This is exactly why I’m planning on running solid flat tappets on a hot street motor, and everybody thinks I’m nuts....but like you say, look at the weight....the spring needs to keep pressure against the cam lobe to follow it accurately, and with lighter components you can use a smaller spring
I've been told that there isn't anyone I'm America that's manufacturing new hydraulic flat tappet lifters, and that all those bring sold are used lifters that have been remanufactured where the plunger has been removed, the bore honed, and the heal ground .005-.030, where they can have been honed to large, the heal ground too much or the crown on the heal incorrectly ground. Powell Machine has an excellent video and as they can re grind or grind new cam blanks, measure and grind the crown on the lifter heal, and test Rockwell hardness, he says the problem is incorrectly ground lifters.
@Freeman fornow What Dan said was that where the parkerizing had worn off the customers camshaft he could see chatter marks of when it was ground and that parkerizing can hide pits or other defects, but I'm sure he will investigate this failure further and do another video. The bottom line is that there are only 2 suppliers of cast cam cores, and I doubt they have changed their metallurgical makeup of their castings or that cam companies no longer know how to grind cams, and yet, failures are still common despite the use of cam break in lube with high concentration of zddp. In fact, David Vizard has said that while zddp was a very good additive 50 years ago, that it must be added in precise amounts or can cause crazing on the lifters, and the there are superior additives to zddp in modern oils. So what's changed, and why are so many builders seeing lifters with no crown or unusual grinding patterns on the heels? So far I haven't been able to find anyone claiming that they are manufacturing or selling brand new U.S. made flat tappet hydraulic lifters. My guess is that cam companies sell so many more roller cams and lifters compared to flat tappets that it would be more economical to just continue to deal with the problem of failures by replacing the cams and lifters when they fail instead of investing in having better flat tappet lifters made.
@@billpinkston1464 I can agree with most of that for sure..... but the zddp myth needs to be laid to rest once and for all...... it's a scapegoat with ZERO merit.... Somebody needs to be held accountable that's all I do know for sure
Your on point buddy. I find it amazing that so many people just want to accept and look the other way and pay more for a roller set up when common sense tells ya “ Flat tappet stuff is not rocket science and was damn near flawless in the technology of the 60’s but somehow we cant get it today and just supposed to suck up some roller hype thats going to crap before our eyes. This may be news to some but Harley Davidson has been using rollers and caged bearings since the 1930’s . Some of these new heads think rollers is a now thing . I’ll tell ya bro these are great times for parts availability but only thing is now will it work as designed and implied? The small guys and hobbyists are being ripped off by these big billion dollar companies simple as that!!!
Agreed 100% in a diesel mech rollers have been around for eons however that durability technology is for slow revs. You (as I am thinking exactly correct) if you want to throw something and then want to stop it you want it to be as light as possible correct? Regards Ken
100% - if your going to lean on it, go solid. Apart from the weight, how much oil bleed do you get around the lifter with a 50 year old block, so unless you sleeve the lifter bores you also have lifter bleed down with the spring pressures required to RPM.
I'm building a 460 385 series. HP target 550 +/- some. Problem is the cams are being wiped. I would go with a solid don't mind setting and checking lash but the cam won't survive break in. If I go roller I'm looking at 2 grand! Don't know what to do??? I would love to hear your comment. Thanks
Hey Dano, McGarrett at "5 Oh" here and I've been talking to Chin Ho about this camshaft problem. Ya know?...Ho ain't helped me nun and is only interested in buying Mai Tai's for the mainland tourist chicks at the Tuesday's luau and talking them into letting him check them personally for sand fleas!?!?.....on da beach!....in the dark!!..... at night!!! He's properly named thou......."Ho acting like a Hoe". I don't get it Dano?......maybe I should check my testosterone levels and discuss this wit my hair stylist as I have this overwhelming urge to "frisk" him? Don't mind my "demented" sense of humor! Sorry to say that I have no "solid" solution to this issue either. (no pun intended!) I'm leaning towards the "lifters" causing most of these failures. I'm searching myself for info as to which company(s) are addressing the lifter quality issue. Call/contact Bullit cams or Jones cams and ask them what they are doing to tackle this lifter issue. We are all kind of floundering when it comes to F/T cams at this time. If I find anything, I will post it. Good luck. bulletcams.com/ jonescams.com/
@@FilthyGopher I built my first engine in 1993. I think one or two cam companies at the time had some kind of break in oil offering, but maybe I missed some details. Internet was still dial up at the time [I think 28.8k modem] so If you didn't have someones catalog, you just didn't know what you didn't know. All I did was fill with my then go-to: some Pennzoil 10w-40 and fired it up. I loosely followed some moderate sub 2k revs for 15 minutes or so while listening and looking for troubles, then set about tuning on the carb. Zero problems. Put about 3500 miles on that cam before deciding it wasn't that great a combo for the heads, and went with a different cam. Its still boxed up & preserved [after clean & inspect of lifters]- looks brand new. While there's no cure for bad metallurgy or bad oil... if one is at least mediocre, then the other half better be good to excellent. Gotta remember something: real "break-in" oil is purposed to not protect [as the sales force lingo offers], but to promote a mildly accellerated wear at first run. If they called it burnishing oil we'd all be less confused. Rings need that, but properly ground cams? I have doubts. For now, I am determined to relegate break in oil to serve as an assembly tool: prep bores and bless the rings & skirts and... then put it back on the shelf: what's going in the sump is oil with high wear resistance. I am [for better or worse] a flat tappet fan for most builds, like you: its what we should be doing.
