Thread: For Don Shilady

Tweet

Hello "34-40",

I did look for references to Rhoads lifters on this thred and found very little although there are many extensive discussions on the internet. It seems Rhoads lifters are a bit controversial due to the fact that they are noisey at idle and low rpm and some people do not like that (wives?). Basically they are standard hydraulic lifters which are machined to intentionally leak fluid at low rpm, reducing lift and duration for good torque but at higher rpm, say 3500, there is not enough time for leakage and so a long duration, high lift cam can take effect. The timing depends somewhat on oil viscosity and the initial adjustment is different but experienced users like them for low rpm torque while offering higher performance at higher rpm. Some users are quick to note that just changing to Rhoads Lifters will not make a radical cam street worthy and I wonder if the old Isky 280H SBC racing cam could be made docile for the street just by switching to Rhoads lifters, BUT it seems to me that a strong cam like the Comp 274 could produce both low rpm torque and high rpm H.P. It is a shame Techinspector1 typed too long for the Forum limits below because I am sure he can give a scholarly technical critique of Rhoads lifters and I would like to hear what he has to say. I note that Rhoads lifters are now available for both flat tappet and roller cams (Fords and Chevies) so the idea is still out there somewhere for a few believers.

P.S. I should have said in my cam discussion that my rear ratio is 3.55 which was chosen to come close to the low gear ratios in my old '47 Ford with a 2.78 rear and using the low gear of the 700R4 transmission in my roadster. So I chose a design spec of a '47 Ford and that is what I got, never mind LS Camaros on the street today!

Best Wishes,
Don Shillady (two "l")
Retired Scientis,Teen Rodder