harley lifter travel limiters

Pushrod Adjustment

STANDARD LIFTER

LIFTER WITH TRAVEL LIMITER

• Rotate the engine. Watch the intake valve open (pushrod goes up) and then close (pushrod goes down). Continue rotating slowly until the cylinder's piston reaches top dead center (TDC). The cylinder that you're adjusting will now have both its tappets on the base circle of their camshaft lobes. This is the lowest point in the tappet blocks for the tappets. Notice: Valve is on its seat and fully closed.
• Bring pushrods to Zero lash, no up and down movement, tight against rocker arm, and tight against tappet/lifter.
• Mark the pushrod with a marker or paint stick.
• Extend the pushrod (4) four full turns or 24 flats (if using S&S Pushrods, S&S pushrods have a 32 Threads per inch)
• Allow the tappet/lifter to bleed down 20/30 minutes, longer is better.
• If after 20/30 minutes you can spin the pushrod with your fingers you do not have limited travel tappets (HL2T kit).
• If you do not have HL2T or Travel limited tappets, lock the pushrod down. Repeat process for the other cylinder and pushrods, you are now done adjusting.
• If you do have HL2T or Travel limited tappets move on to the next step.
• From this point you want to shorten the pushrod. While shortening you will feel drag on the pushrod, this is the valve spring tension.
• While shortening, you will feel the valve spring release the pressure on the pushrod. When the adjustment is correct, you will again be able to spin the pushrod with your fingers. The pushrod must spin freely. with NO up and down movement.
• From this point you want to shorten one full turn, 6 flats.
• Lock down the pushrod and repeat for the rear cylinder.

DO NOT TRY TO MAKE SHORTCUTS IN THIS PROCESS. Proper bleeding down of tappets, is critical for healthy running motors. Damage to motor will happen not following these instructions.

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• Technical Discussion Forums
• Twin-Cam Engine

S&S Lifters

• Add to quote

I have a set of the premiums with the limiters. I'm wondering why preload them with oil only to pump them down to adjust the pushrods. Would like a recommendation on how far you back of the pushrods when adjusting them. I have read to go 1/2 turn more than specified to quiet them down. I have CompCam pushrods at 24 tpi. Thank, Dave  

Read the procedure on S&S's website tech tips. I would not fill them I never fill lifters. I do soak them in oil but that's not the same as filling.  

There are 2 different ways to adjust lifters. Most adjust from the top down. Some adjust from the bottom up. If you don't know what you are doing use MFGRs recommendations. For instance if you are doing a bottom up adjustment you dont want to crank them down a half turn after setting, you may wind up with a motor that has no compression cold or worse burn a valve. Or a top down setting that tops out when hot and makes noise. Always start with standard settings, You want the lifter plunger in the middle (lower middle) of its travel so that as the motor grows with heat the pushrods dont get loose. Depending on what lifters you have, some pump up when abused and some collapse when abused determines which adjustment method is used. Travel limiters are usually for lifters that collapse and these usually use a bottom up adjustment. Unless you are using a cam that has stupid fast ramps and high lift (and reving to the moon) using other than standard adjustments is unnecessary and may lead to other problems. Stock Shovel lifters collapse so the settings are bottom up. Standard Twin Cam lifters are top down, zero lash then crank down the plunger. Number of turns is determined by pushrod adjuster thread pitch. Dont install travel limiters because someone told you they are cool, discuss your setup with a builder because it is a package deal Cam design, lifter style, rocker ratio, spring pressure, RPM range, life expectancy, etc.  

1.2 turns from the top of plunger travel will give you .050in. preload.Which based on an assumed .010in. overall plunger travel will put you in about the middle.  

