What's better....oiling lifters or non-oiling lifters?
- Thread starter Does10s
- Start date
FastRonald
Well-known member
8) Do you mean hydraulic VS> soild lifters?
No. Both are hydraulic. The pushrods are solid (no hole in the middle) for non-oiling, and with a hole for oiling. Since Ford made them both ways I'm just curious which one is better from a performance standpoint.
If you go to http://www.fordsixparts.com/Camshafts%20&%20Lifters.htm you'll see what I mean.
Maybe it doens't really matter so long as the lifter and pushrods match.
Thanks,
Will
If you go to http://www.fordsixparts.com/Camshafts%20&%20Lifters.htm you'll see what I mean.
Maybe it doens't really matter so long as the lifter and pushrods match.
Thanks,
Will
A
Anonymous
Guest
Also, the pushrods for the 250 are longer than the smaller six's. My 250 has the solid p-rods also.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hollow pushrods are for stud mounted rocker arms like a chevy 350, that's why so many aftermarket pushrods are hollow. (really, they are all hollow, just the tips either hove holes or don't) Shaft mounted rockers oil through the rockershaft and can use solid pushrods. Either will work as long as the length is correct.
The stock Ford adjustable pushrods are non-oiling in that the pushrod is solid. You would only need use the oil-thru-pushrod when using the full roller rocker setup offered by AzCoupe. If you are using the stock Ford adjustable, or the roller-tipped rocker assembly, then you would use the stock style Ford pushrods (ball/cup).
simon
Famous Member
wow, there are still others who, like me, keep the non-adjustanle valvetrain. And I thought I´d be lone ranger there 
naw, though the adjustables from the 170 are commonly preferred and recommended as an easy precaution against damage occured by pumped-up lifters, the later non-adjustables may work ok and flawlessly, if the rest of the valvetrain geometry is set up correctly; excessive head miling can be compensated only by shimming the rocker arm shaft mounts! One more point for the early adjustables.
If I had known of the 170 rocker arms and the availability of cup-type pushrods of 9 5/16" length for tall deck 250 engines, I´d went that way.
but- I bought my replacement rockers first... before I ordered the Falcon Performance book. Now I´m gonna stick with my non-adjustable rocker arms.
Jeez, I bet those last words of mine will disqualify me in this forum forever!
naw, though the adjustables from the 170 are commonly preferred and recommended as an easy precaution against damage occured by pumped-up lifters, the later non-adjustables may work ok and flawlessly, if the rest of the valvetrain geometry is set up correctly; excessive head miling can be compensated only by shimming the rocker arm shaft mounts! One more point for the early adjustables.
If I had known of the 170 rocker arms and the availability of cup-type pushrods of 9 5/16" length for tall deck 250 engines, I´d went that way.
but- I bought my replacement rockers first... before I ordered the Falcon Performance book. Now I´m gonna stick with my non-adjustable rocker arms.
Jeez, I bet those last words of mine will disqualify me in this forum forever!
