[NeighborsComplaint]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

I don't think the whole story was actually posted so I'll lay some of it out.

To start with, yes a flat tappet cam could do the same or even worse damage in an over rev situation when you have loss of valvetrain control. Ever seen an over rev situation kiss a valve, bends the valve, which then breaks the valve head off when it contacts the seat, then takes out the block and the head?? I have. Doesn't matter what camshaft was installed in it.

Now in 64speeds case, it wasn't a lifter failure. There was a root cause.
It goes way back when the build started, he had the camshaft spec'd by Paul C. Now Paul has been using that camshaft for a very long time and knows exactly the spring package it needs with his valve job and valvetrain. He's run that setup on the dyno more times than anyone here can count. Numerous people on this forum are running that exact package, including an engine I've built.
Here's where things take a turn. 64speed only bought the cam, and at the time didn't have the money for Paul to build the rest of the engine or even spec other parts.
Fast forward to 64Speed buying cylinder heads from Butler. Comes with Butlers spring package. That's a red flag to start with. What Butler thinks should work with that cam you could be pretty sure it's not what Paul would like to see. Was Butler consulted about this? Hard to say, when I brought that question up it wasn't answered.
Fast forward to engine assembly, 64Speed had decided to have yet another shop build the engine with supplied parts. Cam from Paul, heads and valvetrain package from Butler, and no telling if the engine builder checked to see if the spring package was satisfactory. Did anyone contact Paul on this? Again that question went unanswered. Now this engine has entered a 3rd party at this point.

So it's a pretty good bet the engine went together with springs that weren't up to the job.
Couple that with the fact that 64speed has no rev limiter, goes out and misses a gear, over revs the engine. Guess what...........loss of valve train control crashing the lifters and taking out the block. That's the gist of it, I'm sure 64speed could fill you in on more details, but this for sure was not a simple roller lifter failure all on it's own. It was just an unfortunate set of circumstances that created a domino affect and led to a vary expensive conclusion.

Good story bro but I think we all know what happens when you drop a valve but valve float doesn't result in piston/valve interference unless you are running valve lifts in excess of around .660" lift..

A roller lifter failure took out his cam and block and a flat tappet lifter would not cause that catastrophic damage under the same circumstances. period. A pushrod typically bends when the lifter rises uncontrolled but doesn't break pushrod. I've seen near 90 degree bends in bent pushrods that never broke. A partially sheared off link plate on a hydraulic roller lifter flails around still attached to one lifter and will certainly break a pushrod though. When the roller lifter turns sideways in the bore it takes out the cam until the block yields at the weakest point (the lifter bores) from the sideways loading. That's the typical chain of events in a failed roller rocker scenario (reason aside), though the block doesn't always fail.

Let's get (your) facts straight first ... 64Speed bought the cam kit including springs from Paul C and furnished them to Butler to assemble the heads. He wisely chose to bail on Paul C. and I mean in no way to suggest Paul C is not a competent builder. Simply put, a long distance build is more complicated. When things go wrong, you can't just drop by the guy's shop in the next city over and work it out. You need only read the threads on Va68goat's fiasco to get what I'm saying.

64speed didn't exactly have his heads done at Walmart. Butler didn't build a Pontiac engine dynasty by being stupid despite what "the smartest guy in the room" may think. To suggest Butler installed valve springs incapable of controlling a camshaft and rockers with known specs is silly. I'll address the known part later.

This whole "I over-revved and broke the motor" story has this wishy-washy vibe to it with another wrinkle added at every turn.

Does some of this also point back to the BBC rockers with their different geometry and 1.7 -1.8 ratio causing problems as I posted before? Strong maybe there. I can only assume the builder 64speed used checked for spring bind but ... if Butler installed the furnished springs and wasn't told that 1.65, 1.7 or 1.8 rockers would be used, well it goes without saying a problem would result if he was supplied springs intended for 1.5 rockers. Only 64speed and Paul C have that answer.

If 64Speed's custom ground cam (712 or 713 based?) and springs were purchased to be used with 1.5 rockers, all is well. Substituting 1.65 rockers and not using the Lunati recommended upgraded springs, all is less well. Substitute 1.7 or 1.8 BBC rockers without a spring change or check and all is even less well. These changes could have resulted in coil spring bind, pushrod, lifter and cam failure. Despite all that, the fact remains a flat tappet lifter would at worst bend a pushrod, launch from it's bore, roll out of the way and not cause a block failure like the roller rockers did.[/B]

Mechanical components that fail are no reflection on one's selection process if they bought the right parts for the application of good quality and it would certainly appear that 64speed bought "the best" of everything. The "right" part remains a gray area to me.