OK here is the procedure for S&S HL2T lifters,,, cam is on the heel, extend the adjuster, .1252 (32tpi = 4 turns) adjustment turns will vary with adjuster threads. Let sit for 15 minutes, at this time the pushrod should still be tight, (if it is loose, lengthen another turn and wait 15 minutes more). Now shorten the pushrod adjuster until the pushrod is free, then loosen another..0313,(1 turn with 32tpi adjuster) lock them down and move on to the next one. Some lifters have less free movement, Jims come to mind,, I have seen much carnage after the do it yourself seller,,,(usually engineers), (seems they know everything), that's cool, but they cry hard and heavy after they have expensive screwups,,,and his trusted "harley mechanic buddy, that worked for beer" did cam changes, especially on TC engines.  

Thanks everyone for the replies. I have adjusted pushrods in the past but they were already filled with oil. I had read somewhere that backing them off a little would make them quiet. Wanted to get peoples take on this. Of coarse I'll follow S&S instructions. Have B lifters with limiters in there now and after 40 thou. thought it would be good time for a change while checking out the cam chest. Thanks again, Dave  

S&S says 1/2 turn may quiet the valve train a bit,,there are too many variables to say it will quiet the valve train... I don't understand everyone's obsession with quiet,,,performance v twins make noise.. it's normal and natural...I love the sewing machine sound of solids, hl2t's make a little noise, the slapping of forged pistons.  

tall terry said: I don't understand everyone's obsession with quiet,,,performance v twins make noise.. it's normal and natural...I love the sewing machine sound of solids, hl2t's make a little noise, the slapping of forged pistons. Click to expand...

Bingo Jim I love all that noise!!!  

Then you'd love my 103.  

Yep - a badass sewing machine. I love it too.  

I am not against the valve train noise, more of a concern is what is normal for a given bike and what is not. or when the noise changes. What makes me laugh is when people put larger cams in a bike then freak because the valve train is noisier. Other than something making contact that it shouldn't or improper adjustment, it will always be noisier no matter what you do.  

Not really....poor choices in components Overly aggressive cams Springs with too much...or worse yet too little seat pressure Valve stem protrusion way out there for no other reason but to put the wrong springs on the engine. Not that they don't or should not make a little more noise but even with some of the better larger cams....S&S 640 etc there should not be a huge difference And there isnt  

I have the same lifters they are noisy what ever i do i have tried 5 different sets of s&s cams with no difference  

Unless you have the late model heads......get rid of the dual 200# springs off there and replace them with beehives or a good reverse wound dual spring with about 150-160 on the seat A lot of it should go away  

Therm, I'm sure I would live it...if you like all that racket, you would love my 113 evo. As well...power is noisy!!! I love noise...  

Can't say that I like it, more like I learned to live with it.  

John is right, beehives make a big difference. "C" lifters in my 2015 making racket after 9000 miles. Installed S&S standard lifters, SE adj. push rods, 3 turns + 1 flat, super quiet cold or hot.  

If noise is heavy and entire engine set up is not old, allways consider possibility that there can be major problems tex. oilpressure or something else. Just made new setup to S&S 124, major damages because engine was built up wrong way. 4000 euros for nothing. But. Now it's build up in auth. S&S garage. Cheap can (and will) be expensive.  

Therm, you and I both know the differences between noises that will trash an engine, and those that won't. The v6 in my trailblazer has a valve speed click, just 1, not all, but heavier than a valve train component, that annoys the krap out of me, but 100k later, it hasn't changed, it was under warranty, no problem  

Yep, some are bad and some just are. As for the valve train noise, I'd like to have a set of titanium rockers, or at least a set of lo mass hard steel rockers. See what removing all that mass would do for the valve train. With what the stock ones weigh, that's a lot of mass that has to change direction a few thousand times a minute.  

Rocker arm weight isn't an issue or part of the issue An aluminum part to take its place would not weight any less  

Since when is rocker arm mass a non player in valve train harmonics? I can't believe you said that.  

