To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

[Tom S.]

IMG_3784.jpgSeveral times during Operations I've encountered a Solid Lifter car with no noticeable lifter "clatter" as we know it should have.
During Summary with the Owner/Presenter I asked why no lifter noise, how come your lash is so close, what is your valve setting, what camshaft grind do you have etc. Answers ranged from My engine guy is going to check it when is gets broken in, I don't know but my restorer, friend, son, neighbor, wife does. But once an owner said, Nice Catch, its got a Cam Dynamics FI grind with roller tip rockers from Jeff Reade. Is that going to cost me? Thank You. Tell like it is from owner of this very nice So Cal Chapter car.
How do the C-2 and LT-1 Mech guys treat this Solid Lifter issue.
Line 7 on Operations seems to infer something mechanicaly deficient rather than an enhancement.

[Michael J.]

Re: To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

I don't know about any other judges, but for the C2s I usually Ops judge, line 20 on the Ops sheet says: "Engine noises & vibration: fan clutch, lifters". If the lifters on a SHP engine are not making a lot of noise, I don't deduct. However, in PV I suspect it would be different.

[Harry S.]

Re: To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

I don't know about any other judges, but for the C2s I usually Ops judge, line 20 on the Ops sheet says: "Engine noises & vibration: fan clutch, lifters". If the lifters on a SHP engine are not making a lot of noise, I don't deduct. However, in PV I suspect it would be different.

Mike, I had to think about your reply. A PV is to check the car and it's parts as designed, not as delivered. Saying that, was the SHP engine designed to make noise or is the noise a result of the design of the lifters? Hopefully, there would be no PV impact.

[James G.]

Re: To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

Using the lash specs from Duke and John will result in MUCH less clickity clack as the revised specs allow the valves to close on the ramp.

[Michael J.]

Re: To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

Not sure Harry, but I have heard of PVs in C2s being a fail if the lifters weren't "noisy enough" on an SHP engine. That's hearsay from me, but a good source mentioned it.

[Kenneth B.]

Re: To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

Not sure Harry, but I have heard of PVs in C2s being a fail if the lifters weren't "noisy enough" on an SHP engine. That's hearsay from me, but a good source mentioned it.

If they did it's BS

[Duke W.]

Re: To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

Using the lash specs from Duke and John will result in MUCH less clickity clack as the revised specs allow op the valves to close on the ramp.

Yes, my recommended small block mechanical lifter cam clearances, based on actual rocker arm behavior - 1.37:1 at the lash point and 1.44:1 at max lift GUARANTEE that the valves are opened and seated at no more than clearance ramp velocity. The looser OE recommended clearances mean that the valves are opened and closed at GREATER than clearance ramp velocity, and the ticking you hear is the sound of shock loading.

Set to my recommended specs a 30-30 or LT-1 cam will sound more like hydraulic lifters than mechanical. The Duntov cam is noisier than others because the peak jerk only happens a few thou above the top of the clearance ramp.

Duke

[Arland D.]

Re: To Deduct or not! What's the take on this Operations issue

When my solid lifter 57 fuelie was judged, the question was asked more than once "Are those hydraulic lifters?". The engine was 'balanced and blueprinted' by a very good engine shop along with the already discussed lifter adjustments so it was very smooth and quiet. If a judge wants to start making deductions based on assumptions of the internal parts of an engine, get a different judge.