Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
Thought this video would interest some of you.
These were my (new) lifters that I sent to Powell as I just was not massively impressed with them and wanted a second opinion. Sadly he didn’t show the finished result in the video, but I’ll post here when I get them back. [youtu.be] |
Airwreckc Eric Cumming RTP, North Carolina (253 posts) Registered: 05/28/2020 10:10AM Main British Car: 1972 MGB-GT (working on a Sebring project) Buick 300-4 V8 |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
Dave, where is he located? Looks like a good machine shop.
|
mgb260 Jim Nichols Sequim,WA (2482 posts) Registered: 02/29/2008 08:29PM Main British Car: 1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8 |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
Old Delphi lifters and Johnson lifters are the best in my opinion. Comp cams and Morel are a little noisier. Looks like those lifters missed final polishing and definitely quality control.
|
mgb260 Jim Nichols Sequim,WA (2482 posts) Registered: 02/29/2008 08:29PM Main British Car: 1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8 |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
On Chris's car, now Ian's. 300 stroked to 350. Crower cam saver lifters for over 8 years with no issues. There is a slot ground full length of the lifter body allowing a little extra oil to lube the contact point between the cam and lifter. Comp cams has a tool to groove the lifter bores to do the same thing. Newer solid lifters have a small hole in the face too.
|
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
Just to clarify for everyone’s benefit.
These were crower lifters that I sent to Powell Machine. These were the expensive ‘camsaver’ ones. They were definitely not cheap lifters. I knew as soon as I opened the boxes that something was not right with these. If you watch the video, you will see that I was justified in my concerns. I might of got lucky with them, but equally I would not of been surprised knowing what I do know now, if I would have wiped out a lobe or two. |
mgb260 Jim Nichols Sequim,WA (2482 posts) Registered: 02/29/2008 08:29PM Main British Car: 1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8 |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
Dave, Did you contact Crower? They probably contract the lifters out and didn't even open the boxes.
|
|
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
Nope, what are they going to do; argue the point, or sit on the.m while they ‘inspect’ them before eventually sending another set that’ll probably look the same?
Sod that, I’ve got a pair of race engines to build! :-) |
Roverbeam Chad McNeely N.E. MO (78 posts) Registered: 06/09/2021 06:03PM Main British Car: Alpine S4 Rover 4.0 |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
I'm told the hydraulic roller spring loads are all the 300 head's aluminum can handle, even with thread inserts.
But if, say, I went to the TA head at some future point, it'd be nice not to be limited by part scarcity in deciding what kind of cam to use. Feel free to post or pm a price, if you're looking to unload one? |
BlownMGB-V8 Jim Blackwood 9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042 (6508 posts) Registered: 10/23/2007 12:59PM Main British Car: 1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
I have a fresh 300 stroker with a roller cam and TA heads on the stand. Also a 300 short block with a roller, and am awaiting machine work and parts on my 340 with a roller cam and late Rover heads. I think it makes sense. Costs a bit more of course but I think that's a fair trade for what you get.
Jim |
Roverbeam Chad McNeely N.E. MO (78 posts) Registered: 06/09/2021 06:03PM Main British Car: Alpine S4 Rover 4.0 |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
Yeah, as I was sharing my parts spreadsheet with someone, it was apparent the cost to get the flow I want might have been less with TA than 300 heads. I started off following some of the classic recipes, perhaps resistant to the TA head since it had a big initial cost and a lot of unknown additional changes needed.
From the other thread, I thought your engines were also hydraulic rollers, with 300-350# open pressure valve springs? -vs solid rollers, needing 600# springs? I’d be curious what cam spec -LSA/overlap, durations, lift- would be possible with a solid roller that fits within our small-diameter cam journals? I wanted something like 108 LSA, 300 seat-seat duration, but got something milder. |
|
BlownMGB-V8 Jim Blackwood 9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042 (6508 posts) Registered: 10/23/2007 12:59PM Main British Car: 1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS |
Re: Is this the problem with flat tappet stuff?
The complete 300 stroker has a solid roller cam. The 300 short block has a hydraulic roller. The 340 will have the same cam as in the first engine, which has the TA heads and Ti valves. Spring pressures are in the 350 range with both those and the Rover heads. Those heads are interchangeable as they use the same chamber size. 300 heads are not.
Spring pressure and rpm potential go hand in hand. Obviously more lift requires more spring and rollers require more spring than flat tappet due to the steeper ramps that are possible. Jim |