![]() |
Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
So I know that roller cams make the most power because the opening and closing rates are much faster due to steep ramps, and they also rev higher and last longer and all that good stuff. But if a guy were to compare two flat tappet cams, one solid lifter and the other hydraulic lifter, with all other things being equal how much more would the solid make over the hydraulic? The ramp speeds of a mechanical aren't as fast as a roller, but they are faster than a hydraulic correct?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belews Creek , NC
Posts: 4,220
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
This puts all of it in a new perspective with the technology we have today
![]() http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/eng...t-roller-cams/
__________________
Larry It is easily overlooked that what is now called vintage was once brand new. "Project 68" paypal.me/ldgrant |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: South Westerlo, New York
Posts: 1,325
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
unless you're planning on alot of high rpm, and racing I'd stick with hydraulic. they perform very well these days, and you'll get tired of the constant adjusting of the solids.
__________________
Thanks, Joe.. 1969 C/10, 348 C.I., 3X2 bbl. V8, 2004r , LWB. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Well, if I decided to change cams which isn't in the plans for a while, a mechanical would still be practical even with a periodic valve lab check/adjustment because I only drive the truck a few times a month if I'm lucky. Unless something is wrong the lash really shouldn't be out of adjustment more than 2-3 times a year. But I don't mind wrenching regardless. I'm wanting to know more about the power difference between the two, if it's a seat of the pants deal? Just a couple hp? Noticeable night and day?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 7,721
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Engine masters has a video on you tube comparing a hydraulic roller with a solid roller in a 600 hp big block Chevy. They have done their best to make the cams the same "size". It's an interesting watch, but the conclusion is for a street motor go hydraulic. Spoiler, the mechanical roller is worth about 25 hp on a 600 hp big block but a good chunk of the gain at highest RPM.
There is always something else to work on with the truck so why add a complication with a mechanical cam unless it's just something you want? Comp offers several grinds that "duplicate" muscle car mechanical cams, but if I were to run one on the street it would be the 282s. (My Camaro has a Comp mechanical street roller in it and lash not a big problem. But the 427 I'm building for my short step is getting a hydraulic roller. Money where mouth is!)
__________________
44 Willys MB 52 M38A1 64 Corvette Coupe 68 Camaro 'vert LT1 & TH700 69 Z/28 355 12.6's @110 69 Chevy Short Step 4 1/2"/7" drop 72 Jimmy 4WD 4spd 4" & 35's 02 GMC 2500HD 4x4 Duramax |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Godley, TX
Posts: 17,962
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Go hydraulic or go roller. Solid lifters just not worth it anymore. Gives a little more rpm, or rather allows you to get there a little more quickly, but you'd be lying to yourself if you were telling yourself you felt a seat of the pants difference on a daily driver. I put a solid can in a 57 bel air with a tunnel ram. Never again - as stated above. There's always something else to fix and no matter how much you enjoy wrenching, it WILL become a chore. There's really no reason for solid lifters these days in my book.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
I've been reading ALOT about rollers and it seems there really isn't anything that even comes close to a roller that is set up right. Its very interesting how it all works and what makes it so far superior. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 6,332
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Hydraulic Roller > Solid
Solid Roller > Hydraulic Roller That is, however, for "all out" engines. My brother has an 800+ hp Shafiroff big block that is solid roller, but if there's a hydraulic roller that meets your needs, I'd stay with that. Remember too that because you have to leave lash you're always leaving lift and duration on the table with a solid cam, roller or otherwise. So you have to remember to back the lash out of the advertised lift number, and that in turn also reduces duration.
__________________
1970 GMC Sierra Grande Custom Camper - Built, not Bought 1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Coupe 1969 Pontiac 2+2 427/390 4-speed Convertible |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 2,153
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
In 1974 I bought a brand new Z28 Camaro($4800.00)......the 350 was a little better than a "stock" 350 but at 5000 RPM it was out of breath.
