Roller lifters, Anyone tried them? Options

[r_towle]

Has anyone tried roller lifters in a type 4, or any flat motor?

[mr2by4]

Here's what 125 hp per cylinder aircooled looks like on the dyno, five years ago. Needless to say. This was not my first type one and definitely not the first flat four I had seen. BUT! I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express.

Dyno vid.

That video is shot from the wrong end! Or is the image of the motor a secret (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[76-914]

If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

[jor]

If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Not grandmother. Your long-time wife. You get to drive that engine.

[DavidSweden]

If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Now that an idea

[DBCooper]

Ha ha ha ha. Tits. Ha ha ha ha.

[Jake Raby]

Somewhere there's a grandma getting a tit job right now.

[r_towle]

Jake made me laugh, post #24

Something I also say often.

[Mueller]

If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

The block might be 40 years old, but there is new technology in the motor. One could argue how "old" your Subaru motor is......I'm sure it is lacking "modern" tech like direct injection, variable intake and exhaust timing..etc..etc... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mueller]

Even with pictures, I doubt many could replicate this setup....I can reverse engineer many things, but camshafts are like voodoo to me and not something I'd tackle.

[toon1]

If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

modern engines are awesome! the only reason I don't retrofit the 914 is that fact that I lose the front trunk to the radiator

[DBCooper]

I generally like buttermilk. Cold. Tall glass. Is that O.K.?

[Harpo]

Can we please stay on topic of roller cams or even ceramic lifters?

Some may be amused by the name calling and mud slinging but I'm not. I find it amazing that because it is an on line forum and not face to face what people will say to another person

[Bulldog9]

I just got done with a 2056 build, following 2 years of research and tear down.

Having an extensive background building GM small and Big blocks, I was very interested in roller rockers and or followers when considering my Type 4 build. As I discovered, the only 'available' roller rockers were the Pauter, and the general consensus was 1 they are really best used in all out racing applications, 2. They break, 3 they are very expensive.

I also found that solid lifters, a performance grind on a cam, modified 1.7 rockers, custom length chrome moly pushrods and swivel foot adjusters are just about the best way to go, especially for the DIY'r. Now where did I get that info? YUP, largely all of the above is RABY developed. ANd I didn't steal it, it was shared and written about. So any accusation that RAT does not share proprietary info is total BS.

Jake, thanks for sharing what you have developed and innovated. I'm sure that much of your cutting edge and new/leading developments are proprietary and you need to guard some of this info. You are a businessman, and enthusiast. and yep, to many you are a jerk, but your a Marine Aviator.... NUF SAID. Hooah - - Oorah - -

I'd love to try Ceramic lifters or Roller Rockers, and hope that the marked pushes someone to develop something, but I doubt that will happen.

[76-914]

If your not a CW why spend BIG $$$'s on a 40 year old engine/technology. A modern day engine conversion just makes a lot more sense if you want reliability, HP or a quieter engine. To me, not anyone else, roller lifters in a type4 is akin to buying your Grandmother a Tit Job! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

The block might be 40 years old, but there is new technology in the motor. One could argue how "old" your Subaru motor is......I'm sure it is lacking "modern" tech like direct injection, variable intake and exhaust timing..etc..etc... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Your probably right. My next conversion will be the 3.6 Suby. I was intimidated by the "immobilizer chip" initially. But IF we were to construct a "Totem Pole" ranking of engine reliability, ease of maintenance and "cost to own" I'm thinking there would be several models betwixt the two engines. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

I generally like buttermilk. Cold. Tall glass. Is that O.K.?

What the Hell did I miss this time. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

[DBCooper]

I also found that solid lifters, a performance grind on a cam, modified 1.7 rockers, custom length chrome moly pushrods and swivel foot adjusters are just about the best way to go, especially for the DIY'r. Now where did I get that info? YUP, largely all of the above is RABY developed.

i don't think Jake "developed" any of that. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all those things originally came from the T1 world and were used by other T4 builders, mostly DIY'ers, before Jake. You can search the Shoptalk Forums for the history of each of those (and Usenet RAMVA before that). There were a lot more people involved back then, and information was shared more freely than it is now.

