6sally6 wrote:

Johnson comes to mind as a quality lifter' manufacturer'.
6s6

Yes, Johnson lifters have a great reputation across all manufacturers from what I've read.  On an AMC forum they were talking about how AMC lifters really aren't the same diameter as a Mopar lifter.  Both are listed as 0.904" diameter, but the AMCs really should be a little larger.  A guy had run Mopar diameter lifters in his AMC and had problems with oil pressure (AMC's already have oil pressure issues at high RPM).  Johnson custom made him a set of lifters based on his lifter bore diameter and it completely solved his issue.  Now that's a good company in my book.

red351 wrote:

The thing that scares me about rollers is there are more moving parts so more ways to go south. 
Just my opinion. 
 

 
Good point Rich!!
A bunch 'o little axles & wheels & keepers whizzing around in there.
Flat tappet (solid lifter) simplifies thangs a bunch!!
6sally6

Nos681 wrote:

What about solid lifters?

Yeah......even LESS moving parts
6s6
 

6sally6 wrote:

red351 wrote:

The thing that scares me about rollers is there are more moving parts so more ways to go south. 
Just my opinion. 
 

 
Good point Rich!!
A bunch 'o little axles & wheels & keepers whizzing around in there.
Flat tappet (solid lifter) simplifies thangs a bunch!!
6sally6

Sal, you should go back to bronze bushings and replace those pesky roller bearings on your wheels!

MS wrote:

On that 64-1/2 block… remember that the bolt pattern st the bellhousing is different than a 5.0 roller block, so a bellhousing change will also be required. Crank is different balance than early engines, too, so the discussion expands exponentially.
In that case, the cost of a high quality retrofit cam and lifter set might not exceed the cost of changing all the stuff required to install a 5.0.

But, in my opinion, the 5.0 block is superior in more ways than just having roller lifters. Cooling ports are revised as well.

Thanks for the heads up on that. I forgot about those things too.
I rebuilt the engine (on a budget) back in about 2004. I wouldn't even call it much of a rebuild to be honest. Kids were little and money was tight. I only honed the bores, new rings, new crank bearings, heads redone with new valves and seats, cam grind... That's about it. It still goes strong, but I predict it will need a proper rebuild in the next few years. That's when I will be faced with the 5.0 block or keep what I have decision.
I am definitely big on keeping things simple. No EFI or anything like that.

Last edited by Toploader (3/25/2022 10:19 PM)

TKOPerformance wrote:

Solid lifters are going to require periodic adjustment though.  I'm sure the roller bearings are much longer lived then a simple bronze bushings, or else the OEMs would have done that to save cost. 

I think he is referring to the roller spring perches vs. stock rubber perches.   In the original design, 1960 and 61 Ford Falcons had spring perches that were large bronze bushings instead of rubber.  Ford went to the rubber to save cost and and (the debate) it was also an oscillation damper. 
 

When I first read the “bronze bearing “ reply to Sal  I pictured the big grin on his face.

MS wrote:

Greg B wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

Solid lifters are going to require periodic adjustment though.  I'm sure the roller bearings are much longer lived then a simple bronze bushings, or else the OEMs would have done that to save cost. 

I think he is referring to the roller spring perches vs. stock rubber perches. In the original design, 1960 and 61 Ford Falcons had spring perches that were large bronze bushings instead of rubber. Ford went to the rubber to save cost and and (the debate) it was also an oscillation damper.
 

My original sarcastic reply to 6sally6 suggested he save money by installing bronze wheel bearings instead of roller bearings. Key word being sarcastic. Plus, just just gotta know sal to understand my reply…

Yet we still lack that sarcasm font...