Inliners International Forums General Discussion Engines GM 4 cylinders 151 153 181

I HAVE SOME 4 CYL. CUMMINS TURBOS OFF 4BT'S IF ANYBODY NEEDS ONE.

Did You happen to talk with him about a HYDRAULIC ROLLER CAM? and ask if hyrroroller lifters are avalable?

did you happen to ask about Hydraulic ROllER CAMS and if he could supply Hyro Roller lifters for the 4 cyl?

Beater the 2900 started off as a 2700. When they went bigger it got all the upgrade the late model 4200 got - same engine family. So any 2900 is a good motor.

A 2900 with a turbo at 8 psi would be really close to 250 HP....

The comp eliminator guy are making >400HP NA with these engines. Mind you they don't have to run them for long.

Alan. I didn't talk to him about roller stuff and since that post Earson moved their cam shop to Kentucky. Steve no longer works for them. Too bad it was so easy to get exactly what you wanted. I guess they are all CNC now. They didn't take the old machines.

Marc, I'm going to find one of those. I need a little 4X4 that could get good fuel milage. I looks like the Nissan I 290 is the same also. Crap I'm a parts guy and I've never even looked up a part for one of these! They must be OK. I'd settle for the 3.7 if everything else was what I want. I was thinking about an S 10 with a 151 but the Colorado with a 2.9 would be better.

Are they removing the balance shafts. That's the first thing you do to a Mitsubishi 2.6 that will be raced. The shafts turn at twice crank speed and they have a huge imbalance built in which is rough on the bearings. This is why you don't see any high mileage old Mitsu's. The balance shaft bearing don't last.

I think they leave the shafts and remove the drive chain.

Hi Do You know how to get a hold of sissels automotive nowdays? are they closed down?----- no website anymore.

Alan, That sounds like a great project. Your head sounds a lot like the head that Tom Lowe built for me. Lumps, port and chamber work, Shaved a bit, 1.94/1.60 stainless valves, screw in studs, etc. My purpose is different. Mine will be in a street driven roadster, just a fun hot rod.

yeah the fours and fives are good lil' engines, just not full grown yet-the 3.5L fives have 220hp net as the 4bbl power pak '57 chevies had gross!

I think all of these "Atlas" motors, fours, fives and sixes have the same long 4"(+) stroke lenghts. In the stock automatic pick ups and trailblazers these motors have factory shift points of 6200 RPM. They really have very strong (but Aluminum) bottom ends with at least 4 bolt(or more) main caps. Kevin Self's Bantam goes 10,000 rpms-thats alot of scrap iron flailin' around!

In the stock applications the lack of cubes at bottom end is not noticed because of their long stroke and computerized F.I. Wish I didn't already have a 292.

Bottom ends are not so much of a prob on most of today's inline sixes due to them having the same bearing sizes and two more than their V8 buddies.

The atlas main bearings are very close to 400 pontiac. 2.38" ish size. GM really stiffened the crank up compared to older inline engines.

My heads are all the stock 181 type, i really want to find a cam maker who will sulpply hydraullic roller lifters--I know of off the shelf cams avalable-perfect for a turbo.

I guess I was confused, a senior moment or a '60s flash back? Go figure.

You can or could get a GM hydraulic roller lifter at any Chevy dealership for the 4 cylinder engines with no trouble. I don't think getting any cam company to make them for the 6 cylinder will ever happen, most of them don't even have solid rollers for these engines, and most of them used to when these were more popular engines for racing 20-30 years ago. So getting them to create a new product when they themselves have no desire or interest in them is not likely to happen. Your just going to have to be the Lone Ranger and do it yourself or have someone make them for you custom like Kirby did. Also, don't assume the SBC lifter is the one to use, even if the oil groove is in the right location.

"You can or could get a GM hydraulic roller lifter at any Chevy dealership for the 4 cylinder engines with no trouble."

Which 4 cylinder engine?

The later model Iron Duke. The later 181 might have also been hydraulic roller as well.

I'll have to look into that.

It was around the same time(late 80's) that the SBC(305's and 350's)got away from the flat tappets and went hydraulic roller. The 5.0 Mustangs and all Ford V8's were already using hydraulic rollers and Chrysler followed suit as well, must have been an industry standard for the American auto makers to do at that time.

I'm pretty sure my '89 GMC 305 is is flat tappet but you are right is was at that time. I'll get my hands on some and see what they look like.

If you can use solid roller lifters from a SBC with a 455 Olds tie bar, why can't you use the same combination in hydraulic roller lifters???

Don't ask me I only know what you and Scott post.

I got a PM from Oiler this morning that LOTS of 151 info and also 153-181 stuff. I hope he posts the link here.

Jalopy, once upon a time, the BBC roller lifters were taller and thats what we always used in the 250 and 292's. Just sayin' not to assume the SBC hydraulic roller can work, link bars might interfere with the top of the lifter boss casting. Also, other variables to consider is cam base circle, if it is small, around .875 or .900(from a reground cam for instance), it will cause the lifters to go deeper into the lifter bores and cause possible contact, but a base circle of 1.100" will make the lifters stand taller in the bores, but link bars could still contact. No one has used the retro style(link bar) hydraulic lifters yet to find out all the learning curves. It might be easy as pie or it might be something that can still work with a little modification. Somebody buy a pair of lfters and swap link bars and see.