Look into a Solid Fat tappet from Howards. Use their EDM lifters. EDM's have a very small oil feed hole in the lifter face to supply oil to the cam and lifter interface while running.
Oil ain't what it used to be. The oil slit that used to be in the rod isn't there anymore Etc. A solid lifter flat tappet cam allows a space for oil to get between the lifter and can lobe. With the right angle on the cam lobe And the right radius on the lifter face might just solve this cam crisis. Think about it. Great video Sir.
In terms of longevity, my favorite setup is hydraulic flat tappet. However, I don't understand why a solid roller would be preferable to a hydraulic roller because it seems to me the solid roller is considerably more subject to getting hammered by the lobes.
Going back to the flat tappet problems of self destruction looks like roller is a better bet despite the weight if you want your engine to live. Quality is not there anymore especially for to old school engines because there's not enough demand.
Factory roller LSs, LTs, & G3 hemis say otherwise. And so do a whole ass pile of built roller lifter old school engines being raced every weekend; drag racing & drag n drives, road racing & autox, drifting(bouncing off the rev limiter), mud racing, pulling trucks/tractors, various race boats, etc. Just because they're heavier doesn't mean that we can't control them, any reputable cam grinder shouldn't have ANY issue specing a valvetrain that can handle the weight of roller lifters. At this point, frankly, if I'm building a performance engine(and I'm not hardcore penny pinching), it's getting solid rollers(BAM DLC coateds have an impeccable reputation), steel shaft rockers(I like Crower, but there's typically a decent number of choices), and the largest diameter pushrods I can fit - give me the valvetrain stiffness and let my cam guy put together a grind & valve spring package to control them. No reason why anyone should be beating the seats outta the head in 2023, we have all kinds of profiles, inverse radius and such, to optimize a valve train config. LS7s seem to do just fine(as long as you got one that didn't have the screwed up valve guide machining; thanks GM...).
Quote: "At this point, frankly, if I'm building a performance engine(and I'm not hardcore penny pinching), it's getting solid rollers(BAM DLC coateds have an impeccable reputation)". You want a "Bud Light" Ry? Comprehension not your strong point? This is exactly what I stated near the end of this video...HIGH PERFORMANCE / HIGH REVING ENGINES should go to "SOLID ROLLER LIFTERS" because they are LIGHTER. These Newtonian LAWS of PHYSICS are FACTS!......do what you want Ry.....run a 600 psi valve spring on the street/track, with aluminum heads if you think that's a "good" idea and that's whats required to control your heavy "hydraulic roller lifter" valve train mass at 7000 RPM. { with alloyed materials & porous castings/machining/quality control in the sewer, we will see how long those/these aftermarket components last. Even the high end V/S's from PAC, Comp, Crower when I measure them now are all over the place pressure wise. I sent my V/S tester out for calibration because I thought there might be something wrong with it...NOPE! The tester is FINE, it's ACCURATE, the springs "open" pressure are inconsistent by 30/40 + psi = fucked!! NEW!! Right out of the box!.....go test them to see how much "seat/open" pressure they've lost once they have been thermally "cycled" though one of your "physics" proof late model engines. You ever do that Ry or just "blow smoke" up peoples ass? } There is a whole group of "WOKE" out there that think/believe MEN can have babies, breast feed and if they cut their dicks offs they automatically become women. They NOW legally compete in NCAA athletics because XX/XY chromosomes don't matter! You one of these believers too Ry? The next "corporate/cultural" step is that "GRAVITY" is a PERCEPTION PROBLEM. Just wish it away! Whats the next enlightenment idea?.....that the sun rises in the "north" and sets in the "south"?... or that the earth is flat? LIVE in that "upside down" world of "theories trumping reality" if that's what lets you sleep at night. All of this "anti nature", "anti science" and "anti reality" has become TOO OBTUSE, TOO FUCKING INSANE for me to adhere too and be conscripted into as a participant. No amount of corporate ESG / DEI / government propaganda and delusional objectives will convince me otherwise. Weight matters!, Mass matters! and Rotational Inertial loads matter!....and MEN will always be stronger than Women! Yawn....END OF STORY.
