Converting Hydraulic Lifters To Solid

[jonand 0]

I'm looking at converting my S16 hydraulics to solid operation. Having researched the subject, it seems that this is a common conversion on certain other similar engines, but I haven't found anyone supplying the bits for Pugs. The principle is that a simple hardened tophat shim replaces the inner part of the hydraulic piston - the shim is suitably ground to give an appropriate tappet clearance.

 

Has anyone tried this, or know where the shims could be obtained ? Or is it a trip to my local machine shop.

 

Thanks

Jon

[Sandy 189]

The finished lifter will be about twice the weight of a proper solid lifter, that's the only problem really.

[jonand 0]

Yes I appreciate there will be a weight issue, but I would expect it to be less weight overall than a hydraulic lifter - providing the oil ports in the bucket are soldered up to prevent them filling with oil. This technique seems to be successfully used by the K series fratertinity - albeit acknowledging that it is not the ultimate setup.

 

Regards

Jon

[Hilgie 16 2 Cars]

Greenspeed supplies a solid lifter set for the S16 and Mi.

www.greenspeed.be

 

I am sure QEP also does them as I think they are made by CatCams.

[jonand 0]

Yes thanks Hilgie, there are a number of companies that supply solid lifters - but I was looking to convert my existing hydraulic ones - just trying to save some (a lot) of pennies.

[petert 554]

It's ok if you remove the lifter internals and use long stem valves with top hat shims. Lots of work though. Best to just buy new lifters, ideally 1mm oversize (33mm) and bore out the lifter bores. Most Mi16's have worn lifter bores now anyway. Don't forget you also need to replace the non-return valves with restrictors to lower oil flow.

[jonand 0]

Yes thanks Peter - good tip about the restrictor.

 

What I had in mind was this:

 

 

 

 

Regards

Jon

[petert 554]

That's fine, so long as you block the oil entry hole successfully. Otherwise it will fill up with oil, adding undesirable mass. In any case, it's still a worthwhile upgrade from a hydraulic lifter for high rpm applications. It would be preferable to use lighter XU10J4R (or RS) lifters if you can find a cheap set.

[Sandy 189]

Beware pattern RS followers that aren't in fact suitable. I got caught out badly by them.

[jonand 0]

That's fine, so long as you block the oil entry hole successfully. Otherwise it will fill up with oil, adding undesirable mass. In any case, it's still a worthwhile upgrade from a hydraulic lifter for high rpm applications. It would be preferable to use lighter XU10J4R (or RS) lifters if you can find a cheap set.

 

Thanks again Peter - I beleive the RS lifters have a smaller diameter (28.35mm as opposed to 32mm) and wouldn't fit Mi /S16 heads.

 

Sandy - I have a collection of lifters - some OEM and some pattern, and it is apparent that the pattern parts have different size (smaller) piston components (as detailed on PeterT's web-site) - scary really and definately one to be aware of.

 

Cheers

Jon

[niklas 1]

What is the weight difference between hydr lifters and (proper, ie not converted) solid lifters?

Edited February 5, 2009 by niklas

[guffe 2]

That's fine, so long as you block the oil entry hole successfully. Otherwise it will fill up with oil, adding undesirable mass. In any case, it's still a worthwhile upgrade from a hydraulic lifter for high rpm applications. It would be preferable to use lighter XU10J4R (or RS) lifters if you can find a cheap set.

 

 

Beware pattern RS followers that aren't in fact suitable. I got caught out badly by them.

 

What is the difference between XU10J4R/XU7JP4 and XU10J4RS lifters? The J4R and 7JP4 have same part numbers, but RS is different.

[Sandy 189]

The RS are 32mm OD like the rest, but need slightly different internal height. The pattern ones I was supplied clashed with the spring caps, which luckily only caused an annoying noise and misfire, (still had to dismantle it all to find out though and lost money on the job instantly). They supplied others, but they all had the same problem, not enough internal depth. Some of the regular 406 1.8 and 2.0 engines I've stripped have had identical followers to the RS (in all the ways I could measure anyway), but it does vary. It's not exactly clear to me why the OE part numbers are different.

The EW7/EW10 engines have the 28.35mm I believe, but haven't confirmed yet.