[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by 326HO-Lemans

Anybody have experience re-heat treating lifters?
Could it be done on the new soft lifters?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe that heat treating the lifters is where the problem is, in an effort to cut costs and corners the ingredients to good steel are expensive. By cutting corners the product is cheapened, and inferior. If I'm not mistaken the good lifters were case hardened, and then chilled, doubtful that the current manufacturers are doing all the steps, or they're not using the right ingredients in the formulation. One of the times that close enough, really isn't close enough.

Steel can also be dirty, having impurities that make the steel unsuitable for the usage, and contamination makes it weak. Carbon content has to be correct to make steel durable also. There's more to it than melting down old cars and pouring the steel into molds, then machining it to spec.

In 1977 GM started trying to save money by not adding the same ingredients into their cast iron that the blocks had been made previous to 1977. The blocks were soft and so were the crankshafts. They wore out before 60,000 miles. GM had always had good quality castings until 1977. That point where they started letting accountants make decisions on quality, is when they gave their business to the competition, especially the import makers. Chasing pennies, cost them big dollars. I believe that same thing is now going on in the aftermarket lifter manufacturers.

[dataway]

What is so frustrating is the lack of data. How many HFT are failing, what brands, what countries or origin. Because 90% of these are probably being installed by hobbyist there is no coordinated pressure on the manufacturers to change.

Lots of lifters going into blocks with worn bores, lots of lifters in engines running profiles and pressures the original lifter designs were probably not designed for, issues with oil.

What exactly is the percentage of lifters failing? Could be only 10%, which would still be unacceptably high in most industries.

Seems to be a very common factor seen in most failures is lack of rotating ... which to me points to a machining error, or worn bores or a friction issues (lack of) rather than materials. The best lifter in the world will fail if it doesn't rotate.

With no full on industry installing these parts there is no accurate record keeping or analysis, just the anecdotal testimony of a bunch of guys working on old cars. Nothing you can present to the manufacturers of these parts.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by dataway

What is so frustrating is the lack of data. How many HFT are failing, what brands, what countries or origin. Because 90% of these are probably being installed by hobbyist there is no coordinated pressure on the manufacturers to change.

Lots of lifters going into blocks with worn bores, lots of lifters in engines running profiles and pressures the original lifter designs were probably not designed for, issues with oil.

What exactly is the percentage of lifters failing? Could be only 10%, which would still be unacceptably high in most industries.

Seems to be a very common factor seen in most failures is lack of rotating ... which to me points to a machining error, or worn bores or a friction issues (lack of) rather than materials. The best lifter in the world will fail if it doesn't rotate.

With no full on industry installing these parts there is no accurate record keeping or analysis, just the anecdotal testimony of a bunch of guys working on old cars. Nothing you can present to the manufacturers of these parts.

This lifter failure is precisely why roller cams were adapted by the car manufacturers. I saw how since the late 70s lifter and cams were failing at a higher, and higher percentage rate. It's been blamed on everything that it could be blamed on. The engines hadn't changed for decades, yet cams/lifters were failing at higher, and higher rates. This had zero to do with aftermarket cams, and car enthusiasts, nor high seat pressures, the stock cars from Detroit were failing.

Enter roller cams for pushrod engines and OHC cam designed engines, the failure rate under warranty was too high with HFT setups, and the public was turned off when the cars didn't even make 60,000 miles, when the same basic engine 20 years before, used to go 100,000 with just routine maintenance. From a mechanics point you wouldn't believe how many loyal chevy owners swore that they'd never buy another chevy after their SBC failed just out of warranty, and they were looking at $1000-$1500 to repair it.

[Dragncar]

I have had a set of white box hyd lifter on the shelf for over 10 years. Not sure if I will ever run them.

[dataway]

I'm wondering more about the failure rate that showed up in the hobby around 1990.

Unusual that Detroit wouldn't do the research to locate the source of their lifter problems rather than redesign the whole valve train into one that would long outlast the warranty ... I mean they are not known for doing anyone favors. Surely they had the resources to identify the source of the problems and correct it, it's not like the science of metallurgy was going backwards.

I do know they were under pressure to compete with the longevity and longer warranties of the Japanese imports that would regularly do 200k miles without problems.

[Hooter]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

I have had a set of white box hyd lifter on the shelf for over 10 years. Not sure if I will ever run them.