@@metalmaxmopar9520 Have fun with your outdated tech old head. Good luck trying to make your logic align with reality when the LSs, LTs, & G3 Hemis literally exist. Good luck with growing your channel when you lash out like a child like this too lol
I've been running solid flat cams since the 60s and have never had a problem. Of course I'm talking chevy engines. Maybe your problem only relates to mopar engines.
I have to disagree somewhat. The weight on the lifter side of the rockerarm is significantly less detrimental at high rpm than the weight on the valve side. Mostly due to the rocker arm ratio. The spring has a one to one ratio on the valve side but is 1.5 to one or greater on the lifter side. Yes the weight of the lifter and pushrod have an effect but it is very minimal compared to the valve and retainer. Also a better spring, behive or conical, not necessarily stiffer, can reduce the effect of the spring weight/mass which the spring still has to overcome. I believe the better spring design will be of far more benefit than reducing the weight on the lifterside in most cases. Jmho.
As far as I'm concerned, that minimal effect you talk about on the lifter side I kinda agree with when not running or low rpm..... But as rpm increases and like he said, the physics kicks in. Inertia of those heavy parts as rpm increases must make a huge difference with valve train stresses and control.
Hi Ray and thanks for the comment. With all due respect, I think you are confusing the laws of "leverage" with the laws of "inertia". These are not the same things. Going by the (assumed?) theory that you stated, that if you move the push rod position closer to the rocker arm fulcrum (increase the ratio from 1.5 to a 1.6 or 1.7 ratio) that this has the effect of overcoming/moderating the "inertial" loads created by the "MASS" of the lifter & push rod. This is just not true. The "leverage" would be increased to aid the valve spring slightly, but this leverage gain is offset/cancelled due to the increased distance the (heavier) valve itself now moves because of the increased rocker arm ratio. Plus, the load at the rocker arm fulcrum point (shaft/ball & stud) is increased by increasing the rocker arm ratio. The ONLY component controlling the mass of the valve, the retainer/locks, the push rod and the lifter is the valve spring. The weight(mass) on either side of the spring is the weight(mass). This is all affected by Newton's first law! Period! Next, the "bee hive" or "conical" wound spring is an ingenious idea but in the "end" it's still a spring used to control and manage the loads created by the valve train components. A "GENERAL" statement: "Traditional" wound valve springs when measured have a "linear" load/pressure increase when compressed until coil stack. "Beehive" springs are "linear" up until the "top, close, tighter" windings of the "beehive" portion of the spring are compressed and then the forces become a "non linear" curve. Just like the RPM graph I presented with the video, the forces become "EXPONENTIAL". Now, to compensate for the more aggressive/steeper "roller" camshaft lobe profiles, the "Beehive" springs give you a "moderate" linear spring pressure curve up the lobe ramp until the steeper portion of the ramp requires a "high spring" tension to maintain valve train performance. With the "Beehive's", the spring "RATE" over a given distance changes, NOT the overall spring "PRESSURE" required to do the job. Clear as mud? Thanks again Ray for the "civilized" response to my video, the opposite is becoming so common now. Regards, Tim
Hey Mopar,.....Thx for putting up Informative video......That damaged Isky Roller from the '70's you showed,.....I have a new, Never used Full Set of those I bought back in'72....I'm also doing an Infrequent Street/ Occasional Strip 6500 Rpm max build....Would you run these "Old School "72" Roller lifters with a Hydraulic Roller Cam & Aluminum heads Lashed at 0.006 cold (for Near Zero Lash) or are they Blow up Needles Disaster ready to happen ??....... I Want to Run my "Bullet" solid FT cam with my new R Barton/Trend solid Tool Steel Lifters but am Really Unsure at this Point & Can't afford a FT Cam wipe out Disaster....Lots of "Hydraulic Lifter leaking/Noisy" talk going on so Why not run cold Short Lashed Roller ?? Those relatively Lite weight Isky Rollers could run lighter Psi V springs.....Dependable Solid FT Cam would be my choice but Will the Tool Steel FT lifters break-in & run Intact ?? Thx,.....