Specifically for a street driven Harley geometry aside The rockers and the weight of the rockers are not an issue Aluminum rockers would take double the room and are physically larger Ive set up a few race bikes ...there isn't enough difference between the Jesel or WW engineering setup to make any difference on a 4500 rpm engine. Might want to be sure you know what someone knows before you decide you do  

Well, I'll disagree with your assumption that the mass is of no consequence on a street machine. And I'm not sure why you use 4500 as the limit for rpm on a street bike. As for using aluminum, you are the only one talking about that material. I said titanium or low mass hard steel. Once you get past the ratio math, valve train calculations treat the rocker arm as mass. And less is better.  

He did specify titanium not aluminum.... Lighter components usually allow faster action/reaction of the valve train... In the old days we did anything possible to lower the weight (mass) of the valve train.. we even drilled holes through the solid lifters..  

25-45 is where 90% + of where people ride...despite what they think Where exactly are you going to take weight out of a scrub rocker for a Harley ? Forged steel rockers with a roller tip weight way more and especially on the roller tip Titanium ? there ya go a forged titanium rocker @ $500 each with next to no benefit other than they will eventually break Instead of talking about something that cannot happen......way more benefit in a lighter spring,retainer and a hollow stem intake valve.  

I don't know who you ride with, but the people I ride with tend to push them harder. As for rocker make up, a steel unit would be a stamping. Down side to that is the need to provide oil to the valve spring by another means then squirting it through the rocker. Titanium would be perfect for the existing head. As strong as the steel forging and much lighter. But I'm thinking they would run 2K a set. Ideally, someone would redesign the head to eliminate the 1950's rocker design. As for your idea about lighter valves, that would be good. Sodium filled would be even better. But when you look at the math, the valve is much less of an issue than the Harley rocker arm. In the simplest terms: With F = the energy required to overcome the stationary mass. F = max. acceleration x (masses of tappet + retainer + collets + valve + rocker arm + pushrod + 1/3 of spring) Obviously the rocker has the most mass. And would be the area where the highest gains in mass reduction could be made. And if you think that rotating mass is way different than reciprocating mass, you'd be wrong. This is your first calculation, before you even consider the angular acceleration delta. The mass of that heavy rocker arm is what beats the valve train to death. It's been that way since the day it was adopted. Thing is, with the twin cam, the MoCo took a step backwards by choosing to use a cheaper automotive tappet.  

:corn: :corn::corn:  

you can use all the calculations you want...the lighter valves,springs,retainers is being done....not an idea No indication whatsoever the rockers are an issue within the operating range of a street ridden Harley....your friends ride harder....so be it still not an issue Steel stamping ? the stock rockers are forgings why would you do anything different ? Titanium rockers have been tried...if there was an advantage in some form of motorsports where money is not an object....they would be using them and aren't I take it you don't do any of this for a living ?  

Not for a living, I'm retired. But I used to. Not scooters, just cars and trucks. And your post just makes my argument. If a gram of valve weight is of value, than so is 50 grams of rocker weight. And we weren't talking cost, just what we would like to see done.  

S&S lifters I am holding a 1938 knucklehead rocker,same design as 1950's arms.the theory of the total rocker mass,looks nice on paper ,means just about nothing in the range of street bikes to dragsters,in the harley world.The outboard mass of the valve side lever, the spring weight,the valve weight,the cam ramps closing speed in inches per degree at closing contact.These determine the spring forces.The cams profile ,such as pressure angle on lifter,the spring loads needed for radical profiles,have more to do with valve train life then a basket full of rocker arm designs,that revolve around radial mass.Been there done that.  

Drool! Now you've gone and done it! I was trying to stay off here because I was rude to Terry and made an ass of myself for which I have been feeling lousy about for some time. But I have to ask Paul, can you tell us anymore about that engine? 4 cam design? Iron cylinders? Cubic inches? Bore and stroke? Hoping you can maybe talk about some of it. Spent another $1100 on parts to support my engine this month for my build. It never ends. Regards, -A-  

CowboyTutt said: Now you've gone and done it! I was trying to stay off here because I was rude to Terry and made an ass of myself for which I have been feeling lousy about for some time. But I have to ask Paul, can you tell us anymore about that engine? 4 cam design? Iron cylinders? Cubic inches? Bore and stroke? Hoping you can maybe talk about some of it. Spent another $1100 on parts to support my engine this month for my build. It never ends. Regards, -A- Click to expand...