However, the human psyche is an interesting thing. When the very thing you take most pride in fails in-part due to parts you selected, one can be less than forthcoming if they take the failure as a personal failure. It's even worse when someone you tout as "pro" lets you down either in recommendation or skills and especially when you oversell them to others and tout invincibility tooting your own horn a bit loudly in the process.

Honestly, I don't think any missed shift or "over-rev" occurred and that a mechanical part failure took out his motor due to manufacturer defect or misapplication. That motor was built to take that kind of abuse and just shake it off. A momentary 7,200 RPM blip is not going to take out a pro-built, best of everything motor.

64speed put his life savings into a car he intended to drive every day and I don't think he would be out banging gears on the redline with a manual transmission. I would expect he would be enjoying a full throttle blast here and there and granny shifting it to protect his investment. This group can be a tough crowd of "I told you so-ers" and he may have felt it easier to blame the engine failure on a missed shift and appear he had "fallen on his sword and died a warrior".

That's my take and no offense to 64speed. I know what it's like to answer to "the boss" after crumpling a couple snowmobiles over the years.

[64speed]

As always neighbors complaint is a voice of reason. The only thing that I would like to say is I did overrev it by 1000 rpm above what I was told was my redline and didn’t get it shut down immediately. I think if I had known what happened and shut it down this might have been a much simpler repair but I heard nothing but the scream of my exhaust and didn’t shut it off immediately. I am going to post pictures of the cam and lifters tomorrow afternoon. The cam looks GREAT considering. The Lunati/Morel lifter…not so much.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by NeighborsComplaint

Good story bro but I think we all know what happens when you drop a valve but valve float doesn't result in piston/valve interference unless you are running valve lifts in excess of around .660" lift..

A roller lifter failure took out his cam and block and a flat tappet lifter would not cause that catastrophic damage under the same circumstances. period. A pushrod typically bends when the lifter rises uncontrolled but doesn't break pushrod. I've seen near 90 degree bends in bent pushrods that never broke. A partially sheared off link plate on a hydraulic roller lifter flails around still attached to one lifter and will certainly break a pushrod though. When the roller lifter turns sideways in the bore it takes out the cam until the block yields at the weakest point (the lifter bores) from the sideways loading. That's the typical chain of events in a failed roller rocker scenario (reason aside), though the block doesn't always fail.

Let's get (your) facts straight first ... 64Speed bought the cam kit including springs from Paul C and furnished them to Butler to assemble the heads. He wisely chose to bail on Paul C. and I mean in no way to suggest Paul C is not a competent builder. Simply put, a long distance build is more complicated. When things go wrong, you can't just drop by the guy's shop in the next city over and work it out. You need only read the threads on Va68goat's fiasco to get what I'm saying.

64speed didn't exactly have his heads done at Walmart. Butler didn't build a Pontiac engine dynasty by being stupid despite what "the smartest guy in the room" may think. To suggest Butler installed valve springs incapable of controlling a camshaft and rockers with known specs is silly. I'll address the known part later.

This whole "I over-revved and broke the motor" story has this wishy-washy vibe to it with another wrinkle added at every turn.

Does some of this also point back to the BBC rockers with their different geometry and 1.7 -1.8 ratio causing problems as I posted before? Strong maybe there. I can only assume the builder 64speed used checked for spring bind but ... if Butler installed the furnished springs and wasn't told that 1.65, 1.7 or 1.8 rockers would be used, well it goes without saying a problem would result if he was supplied springs intended for 1.5 rockers. Only 64speed and Paul C have that answer.

If 64Speed's custom ground cam (712 or 713 based?) and springs were purchased to be used with 1.5 rockers, all is well. Substituting 1.65 rockers and not using the Lunati recommended upgraded springs, all is less well. Substitute 1.7 or 1.8 BBC rockers without a spring change or check and all is even less well. These changes could have resulted in coil spring bind, pushrod, lifter and cam failure. Despite all that, the fact remains a flat tappet lifter would at worst bend a pushrod, launch from it's bore, roll out of the way and not cause a block failure like the roller rockers did.[/B]

Mechanical components that fail are no reflection on one's selection process if they bought the right parts for the application of good quality and it would certainly appear that 64speed bought "the best" of everything. The "right" part remains a gray area to me.

