Sound off BBF

[quick 52]

Dave D with the 69 mustang runs one on the street and its a stout runs car 9.50 @ 142 and is stock block... Most of the guys that i run with have chevy's they go thru lifter alot that why i stay FT and mind is a pig anyways

[cstmwgn]

well everyone's mileage varies. I ran a solid roller on the street for ~15k miles. In that time I had one lifter failure which hurt the engine pretty good. I went through 2 cams, 3 sets of lifters and 2 sets of springs. The solid flat tapped I am running now has also been in for ~15k and I have only had to change 1 set of springs. FOR ME - the reliability peace of mind and lower maintenance costs are worth it.

[CDMBill]

The related question is performance envelope. My current cam is a relatively moderate grind for a 588" at 282/294 .820/.830 @ 113, but I can't get the power I want with any other lifter configuration. The next cam will be incrementally bigger in certain respects as keeping Cali pump gas capability is still the constraint along with the goal of two year valve train parts replacement. Exhaust rockers remain the weak point.

[Beagle]

Thanks all.. BBR at +79 and Bill at +122 need a little more cam than my winnebago motor will. haha.

I'm on the fence about it... but everything else about this car is so cheap, I'd hate to ruin it with some high zoot $$ parts. lmao. Maybe a solid and cans of magic goo in the oil.

[milner351]

I have no skin in this game (no BBF for me, yet) - but for a non max effort combination with budget constraints - I'd stick with flat tappets - they ran great for decades and there are still better lobes now than in "the good old days", match the parts, especially the springs to the cam and pay careful attention to geometry, to me the price difference isn't worth it for a budget build.

[quick 52]

I have no skin in this game (no BBF for me, yet) - but for a non max effort combination with budget constraints - I'd stick with flat tappets - they ran great for decades and there are still better lobes now than in "the good old days", match the parts, especially the springs to the cam and pay careful attention to geometry, to me the price difference isn't worth it for a budget build.

cam for cam they say the roller is 3% increase in hp so on a 600 hp it would be 18hp that not sying in a max effort u can go as extreme with a ft as a roller

[cstmwgn]

The solid flat tappet that I replaced my roller with specs at 260/264 @ .050 and 172/176 @ .200 with .643/.653 lift. I am using COMPs
EDM lifters and 933 springs ([email protected]/[email protected]). This combination has proven to be very reliable in my little (533) 385 series BBF. But then again, I am not a serious drag racer since more often than not there is a lawn chair in the back of the wagon.

[quick 52]

The solid flat tappet that I replaced my roller with specs at 260/264 @ .050 and 172/176 @ .200 with .643/.653 lift. I am using COMPs
EDM lifters and 933 springs ([email protected]/[email protected]). This combination has proven to be very reliable in my little (533) 385 series BBF. But then again, I am not a serious drag racer since more often than not there is a lawn chair in the back of the wagon.

havent seen .200 spec. thats a stout cam for a 460 ci. street car in a 533 ci. a little calmer

[38P]

Ran out of $$$ and time to finish my BBF plan this year.

Running a solid roller in a BBF that's not making single-digit passes "on motor" introduces unnnecessary expense and risk of failure in a DW car (too many other ways to go that quick and fast).

When your power-to-weight ratio is under 5 lbs/h.p., roller sticks probably become more necessary.

Flat tappet cams don't risk filling up your oil pan with shards of needle bearings. And parts are cheaper and more available in the middle of nowhere. Loss of zink in regular oil is a problem, though.

(Just an opinion from an old mossback . . . not trolling . . . build 'em however you want)

[Dave D]

Ran out of $$$ and time to finish my BBF plan this year.

Running a solid roller in a BBF that's not making single-digit passes "on motor" introduces unnnecessary expense and risk of failure in a DW car (too many other ways to go that quick and fast).

When your power-to-weight ratio is under 5 lbs/h.p., roller sticks probably become more necessary.

Flat tappet cams don't risk filling up your oil pan with shards of needle bearings. And parts are cheaper and more available in the middle of nowhere. Loss of zink in regular oil is a problem, though.

(Just an opinion from an old mossback . . . not trolling . . . build 'em however you want)

History so far has proven you to be correct. Optomisticaly looking towards the future I see that there may be a shift in longevity to roller setups with newer pressure fed needless axle designs. We will see in a few years how it shakes out. If you knew that you could get a set of Morrels that would last 3 years on the street and 30 trips to the track or 250 runs for less than $600/set. You would be on board and not consider that zink problem.

[quick 52]

Was on bbf forum and 7.5L1985GT is going his brother has the GMC truck with the olds engine

[CDMBill]

Ran out of $$$ and time to finish my BBF plan this year.

Running a solid roller in a BBF that's not making single-digit passes "on motor" introduces unnnecessary expense and risk of failure in a DW car (too many other ways to go that quick and fast).

When your power-to-weight ratio is under 5 lbs/h.p., roller sticks probably become more necessary.

Flat tappet cams don't risk filling up your oil pan with shards of needle bearings. And parts are cheaper and more available in the middle of nowhere. Loss of zink in regular oil is a problem, though.

(Just an opinion from an old mossback . . . not trolling . . . build 'em however you want)

Under 10.80 and you are out of DD, and a simple BBF in a light car can go pretty quick see BBR. The 3% number seems low unless you are trying to have completely comparable lobes which is pointless. I'd go HR if I wanted good power with less risk.

[quick 52]

Under 10.80 and you are out of DD, and a simple BBF in a light car can go pretty quick see BBR. The 3% number seems low unless you are trying to have completely comparable lobes which is pointless. I'd go HR if I wanted good power with less risk.

I wont be in the 10.80 or less et with the old farm truck.. but have seen a few mustang with 460 run hi 10s low 11s but my truck is 3870 with driver and 470fwhp so mid 11s r in line for me... but it does like the hose

[CDMBill]

So as part of new plan, details later, I'm going to build another 572" out of my accumulated spares from previous iterations of the engine in the convertable; SVO block, Scat 4.5" crank and rods, 10.8:1 4.5" bore pistons with A-460 heads and the low rise V1 SVO A-460 manifold. It'll be EFI as I used to it now and have the entire EMS-Pro set-up from my first EFI set-up.

My target is a lower maintenance, high torque, 750 HP at 6200 or so and to use a hydro roller around the specs Cstmwgn mentioned, maybe 260/[email protected] with a bit more lift by re-using most the 1.8:1 shaft rocker set-up I already own. Has anyone here built something similar and have advice/experience on which hydraulic rollers seem to work best? I went from flat tappet to solid rollers in the other BBF's I've done and missed that part of the learning curve.

[Racingcritters]

Give Lem a call on the cam?