• ?            
• 146.4K members

Top Contributors this Month

• Welcome to HarleyTechTalk . Please login or sign up .
• HarleyTechTalk

For advertising inquiries or help with registration or other issues, you may contact us by email at [email protected]

• ► Technical Forums
• ► Twin Cam
• ► travel limiter question

travel limiter question

Started by hogmandon, April 06, 2013, 06:26:05 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

• Site Supporter
• Full Member

April 06, 2013, 06:26:05 PM

• Posts: 1,816
• Location: West Virginia

April 06, 2013, 06:34:03 PM #1

• Administrator
• PhD in Malt Based Liquids
• Posts: 21,310
• Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia

April 06, 2013, 08:00:24 PM #2

April 07, 2013, 09:50:02 AM #3

• Location: Fort Gibson, OK (oldest town in Oklahoma)

April 07, 2013, 12:10:00 PM #4

• Posts: 8,852
• there is no cure for what I got !
• Location: harrison, ohio

April 08, 2013, 04:46:16 PM #5

Quote from: INDEPENDENT 1 on April 07, 2013, 12:10:00 PM With limiters, I get the lifter on base circle, bottom the pushrod out in the lifter, back off 1/8 of a turn and lock down.

• Help | Terms and Rules | Go Up ▲
• SMF 2.1 RC4 © 2021 , Simple Machines

Page created in 0.253 seconds with 26 queries.

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• Technical Section
• Naturally Aspirated

what's the benefit of limited travel hyd roller lifters vs typical hyd rollers

• Add to quote

is it RPM related? lighter wieght compared to regular hyds? cam profile? valve floating issues? able to use on something like a mild solid cam profile? engine choice make a difference like SBC/SBF, BOP, etc? does it make the cam act a little different? like short travels might soften the bottom end range, but allow more up top? (sort of thinking something like what Rhoads lifters did to flat tappets) would you have to change springs or does one allow maybe stiffer springs to be used or heavier valve train components? i've seen ads that said for the limited/short travel hyd rollers to set lash 0 with 1/8 - 1/4 preload and regular at 0 with 1/4 - 1/2 preload do they require different pushrod lengths? i'd assume they would be "noisier" if you get what i am saying compared to regular, meaning something you would want or not want to hear?? what would make you need one over the other? just wondering if results are something to similar when you hear people using solids on hyd cam profiles  

I think it is too many questions in one post...I counted 13!!! Just try again with the one. What is the advantage to travel limiter Lifters?  

More RPM capability  

If both types of lifters were set to 1/4 turn pre-load, what difference would it make to the performance of both lifter types?  

You try and set a limited travel lifter with 1/4 turn, you'll probably hold the valve open.  

From talking to Tony Mamo on my build since I'm using Johnson ST2126LSR lifters, he said the short travel have a much tighter tolerance to preload and you have to measure EVERY pushrod length, sometimes you get 2-3-4 different lengths to make one complete set. You can't just do 1/8 or 1/4 and be done with them, you will destroy them that way. He told me it allows greater valve train stability and let's you get more RPM. It's about as close to a solid roller as you can get without using a actual solid cam. There's only a 5-10hp difference between the two on similar profiles. I had asked about using a LLSR cam and that's what he told me. I believe the 2110 is .050 preload +-.010 on a .210 plunger travel and the 2126 is .035 preload +-.005 on a .093 plunger. Not nearly as much "close enough" range there.  

Limited travel lifters are not hydraulic lifters. They are solid lifters with a little play, made to fool engine tech guys in hydraulic lifter classes.  

Yes No idk but prob mostly not see Springs Prob idk should could I think if your picky enough you need a different length pushrod for every lobe anyway LOL I would assume they make them or match a sets travel close enough, you could check them all yourself. I'd check the travel on a few at least before I set PRE-LOAD. As with anything there is a general way and a way to get the max.  