However, the human psyche is an interesting thing. When the very thing you take most pride in fails in-part due to parts you selected, one can be less than forthcoming if they take the failure as a personal failure. It's even worse when someone you tout as "pro" lets you down either in recommendation or skills and especially when you oversell them to others and tout invincibility tooting your own horn a bit loudly in the process.

Honestly, I don't think any missed shift or "over-rev" occurred and that a mechanical part failure took out his motor due to manufacturer defect or misapplication. That motor was built to take that kind of abuse and just shake it off. A momentary 7,200 RPM blip is not going to take out a pro-built, best of everything motor.

64speed put his life savings into a car he intended to drive every day and I don't think he would be out banging gears on the redline with a manual transmission. I would expect he would be enjoying a full throttle blast here and there and granny shifting it to protect his investment. This group can be a tough crowd of "I told you so-ers" and he may have felt it easier to blame the engine failure on a missed shift and appear he had "fallen on his sword and died a warrior".

That's my take and no offense to 64speed. I know what it's like to answer to "the boss" after crumpling a couple snowmobiles over the years.

You apparently don't completely understand what happens during valve float and you also don't know the whole story either, only what you've been led to believe and what has been posted publicly. But that's ok, you're allowed to form an opinion even if it's a bit uninformed. That's the internet. A lot of bias here is also influencing comments that doesn't help anyone either. It's the same gloom and doom garbage. There are still too many unanswered questions with this deal to jump to some of these conclusions and it's apparent I'm not the only one.
At this point it's a bit late but we can all hope his new adventure with flat tappets doesn't go so horribly wrong.

[PAUL K]

Pushrods usually break when they get stuck or get sliced by other moving parts. I don't think I've ever seen one break from too much spring pressure, RPM or valve float.

I believe we just hit page 100 (combined total) on "how to avoid issues with hydraulic roller cams and successfully breaking in HFT set ups".... Hopefully we've saved many hours of aggravation and expense.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by NeighborsComplaint

A roller lifter failure took out his cam and block and a flat tappet lifter would not cause that catastrophic damage under the same circumstances. period.



Let's get (your) facts straight first ...

the fact remains a flat tappet lifter would at worst bend a pushrod, launch from it's bore, roll out of the way and not cause a block failure like the roller rockers did.[/B]

Factually, the results could have been worse with a flat tappet selection. The lifter could find its way to the bottom end of the engine by slipping between the open valley and camshaft. Slice two rods in half, one rod comes up and breaks the cam in two, the other pokes a hole in the bottom of the block and the lifter exits through the oil pan. The debris flying around beats up a few pistons.... Percentages favor less carnage with the HFT cam choice, especially with a closed valley. But the roller tappet could do the same. Maybe 64speed got lucky!

[400 Lemans]

Linkbar didn't break, but the valve springs couldn't keep up at that rpm, and so the slack, hammered the rollers till they broke off. Causing a catastrophe. Even the number 1 intake roller is busted but still in place. Just my thought on it.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Is it a possibility that the valve lash was due for a re-inspection/adjustment after some initial driving time under 5000 rpm ?

Seems like the builder told him Don't Touch Anything.
And he most likely complied
But had a mishap while doing the boogie

Not pointing blame at the builder or that statement. fwiw
But given the conditions - could that have been a possible factor ?

[geeteeohguy]

I've never seen flat tappet lifters break a block due to ever-revving (or anything else, for that matter) but I've only been working on cars professionally for the past 44 years. I guess anything is possible. Still waiting for an actual example of corroded brass synchros due to the wrong gear oil being used. No one on the planet has been able to produce one. But I'm patient.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by geeteeohguy

I've never seen flat tappet lifters break a block due to ever-revving (or anything else, for that matter) but I've only been working on cars professionally for the past 44 years. I guess anything is possible. Still waiting for an actual example of corroded brass synchros due to the wrong gear oil being used. No one on the planet has been able to produce one. But I'm patient.

See post #65. It was an expensive mess! Factory block with billet caps got recycled (minus the caps). It had nothing to do with over rev'ing. The pushrod poked a hole through the rocker arm pushrod cup.... Only time I've ever seen that with an original GM rocker arm. We used those instead of the Sealed Power replacements because we had a few of those fail the same way.

