|
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 9650
    
Location: So. Cal | Will the Rhodes lifters made for a big block Chrysler work in a 392 hemi? Is there an issue with the oiling location? Also, is it OK to put solid lifters & adjustable pushrods on a hydraulic cam or is that a bad idea? |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 5139
Location: cornpatch county, Southwest IOA | Probably best to call "Hemi Hot Heads" and ask the early hemi Guru, Bob...................................MO |
|
| |
|
Temporarily suspended to cool off
Posts: 316
| I would think the LA lifters would be a better choice, since the A and LA blocks share so much already. The real problem here is the oiling system isn't designed for hydralic lifters. The pushrod tips and rocker arm tips have to be drilled through to allow oil flow through them. Further, even after you got that patched up you are bleeding oil away from the cam and putting more oil in the top of the engine. You'll have to increase flow to the cam and increase drainage at the heads.
The real question is why? Unless you have a big cam in the car there is no advantage. The only thing they are good for is smoothing out the idle on a cam that has a good deal of overlap. I wouldn't do it. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3033
Location: N.W. Fla. | Polybun - 2015-12-04 6:29 AM
I would think the LA lifters would be a better choice, since the A and LA blocks share so much already. The real problem here is the oiling system isn't designed for hydralic lifters. The pushrod tips and rocker arm tips have to be drilled through to allow oil flow through them. Further, even after you got that patched up you are bleeding oil away from the cam and putting more oil in the top of the engine. You'll have to increase flow to the cam and increase drainage at the heads.
The real question is why? Unless you have a big cam in the car there is no advantage. The only thing they are good for is smoothing out the idle on a cam that has a good deal of overlap. I wouldn't do it. The 392 is designed for hyd lifters, not an "A" Poly. Oiling is through the rocker shafts. Usually best choice is the 361-413 lifters, apparently the LA may work. |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 888
Location: Peoples Republic of Oregon | ...what the *******??????
To the original question, the EARLY B&RB lifters, 1967 and earlier, are the same. OEM Part number will be VL-8 or HT812 (or some variation).
Pre 1966 A lifter will also be the same but the LA is slightly different; they can be used with the correct pushrod (tips are different size, ¼ vs 5/16 diameters) in most applications even though the oil feed groove is slightly mis-matched.
...and there is this......" The real problem here is the oiling system isn't designed for hydralic lifters." Since when?????
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3575
Location: Netherlands | To address another part of the question; Yes you can put solid lifters on a hydraulic cam, but most likely you should install them with very little valvelash.
I've done this on a RB motor after contact with CompCams and ran it for about 2-3 years with no ill effects.
Then again ofcourse... YMMV.
Edited by BigBlockMopar 2015-12-04 5:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 9650
Location: So. Cal | wayfarer - 2015-12-04 8:33 AM
...what the *******??????
To the original question, the EARLY B&RB lifters, 1967 and earlier, are the same. OEM Part number will be VL-8 or HT812 (or some variation).
Pre 1966 A lifter will also be the same but the LA is slightly different; they can be used with the correct pushrod (tips are different size, ¼ vs 5/16 diameters) in most applications even though the oil feed groove is slightly mis-matched.
...and there is this......" The real problem here is the oiling system isn't designed for hydralic lifters." Since when?????
Thanks for the info wayfarer. The Rhoads lifters state that they are for '68 and later big block and small block motors. So what is the difference between '67 and '68 lifters? |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 9650
Location: So. Cal | BigBlockMopar - 2015-12-04 2:07 PM
To address another part of the question; Yes you can put solid lifters on a hydraulic cam, but most likely you should install them with very little valvelash.
I've done this on a RB motor after contact with CompCams and ran it for about 2-3 years with no ill effects.
Then again ofcourse... YMMV.
Herman, what is the difference why they would require less valve lash? |
|
| |
|
Temporarily suspended to cool off
Posts: 316
| I thought the 392 shipped with mechanical lifters.
Usually cars with hydraulic lifters pump oil up the pushrod to the top of the engine. Now I realized mopars have pressurized oil to the rocker arms regardless, but I recall there being issues using hydraulic lifters on engines that shipped with mechanical tappets. In particular the 225 proved to be a pain to convert to hydraulic lifters. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3033
Location: N.W. Fla. | Polybun - 2015-12-04 7:28 PM
I thought the 392 shipped with mechanical lifters.