From Hylift Johnson Lifters . At the end it talks about an "S" lifter vs short travel . The other Johnson offers a "reduced travel " lifter I assume is what Hylift calls their "S" lifter . Tech Notes : Hydraulic Lifters “Pump-up” and hold the valves open, is a misconception. The lifter will not pump up to hold the valves open, it is actually valve float. The lifter’s function is to take up any lash in the valve train system. When a valve floats because of inadequate valve spring pressure or harmonics the Lifter’s piston will adjust on the base circle of the cam to take up this clearance. Now when the Valve spring catches up to the rest of the valve train it will want to close the valve but won’t be able too because the Lifter has extended. This will hold the valve open and will result in a loss of power. Preload: How much preload is right? The Hydraulic lifter only needs a small amount of preload. This preload is just to take up any lash in the system and then to remove any contact between the internal components of the lifter and the retaining ring. We only recommend .020” to .040” of preload on any of our lifters. Short Travel Lifters function like mechanical lifters but they are much harder on the valve train components. These were developed because the standard hydraulic lifters couldn’t handle the higher spring pressures used in performance engines. These are usually made with a spacer to reduce the piston’s travel so the amount of valve lift loss is kept to a minimum. A mechanical lifter is installed with a small amount of lash to take up thermal growth in the valve train. This lash is taken up when the lifter starts up the cam lobe. There is no pressure being translated from the valve springs through the push rod at this point. This is a smooth transition to remove the lash before the valve starts to open. With the short travel lifter these are made to have no lash initially but they end up collapsing during the opening of the valve. The difference between these two is that when the short travel lifter collapses it is while there is a significant load from the valve spring translated down the push rod. This load is usually when the valve is almost completely open where the most pressure is on the lifter. When the lifter collapses it is bottoming out with a very heavy load on the piston. This acts like a hammer hitting the lifter and will send a shock wave to the mating Camshaft lobe’s surface. This shock load is detrimental to the mating surfaces and even worst when a roller lifter is being used. Tests have shown that these short travel lifters will reduce roller bearing life by as much as 70%. Our “S” lifters are designed to handle heavier Valve spring loads without loosing valve lift or collapsing like inferior Short Travel Lifters will.  

boostedbowtie said: From Hylift Johnson Lifters . At the end it talks about an "S" lifter vs short travel . The other Johnson offers a "reduced travel " lifter I assume is what Hylift calls their "S" lifter . Tech Notes : Hydraulic Lifters “Pump-up” and hold the valves open, is a misconception. The lifter will not pump up to hold the valves open, it is actually valve float. The lifter’s function is to take up any lash in the valve train system. When a valve floats because of inadequate valve spring pressure or harmonics the Lifter’s piston will adjust on the base circle of the cam to take up this clearance. Now when the Valve spring catches up to the rest of the valve train it will want to close the valve but won’t be able too because the Lifter has extended. This will hold the valve open and will result in a loss of power. Preload: How much preload is right? The Hydraulic lifter only needs a small amount of preload. This preload is just to take up any lash in the system and then to remove any contact between the internal components of the lifter and the retaining ring. We only recommend .020” to .040” of preload on any of our lifters. Short Travel Lifters function like mechanical lifters but they are much harder on the valve train components. These were developed because the standard hydraulic lifters couldn’t handle the higher spring pressures used in performance engines. These are usually made with a spacer to reduce the piston’s travel so the amount of valve lift loss is kept to a minimum. A mechanical lifter is installed with a small amount of lash to take up thermal growth in the valve train. This lash is taken up when the lifter starts up the cam lobe. There is no pressure being translated from the valve springs through the push rod at this point. This is a smooth transition to remove the lash before the valve starts to open. With the short travel lifter these are made to have no lash initially but they end up collapsing during the opening of the valve. The difference between these two is that when the short travel lifter collapses it is while there is a significant load from the valve spring translated down the push rod. This load is usually when the valve is almost completely open where the most pressure is on the lifter. When the lifter collapses it is bottoming out with a very heavy load on the piston. This acts like a hammer hitting the lifter and will send a shock wave to the mating Camshaft lobe’s surface. This shock load is detrimental to the mating surfaces and even worst when a roller lifter is being used. Tests have shown that these short travel lifters will reduce roller bearing life by as much as 70%. Our “S” lifters are designed to handle heavier Valve spring loads without loosing valve lift or collapsing like inferior Short Travel Lifters will. Click to expand...

