Tom 97ss #25

looks like you will need the alignment plates and spider for those.
and may not have the oiling issues according to the ad. (LS1?)

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cranecams/chevv8192030.html

feeling uncomfortable about the 522's now......

TCAL95Z

Thats weird. On the Crane site under lifters, standard
it says the 10510-16 are for 350 except LS1 and SB2????

The info you put says they are for LS1

anyone know???

TCAL95Z

I called Crane Tech support this morning and the lifters Thunder racing sold me aren't even for a LT1 they are for the LS1.

I hope they take them back thats a major screw up

Tom 97ss #25

get some comps 888-16 and be done with it

SStrokerAce

Yeah usually the issue with those lifters is the lack of oiling and high seat pressures. There are ways to get around the high seat pressures for solid roller street motors, but they are not going to save you money in most cases. The key is that you should have good lifters to start with and go from there, taking seated pressure off of the lifter will make it last longer, the problem is that you also need to have enough to control all of the parts at the RPM and cam aggressiveness that you are running the motors at.

Bret

TCAL95Z

well, I called Thunder after Crane and Thunder says that I have the right lifter for a LT1 solid roller and that they sell this lifter for both LS1 and LT1's and it's all they have sold. They read right from the crane parts book.
If anyone has used part #10510-16 I'd like to hear about it.

Mindgame

Crane does make a good lifter in the Pro and Ultra Pro series, they even use an oiling orifice like the HIPPO option Crowers. However, we had this discussion I think it was about a year ago... same forum... where someone asked about streetable solid lifters. I mentioned the Crower HIPPO and the Red Zones, some other experienced guys like racerdude and others chimed in with their choices.
Needless to say... NO ONE ever mentioned using the standard Crane mechanical lifter with any success on the street. As a matter of fact, I think I made mention of people who'd had problems with them, so I'm surprised to see that some of you guys (participants in that very thread) went out and bought them.

Not to beat anyone up, hell it took Jason Short 3 tries to decide he didn't like them any more.

I will say that alot of this "life cycle" thing comes down to the cam profile. If you're running a cam with a lobe that looks like a rectangle with some radii on it, then you're looking for trouble. Want to run a race cam... build a race car, but keep them out of your street engine. If you use a good lobe and a great lifter then you won't have any problems with a good amount of spring. We're talking about lifters that are designed to deal with race springs here, so the issue isn't the lifter, it's the acceleration/decel of the valvetrain that's hard on the parts.

-Mindgame

Jason Short

LOL You are taking what I said out of context. I didnt have 3 failures, I said I ran them in 3 different motors. One set of those lifters were in 2 different engines (355, then 396......the ones that ended up failing). My 2nd set were only used because I already had them laying around (aquired from another project for free), and as an experiment thought I would try a lighter valvespring along with no oil restrictors. For me, the decision was this: drop $600 putting a hyd roller cam in my driver (stock motor), or spend $250 for springs/retainers since I already had a small solid cam/lifters and put that in. See now?

All they were doing is going in a stock shortblock/stock headed motor. I would NEVER put these lifters in a built motor, but if failure happened this time, I would only loose a $200 shortblock. For me, it was just an experiment. 4k miles so far, no oil restrictors, and 385rw with stock unported heads.

BTW, my "good" motor is using Comp 888's.

Mindgame, when are you going to sell me your engine?

Mindgame

LOL, I was just looking for someone to poke at and I know you're good natured Jason.

So yeah, I took it out of context just for fun.

I do remember reading... I guess when I first joined this forum... about your troubles with the Cranes but didn't know the whole story. Either way, you're not alone. I know of three other people who've had similar experiences with them. All of whom are very knowledgable.

385rw is impressive. With that much power, you don't need my bullet.

Actually.. it is coming out this summer when it warms up a bit. Next monster will be a ~440 ci tall deck aluminum Dart with some really snazzy heads and a custom intake that mounts the tb in near stock fashion. Just a pile of parts right now but should make for some nice fireworks this 4th of July.

-Mindgame

SStrokerAce

That's a great point, use lobes that like low RPM and lower spring pressures to get them to work.... When you start slamming valves open and closed you gotta do a lot of things to make them work to make HP, making them live on top of that in situations with low oil pressure (like idle) that's a a whole different ball game.

BTW a lot of lift in a cam with a given duration doesn't mean that it's stupid aggressive there are lobes with less lift that are more aggressive. Not just cheater race lobes too!!

Bret

96speed

Mindgame: Regarding the lifter discussion...I think that might be a thread I started. A few years ago all you heard guys using (on Cz28.com) were the Crane 11522s. I already had a set of them, and I am running the 11522s as per my engine builder (with the fine print Jason mantioned). I was ready to say no thanks and ante up the buck, but my builder put me at rest. Anyone know where the :knock on wood:: emoticon is?

On a side note: I drove the car to work today, and manual steering sucks! I will have track numbers tomorrow. No rain, no work, and a little homework that can be postponed until Monday . Finally.

"Really snazzy" in Dr. MG language means "HOLY CRAP, these things are nuts!" in normal people language .

Ryan

TCAL95Z

Ok,

I understand the 11522's suck and I remember that other thread but how about this othe part number 10510-16? They are still a standard lifter so am I in the same boat?

Thanks
Tom

Jason Short

Mindgame, no problem man....I knew you were probably just messing with me It was a loss on that motor....just when I was starting to make some real progress with it (getting close to running 130mph in the 1/4), it let go. I think it was for 2 reasons. First the 11522s basically suck....and when I sent them back to Crane for evaluation after the failure the told me "welcome to the school of hard knocks" in those exact words Second, I was running the Comp 943 Pacalloys (240lbs on the seat) which apparently was too much spring. My biggest complaint to Crane was how their argument that I used too much valvespring was not backed by anything published by them. As an engineer myself, why would you NOT publish some kind of numbers as a guide to selecting the proper parts. All they say is that it is a "street" lifter, but offer no technical numbers (ie. spring recommendations) at all. So, in the end I lost a block (with $900 of machine work), cam, lifters, and the time it takes me to pull an engine. About $2500 I would guess.

I would never buy a set of 11522s again (even though I have a set it my motor now), nor will I ever buy Crane stuff. I use Comp almost exclusively, and the time that i didnt (to save $150), it cost me.

Tom, not sure on those 10510s bro....I wish I could help you more there. I would find out what Crane classes those lifters as before you use them though.....find out if they are a race type, or street. If street, I would not use them. Even if you have to pay $250 more for a lifter, its one area I will NEVER skimp on again.

Mindgame, sent you a PM

Jason