Lifter rule in Stock

[SSDiv6]

This is the actual language on the 2017 rule change.
It's not clear enough and it needs to be explained better.
It does not say that hydraulic lifters can be replaced with solids.
It still gives the requirements for checking hydraulic lifters.

[Casey Miles]

If I misunderstand this change, sorry! The guys who use solid lifter engines are getting screwed over do to no chance on manipulating the lifters. It's bad enough that .010 in a hydraulic is considered OK by NHRA. The engines HP were based on the lifter working the way the manufacturer designed it, not the way they are now with a built in lash. Might as well let everyone use solid roller cams and get over with it.

Casey Miles
248H Stock

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

This is the actual language on the 2017 rule change.
It's not clear enough and it needs to be explained better.
It does not say that hydraulic lifters can be replaced with solids.
It still gives the requirements for checking hydraulic lifters.

After re-reading this, I think it gives the okay for ceramic bottom lifters, ..about 15 years after the fact.
I'll have to call my law firm , Dewey, Screwum , and Howe, and get an interpretation.

[Jim Wahl]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

This is the actual language on the 2017 rule change.
It's not clear enough and it needs to be explained better.
It does not say that hydraulic lifters can be replaced with solids.
It still gives the requirements for checking hydraulic lifters.

It also still says you must use OEM rocker arms or adjustable push rods (not both)????? The roller rocker OK has been law for several years? Jim

.

[john ancona]

Originally Posted by Casey Miles

If I misunderstand this change, sorry! The guys who use solid lifter engines are getting screwed over do to no chance on manipulating the lifters. It's bad enough that .010 in a hydraulic is considered OK by NHRA. The engines HP were based on the lifter working the way the manufacturer designed it, not the way they are now with a built in lash. Might as well let everyone use solid roller cams and get over with it.

Casey Miles
248H Stock

Yes Sir ! Get it over with, solid roller cams need to be allowed, Look cars built after 1985 almost all have roller lifters, that's over thirty years ago and the (getting smaller) number of the older cars are almost fifty years old now, at this point with all the rule changes in stock to the valve train what difference will roller lifters really make .

[Alan Roehrich]

Yeah, give everybody solid rollers.

Then next year, give everybody 0.700" lift.







A couple years down the road, wonder why you have a 9" tire Super Stock class, spiraling out of control.

[goinbroke2]

Alan, I was thinking the same thing...stock lift but any duration...and roller rockers....and now solid lifters...and.....

All them "hyd" motors are going up in rpm now!

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

A couple years down the road, wonder why you have a 9" tire Super Stock class, spiraling out of control.

A couple years down the road? That ship sailed a long time ago.

[Jim Kaekel]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Yeah, give everybody solid rollers.
Then next year, give everybody 0.700" lift.

A couple years down the road, wonder why you have a 9" tire Super Stock class, spiraling out of control.

X2. If you want roller lifters, go buy or build a SS car!

[Greg Reimer 7376]

All I saw in the rule revision was an amendment allowing what has been accepted for years. Ceramic based lifters or coated tool steel lifters are not new,as we all know.If your combo came OEM with rollers, use rollers. If it didn't, does this language imply or specify a change over? I didn't read that.Accepted lifters for the last 10-15 years,be they ceramic based or coated steel, were still an OEM configuration. Running even OEM valve trains with lash isn't new either. What does this revision possibly change?