@metalmaxmopar9520 thanks for the response. I am going to have to think on the inertia a bit. But concerning spring, I believe the advantage of the beehive and conical springs is due to the reduction in harmonics. This is because the change in the spring diameter doesn't allow the vibration to travel the length of the spring. This enables the spring to more effectively control the valve train because the stored energy of the spring is not waisted on harmonics. Jmho
@@rayowens4355 Hi Ray. I have heard the same thing about "bee hives" and "harmonics" but, and I think this is a BIG but, "harmonics" of materials happens over a very "narrow" frequency range. I think this would be a "minor" advantage if true and not the "major" design criteria behind the use of these springs. Years ago, I got involved with using "sub harmonic vibration" to stress relieve metals instead of using the "thermal" process of a heat treating furnace. "Cryogenics" is the other stress relieving alternative to heat treatment. This/these technologies were/are used for "machined" components that could not be "heat treated" in a furnace due to the machined surfaces being damaged. "Resonant" frequencies is where the damage is done to materials/components in their applied applications. With my experience using "sub harmonic" vibration on crankshafts, blocks, heads, etc, etc. is this. The "resonant" frequency range is in a very narrow range of Hz. and changes with the materials metallurgical composition. (Alloying elements). IE: the cast iron block "resonates" at a certain frequency, the aluminum heads "resonate" at a different frequency, the forged 4340 crank "resonates" at a different frequency etc. etc. So I doubt these engineers can zero in on the "exact" frequency range (in RPM) that these "bee hive" valve springs operate under in real world operating conditions ( nor as a "TEAM" of components). I can't prove it, like you, these are just my thoughts. Thanks again for your comment. Regards, Tim
Im sitting here chewing on a beef jerky stick with a truck in my garage with a hydraulic roller that has a Whipple and putting 640HP to the ground, listening to some old head whine and cry about he dont want to switch to roller because the parts weigh too much, only good for stock applications, and rob horsepower. This old heads are funny. Someone tell this old head what all these high HP modern cars are using. I'll give him a hint. Its not flat tappet.
You missed the point completely Mr. Yuk. Adding $2000.00(+) USD for a hydraulic roller camshaft to a "STOCK" engine build is a great idea is it? I get "what" for that vs a Flat Tappet camshaft? How about some details Mr Yuk!.....640 HP from that Whipple engine?.....what RPM do you wind it too? Computer controlled "engine management" is the key to these "MODERN" HP numbers. By the way, these "late model" HP engines from Dodge, the COPO Chevy's and Fords making 600, 700, 800 HP are "SUPERCHARGED"......you don't need high rev's with a Turbo or a Supercharger now do ya Mr. Yuk? But of course, YOU and what GM builds are EXEMPT from the basic Newtonian laws of physics. By the way....Electric "Tesla's" are blowing the doors off ALL these HP ICE engines.......mid 9 second 1/4's with the A/C on.....NOW that's a "MODERN" car!
This is exactly why I’m planning on running solid flat tappets on a hot street motor, and everybody thinks I’m nuts....but like you say, look at the weight....the spring needs to keep pressure against the cam lobe to follow it accurately, and with lighter components you can use a smaller spring
EDM lifters help a lot too. Howards makes good EDM lifters.
Absolutely 100% agree.....No one talks about valve train weight.
I've been told that there isn't anyone I'm America that's manufacturing new hydraulic flat tappet lifters, and that all those bring sold are used lifters that have been remanufactured where the plunger has been removed, the bore honed, and the heal ground .005-.030, where they
can have been honed to large, the heal ground too much or the crown on the heal incorrectly ground.