Can't help you with the synchro issue.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

See post #65. It was an expensive mess! Factory block with billet caps got recycled (minus the caps). It had nothing to do with over rev'ing. The pushrod poked a hole through the rocker arm pushrod cup.... Only time I've ever seen that with an original GM rocker arm. We used those instead of the Sealed Power replacements because we had a few of those fail the same way.

Can't help you with the synchro issue.

I had a pushrod push through an original GM rocker arm. Wife was driving home from work and it developed a miss about a mile from the house.

I pulled the valve cover off and that's what I found, along with another rocker one cylinder over that busted right through the ball socket. I was lucky it didn't hurt anything. Just a mild flat tappet hydraulic cam. When it's time, it's just time I guess.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

See post #65. It was an expensive mess! Factory block with billet caps got recycled (minus the caps). It had nothing to do with over rev'ing. The pushrod poked a hole through the rocker arm pushrod cup.... Only time I've ever seen that with an original GM rocker arm. We used those instead of the Sealed Power replacements because we had a few of those fail the same way.

Can't help you with the synchro issue.

The original PMD rockers were supposed to be cyanide hardened way back when in the 50s. I have no idea if that process was discontinued later on, but those rocker arms withstood a lot. I also have no idea if chevy, and other GM divisions rockers used the same process, as Pontiac did....

I once used some Milodon 1.65 rockers, that started pulling the ball through the rocker arm within a few hundred miles of install. At the time Pontiac still had them in their parts network, so we got GM ones, no problems with them.

[NeighborsComplaint]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

Pushrods usually break when they get stuck or get sliced by other moving parts. I don't think I've ever seen one break from too much spring pressure, RPM or valve float.

There you go, but a little birdy tells me I'm misinformed.

I'm just a hobbyist but I've some stuff and learned some things in the 54 years I've wrenched on my own cars. As a teen-ager that knew nothing, I adjusted the valve lash too tight on a car with an unknown solid lifter cam. Guess the outcome? No broken valve springs, no broken pushrods but a bunch of pushrods bent. It looked like a bowl of spaghetti when I pulled off the intake on that FE. It takes a significant impact to break one like you said and when there's no clearance, they're the first to go. and almost serve as a "fuse" of sorts to protect the rest of the valve train.

[Jay S]

Valve float on about any type cam can create a lot of possible failures. On a high lift hydraulic roller if the valve float is bad enough to unload the hyd lifter to the top of the lifters stroke and add a ton of lift it can easily hit the valve springs coil bind. Then the recoil off of coil bind is a knock out blow to the roller lifter.

It doesn’t have to be too weak of spring though either. To much spring pressure could have overload the lifter plunger and at those extemely high rpms the lifter couldn’t recover it. When it comes around on the next valve opening the tappet is way up into the profile and blows the bottom end of the out of the roller support. Probably less likely to happen on a high rpm burst, and more likely over time with fatigue .

Looking at the pictures it was probably one of those two types of failures. I doubt the failure had anything to do with a link bar or a pushrod.

Take your pick. I have had valves float and open far enough to have a valve hit a piston, the valve gets bent, next behind that is the pushrod getting bent and let’s the rocker arm move off onto the valve retainer, letting the valve drop, then it tossed the lifter out. Sometimes a rockers stud breaks. All of which loft the tappet into the engine valley. Plenty of places for it to keep dropping down into the rotating assembly on a Pontiac if there is not lifter braces. I have had solid rollers get thrown out and land in the valley on a Pontiac from a bent pushrod.

I agree that flat tappets are tougher though when it comes to this type of failure or valve float. I recall lots of friends over revving engine over the years and hearing the valve float and the engines somehow survived. Years ago we had a 65 Dodge Dart with a V8 that several guys would lift the back of car up while the driver was power braking. Lots of fun on boring nights. . The driver would be in 3rd gear and from the back of the car you could hear the valves floating, that was when the guys let the car down to the ground. You could hear the valves float for about another 100ft away when the car would start too hook up and the RPM’s came back down. So yes, flat tappets are a lot more forgiving for valve float. Roller set up would have been scattered all over the highway!

[Jay S]

My last post was just for trying to increase the page count to get this all sorted.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by Jay S

My last post was just for trying to increase the page count to get this all sorted.

EHTTFMF's!!!

