Lunati Retrofit Hydraulic Roller

-

67Cuda408

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
108
Reaction score
20
Location
Boise
I’m wondering if anyone has any experience with Lunatis retrofit Roller vans for LA engines. If you look up the 20200711LK cam with lifter kit on summit it lists it as having a 3 bolt cam gear connection but then recommends a standard Mopar timing setup. Also I’ve read a few older threads on this forum where guys were claiming the snouts weren’t the correct length. Anyone have any more recent experience with these cams?
 
I’m wondering if anyone has any experience with Lunatis retrofit Roller vans for LA engines. If you look up the 20200711LK cam with lifter kit on summit it lists it as having a 3 bolt cam gear connection but then recommends a standard Mopar timing setup. Also I’ve read a few older threads on this forum where guys were claiming the snouts weren’t the correct length. Anyone have any more recent experience with these cams?
I assume you are building a LA street setup as you are looking at a Hyd roller.
Save yourself alot of $money and trouble and stick with solids, flat tappet for the street, solid roller if you really need it.
It has been my experience that Hyd roller setups are problematic and to expensive.
Just research it on this forum.
 
I’m wondering if anyone has any experience with Lunatis retrofit Roller vans for LA engines. If you look up the 20200711LK cam with lifter kit on summit it lists it as having a 3 bolt cam gear connection but then recommends a standard Mopar timing setup. Also I’ve read a few older threads on this forum where guys were claiming the snouts weren’t the correct length. Anyone have any more recent experience with these cams?
Double check with them direct. I still got fucked on it. IMO, those *** wipes haven't got a clue where they sit to ****. I argued with Lunati for 3 weeks. But I did get my money back.
I can not print out my true feelings. Theres almost not enough cypher space here @ FABO to diswade you and trash them at the same time.

The only other customer service that was worse was PAXTON!
 
Double check with them direct. I still got fucked on it. IMO, those *** wipes haven't got a clue where they sit to ****. I argued with Lunati for 3 weeks. But I did get my money back.
I can not print out my true feelings. Theres almost not enough cypher space here @ FABO to diswade you and trash them at the same time.

The only other customer service that was worse was PAXTON!
Yeah yours was definitely one of the threads I read.
 
I agree with the staying with a solid lifter. I went hydraulic roller, but I don't remember what kind of lifters I have, if they have that oil hole on top or not, or if they are bleeding off oil pressure from coming out of the lifter bores slightly.

Next time I will pay to bush the block and run solid rollers.
 
I’ve heard of the bleed off problem before and Hughes claims they lowered their oil band so they don’t have that problem so those are the lifters I’m looking at.
 
I agree with the staying with a solid lifter. I went hydraulic roller, but I don't remember what kind of lifters I have, if they have that oil hole on top or not, or if they are bleeding off oil pressure from coming out of the lifter bores slightly.

Next time I will pay to bush the block and run solid rollers.
I dont understand how they could bleed off from the hole being exposed.
Once the oil is trapped in the lifter you should be able to pull them from the bore and the lifter should stay pumped up. Correct?
 
Double check with them direct. I still got fucked on it. IMO, those *** wipes haven't got a clue where they sit to ****. I argued with Lunati for 3 weeks. But I did get my money back.
I can not print out my true feelings. Theres almost not enough cypher space here @ FABO to diswade you and trash them at the same time.

The only other customer service that was worse was PAXTON!

Feel free to pm the issues you Had with Paxton. I've considered them for awhile
 
I dont understand how they could bleed off from the hole being exposed.
Once the oil is trapped in the lifter you should be able to pull them from the bore and the lifter should stay pumped up. Correct?
You should if things are good and tight in the lifter... but I think the other poster was talking about bleeding oil pressure from the rest of the system by exposing the lifter band, not bleeding off the lifter itself.
 
You should if things are good and tight in the lifter... but I think the other poster was talking about bleeding oil pressure from the rest of the system by exposing the lifter band, not bleeding off the lifter itself.
Got it,I misunderstood.
I have a set of Comp rollers that bleed off when the engine is hot at rest in a very short amount of time. Cheap crap, I have leaned a hard and expensive lesson.
 
Don't understand the problem it seems like a lot of you have with the hydraulic roller lifters all Magnum engines have Factory hydraulic roller lifters all LS have Factory hydraulic roller lifters all new model hemis have Factory hydraulic roller lifters they have very few problems with them I just don't see what what the problem would be with a retrofit unless there cheap Chinese knock-offs buy Mopar performance would be my suggestion
 
For 340 blocks, the problem is the large chamfers in the top of the lifter bores. They allow the waist bands of the lifter to be exposed and dumps pressure from the main supply galleries. Well documented.

For others, where the chamfers is not an issue, could be the parts. I also suspect there are a lot of blocks with well worn lifter bores and folks aren't paying attention to lifter-to-bore clearances like they should. Oil will leak out there just as readily as at main/rod bearings with too much clearance. I never have seen folks measure these aftermarket lifters for diameter.

Of course, all this is not helping to answer the OP's question.... sure is drifting off.
 
I’m wondering if anyone has any experience with Lunatis retrofit Roller vans for LA engines. If you look up the 20200711LK cam with lifter kit on summit it lists it as having a 3 bolt cam gear connection but then recommends a standard Mopar timing setup. Also I’ve read a few older threads on this forum where guys were claiming the snouts weren’t the correct length. Anyone have any more recent experience with these cams?