I have heard/read that one cause of lost valvetrain control in a hydraulic lifter lies in air entrained in the oil column. Oil itself is a non-compressable fluid. But air is obviously compressable. When windage whips air into the oil at higher RPM, that air gets into the lifters and they become compressable instead of hydraulically solid. A short travel lifter reduces the amount of potential compressability to a level similar to lash in a solid roller - the lash is essentially "in oil". And yeah - I was chasing tuning opportunities on an EMC entry with short travel lifters - hydraulic as required by the rules. An added 1/8 turn (+/- .010) gave me a "no start" freewheeling engine on dyno.  

Barry_R said: I have heard/read that one cause of lost valvetrain control in a hydraulic lifter lies in air entrained in the oil column. Oil itself is a non-compressable fluid. But air is obviously compressable. When windage whips air into the oil at higher RPM, that air gets into the lifters and they become compressable instead of hydraulically solid. A short travel lifter reduces the amount of potential compressability to a level similar to lash in a solid roller - the lash is essentially "in oil". And yeah - I was chasing tuning opportunities on an EMC entry with short travel lifters - hydraulic as required by the rules. An added 1/8 turn (+/- .010) gave me a "no start" freewheeling engine on dyno. Click to expand...

Here is some instructions for a line of Comp Cam short travel lifters, I wouldn't assume it's the same for all their short travel lifters types. https://www.compcams.com/amfile/file/download/file/389/product/26925/ 4. Adjusting pre-load: Turn the engine in the normal direction of rotation. Start with cylinder number one (1). When the exhaust valve begins to open, adjust the intake valve to the correct pre-load. To reach zero, take the pushrod between your finger tips and move it up and down while you tighten down the rocker arm adjusting nut. Once you feel no more vertical slack, you are at zero pre-load. Make sure the pushrod is in the lifter and the rocker arm seat when making valve adjustments. Then tighten the adjuster nut zero to 1/4 of a turn of the wrench. Next, you can move on to the exhaust valve on the same cylinder. Now, rotate the engine over again until the intake valve reaches maximum lift and is almost all the way back down. Then set the exhaust valve using the same method as the intake (zero to 1/4 of a turn). Continue adjusting the valves on each cylinder in this manner until all valves are adjusted.  

When I ran them , I noticed they were very touchy . I just barely put any preload on them . Maybe a1/16 of a turn . I also ran the Johnson ST2116SBR lifters . But they recommend .035 , give or take .010 , preload . Just under 1/2 turn on the 7/16 stud . Now running solid lifters on the hydraulic cam now . Nothing wrong with the hydraulic lifters , was chasing a noise issue and want to go solid anyways .  

The Johnson Short Travel lifters are also low/ slow bleed-down lifters (I think most of the retrofit short travel ones are also low bleed down now...) They are more expensive because they have to be MFGRed to tighter tolerances. Standard lifters end up bleeding down faster than they can be filled back up with oil with increasing loads on the plunger and less time(spring pressure / RPM). AFAIK essentially all modern hyd lifters are low bleed down now (all ls / lt lifters); why are they so much more expensive in retrofit apps? I guess “cause they can” / OEM purchasing power? Adam  

Short travel lifters have no valving inside. They don't hold oil, they don't recover lash, they don't "bleed down", they have nothing in common with a hydraulic lifter other than the name. They have a solid "piston" inside the lifter body that has a slight spring load to it and it only moves about .020". Then it becomes a solid lifter.  

