Tom wrote,
>I posted a reply to your previous message before I saw this message. Would
you explain more clearly for us engine challenged people what you mean by
"and >the pushrod would hit the rim of the lifter"? Other engines must
overcome this problem to use roller lifters or am I missing somthing?
Thanx.
As I said last night, the lifters would have to be extended by over an inch
in bore height before enough of the lifter would protrude to gain an
acceptable
area to connect the anti-rotation lifter interconnect.
Ive seen 3 methods of doing this.
1) The lifter has a collar welded/brazed/rivited/machined onto
a single side of the lifter, and a steet plate interconnects
the lifters by this collar, which keeps the two collars
parrellel to one another and the roller doesnt rotate.
2) The top of the lifter is macchined with flats across
the bore, which allows a steel plate with square holes
at its ends to captivate the flats on both lifters.
3) Lifters are machined with a flat as per #2, but a bar
is bolted across the lifter bores area, and keeps all
the lifters from rotating.
The problem that we have with the alpine on all of these methods
is that the pushrods dont run perperdicular to the cam, and run at
angles relative to the lifter. The pushrods run relativly close
to the rim of the lifter bores.
Also, the alpine lifter is rather long to start with.
You could perhaps lengthen some lifters to protrude the bores,
but doing so would have the pushrods even closer to the rims
of the lifters because the taller lifter rim encroaches into the
pushrods positioning.
Jarrid Gross
|