Powell Machine has an excellent video and as they can re grind or grind new cam blanks, measure and grind the crown on the lifter heal, and test Rockwell hardness, he says the problem is incorrectly ground lifters.
He just had one destroyed that was using his lifters so not too sure that argument will flesh out
@Freeman fornow
What Dan said was that where the parkerizing had worn off the customers camshaft he could see chatter marks of when it was ground and that parkerizing can hide pits or other defects, but I'm sure he will investigate this failure further and do another video.
The bottom line is that there are only 2 suppliers of cast cam cores, and I doubt they have changed their metallurgical makeup of their castings or that cam companies no longer know how to grind cams, and yet, failures are still common despite the use of cam break in lube with high concentration of zddp. In fact, David Vizard has said that while zddp was a very good additive 50 years ago, that it must be added in precise amounts or can cause crazing on the lifters, and the there are superior additives to zddp in modern oils. So what's changed, and why are so many builders seeing lifters with no crown or unusual grinding patterns on the heels?
So far I haven't been able to find anyone claiming that they are manufacturing or selling brand new U.S. made flat tappet hydraulic lifters. My guess is that cam companies sell so many more roller cams and lifters compared to flat tappets that it would be more economical to just continue to deal with the problem of failures by replacing the cams and lifters when they fail instead of investing in having better flat tappet lifters made.
@@billpinkston1464 I can agree with most of that for sure..... but the zddp myth needs to be laid to rest once and for all...... it's a scapegoat with ZERO merit....
Somebody needs to be held accountable that's all I do know for sure
Johnson make their lifters here. They make their own steel too, due to QC issues
Does Johnson make flat tappet hydraulic lifters?
Your on point buddy. I find it amazing that so many people just want to accept and look the other way and pay more for a roller set up when common sense tells ya “ Flat tappet stuff is not rocket science and was damn near flawless in the technology of the 60’s but somehow we cant get it today and just supposed to suck up some roller hype thats going to crap before our eyes. This may be news to some but Harley Davidson has been using rollers and caged bearings since the 1930’s . Some of these new heads think rollers is a now thing .
I’ll tell ya bro these are great times for parts availability but only thing is now will it work as designed and implied? The small guys and hobbyists are being ripped off by these big billion dollar companies simple as that!!!
You've certainly have done your homework. I've thought about going hydraulic roller, thanks for talking me out of the idea 💡
Might want to get more than one opinion lol
We're using Rhoads hydraulic lifters with no problems guys made in chandler arizona
Agreed 100% in a diesel mech rollers have been around for eons however that durability technology is for slow revs. You (as I am thinking exactly correct) if you want to throw something and then want to stop it you want it to be as light as possible correct?
Regards Ken
100% - if your going to lean on it, go solid. Apart from the weight, how much oil bleed do you get around the lifter with a 50 year old block, so unless you sleeve the lifter bores you also have lifter bleed down with the spring pressures required to RPM.
Nailed it!!
I'm building a 460 385 series.
HP target 550 +/- some.
Problem is the cams are being wiped. I would go with a solid don't mind setting and checking lash but the cam won't survive break in.
If I go roller I'm looking at 2 grand!
Don't know what to do???
I would love to hear your comment.
Thanks
Hey Dano, McGarrett at "5 Oh" here and I've been talking to Chin Ho about this camshaft problem. Ya know?...Ho ain't helped me nun and is only interested in buying Mai Tai's for the mainland tourist chicks at the Tuesday's luau and talking them into letting him check them personally for sand fleas!?!?.....on da beach!....in the dark!!..... at night!!! He's properly named thou......."Ho acting like a Hoe". I don't get it Dano?......maybe I should check my testosterone levels and discuss this wit my hair stylist as I have this overwhelming urge to "frisk" him?
Don't mind my "demented" sense of humor!
Sorry to say that I have no "solid" solution to this issue either. (no pun intended!) I'm leaning towards the "lifters" causing most of these failures. I'm searching myself for info as to which company(s) are addressing the lifter quality issue. Call/contact Bullit cams or Jones cams and ask them what they are doing to tackle this lifter issue. We are all kind of floundering when it comes to F/T cams at this time. If I find anything, I will post it. Good luck.
bulletcams.com/
jonescams.com/
Flat tappet is dead. Just face it.