OK, I hoped Oiler would come back and post this here but here is his link to all sorts of Iron Duke information and parts swapping. Be careful it ate my whole Saturday and I'm not done yet. Also interesting the interaction between members of the S10 BB. Can you imagine the response here to the manner in which the Stroker10 guy treats the others? Or the Mystic person? They put up with it and get a lot of information. We are pretty laid back here but someone would have called these guys on attitude and we most likely would not have all this information.

There was some pretty good info in that link Beater, but some of those guys definately got off on some rabbit trails.

Uhh im almost certain this is incorrect--- The duke roller lifters are a D shaped crosssection and index into D shaped bores and do not have tie bars, im pretty sure, like the later roller cam vortec sbc chevy v8s

I didnT get bad vibes from stroker--only good info, I thought you might be the same guy and sent you an email asking.

Not sure what your looking at that is D shaped, I have built many SBC engines that were factory hydraulic roller engines and all there lifters are round just like they always have been. The only difference is the method in which they are held into alignment, they used a dog bone shaped flat plate that had a double D shape to match the top of the lifters that were machined with a flat on the sides to match the alignment plate.

Each time the topic of roller cams for the street comes up I always ask myself the question

WHY?

I get it that its always neat to have something different from anyone else. Heck, that is one reason for running a six in a hot rod in the first place.

I have done dynamometer comparison testing on various engine components in a previous life. Car manufacturers have incorporated many design improvements in the engine to enhance its efficiency and performance, like smaller journals with aluminum bearing shells, low friction ring packs, low drag oil seals, revised piston designs and rollerized valve trains. Tests I've run on SBF engines showed around 15 lb-ft improvement at 500 RPM and as RPM increased to say, 4500, the reduction in friction vs a flat tappet hydraulic cam diminished to almost nil - maybe 2 lb-ft. So to gain that small slice of the torque pie by re-engineering the cam for roller lifters seems to me to be a large expense for a small gain. You would be better off investing that cash in a stronger piston with smaller, lighter, low friction metric rings.

Even if rollerized lifters could be fitted then the first cut at an optimal cam grind would be a rough guestimate. The big car companies have the resources to beat those cam grinds to death first on the computerized engine analyzer programs and then on the dyno before deciding on the most effective grind.

Vintage inlines are never going to be RPM champions so a good flat tappet grind will suffice in 99.9% of street rod applications.

Has anyone seen analyses or testing of OEM factory roller tappets (any brand) as to prolonged use with faster accel, higher spring tension etc.? As in can you get 50,000 miles with a 500 lb. spring, or 50 miles?
Since the accounting dep't. over-rules engineering pretty frequently, I would guess that the factory tappets are designed and built (strength, material, hardening, tolerances) to run the warranty length with stock springs, with no safety margin beyond this.

BTW: regarding anti-rotation devices.
Under normal conditions, the roller wheel self-aligns to the tappet lobe like wheel caster: the roller cannot clock more than a few thousands without rising in the bore. When it rises to height "X" (whatever, varies with base circle), the corner of the wheel catches the rising lobe and ploughs across it until they both die.
There are 2 major reasons why this is not safe, viz. the tappet will rise and clock.
The obvious one is excessive lash - a maintenance problem (and may be with hydraulics if the local oil pressure isn't always high enough to keep the plunger inflated to full height)
The other one is not enough spring tension, where the tappet is momentarily separated from the lobe, and may not come back where it should.
I'd be interested to see if a solid roller with tight lash but no anti-rotation devices could run a few races without self-destruction...

Greg , thats some interesting observations you were able to see first hand while you were at Ford. I have to ask though, if there were no more gains
or improvements to be had than that with the hydraulic roller cams, why did they proceed with the development of that technology. The flat tappet cam and all its companion components are also much cheaper to produce from a manufacturing standpoint,increasing their production costs to make basically the same engine. From an economic viewpoint that seems like bad business sense if there was not really much benefit to justify the development costs to change it.

Scott:

Wonder if Ford (and others) knew what changes were coming regarding lubricants and their associated problems with traditional solid and hydraulic flat tappet cams, and so the move to the (now) typical hydraulic roller lifters?

Russ

I thought it was for reduced friction and better gas mileage.

Most of those improvements were primarily for improved mileage. A typical sedan needs only about 15 RWHP to move it down the road at a steady 55 mph. When all of the less expensive alternatives to improved fuel economy were exhausted then they turn to the more costly things, like rollerized valve trains and sequential fuel injection.

My son is a bicycle racer and manager at a high end bicycle company(http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/editorials/0000087.shtml). I asked him why the big deal in the bicycle business over saving a gram of weight, especially since it costs a lot and gives miniscule benefits. His answer was that often races like Tour de France or The Tour de California or even The Paris - Roubaix are often decided by a fraction of a second. Over several days of racing up and down the sometime mountainous terrain carrying an extra gram of needless weight can mean defeat. Likewise car companies are willing to go to great lengths to advertise " best fuel economy in its class" and are more and more willing to spend more to get less in return to remain competitive.

Read this somewhere.
20 lb. bicycle: free
15 lb. bicycle: $100
10 lb. bicycle: $1,000
8 lb. bicycle: $10,000
6 lb. bicycle: $100,000

The comp eliminator guy are making >400HP NA with these engines. Mind you they don't have to run them for long. [/quote]


Do you have any info. on these 2.9 comp eliminators? website ect.?

Thanks Steve

I know this has nothing to do with Steve's request but here is a link to pictures of two nice Chevy 4 cyl powered roadsters from the convention. The tan Chevy won the "just because it's neat" award. It's built on a '32 Chevy frame with a custom steel speedater body. I think it has a 181 with custom intake and exhaust. The T has a 153. I didn't get a ride in either one. LINK