I know this an older thread but I'll input my 3 year of experience with this exact cam, I didn't need a retrofit kit as my LA 360 was already a roller from factory. This is a very good cam, I've had little to no issues with it. Awesome mid-range. Great street cam, although a bit on the mild side.
I still use a mechanical fuel pump so no I did not have an issue with snout length. But again I just bought the cam itself, used the stock roller lifters and a Cloyes Double roller timing chain. As well as upgraded the valve springs, rockers etc.
I'm really thinking about bumping up to this cam: 20200712 Voodoo Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller Cam - Chrysler 273-360 282/290
Which is what I should've done in the first place, especially with 9.7 compression.
 
I assume you are building a LA street setup as you are looking at a Hyd roller.
Save yourself alot of $money and trouble and stick with solids, flat tappet for the street, solid roller if you really need it.
It has been my experience that Hyd roller setups are problematic and to expensive.
Just research it on this forum.

Agree , both the ones I had were noisy , I went to solid rollers because of it !
 
I know this an older thread but I'll input my 3 year of experience with this exact cam, I didn't need a retrofit kit as my LA 360 was already a roller from factory. This is a very good cam, I've had little to no issues with it. Awesome mid-range. Great street cam, although a bit on the mild side.
I still use a mechanical fuel pump so no I did not have an issue with snout length. But again I just bought the cam itself, used the stock roller lifters and a Cloyes Double roller timing chain. As well as upgraded the valve springs, rockers etc.
I'm really thinking about bumping up to this cam: 20200712 Voodoo Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller Cam - Chrysler 273-360 282/290
Which is what I should've done in the first place, especially with 9.7 compression.
Very nice street set up.
It appears that the Magnum roller blocks do not have the same lifter issues as the LA block.
I have seen other forum members come to the same conclusion.
 
Very nice street set up.
It appears that the Magnum roller blocks do not have the same lifter issues as the LA block.
I have seen other forum members come to the same conclusion.
I do agree with you, however.
Mine's one of the oddball "transition" years.

Mine is actually classified as an LA block. (mine is from 1991 Ramcharger)
360's from about 1989 to 1992 were classified as LA blocks but had roller lifters from factory and the "308" heads.
The 318's started having them in the late 80's as well, if they had the "302" heads it was almost guaranteed. From about 1988 to 1991.
They are reports of them starting as early as 85 in M-bodies, I can't verify this for sure, but I thought I read about it sometime in the past. (if I can find that book again)

I also had quite a few people tell me that the 308/302 heads are really good. (just gotta block the smog ports) and port them to their potential. As I was going to replace them with ported 340 big valve J-heads. The guy at Hughes Engines was the one who told me that on the phone, or buy one of their worked over E-quest magnum heads.

These were "transitions" into magnums, it's also funny how the 318 is first to get the roller treatment and the magnum treatment (1992 vs. 1993 for the 360)
I have also heard some people call them "Pre-mags".
Now only If I can find that book again, I loved that book although a bit dated info-wise, still a good read.
It's funny, I still have factory service manuals For 1984 and 1988 D/W series trucks.
 
I believe the generally accepted term is "LA roller".

I have one from an 86 5th Ave.
 
I do agree with you, however.
Mine's one of the oddball "transition" years.

Mine is actually classified as an LA block. (mine is from 1991 Ramcharger)
360's from about 1989 to 1992 were classified as LA blocks but had roller lifters from factory and the "308" heads.
The 318's started having them in the late 80's as well, if they had the "302" heads it was almost guaranteed. From about 1988 to 1991.
They are reports of them starting as early as 85 in M-bodies, I can't verify this for sure, but I thought I read about it sometime in the past. (if I can find that book again)

I also had quite a few people tell me that the 308/302 heads are really good. (just gotta block the smog ports) and port them to their potential. As I was going to replace them with ported 340 big valve J-heads. The guy at Hughes Engines was the one who told me that on the phone, or buy one of their worked over E-quest magnum heads.

These were "transitions" into magnums, it's also funny how the 318 is first to get the roller treatment and the magnum treatment (1992 vs. 1993 for the 360)
I have also heard some people call them "Pre-mags".
Now only If I can find that book again, I loved that book although a bit dated info-wise, still a good read.
It's funny, I still have factory service manuals For 1984 and 1988 D/W series trucks.
So let me understand
You are saying that you used Retro-fit style hydraulic roller lifters in your "oddball" block?
If so, which brand and P/N did you use?
 
So let me understand
You are saying that you used Retro-fit style hydraulic roller lifters in your "oddball" block?
If so, which brand and P/N did you use?

Again LA blocks had factory roller lifters from the late 80's to 91/92.

No retrofit kit needed. All I needed was the hyd. roller cam itself. The block already had roller lifters from the factory.
Here is what I used: Voodoo Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller Cam - Chrysler 273-360 270/279 (No lifter kit needed)

But now I want this: Voodoo Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller Cam - Chrysler 273-360 282/290

Or maybe: Hughes Engines
 
Hughes are most likely Howards now
see
https://www.howardscams.com/sites/default/files/Howards2016_17_mid.pdf
around page 144-148 pdf numbers are not exactly like the on line catalog
see page 9
https://www.howardscams.com/sites/default/files/lobe list email 1-20-2014.pdf
and u know enough to get the right nose
HOWEVER

I'd go to
Street Performance | Jones Cams If not for street change form
and fill out completely including .050 flow if you have it
Jones roller profiles with the inverse grind on the flank are superior to anything else out there

Hydraulic Roller Tappet | Jones Cams
BVVC comparing to flat flank rollers as Jones are shorter for the same upper profile
or with the same seat to seat timing you can use a bigger cam

you can ask Krooser
we used to run Jones (Rick I think) cams with sponsors decals

and thanks for the post
 
Did you end up using a solid roller tappet on a hydraulic grind cam?

Mine were aftermarket in a 406 sbc, were very noisy , changed to a 292 extreme solid roller , and it was twice as quite as the same thing in the hyd. version.
 
-
Back
Top