@@FilthyGopher I built my first engine in 1993. I think one or two cam companies at the time had some kind of break in oil offering, but maybe I missed some details. Internet was still dial up at the time [I think 28.8k modem] so If you didn't have someones catalog, you just didn't know what you didn't know. All I did was fill with my then go-to: some Pennzoil 10w-40 and fired it up. I loosely followed some moderate sub 2k revs for 15 minutes or so while listening and looking for troubles, then set about tuning on the carb. Zero problems. Put about 3500 miles on that cam before deciding it wasn't that great a combo for the heads, and went with a different cam. Its still boxed up & preserved [after clean & inspect of lifters]- looks brand new. While there's no cure for bad metallurgy or bad oil... if one is at least mediocre, then the other half better be good to excellent. Gotta remember something: real "break-in" oil is purposed to not protect [as the sales force lingo offers], but to promote a mildly accellerated wear at first run. If they called it burnishing oil we'd all be less confused. Rings need that, but properly ground cams? I have doubts. For now, I am determined to relegate break in oil to serve as an assembly tool: prep bores and bless the rings & skirts and... then put it back on the shelf: what's going in the sump is oil with high wear resistance.
I am [for better or worse] a flat tappet fan for most builds, like you: its what we should be doing.
@@metalmaxmopar9520
I have a friend that races and he only purchases Bulletcam.
Look into a Solid Fat tappet from Howards. Use their EDM lifters. EDM's have a very small oil feed hole in the lifter face to supply oil to the cam and lifter interface while running.
Oil ain't what it used to be.
The oil slit that used to be in the rod isn't there anymore
Etc. A solid lifter flat tappet cam allows a space for oil to get between the lifter and can lobe. With the right angle on the cam lobe And the right radius on the lifter face might just solve this cam crisis.
Think about it.
Great video Sir.
In terms of longevity, my favorite setup is hydraulic flat tappet. However, I don't understand why a solid roller would be preferable to a hydraulic roller because it seems to me the solid roller is considerably more subject to getting hammered by the lobes.
I may have a solution to the flat tappet problems Rhoads lifters.
Thank you for your knowledge and video's USA 🇺🇸
Going back to the flat tappet problems of self destruction looks like roller is a better bet despite the weight if you want your engine to live. Quality is not there anymore especially for to old school engines because there's not enough demand.
Might have to go with old lifters, or new old stock. How about heat treating your cams and lifters by sending them to a heat treating company?
Factory roller LSs, LTs, & G3 hemis say otherwise. And so do a whole ass pile of built roller lifter old school engines being raced every weekend; drag racing & drag n drives, road racing & autox, drifting(bouncing off the rev limiter), mud racing, pulling trucks/tractors, various race boats, etc. Just because they're heavier doesn't mean that we can't control them, any reputable cam grinder shouldn't have ANY issue specing a valvetrain that can handle the weight of roller lifters.
At this point, frankly, if I'm building a performance engine(and I'm not hardcore penny pinching), it's getting solid rollers(BAM DLC coateds have an impeccable reputation), steel shaft rockers(I like Crower, but there's typically a decent number of choices), and the largest diameter pushrods I can fit - give me the valvetrain stiffness and let my cam guy put together a grind & valve spring package to control them. No reason why anyone should be beating the seats outta the head in 2023, we have all kinds of profiles, inverse radius and such, to optimize a valve train config. LS7s seem to do just fine(as long as you got one that didn't have the screwed up valve guide machining; thanks GM...).
Quote: "At this point, frankly, if I'm building a performance engine(and I'm not hardcore penny pinching), it's getting solid rollers(BAM DLC coateds have an impeccable reputation)".
You want a "Bud Light" Ry? Comprehension not your strong point? This is exactly what I stated near the end of this video...HIGH PERFORMANCE / HIGH REVING ENGINES should go to "SOLID ROLLER LIFTERS" because they are LIGHTER. These Newtonian LAWS of PHYSICS are FACTS!......do what you want Ry.....run a 600 psi valve spring on the street/track, with aluminum heads if you think that's a "good" idea and that's whats required to control your heavy "hydraulic roller lifter" valve train mass at 7000 RPM. { with alloyed materials & porous castings/machining/quality control in the sewer, we will see how long those/these aftermarket components last. Even the high end V/S's from PAC, Comp, Crower when I measure them now are all over the place pressure wise. I sent my V/S tester out for calibration because I thought there might be something wrong with it...NOPE!
