overhead-cam that used shims to adjust the valve-lash...

art k.

Hmmm... How about a 390 in a TR7? Now that would be a sight!

Feb 14, 2005 | 10:49 PM

#20

mlf72f250

Elder User

Joined: May 2002

Posts: 799

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by d44hd

...An FE will live comfortably with .016-.020 of lash, will run with a minimum of noise, and not burn valves...I run .018 with mine and its quieter than the hyd cam that came out, however the mfg designs a soild cam with a closing ramp to let the valves seat gently...If you start closing up the mfg's specs too much you may start to pound the valves hard against the seats and only bad things can come of that...

Thanks for the tips. Maybe I'll run 0.018" lash next time around. I'm kind of getting used to the rough idle. And wouldn't mind a little more lope. Afterall, this thing is going in a hot rod. ;-)

Feb 15, 2005 | 10:26 AM

#21

krewat

FTE Leadership Emeritus

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 42,561

Likes: 423

From: Long Island USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlf72f250

Hmmm... How about a 390 in a TR7? Now that would be a sight!

Believe it or not, I measured a 360 to see if it would fit in a TR7 - it would, but only with a 4x4 pan (k-member in the way).

Darn engine compartment is huge - very wide - not long, but wide. I hung a 302 w/AOD in one just to look at - plenty of room. More room to change the spark plugs in a TR7 than a Mustang!