FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
A properly nitrided cam, meaning of the correct case depth and hardness for the contact stresses anticipated will not suffer an adhesion failure due to a “soft core”. Plasma (or Ion) nitriding was designed specifically to withstand high impact loads, and it was originally developed for use in hot forging dies which receive hundreds of tons of impact force and do not suffer abnormal wear or any delamination after years of service. Regarding the combination of DLC lifters and nitrided cams, the general rule about running hardened surfaces against each other is that they should not be at or near the same hardness, but rather at least 6-9 Rockwell C difference, and the more the better. Typically nitriding a cam gives you 58-63 Rc, DLC is much higher, close to 100 Rc.
__________________
1964 Catalina 2+2 4sp, 421 Tri-power 1965 GTO, Roadster Shop chassis, 461, Old Faithful cam, KRE heads 305 CFM, Holley EFI, DIS ignition. 1969 GTO 467, Edelbrock 325 CFM, Terminator EFI 1969 Firebird Convertible |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to darbikrash For This Useful Post: | ||
#22
|
||||
|
||||
There was a YT video posted a few months back where numerous cams were tested for hardness and IIRC the conclusion was the failures are lack of a ramp on line or other machining issues. Seems if that isn’t addressed a DLC coated lifter would destroy a nitrided cam in short order. 64Speed’s machinist spent time making sure all lifters rotated and that the cam was machined properly to lower risk of a failure.
__________________
Will Rivera '69 Firebird 400/461, 290+ E D-Ports, HR 230/236, 4l80E, 8.5 Rear, 3.55 gears ‘66 Lemans, 455, KRE D-Ports, TH350, 12 bolt 3.90 gears '69 LeMans Vert, 350, #47 heads: work in progress Last edited by grivera; 10-30-2023 at 08:38 AM. |
The Following User Says Thank You to grivera For This Useful Post: | ||
#23
|
||||
|
||||
When I'm building a flat tappet cam engine, the cam gets nitrided. On top of that I'll use a lifter that lubes the lobes right on the face. Been doing that for a while now. In fact I've been daily driving one like that for 6 years now and it's been perfect, some 60,000 miles later. So for the average car guy here that might drive 1000 miles a year, that'll probably last a life time.
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Formulajones For This Useful Post: | ||
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I stopped by the Comp booth at Sema this week and talked to some technical folks about Comp's lifter program. One of the guys was pretty familiar with the DLC testing program and he said the plan was for Comp to offer the DLC option on all vehicle makes for (flat tappet) lifters going forward. Pontiac is scheduled for "sometime next year" with SBF up next for the upgrade. SBC and BBC are available now. Current pricing is +$20 per set (16 lifters) to get the DLC coating.
In the pic below you can see they are coating only the lifter face, not the body of the lifter. The fellow I spoke with said they had done extensive Spintron testing on coated lifters and could not force a failure even with abusive testing. According to him, the coating does not wear off after break in and is not sensitive to oil additives. I asked about combining a Nitrided cam with DLC coated lifters and he said they had done no testing on this but should increase durability even more, but in his view was unneccesary as the DLC was enough. All Comp lifters are now made in Michigan, with coating outsourced to another division of Edelbrock/Comp also in Michigan. He said that in Spintron testing the greatest cause of premature lifter failure with uncoated lifters was excessive coil spring bind height of the spring- #1 killer. On the roller lifter front the Evolution roller cartridge program has been very successful (according to him) and going forward all Comp roller lifters will migrate to this technology, replacing the existing roller design. Time will tell, but it looks to me like Comp has taken the lifter failure issue seriously and put in place some good upgrades. The main point I got from all this is that the DLC coating of inexpensive flat tappet lifters (when available for Pontiac) gives everyone that doesn't need large valve lift numbers a really good option away from the expensive roller cam setup.
__________________
1964 Catalina 2+2 4sp, 421 Tri-power 1965 GTO, Roadster Shop chassis, 461, Old Faithful cam, KRE heads 305 CFM, Holley EFI, DIS ignition. 1969 GTO 467, Edelbrock 325 CFM, Terminator EFI 1969 Firebird Convertible |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to darbikrash For This Useful Post: | ||
#25
|
||||
|
||||
I don't see Pontiac rollers on the Bam website, are they customer order?