The tester is FINE, it's ACCURATE, the springs "open" pressure are inconsistent by 30/40 + psi = fucked!! NEW!! Right out of the box!.....go test them to see how much "seat/open" pressure they've lost once they have been thermally "cycled" though one of your "physics" proof late model engines. You ever do that Ry or just "blow smoke" up peoples ass? }
There is a whole group of "WOKE" out there that think/believe MEN can have babies, breast feed and if they cut their dicks offs they automatically become women. They NOW legally compete in NCAA athletics because XX/XY chromosomes don't matter! You one of these believers too Ry? The next "corporate/cultural" step is that "GRAVITY" is a PERCEPTION PROBLEM. Just wish it away! Whats the next enlightenment idea?.....that the sun rises in the "north" and sets in the "south"?... or that the earth is flat?
LIVE in that "upside down" world of "theories trumping reality" if that's what lets you sleep at night. All of this "anti nature", "anti science" and "anti reality" has become TOO OBTUSE, TOO FUCKING INSANE for me to adhere too and be conscripted into as a participant.
No amount of corporate ESG / DEI / government propaganda and delusional objectives will convince me otherwise. Weight matters!, Mass matters! and Rotational Inertial loads matter!....and MEN will always be stronger than Women! Yawn....END OF STORY.
@@metalmaxmopar9520 Have fun with your outdated tech old head. Good luck trying to make your logic align with reality when the LSs, LTs, & G3 Hemis literally exist.
Good luck with growing your channel when you lash out like a child like this too lol
Flat solid for me. I can't afford $2000 for the roller lifters.
I love flat tappet solid cams
I've been running solid flat cams since the 60s and have never had a problem. Of course I'm talking chevy engines. Maybe your problem only relates to mopar engines.
I have to disagree somewhat. The weight on the lifter side of the rockerarm is significantly less detrimental at high rpm than the weight on the valve side. Mostly due to the rocker arm ratio. The spring has a one to one ratio on the valve side but is 1.5 to one or greater on the lifter side. Yes the weight of the lifter and pushrod have an effect but it is very minimal compared to the valve and retainer. Also a better spring, behive or conical, not necessarily stiffer, can reduce the effect of the spring weight/mass which the spring still has to overcome. I believe the better spring design will be of far more benefit than reducing the weight on the lifterside in most cases. Jmho.
As far as I'm concerned, that minimal effect you talk about on the lifter side I kinda agree with when not running or low rpm..... But as rpm increases and like he said, the physics kicks in. Inertia of those heavy parts as rpm increases must make a huge difference with valve train stresses and control.
Hi Ray and thanks for the comment.
With all due respect, I think you are confusing the laws of "leverage" with the laws of "inertia".
These are not the same things. Going by the (assumed?) theory that you stated, that if you move the push rod position closer to the rocker arm fulcrum (increase the ratio from 1.5 to a 1.6 or 1.7 ratio) that this has the effect of overcoming/moderating the "inertial" loads created by the "MASS" of the lifter & push rod. This is just not true. The "leverage" would be increased to aid the valve spring slightly, but this leverage gain is offset/cancelled due to the increased distance the (heavier) valve itself now moves because of the increased rocker arm ratio. Plus, the load at the rocker arm fulcrum point (shaft/ball & stud) is increased by increasing the rocker arm ratio. The ONLY component controlling the mass of the valve, the retainer/locks, the push rod and the lifter is the valve spring.
The weight(mass) on either side of the spring is the weight(mass). This is all affected by Newton's first law! Period!
Next, the "bee hive" or "conical" wound spring is an ingenious idea but in the "end" it's still a spring used to control and manage the loads created by the valve train components.
A "GENERAL" statement:
"Traditional" wound valve springs when measured have a "linear" load/pressure increase when compressed until coil stack. "Beehive" springs are "linear" up until the "top, close, tighter" windings of the "beehive" portion of the spring are compressed and then the forces become a "non linear" curve. Just like the RPM graph I presented with the video, the forces become "EXPONENTIAL".
