FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
It doesn't say where they are made so maybe off shore
https://butlerperformance.com/i-2445...tegory:1234787
__________________
Tim Corcoran |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Bigger the chamfer the better chance you have of destroying a lobe. A lazy lobe with a large chamfer is the worse case scenario. About fifteen years ago I noticed Pontiac had a new part number for RAIV lifters. I ordered a set and they were re-boxed Hy-lift 951R's. Not sure why your lifter has such a large chamfer but I doubt it's within the original GM spec. |
The Following User Says Thank You to PAUL K For This Useful Post: | ||
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Don't know what to tell you, I opened the sealed boxes myself. Original 40+ year old GM parts in GM boxes. Both sets the same.
Would be curious to see other examples of original GM lifters in this age range.
__________________
I'm World's Best Hyperbolist !! |
The Following User Says Thank You to dataway For This Useful Post: | ||
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I have used the EDM comp SFT’s (800-16) and the 2900s. I kind of recall the oil band maybe is a bit low, they work though. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
This question may be a bit off topic but since the discussion is about lifter quality/design and you fellows appear pretty knowledgeable so here goes.
Does anyone know who supplied the HFT lifters to HO Racing Specialties? HO sold name brand items such as MSD, Power Forge, etc. and their catalog states their cams are made to HO specs by Crane Cams. The lifters don’t list a manufacturer, but I’m guessing the lifters are Crane also?????? I have a set of VL-11 lifters purchased back in the early 80s before the offshore invasion and quality issues. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Paul K...Thanks for the info. Since I purchased these way "back in the day" as they say I would guess these are good quality lifters compared to some of the lifters available today???? BTW, you're no longer in Sugar Grove????
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Frank
__________________
Poncho Huggen, Gear Snatchen, Posi Piro. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I have an original 067 cam and lifters from my 1970 400 if your interested i can dig them out for pics
__________________
If your not at the table you're on the menu A man who falls for everything stands for nothing. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Formulas For This Useful Post: | ||
#30
|
||||
|
||||
I remembered those details wrong on the Michigan plant. It went by C.P.P., and there wasn’t anything done with flat tappet stuff, focus was more on axles for roller assemblies. Compcams owned the company.
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In my head (not the best way to do things) I have a hard time seeing how a chamfer would cause big problems. On most used lifters I've removed the wear pattern often doesn't even intersect with the edge of the lifter. And wouldn't the lobe/lifter contact pressure be very slight at that point in lobe rotation? Does the sharp edge of a lifter face ever contact the lobe under high pressure? I can "see in my head" the point at which a lifter face contacts the flat'ish portion on the side of a lobe and then starts to transition to the ramp of the lobe but hard to imagine the edge of the lifter face ever seeing any appreciable force .... now carry it to the extreme, a lifter face the size of a pencil eraser ... yes the edge would see a lot of force, but wouldn't the contact of a lifter face edge on the lobe depend greatly on lifter diameter and lobe profile? IE ... a mushroom lifter the edge would never contact the lobe, a ridiculously small OD lifter the edge would contact the lobe a LOT. I mean look at heavily worn lifters ... it's the center that dishes from wear ... not the edges. So perhaps with the OEM lobe profile, and the lifter diameter in use circa 1968 that chamfer is not an issue?
__________________
I'm World's Best Hyperbolist !! |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Can someone help me understand how the size of the chamfer plays into this?
Is it about what happens if the cam lobe starts wearing? Or does the chamfer somehow affect stability or lubrication? How far from the center of the lifter (peak of the crown) is the "ideal" or "as-designed" contact point on the lifter? What is the offset from the center of the lifter face if all the parts are new and "in spec"? I have zero experience looking at the wear patterns and thankfully, even less experience with lifter failure but this is my perception of the contact geometry, which makes me think the chamfer SHOULD BE far away from the contact zone: Mike |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Well I thought Paul was talking about the chamfer in the cup not the edge?
Frank
__________________
Poncho Huggen, Gear Snatchen, Posi Piro. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Wouldn't be the first time I wandered off a trail.... my apologies if I misinterpreted!
Mike |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
If your not at the table you're on the menu A man who falls for everything stands for nothing. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Formulas For This Useful Post: | ||
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you.
Hmmm, definitely a chamfer there, not as pronounced as the set I have though. I can certainly see how as a chamfer gets larger it reduces the diameter of the face, but if the geometry is such that it doesn't contact the lobe anyway, or contacts it with very little pressure ... I don't know, can't see much harm in it. Seems like the sharp corner of a lifter wouldn't last very long against a lobe with any real pressure on it. However .. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, there may be other forces at work I'm not aware of.
__________________
I'm World's Best Hyperbolist !! |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
I sourced my lifters from Elgin. The lifters were purchased in "tray" lots of 128 lifters. I then modified them with "Tru-Arc" snap rings. Back then there were very few lifter failures, so nobody cared who made them. According to the identification chart from Sealed Power, they were Johnson's
__________________
GOOD IDEAS ARE OFTEN FOUND ABANDONED IN THE DUST OF PROCRASTINATION |
The Following User Says Thank You to KEN CROCIE For This Useful Post: | ||
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Havent recently seen this info and for future reference,
Are there any definative tell tale signs that positively ID a lifter as a specific brand? |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Not sure how to explain that chamfer is a bad idea. I once waisted time trying to explain millions of vehicles make it to work everyday with pressed in rocker studs and it went over the tops of a lot of folks heads, but I'll give it a try.
Flat tappet camshaft ramps are designed for a specific diameter lifter. The opening side has to open as fast as possible but is limited to the diameter of the lifter. If a lifter has a large chamfer you no longer have the same diameter lifter at the liifter face than the cam is designed for. With a larger chamfer the lifter jumps part (or all) of opening ramp and wants to dig into to the part of the ramp that raises the lifter, rather than glide over it. This starts to chip away at the lobe itself and the lifter wants to dig into the lobe rather rotate and follow the lobe. On the closing side of the lobe the lifter will drop off of the lobe and skip the trailing end the closing ramp. Last edited by PAUL K; 02-10-2024 at 09:50 AM. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks Paul ... that makes sense. I can certainly understand that the smaller diameter the lifter face is, the more side loading it will encounter as it contacts a steeper part of the ramp than it would if it was a larger diameter.
Again to use a ridiculous example ... if the lifter was the diameter of a pencil it would contact the ramp at a very steep location and just break off the lifter. If the lifter was 2" in diameter it would contact the ramp at the earliest point and have a gentle ride up the ramp. Appreciate the explanation.
__________________
I'm World's Best Hyperbolist !! |
Reply |
|
|