Me too.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

This lifter failure is precisely why roller cams were adapted by the car manufacturers. I saw how since the late 70s lifter and cams were failing at a higher, and higher percentage rate. It's been blamed on everything that it could be blamed on. The engines hadn't changed for decades, yet cams/lifters were failing at higher, and higher rates. This had zero to do with aftermarket cams, and car enthusiasts, nor high seat pressures, the stock cars from Detroit were failing.

Enter roller cams for pushrod engines and OHC cam designed engines, the failure rate under warranty was too high with HFT setups, and the public was turned off when the cars didn't even make 60,000 miles, when the same basic engine 20 years before, used to go 100,000 with just routine maintenance. From a mechanics point you wouldn't believe how many loyal chevy owners swore that they'd never buy another chevy after their SBC failed just out of warranty, and they were looking at $1000-$1500 to repair it.

Camshaft Machine Company/ Crane did the first PRODUCTION ENGINE roller Cams and Lifters for a OEM in that time frame mentioned and the application was the *ord M*stang. And they worked very well.

Tom V.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Camshaft Machine Company/ Crane did the first PRODUCTION ENGINE roller Cams and Lifters for a OEM in that time frame mentioned and the application was the *ord M*stang. And they worked very well.

Tom V.

Hi Tom, on a related note I was told the "original" Crane was put out of business because one of the Big Three were allowed to bail on a large some of money that was owed to Crane due to a Government bail out.... Do you know any of the details as the which company and which engine program?

[Sirrotica]

I'm not sure what year ford started using roller lifters, but GM did a mild redesign on the 5.7 diesel engine in 1981, due to reliability issues. That was the first GM engine that I saw roller lifters in a production engine. I actually owned a 1981 Bonneville with a 5.7 diesel, that ran 150,000 miles with the original engine, before I sold the car, so they must have actually improved it. The car got totaled, shortly after I sold it, so I have no idea how long it would have run.

[Formulajones]

Ford started using roller lifters at least as early as 86 I know for sure and may have been as early as 84 or 5.

As far as longevity on those, guys still do cam swaps in them today and reuse the original lifters. My sons 89 5.0 engine has never been apart and has 256,000 miles on it now. Quiet as a mouse and doesn't use a drop of oil. Bone stock and just came off the chassis dyno where it made 231/277 at the tire. Now he wants a cam upgrade and I'll most likely just stab the original lifters right back in it.

[Holeshot71]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Ford started using roller lifters at least as early as 86 I know for sure and may have been as early as 84 or 5.

I think ‘85 was the last year for the Holley and the first year for the roller cams on the 5.0 Mustangs.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Ford started using roller lifters at least as early as 86 I know for sure and may have been as early as 84 or 5.

As far as longevity on those, guys still do cam swaps in them today and reuse the original lifters. My sons 89 5.0 engine has never been apart and has 256,000 miles on it now. Quiet as a mouse and doesn't use a drop of oil. Bone stock and just came off the chassis dyno where it made 231/277 at the tire. Now he wants a cam upgrade and I'll most likely just stab the original lifters right back in it.

THAT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE TOO WITH CRANE/CAMSHAFT MACHINE COMPANY.

Harvey Crane had issues with the other two guys who took the bail-out money but "F" never took that money. I was very good friends with Don Hubbard, a Crane VP and Glenn Corwin a true blue Pontiac Guy. RIP Guys.
Crane also owned the Wolverine "Blue Racer" company (I was a WD for the Parts) and sold a lot of Pontiac parts at that time. No F stuff though, all GM stuff. CMC is still in business. When Harvey died, the Crane side and the employees, Don Hubbard retired and Harold B went to another company.

Not absolutely sure on the other two guys failure rates but do remember that there was info floating around that Keith S would be able to answer as far as the Roller Cam durability.

Tom V.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

THAT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE TOO WITH CRANE/CAMSHAFT MACHINE COMPANY.

Harvey Crane had issues with the other two guys who took the bail-out money but "F" never took that money. I was very good friends with Don Hubbard, a Crane VP and Glenn Corwin a true blue Pontiac Guy. RIP Guys.
Crane also owned the Wolverine "Blue Racer" company (I was a WD for the Parts) and sold a lot of Pontiac parts at that time. No F stuff though, all GM stuff. CMC is still in business. When Harvey died, the Crane side and the employees, Don Hubbard retired and Harold B went to another company.

Not absolutely sure on the other two guys failure rates but do remember that there was info floating around that Keith S would be able to answer as far as the Roller Cam durability.

Tom V.

I have a Wolverine cam and lifters still in the boxes from the 80's I've been hanging on to. It's a repop of the DZ 302 camshaft. It was good stuff back then.