. No, only the 55-58 "300" hemis. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3575
Location: Netherlands | Nathan,
If I recall correctly, the required tight lash had to do with the actual start of the lobe on the camshaft. Hydraulic cam lobes have a slightly different initial ramp before the lobe begins, therefore the lash needs to be tight enough so the take up of the lash is happening in that area of the lobe.
Any later or more lash and the lifters/valvetrain might get a beating.
I believe I had my valvelash set at around 0.06".
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1740
Location: Alaska | As I understand it, a solid lifter cam has a gradual initial ramp to take up the "lash" and a hyd, cam has a faster ramp to close the oil port on the lifter. You can use a hyd. lifter on a solid cam if you need to (why?) but not the opposite. |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 9650
Location: So. Cal | Herman, I think you meant 0.006". 
The reason is that I hate hydraulic lifters in general. I get along with solid much better and the quality control on newly-made Chinese hydraulics are poor. At least with Rhoads lifters, I know (hope) they are made in the US and I can trust the quality control a little better. But it sounds like they won't work in the older motors. The maintenance aspect of solids is generally a minor thing.......But I don't want to have to change the cam if I can get away with it. If the cam is not a performance profile, then it sounds like it shouldn't be a big deal as the ramp rate would be pretty mild anyway.
Edited by Powerflite 2015-12-05 10:29 AM
|
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 888
Location: Peoples Republic of Oregon | Powerflite - 2015-12-04 5:08 PM
Thanks for the info wayfarer. The Rhoads lifters state that they are for '68 and later big block and small block motors. So what is the difference between '67 and '68 lifters?
MaMopar made a number of changes in the B&RB engines for the 68 model year and the lifter/pushrod pkg was one of them.
I am concerned about Rhoads using the same lifter for "small and big block" applications unless they have an extremely large oil feed groove. The set of Rhodes that I have on the shelf, PN 9768, has a 'normal', small, groove and compares well to an HT812.
I have yet to figure out how to post photos on this forum so if you need a visual send a PM with an email address and I'll send some pics of the early/late lifters.
As to quality of lifters, there are still a couple of US manufacturers but who knows for how long........
Edited by wayfarer 2015-12-05 11:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Temporarily suspended to cool off
Posts: 316
| ooooooooh, well thank you! I've been properly stuffed!.... you should have been more mean about it probably! I really was talking out of my ass there.
Also looks like i'm wrong about the pushrod diameters as well, I thought for sure the Early hemi engines had the same pushrod diameters as all small block mopars. This of course, is what I get for thinking! |
|
| |
|
Temporarily suspended to cool off
Posts: 316
| Well if your car already has hydraulic lifters, and from what i'm reading it should, then going with a rhoads set may get you a SLIGHTLY smoother idle and SLIGHTLY more horsepower. But if it were my motor, and it already had mechanical tappets, and I wasn't annoyed by the idle speed or idle roughness, I wouldn't bother.
It's amazing how well chrysler engines work when you just leave them the F alone! Hmm... and how quickly and horribly they go wrong when you don't. It's almost like engineers designed them. |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 888
Location: Peoples Republic of Oregon | Polybun - 2015-12-05 10:16 AM
It's amazing how well chrysler engines work when you just leave them the F alone! Hmm... and how quickly and horribly they go wrong when you don't. It's almost like engineers designed them.
...well said.....
...but then the hot-rodder hiding in a lot of us just wants a little more grunt. The EarlyHemi engines are extremely durable even with a sprinkling of go-fast goodies which attests to the solid design of the engine. Yes, MaMopar missed on a couple of points like the lack of a harmonic balancer for the Dodge, but overall they achieved their desired goal in spades.
The recurring problem that I have found over the decades is that too many folks think that they can use the same/similar parts/theory on a Hemi as they do for their shiverlay or ford.  |
|
| |
|
Temporarily suspended to cool off
Posts: 316
| That lack of harmonic balancer thing bugs me. My 1960 Phoenix doesn't have one and that's something I want to change. I've convinced myselt at this point to go all out and get myself a TCI rattler. I need to make up pulleys and brackets to convert the car to an alternator anyway, so may as well really jump off into the deep end. Why a rattler??? I dunno, just seems to me to be the best engineered sollution. Overkill, you bet. But oh so elegant and simple.
Things like that make me giggle. I would have loved to have been at that meeting between the bean counters and the engineers. The gnashing and screaming on the part of the engineers had to have been epic at times. |
|
| |
Rhodes Lifters in a 392 hemi