My buddy's dad owned the local Chevy dealership and we would go in at night and add stuff we wanted to the parts orders....we got the good stuff at dealer cost....to give you an example...an LT1 short block with the forged crank and 11:1 pistons...in the crate was $325.00...! I ordered a LT1 (old version) solid lift cam & lifters, aluminum Vette intake, and Holley carb, all GM factory stuff....also added a set of headers....that brought it alive.......it would pull strong on up to 6500 RPM...... I used the good, locking rocker nuts and never had any issues with the lash......the only thing I didn't like was the constant valve noise...but back then we ran loud mufflers so that really wasn't a big issue......and it sounded bad azz. With the advent of the hydraulic roller cams.....they're really the best deal for a stout street engine.
__________________
1967 C10 Step side 1968 C10 Step side 1970 Chevrolet K/5 Blazer 1972 Chevrolet K/5 Blazer ............. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Campbellsville, KY
Posts: 888
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Solid lifter flat-tappet cam = noisy and higher maintenance. I think you'll go a long way with the rest of the engine before a solid lifter cam is justified.
__________________
Alex V. ------ 1967 C10 Suburban, 350/NP435, Green/Green, PS, PB, HD cooling, charging, shocks, and springs. 1985 GMC C3500 SRW, Sierra Classic, 454/TH400, white/blue. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 7,721
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
You were asking about solid vs hydraulic. Yes, both are rollers but it is a hydraulic versus solid test. I think it compares and shows the difference you might expect with the style of lifter.
Now with that said, the 280 street roller in my Camaro always has hit above it's weight class. The 236 @ .050 and .550 before lash lift (I lash at .020) runs a full second faster than the 292 hydraulic that was in there which was like 244/.525 But if max effort is NOT your goal, hydraulic is much easier and in a street vehicle you won't much notice the loss of power at the extreme top end.
__________________
44 Willys MB 52 M38A1 64 Corvette Coupe 68 Camaro 'vert LT1 & TH700 69 Z/28 355 12.6's @110 69 Chevy Short Step 4 1/2"/7" drop 72 Jimmy 4WD 4spd 4" & 35's 02 GMC 2500HD 4x4 Duramax |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Star Valley, WY
Posts: 2,038
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
__________________
Steve 1971 GMC Longbox. Full Roller Stroker 489 w/ FiTech EFI, Chris Straub Cam/NV4500/205/D60/14B w. Grizzly Locker and 4.11's. 2" Lift on 33's |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
I am a Referee of life.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Greensboro N.C.
Posts: 13,993
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
There "might" be times when a solid lifter cam is practical on a street engine but I can't think of any. Even the guys running monster street motors with 800+ hp mostly use Hyd. If you need the extra 25 HP a solid will give you in 500 CI engine, go ahead and up the cubes. Keep in mind that a solid hammers things a lot more since here's no dampening from the hyd you will need upgraded pushrods and rockers etc. My personal opinion is that 25 HP can be found cheaper somewhere else.
__________________
The 47-present Chevrolet and GMC Truck Message Board Network,it's owners,moderators,members,and associates of any type should not be held responsible for my opinion. You can't fix stupid,not even with duct tape. "My appearance is due to the fact that "GOD" does punish you for having too much fun!" Barrett-Jackson has perfected alchemy,they make rust into gold! "You can lead a horse to water but you can't saddle a duck" "Cleverly disguised as a 'Responsible Adult' "Sometimes your Knight in shining armor is just a retard in tinfoil" |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
I agree. I was just thinking that the difference in performance between the solid and hydraulic both being flat tappets would be bigger than the difference between both as rollers. I suppose the difference might be the same, but on a higher level of performance? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
![]() Someone who knows more about solid cams and lash please correct me if I'm wrong about those being close to the same even though the solid cams numbers say it's bigger. Matt |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 7,721
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
They are both close. Once you take the lash out of the solid cam it knocks a little lift off both duration and lift. At about 8 min point of the Engine Masters video where they show #'s on the two cams the solid is also about 6 degrees more duration at .050.
One thing about comparing your two cams is that the solid will have about same lift as hydraulic once you take the lash into account, but the two cams they test in the video, the solid has a LOT more lift than the hydraulic. I would guess the #'s on the two flat tappet cams are close to the same. The reason you would run solid is if you want to make more power above the 6000 rpm mark than the hydraulic plunger would allow once again based on valvetrain weight. For a 99% street driven vehicle I have the same conclusion they did, run the hydraulic.