[Mueller]

I also found that solid lifters, a performance grind on a cam, modified 1.7 rockers, custom length chrome moly pushrods and swivel foot adjusters are just about the best way to go, especially for the DIY'r. Now where did I get that info? YUP, largely all of the above is RABY developed.

i don't think Jake "developed" any of that. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all those things originally came from the T1 world and were used by other T4 builders, mostly DIY'ers, before Jake. You can search the Shoptalk Forums for the history of each of those (and Usenet RAMVA before that). There were a lot more people involved back then, and information was shared more freely than it is now.

I'm all for sharing info, I guess since I don't make a living from the parts I've made it is no big deal to share. For the Volvo guys I've publicly released the following 3 engineer drawings of parts I've made: Redbook engine to GM auto transmission (upright version), Volvo whiteblock to Ford T5 adapter and and Hall sensor adapter to replace the VR sensor.

I figure one of these days I'll see an ad from someone selling "my" parts, as long as I don't get an email asking for support, no big deal to me.


Back to the rollers, hope to meet a RAT roller equipped owner one of theses days to get a ride and be further inspired.

[914work]

And...when you start 'sharing' proprietary information, people like to have knockoffs made elsewhere and start marketing them as 'their own'. Like the shameless attempted ripoff of the DTM fan/cooling systems. Fact, not speculation.

Absolutely.
One photo will show what several years of work has produced, and it's not unique enough to Patent.

Really?

If you can engineer commercially viable, complex mechanical solution from a pic or two on a website ...more power to ya.

Roller cam technology isnt new, Idea's aren't Patent-able.

Mr Rhodyguy your analogy is crap. From what I read or recall, the item described was purchased and copied.
Now if someone wanted to pony up the 15-20 large then ignore the non-disclosure document that I assume Mr Raby probably has all customers sign, reverse engineer and then market that solution to an VERY small, & close knit market..... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/screwy.gif)

Good luck

[Jake Raby]

If an idea is novel, then it is patentable, these things are known as "art", nothing more, or less. If the art is presented properly, and you are willing to go back and forth with the examiner on office actions over a period of 33 months, then you might be successful.

My role design was slightly akin to a method of indexing that was used (and patented) for steam locomotives, so it was not patentable.

I've learned a lot about Patents in the last few years. This one took 33 months, I have two more that are already at 38 and 40 months, and another that just had its first office action after one year.

[r_towle]

I found these, of interest is the roller lifters.
Sad to say I cannot get a picture from a different angle.

Seems to me there is no reason to attempt to lock the lifter in any specific rotational orientation, the camshaft will keep it aligned.

[Jake Raby]

Those are .742 Harley lifters. The wheel diameter is so great that you must have a very large base circle camshaft. These hate lash, the issue that I had with them came mostly from axles failing prematurely do to base circle, and lash. The closest I came to success with these was using a Schubeck RollerX lifter that has no axle, but those went away with Schubeck in 2007.

If the base circle is too small, these things run super loud, sounds like a diesel. They beat themselves to death.

Again, you will have to rework the case to realign the cam tunnel with the lifter bores. These are no where near perpendicular enough for a roller cam to live without cam walk in any T4 case I have seen yet. That includes brand new, NOS cases. Call a company named BHJ, for about 6k they will make some jigs to your design to facilitate this, but when it doesn't work, and you chop up what they made to make it right, you'll be mad enough to spit nails.

You must "nest" the lifter with this arrangement, else the first rotation of the cam, every lifter will turn 90 degrees and crash the cam. We even tried to change the cam lobe to retain the proper lifter orientation, but those oil samples had 12X more iron in them than the worst comparative sample, and visual wear was very clear.

Modern Porsche engines have nested tappets, to allow for variocam plus on the intake, and VVT on the exhaust. In these engines a dowel is employed to do the job of alignment, but the cam profile is kept very conservative. It's no where near the lift per crank degree that the mildest roller profile that you'll find (Fox body Mustang, stock profile).

Don't put too much stock in what the guy in those pics has done... It's clear that he hasn't been able to achieve a proper cylinder head to cylinder seal, which is the first essential to T4 performance. See that nasty head surface? Yep, he had a head leak.

This post has been edited by Jake Raby: Oct 31 2015, 06:31 AM