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
This is the video I referred to above, based on the results of this testing the quality of the machining is more of a factor - the short of it is hardness is not the issue with any of those in the sample.
https://youtu.be/DMFikj-TAqo
__________________
Will Rivera '69 Firebird 400/461, 290+ E D-Ports, HR 230/236, 4l80E, 8.5 Rear, 3.55 gears ‘66 Lemans, 455, KRE D-Ports, TH350, 12 bolt 3.90 gears '69 LeMans Vert, 350, #47 heads: work in progress |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Member geeteeohguy has said regularly here that the machining on the base of the lifter and the taper on the camshaft's lobes are the problem and has been for several years now. I get the feeling that if I found a camshaft ground prior to year 2000 that would be optimal.
__________________
"No replacement for displacement!" GTOAA--https://www.gtoaa.org/ |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Member geeteeohguy has said regularly here that the machining on the base of the lifter and the taper on the camshaft's lobes are the problem and has been for several years now. I get the feeling that if I found a camshaft ground prior to year 2000 that would be optimal.
It would be interesting if there was a site where folks who had camshaft/lifter failure could list the camshaft grinder who made the cam and we we could see if certain manufacturers were worse or better in this regard. FWIW
__________________
"No replacement for displacement!" GTOAA--https://www.gtoaa.org/ Last edited by 1968GTO421; 11-04-2023 at 05:15 PM. Reason: corrections |
The Following User Says Thank You to 1968GTO421 For This Useful Post: | ||
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It would be interesting to know if the testing was capable of finding a problem without the DLC coating. As I understand, a Spintron can be used to replicate the behavior of a valve-train in an engine. To me, this means the test evaluates a "system" (cam, springs, pushrods, lifters, etc.) so to discriminate, I think you'd need to either "test to failure" or have a way of comparing wear on the lifter. I wonder if Comp will publish their test results? Basically, I'm curious if they could force a failure on non-coated lifters and if so, what were the specifics. Can they nail down finishes, geometry, loads, lubricants, etc. that lead to failure? Not hard to believe coil bind would cause excessive loads but that sounds outside the typical application. Quote:
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
As it was explained to me they did run A-B comparisons of coated and non coated lifters on the Spintron. During the “abusive testing” phase several extreme conditions were tested. One test condition was excessive spring length above coil bind. During this test the uncoated lifters showed significant failures, while the DLC coated lifters showed no failures. Over the various test conditions, this was the #1 source of lifter failure meaning that more uncoated lifters failed here than any other test condition.
This effect is often called spring surge. To give an example, installed height specs for a spring might call for a minimum of .050” above coil bind, and a maximum of 0.100” above. The “abusive test” would have a number much larger than the 0.100 maximum, say for example 0.300”. It is fairly common to have builders exceed the max number, because “more is better, etc.”. This causes harmful ocillations in the spring which (when multiplied through the rocker arm ratio) transmit percussive forces directly to the lifter face. You can find high speed videos online showing this, but basically this creates a jackhammer effect and tears up the lifters. This is not an explanation for why every flat tappet cam in the world has failed. It is a conclusion of a very specific test which has some useful conclusions I believe the way to think about DLC coating is to consider it as an insurance policy, if (and when) something goes wrong in the valve train, the coating can provide substantial protection and possibly avoid a catastrophic failure. There is no one saying the cams or lifters are too soft, and for sure coating a dimensionally flawed lifter after the fact does no good. Quote:
__________________
1964 Catalina 2+2 4sp, 421 Tri-power 1965 GTO, Roadster Shop chassis, 461, Old Faithful cam, KRE heads 305 CFM, Holley EFI, DIS ignition. 1969 GTO 467, Edelbrock 325 CFM, Terminator EFI 1969 Firebird Convertible |
The Following User Says Thank You to darbikrash For This Useful Post: | ||
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you darbikrash!
