Go Back  Offshoreonly.com > Technical > General Q & A
Is there a better roller lifter than gm for .....? >

Is there a better roller lifter than gm for .....?

Notices

Is there a better roller lifter than gm for .....?

Thread Tools
 
Old 04-09-2015 | 04:28 PM
  #11  
rmbuilder's Avatar
MarineKinetics
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 5
From: Rochester, NY
Default

Also if your lifters have a .750" wheel, they are not the cast bodied Street replacement design, which means they are a 4603 or higher. That would be another incentive to re purpose them into this build.

Bob
rmbuilder is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 05:11 PM
  #12  
Full Force's Avatar
Gold Member
20 Year Member
Gold Member
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,688
Likes: 216
From: Olmsted Falls,Ohio Marblehead,Oh
Default

Originally Posted by abones
the GM roller lifter with the dog bone retainer set up will be just fine for your application, it can and will handle 600 lift. and will run your pressures with no problem. In my humble opinion.
.578" is max safe zone on stock dogbone lifters....
Full Force is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:01 PM
  #13  
Registered
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 239
From: Michigan
Default

Originally Posted by Full Force
.578" is max safe zone on stock dogbone lifters....
Tim I understand and respect that, but I will disagree! I have been running more than .600 lift with them and 6000 RPM in the same engines for 15 years never had any issues. I never bought into that. Now I know many will doubt my experience with these lifters, but they work for me! I can run 5800 rpm for extended runs, and run north of 120mph ( as long as the drives stay together)
abones is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:18 PM
  #14  
Registered
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,439
Likes: 93
From: yorkville,il
Default

Originally Posted by abones
Tim I understand and respect that, but I will disagree! I have been running more than .600 lift with them and 6000 RPM in the same engines for 15 years never had any issues. I never bought into that. Now I know many will doubt my experience with these lifters, but they work for me! I can run 5800 rpm for extended runs, and run north of 120mph ( as long as the drives stay together)
many may doubt,but not me.if you say you are doing it i 100% believe you.
mike tkach is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:23 PM
  #15  
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,332
Likes: 73
From: chicago
Default

They used those Gm lifters on the 525 EFI. That cam has around .610/.632 lift.
MILD THUNDER is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:27 PM
  #16  
Registered
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 239
From: Michigan
Default

Originally Posted by MILD THUNDER
They used those Gm lifters on the 525 EFI. That cam has around .610/.632 lift.
I rest my case! Now out to the jury.
abones is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:36 PM
  #17  
SB
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,094
Likes: 3,684
From: On A Dirt Floor
Default

Originally Posted by abones
Tim I understand and respect that, but I will disagree! I have been running more than .600 lift with them and 6000 RPM in the same engines for 15 years never had any issues. I never bought into that. Now I know many will doubt my experience with these lifters, but they work for me! I can run 5800 rpm for extended runs, and run north of 120mph ( as long as the drives stay together)
Crane is who stated that .578" lift figure Full force mentioned.

If using the factory lifters, it is advisable to check in the motor when using a .600" + lift cam (1.7 rockers) just in case the cam grinder reduced the base circle at all/or enough where the lifter vs dog bone issue occurs. I wish Crane mentioned it this way, but they probably figured stating a lift figure would make it easier to understand for most....but who really knows why.
SB is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:42 PM
  #18  
rmbuilder's Avatar
MarineKinetics
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 5
From: Rochester, NY
Default

The 525 EFI came direct from Mercury Marine with Crane 16535-16, .300" long body, to accommodate the reduced base circle of the .372" lobe. The confusion stems from "factory" , GM or Mercury.The Merc "factory" lifter is not the same.The ability to run a short body lifter is all predicated on the base circle of the cam.

Bob
rmbuilder is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:45 PM
  #19  
SB
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,094
Likes: 3,684
From: On A Dirt Floor
Default

Thanks for reconfirming the base circle deal I mentioned, Bob. I gave that info on another site some years ago. They laughed, called me names, and i got banned shortly after. Ha !
SB is offline  
Reply
Old 04-09-2015 | 07:54 PM
  #20  
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,332
Likes: 73
From: chicago
Default

When I said "GM" lifters, I should have been clearer, as I was referring to lifters that were sold by "GM Performance" label,

#17120061 is a taller lifter I believe.

#17120060 is the lifter used in say a 1997 454 Truck engine.

The 525 Lifter, was a crane piece. Not a GM piece. I was incorrect for associating GM lifters and crane/merc lifters. Sorry for the confusion there.

The 525 style lifters have an exposed lifter wheel, where the GM lifters, have the shrouded wheel. Possibly the GM lifters made by eaton or someone?

Last edited by MILD THUNDER; 04-09-2015 at 08:14 PM.
MILD THUNDER is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.