Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Didn't somebody a while back try to make solid roller lifters where the, "solid roller", rolled in a nest in the bottom of the lifter body on a film of pressure-fed oil like the mains and rods do??

If so, did anything come of this?

pdq67

I believe this is what you are referring to. Shubert Lifters

That was Schubeck,not Shubert.
As in Joe Schubeck,or as he was also known,"Gentleman Joe",from his drag racing days.
http://schubeckracing.com/history/
I was very interested in his "Roller X" Lifters and had even paid for a set for my BBC.
It was poor timing as right at the same time,IIRC,his money partner pulled the plug on further production.
So I never did get to try what,in theory,seemed like the final answer to bulletproof solid roller lifters.
Guy

I don't think any other lifters, in the history of lifters, destroyed as many engines as the Schubeck lifters.

the roller "X" lifter looks like an exact copy of a Land Rover 2.0 or 2.25 liter lifter. which I usually think of as being an agricultural engine.
I'm no good at posting pictures, so maybe someone else can. The Land Rover part number is RTC6564. I don't know if lifter weight is a important
issue, but the Land Rover parts are lunkers!

CamKing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:09 pm I don't think any other lifters, in the history of lifters, destroyed as many engines as the Schubeck lifters.

Weren't their some "no lash" ceramic faced solids or some bs?

OK1

Anything wrong with that lifter design?

Run, "tight-lash", and go..

pdq67

Wow, that looks like a bad idea!

Almost as bad as the round nosed "slider" lifters - no rolling element at all!

Isn't the concept of it rolling on a thin film of oil like the main and rod bearings do?

pdq67

pdq67 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:28 pm Isn't the concept of it rolling on a thin film of oil like the main and rod bearings do?

pdq67

Sort of.
Your bearings encapsulate the journals.
That only rides on one side.
Then there's the ceramic (IIRC) aspect.
Ceramics tend to be brittle as well as hard.

Yes, rod and main bearings operate on the hydrodynamic wedge principle, which requires a closed and restricted oil circuit. Imagine how well a rod bearing would hold up with 0.020" clearance and a drip feed of oil...

OK then, how about DLC coated tool-steel lifters with the foot of the lifter as a nest that covers about 48 percent of the roller, again, DLC, on top and on each side within say .005" or so, then run the lash at something like .004" or so hot.

Can't cover over 50 percent because then you couldn't get the roller in the foot's nest! Otherwise, make the nest part of the lifter so that it would be a separate piece so the roller could be covered by say 80 percent, then screw the lifter nest and roller onto the foot of the lifter.

And then fully pressurize the lifters, (and small oil feed holes), just like the mains and rods.

We would have to run a trial to see how big the bleed holes would have to be so that enough oil would flow through them to create the hydrodynamic wedge to allow the rollers to rotate. No small job at all as I see it... AND certainly NOT cheap to make, imho!

pdq67

This design still has possibilities.

If the 'cup' was say 60+ % of the roller such that the roller had to be inserted from one side, the other side having a 'lip' so the roller could not escape, then another 'lip' placed on the insertion side, making a 60+% enclosure pressure fed with oil. Thus even if the lifter were to 'float' the roller would still be contained.

Charlie,

At least you see some possibilities here for this.

Thanks,

pdq67