It seems that the tests identified at least one system with high risk for failure and was able to discriminate well enough to show DLC could mitigate. This is excellent. Thanks for straightening out my misinterpretation. I now understand the finding of "too much" margin above coil bind leading to dynamic instability. This is probably not a surprise to most but as you say, the dynamic loading and effect on lifter wear is probably not as high on anyone's radar as just losing control of the timing events. Clearly the big list of factors that contribute to lifter wear performance makes it hard to compare something as seemingly basic as a lifter brand comparison or a DLC coating. I personally would happily pay $20 for a coating known to reduce failure risk under at least one set of variables. I think it's awesome to find a supplier investing the level of testing you describe in today's world of supply chain nonsense. Your post has definitely left a good impression of Comp! Thanks again for sharing this. Mike |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Shiny For This Useful Post: | ||
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Any other/new thoughts on the Comp Cams DLC lifters? We just bought a set to try in a 383 Small Block we are building .... gonna be used along with the Lunati VooDoo "704" camshaft
__________________
1978 Trans Am Pump Gas 461 Stroker |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
For an extra $20 it is certainly an easy choice to add the DLC. My opinion has not really changed, I think that DLC is really helpful on the break in. The tech mentioning durability testing done with Spinatron testing is pretty cool. I don’t know what percentage of failures occur from the types of testing comp did on their spinatron with spring surge issues. But my guess for something on the street the percentage would be pretty low.
Personally I think most failures are because the machining on the lifter taper and or cam isn’t done very well. Plus there is some softer metal out there also, I have heard of some cams dropping down into the upper 20s on some Rockwell tests in recent years. Either way, if cam breaks in and too much of the taper is removed on the break in, and life of the cam is shortened up, and often doesn’t make it past the break in right now. The DLC on the face should really help the break in, Nitiriding the cam makes the break in go a lot smoother too. Pair up it would be better yet. It is also not unusual to get a couple tickers with hi energy lifters, especially with aggressive cams. In that regard the DLC on those hi energy lifters is a bit like lipstick on a pig. You may get to return a couple lifters to get all the blead rates the same. I have never been around a hi energy lifter that didn’t have a ticker with Voodoo’s and XE cams. Maybe it is just my luck though. But I think the DLC is a good start at the issues, hat’s off to comp for moving that forward. Last edited by Jay S; 11-09-2023 at 12:49 AM. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jay S For This Useful Post: | ||
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you look at Summit Racing, most of the available CompCam HFTs are $270-286 now.
__________________
'73 T/A (clone). Low budget stock headed 8.3:1 455, 222/242 116lsa .443/.435 cam. FAST Sportsman EFI, 315rwhp/385rwtq on 87 octane. 13.12 @103.2, 1.91 60'. '67 Firebird [sold], ; 11.27 @ 119.61, 7.167 @ 96.07, with UD 280/280 (108LSA/ 109 ICL)solid cam. [1.537, 7.233 @93.61, 11.46 @ 115.4 w/ old UD 288/296 108 hydraulic cam] Feb '05 HPP, home-ported "16" D-ports, dished pistons (pump gas only), 3.42 gears, 275/60 DR's, 750DP, T2, full exhaust |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Hopefully they will have this available for Pontiac solid flats whenever I blow up my hydraulic roller.
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
lol
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
i mean really ... right now i have OF 1.0, rev limiter at 5500 rpm. 1.5 rockers. Very safe, it will probably live forever ...
but there is a part of me that wants to put a snotty 290b6 in there, think about it ... 505 cubic inches ... extra wide ratio muncie ... 3.54 gears ... just rip it up to 6500 rpm every time i drive it ... but would i really just be giving up power in exchange for a top end that could rev higher? |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Dad can't seem to keep his 571 off the rev limiter (set at 6200) with his hydraulic roller. They'll rpm and last forever if built right with good parts. Saving weight is key. My BBC as an example are probably one of the worst when it comes to that. But here it is living just fine. In fact we are working on a little 327 right now that'll zing pretty good with a hydraulic roller. Much lighter drivetrain parts and a good set of Johnson lifters and the cam that Paul is choosing should make peak up around 6500 or so. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's a lot easier and cheaper to post about what you're gonna do on the internet than it is to actually get off your ass and do it |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to i82much For This Useful Post: | ||
Reply |
|
|