Now, to compensate for the more aggressive/steeper "roller" camshaft lobe profiles, the "Beehive" springs give you a "moderate" linear spring pressure curve up the lobe ramp until the steeper portion of the ramp requires a "high spring" tension to maintain valve train performance. With the "Beehive's", the spring "RATE" over a given distance changes, NOT the overall spring "PRESSURE" required to do the job. Clear as mud?
Thanks again Ray for the "civilized" response to my video, the opposite is becoming so common now.
Regards, Tim
Hey Mopar,.....Thx for putting up Informative video......That damaged Isky Roller from the '70's you showed,.....I have a new, Never used Full Set of those I bought back in'72....I'm also doing an Infrequent Street/ Occasional Strip 6500 Rpm max build....Would you run these "Old School "72" Roller lifters with a Hydraulic Roller Cam & Aluminum heads Lashed at 0.006 cold (for Near Zero Lash) or are they Blow up Needles Disaster ready to happen ??....... I Want to Run my "Bullet" solid FT cam with my new R Barton/Trend solid Tool Steel Lifters but am Really Unsure at this Point & Can't afford a FT Cam wipe out Disaster....Lots of "Hydraulic Lifter leaking/Noisy" talk going on so Why not run cold Short Lashed Roller ?? Those relatively Lite weight Isky Rollers could run lighter Psi V springs.....Dependable Solid FT Cam would be my choice but Will the Tool Steel FT lifters break-in & run Intact ?? Thx,.....
@metalmaxmopar9520 thanks for the response. I am going to have to think on the inertia a bit.
But concerning spring, I believe the advantage of the beehive and conical springs is due to the reduction in harmonics. This is because the change in the spring diameter doesn't allow the vibration to travel the length of the spring. This enables the spring to more effectively control the valve train because the stored energy of the spring is not waisted on harmonics. Jmho
@@rayowens4355 Hi Ray. I have heard the same thing about "bee hives" and "harmonics" but, and I think this is a BIG but, "harmonics" of materials happens over a very "narrow" frequency range. I think this would be a "minor" advantage if true and not the "major" design criteria behind the use of these springs. Years ago, I got involved with using "sub harmonic vibration" to stress relieve metals instead of using the "thermal" process of a heat treating furnace. "Cryogenics" is the other stress relieving alternative to heat treatment. This/these technologies were/are used for "machined" components that could not be "heat treated" in a furnace due to the machined surfaces being damaged. "Resonant" frequencies is where the damage is done to materials/components in their applied applications. With my experience using "sub harmonic" vibration on crankshafts, blocks, heads, etc, etc. is this. The "resonant" frequency range is in a very narrow range of Hz. and changes with the materials metallurgical composition. (Alloying elements). IE: the cast iron block "resonates" at a certain frequency, the aluminum heads "resonate" at a different frequency, the forged 4340 crank "resonates" at a different frequency etc. etc. So I doubt these engineers can zero in on the "exact" frequency range (in RPM) that these "bee hive" valve springs operate under in real world operating conditions ( nor as a "TEAM" of components). I can't prove it, like you, these are just my thoughts. Thanks again for your comment. Regards, Tim
if same performance=solid
Don buy Chinese crap buy Elgin or Melling
Im sitting here chewing on a beef jerky stick with a truck in my garage with a hydraulic roller that has a Whipple and putting 640HP to the ground, listening to some old head whine and cry about he dont want to switch to roller because the parts weigh too much, only good for stock applications, and rob horsepower. This old heads are funny. Someone tell this old head what all these high HP modern cars are using. I'll give him a hint. Its not flat tappet.
You missed the point completely Mr. Yuk. Adding $2000.00(+) USD for a hydraulic roller camshaft to a "STOCK" engine build is a great idea is it? I get "what" for that vs a Flat Tappet camshaft? How about some details Mr Yuk!.....640 HP from that Whipple engine?.....what RPM do you wind it too? Computer controlled "engine management" is the key to these "MODERN" HP numbers. By the way, these "late model" HP engines from Dodge, the COPO Chevy's and Fords making 600, 700, 800 HP are "SUPERCHARGED"......you don't need high rev's with a Turbo or a Supercharger now do ya Mr. Yuk?
But of course, YOU and what GM builds are EXEMPT from the basic Newtonian laws of physics. By the way....Electric "Tesla's" are blowing the doors off ALL these HP ICE engines.......mid 9 second 1/4's with the A/C on.....NOW that's a "MODERN" car!
Well put