__________________
44 Willys MB 52 M38A1 64 Corvette Coupe 68 Camaro 'vert LT1 & TH700 69 Z/28 355 12.6's @110 69 Chevy Short Step 4 1/2"/7" drop 72 Jimmy 4WD 4spd 4" & 35's 02 GMC 2500HD 4x4 Duramax |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
After researching and reading a TON, my expectations for the 282s on a 106 LSA is it will make gobs more torque in the low-mid range, have a much harder "hit" when the power comes on, but will top out around 6k compared to the 6500 rpm 280H. Also I'm thinking it won't even be in the same ballpark as far as sound goes. The 282s should have a wicked nasty idle right? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Youngsville NC
Posts: 48
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Hyd vs mech all depends on application. In roller applications both the cam. Lobes habe a larger footprint. This allows more low rpm durstion and in return allows more tq and hp and a broader range. Solid rollers can maintian a higher rpm due to the lifter not being able to collapse. Now flat tappet cams are another beast the cam lobe rides on a flat lifter. The lifter design internally is the same hyd vs solid. Hydraulic has a small cushion of oil onder the pushrod cup. Solid dont. This small cushion can br sqeezed out of the lifter during high rpm. Allowing the lifter to collapse or valve float. Flat tappets cams have a peekier lobe and usally make power in a peekier fashion over a hydor mech roller. Cam. Profile. Imo all street cars would benefit from a hyd roller. Not jsut becuase of the power gains but oil(evene with additives) have less zinc in it and zinc along with other properties are what prevents flatt tappets from wearing out from. Metal to metal. Contact
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 7,721
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
The only cam I ever ran on a 106 degree centerline was a Comp drag race solid lifter cam. It was advertised 300/300 265 @ .050 and .540 lift before lash.
It had a wicked lope to the idle.... at 1500 rpm! It didn't make enough torque to pull taffy below 3500 rpm, but from that point to 7500 you didn't have time to blink before time to shift. That's the motor still in my Camaro and I will say the 280AR street roller has been the better solution. Car runs 12.7's at 110 mph with a 1.97 short time. And has since the early 90's when it was actually fast relative to new stuff. Was your solid a custom grind? Comp shows 110 as the off-the-shelf LSA.
__________________
44 Willys MB 52 M38A1 64 Corvette Coupe 68 Camaro 'vert LT1 & TH700 69 Z/28 355 12.6's @110 69 Chevy Short Step 4 1/2"/7" drop 72 Jimmy 4WD 4spd 4" & 35's 02 GMC 2500HD 4x4 Duramax |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 7,721
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
I had this discussion in my head for a long time before finally buying a cam for my 427 that I am putting together for my '69 stepper.
On a small block that I was building I would be tempted to start with a pick-n-pull Vortec donor motor that is equpped with the factory hydraulic roller. That would allow a roller cam for a lot less than the aftermarket conversion. For the 427 I decided to go hydraulic roller. Big Chevy's seem to have such a high failure rate with performance cams in street applications anymore I decided the extra $ was "cheap" insurance to avoid the dreaded flat cam. Just to continue talk about cam strategy, I went with the smallest hydraulic roller that Comp makes for the BBC. It's 224/236 at .050 on 113 degree lobe center. My goal is to have the motor look/sound like a 390 hp 427 and am going to try and run it through the big block 'vette manifolds so the extra exhaust duration a crutch to scavenge the cylinders better. Goal is 350hp at the wheels. Induction is a GM performance parts intake and a Holley 750 double pumper, one of the new electric choke ones. (Finally!) Air cleaner is a '70 Z/28 dual snorkel repro.
__________________
44 Willys MB 52 M38A1 64 Corvette Coupe 68 Camaro 'vert LT1 & TH700 69 Z/28 355 12.6's @110 69 Chevy Short Step 4 1/2"/7" drop 72 Jimmy 4WD 4spd 4" & 35's 02 GMC 2500HD 4x4 Duramax |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colfax California
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: Mechanical vs Hydraulic cams
Quote:
That'll be a really cool setup! The vortec roller block is a great idea I hadn't even thought of that. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|