F-M S/P Hi-Rev hydraulic lifters HT-969R

8

87GN_70GS

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2001
Just now noticed (this may be old news to everyone else) that Federal-Mogul / Sealed-Power is listing a hi-rev hydraulic (flat) lifter with part number HT-969R. Haven't seen any specifics but the "R" designation on the chevy lifter, for example, meant c-clip retainers instead of retaining wires (so the plunger could ride against the retainer if need be), less plunger travel, and were meant to run with much less pre-load (only a few thou). All of this typically meant a few hundred more rpm due to less pump-up. Anyone know any more about these "R" versions?

Advance auto has them for $8 each.
 
I'm curious as well. I'm changing mine out this weekend and saw the "r" option and haven't found any results by search function. I don't mind spending a few more bucs if there is a benefit.
 
There was an old part number that had the
Same plunger setup as an 885. Very ittle travel and meant to not be preloaded. Probably just a different part number
 
I think I will buy one and take it apart and see.

A thought just occurred to me, since S.E.C. is now re-making the Jonhson lifter, could it be one of those? I will know if I see a check disc instead of check ball, longer plunger body, etc. Should know soon.
 
87GN_70GS said:
Usually means more noise, not what I would want in a street car.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen proof of this yet. The cam profile has more to do with it. I have a very fast ramp 218 in one car and it's got considerable valve train noise. In my other car I have an off the shelf 212 and it's quieter than most. Both have the same lifters that weren't preloaded. The only consistent lifter I've used besides stock ones on stock cams is the 885. Quieter valve train usually means less potential but a noisy one doesn't guarantee you power either.
 
best flat tappet lifters for buick v6s imo is either buick lifters or sealed power 969 lifters period, i wont use anything else, im running 969s now, both are super quite and will rpm till you run out of power (cam usually with common street grinds before 5800) with 95 pnds or more spring pressure. my 969s were about 50 bucks, buicks a little more but still reasonable, why use anything else? dont need the R designation, just more money for nothin gained imo
 
Well I went ahead and ordered one of each from Advance Auto parts. Upon disassembly, the only external differences were the heavier-duty snap ring holding in the lifter plunger on the 969R and the retaining wire for the 969.

I set the two up with a dial gauge to measure lifter plunger travel and got readings of .210" for the 969 and slightly less at .175" for the 969R. The advantage of the hi-rev type lifters is that they will give a few hundred more rpm by withstanding much less lifter pre-load due to the much stronger snap ring, letting the plunger body contact it more often.

Internally I couldn't tell any differences. Both had check-ball check valves. The check ball spring is missing in the 969 teardown pic as I must have lost it on disassembly.

Note on teardown: The tolerance on both lifters between the plunger and lifter body were so close that is was nearly impossible to either push the plunger down into the body without the main spring in or remove the plunger without the spring. The trapped air acted as a dual-acting spring, preventing me from removing the springless plunger (a blast of compressed air into the oil hole solved that problem) or pushing the bare plunger back in. Eventually, persistance caused enough tiny amounts of air to get past and allow motion. ​
 
An older exploded view of different makes of lifters.
 

Attachments

  • Lifter.jpg
    Lifter.jpg
    279.5 KB · Views: 103
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top