S&S Lifter Travel Limiters

I figured no one would believe me, that's why I posted the description from Zipper's catalog. Is all just that simple.  

LOL, or ground flat pushrod cup from a used lifter, much cheaper, lol.  

Looks like it'd be more work to me than a washer for the used ones that I have but still a good free alternative.  

If you are talking about the HD lifters, out of curiosity what 5/8 washer has an o/d of .612 (lifter bore i/d)? If you are talking about GM lifters the ones I've been making and installing for about 20 years are .621 x .452 x .111 which gives you a snug fit so they don't move around and barely enough room to get the snap ring back in. Did allot of testing back than on circle track stuff and found those dimensions worked best. Tom  

A 5/8 O.D ARP .120 thick washer works good , you just have to true up the outside edge on a belt sander where it's punched out and is not perfectly square on the O.D surface.  

i'm sure lifters vary some, the ones i have done .120 worked fine, hey whatever works , right?  

• ?            
• 23.8M posts
• 140.3K members

Top Contributors this Month

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• Performance

Aggressive cams and lifter preload

• Add to quote

What are you builders setting the preload on lifters to with aggressive cam profiles (fast ramps) im reading where travel limiters and reduced preloads are being ran for more race style cams to help with pump up and to keep valve train under control ive read where some are running travel limiters with preload down to as low as .020"  

My cam has aggressive ramps (Woods W6H, .590 lift and 240 duration... so not exactly a race cam, but still extremely aggressive for a street cam). Definitely the ramps are fast, might be their most aggressive .590 lift Evo cam. Street performance-wise, I have S&S lifters that have a .200" travel and they're preloaded about .120" and it's fine, but it's also not a race bike. I haven't had issues even getting hard on it. Never tried a true drag take off though or something, and I haven't had it beyond 5,000 rpm and haven't hit 5,000 rpm that often. On the instructions for my lifters, it says the S&S travel limiters reduce their travel to .100" or something, and there's definitely less preload put on them according to instructions. But I don't have the travel limiters, I don't even know what the real purpose is of travel limiters in a practical sense (I know they limit travel, but not why, like is it meant to prevent lifter collapse with aggressive riding?). The way I always understood preload on the lifters was you want the preload set half way or slightly over halfway of the lifter travel. I'm still learning a lot about engines and engine building. I'm definitely no builder, but I am curious about what other people have to say.  

from reading some of the info i have come across, by eliminating some of the space for oil to fill, you reduce the amount of potential aerated oil in the lifter, this aerated oil can compress and thus change cam timing s&s claim travel limiters work well for stiffer springs and more aggressive ramp rates ive got a set of custom cams that i had made with .630 lift 255 duration with a faster ramp rate so im looking into limiters and adjusting preload to help with pump up if any valve float occurs  

The old trick on chevy's was to back off the adj. until the lifter clattered, then tighten until the clatter just stops. I was recently told to adj the lifters on my TC with less than 1/2 travel preload.  

by travel are you talking the total travel, so if .200" was total, you would be somewhere less than .100" ... im really curious why automotive set ups are so much different than harley, even performance parts, a small block will run 2 inch valves but still have 150# seat pressure with a performance cam, yet alot of harleys are close to 200# on the seat with a smaller valve, also the lifters are identical so there shouldnt be much of a weight difference to justify the added pressure, also the small blocks rev higher... so they run less seat pressure, more rpm, and less lifter preload,...maybe us harley guys are doing it wrong  

yea true..wasnt considering the rocker which is more than an auto rocker  

Even then, I don't know about an auto if generally the pushrods are all the same length, and I don't know about Sportsters (I think there's two different rod sizes between the 4 with one size for intake and one for exhaust), but Evo rods are all 4 different lengths and different angles, which might also have some effect, particularly in growth of the rod between cold and hot. That poor front exhaust lifter definitely has its work cut out for it, but that has more to do with the more extreme angle than the length.  

• ?            
• 97.8K members

Top Contributors this Month

• Order Status
• Gift Certificates
• Sign in or Create an account

Advanced Search | Search Tips

• Our Company
• Vintage Bike Shots
• Shipping & Payments
• Early Vintage (1936-69)
• Late Vintage (1970-84)
• Evo & TC
• Street Models (XG 500/750)
• Chopper & Bobber
• Body & Bowls
• Air Cleaner
• Needles & Jets
• Hardware & Clamps
• 5-Speed & Later
• Other Transmission Parts
• Gaskets & Seals
• Vintage H-D: Other Models
• Other 2-Wheeled
• Restoration/Repair Needed
• Publications
• Bikes & Events

Our Newsletter

Harley evolution hydraulic lifter limited travel kit, 1984-85 (s&s #33-5338, .612").

Sorry but this item is currently unavailable.

Please check back at a later stage.

Product Description

Harley Evolution Hydraulic Lifter Limited Travel Kit, 1984-85  (S&S #33-5338, .612")

According to the included S&S installation and instructions sheet, this is S&S Kit #33-5338, correct for Evolution Big Twins from 1984-85 which feature tappet bodies with a smaller diameter, relative to Big Twins 1986 and later.  Specifically, tappets from 1984-85 have a diameter of .612" (just short of 5/8").   For 1986-later motors, a different tappet size was used, so a different limiter kit must be used for those models.

FITMENT NOTE :  early and late limited travel kits do not interchange.  This is kit S&S #33-5338, correct for stock motors 1984-85.  For 1986-99, a different kit must be used.

• Condition:   New
• Type:   S&S
• Vintage:   1984-85

090822  A-5  (22 08 28, 12-6)

Find Similar Products by Category

Product reviews, write your own review.

We promise to never spam you, and just use your email address to identify you as a valid customer.

This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!

Add to Wish List

Click the button below to add the Harley Evolution Hydraulic Lifter Limited Travel Kit, 1984-85 (S&S #33-5338, .612") to your wish list.

New Products

All prices are in USD . Copyright 2024 TomsCyberShop.com. Sitemap | Ecommerce Hosting by BigCommerce

• Welcome, Guest
• www.CVOHARLEY.com >
• CVO Technical >
• Twin Cam (Moderator: Forum Admin ) >
• New lifters, stock pushrods

Author Topic: New lifters, stock pushrods  (Read 2714 times)

• Elite CVO Member

• Current Harley: 2022 FLTRKSE
• CVO1: 2022 FLTRKSE
• CVO2: 2022 FLRTXSE traded, 2015 FLTRUSE traded
• CVO3: 2012 FLTRXSE traded, 2011 FLTRUSE traded

Re: New lifters, stock pushrods

• 10K CVO Member
• Posts: 14216

• AKA Grouchy Old Fart

• CVO1: 2005 SEEG2

• www.CVOHARLEY.com

• CVO1: 2016 CVO ROADGLIDE
• CVO2: 2005 CVO Electra Glide
• CVO3: 2019 RGU CVO wannabe

• CVO1: 2015 Limited

If your concern is simplicity than really should use adjustable push rods. 1- you just cut the old one out install new lifters and adjust. Stock push rods you must remove the tank, top of engine valve covers and rocker shafts every time you think you have a lifter issue. With adjustable push rods you don't have to do any of that. Just remove tube,loosen push rod and remove. Saves hours of work and expense. Just saying

Yellow09SERG

• 1K CVO Member
• Posts: 2055

• CVO1: FLTRSE3 YELLOW!!

Get in [ edit ]

Get around [ edit ]

See [ edit ].

Angara village , an open-air museum in some distance from Bratsk featuring Russian houses, the church and utensils of XVII—XX centuries as well as Evenk chums .

Go next [ edit ]

• Has custom banner
• Sleep listing with no coordinates
• Has map markers
• Outline cities
• Outline articles
• City articles
• Has Geo parameter
• Irkutsk Oblast
• All destination articles
• Has routebox

Navigation menu

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Slovenščina
• Science & Tech
• Russian Kitchen