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by NeighborsComplaint

There you go, but a little birdy tells me I'm misinformed.

I'm just a hobbyist but I've some stuff and learned some things in the 54 years I've wrenched on my own cars. As a teen-ager that knew nothing, I adjusted the valve lash too tight on a car with an unknown solid lifter cam. Guess the outcome? No broken valve springs, no broken pushrods but a bunch of pushrods bent. It looked like a bowl of spaghetti when I pulled off the intake on that FE. It takes a significant impact to break one like you said and when there's no clearance, they're the first to go. and almost serve as a "fuse" of sorts to protect the rest of the valve train.

Well you don't even understand how a carb works and now you want us all to believe you're suddenly an expert engine builder?
Yeah ok, whatever. You aren't worth my time.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by NeighborsComplaint

Good story bro but I think we all know what happens when you drop a valve but valve float doesn't result in piston/valve interference unless you are running valve lifts in excess of around .660" lift..

A roller lifter failure took out his cam and block and a flat tappet lifter would not cause that catastrophic damage under the same circumstances. period. A pushrod typically bends when the lifter rises uncontrolled but doesn't break pushrod. I've seen near 90 degree bends in bent pushrods that never broke. A partially sheared off link plate on a hydraulic roller lifter flails around still attached to one lifter and will certainly break a pushrod though. When the roller lifter turns sideways in the bore it takes out the cam until the block yields at the weakest point (the lifter bores) from the sideways loading. That's the typical chain of events in a failed roller rocker scenario (reason aside), though the block doesn't always fail.

Let's get (your) facts straight first ... 64Speed bought the cam kit including springs from Paul C and furnished them to Butler to assemble the heads. He wisely chose to bail on Paul C. and I mean in no way to suggest Paul C is not a competent builder. Simply put, a long distance build is more complicated. When things go wrong, you can't just drop by the guy's shop in the next city over and work it out. You need only read the threads on Va68goat's fiasco to get what I'm saying.

64speed didn't exactly have his heads done at Walmart. Butler didn't build a Pontiac engine dynasty by being stupid despite what "the smartest guy in the room" may think. To suggest Butler installed valve springs incapable of controlling a camshaft and rockers with known specs is silly. I'll address the known part later.

This whole "I over-revved and broke the motor" story has this wishy-washy vibe to it with another wrinkle added at every turn.

Does some of this also point back to the BBC rockers with their different geometry and 1.7 -1.8 ratio causing problems as I posted before? Strong maybe there. I can only assume the builder 64speed used checked for spring bind but ... if Butler installed the furnished springs and wasn't told that 1.65, 1.7 or 1.8 rockers would be used, well it goes without saying a problem would result if he was supplied springs intended for 1.5 rockers. Only 64speed and Paul C have that answer.

If 64Speed's custom ground cam (712 or 713 based?) and springs were purchased to be used with 1.5 rockers, all is well. Substituting 1.65 rockers and not using the Lunati recommended upgraded springs, all is less well. Substitute 1.7 or 1.8 BBC rockers without a spring change or check and all is even less well. These changes could have resulted in coil spring bind, pushrod, lifter and cam failure. Despite all that, the fact remains a flat tappet lifter would at worst bend a pushrod, launch from it's bore, roll out of the way and not cause a block failure like the roller rockers did.[/B]

Mechanical components that fail are no reflection on one's selection process if they bought the right parts for the application of good quality and it would certainly appear that 64speed bought "the best" of everything. The "right" part remains a gray area to me.

However, the human psyche is an interesting thing. When the very thing you take most pride in fails in-part due to parts you selected, one can be less than forthcoming if they take the failure as a personal failure. It's even worse when someone you tout as "pro" lets you down either in recommendation or skills and especially when you oversell them to others and tout invincibility tooting your own horn a bit loudly in the process.

Honestly, I don't think any missed shift or "over-rev" occurred and that a mechanical part failure took out his motor due to manufacturer defect or misapplication. That motor was built to take that kind of abuse and just shake it off. A momentary 7,200 RPM blip is not going to take out a pro-built, best of everything motor.

64speed put his life savings into a car he intended to drive every day and I don't think he would be out banging gears on the redline with a manual transmission. I would expect he would be enjoying a full throttle blast here and there and granny shifting it to protect his investment. This group can be a tough crowd of "I told you so-ers" and he may have felt it easier to blame the engine failure on a missed shift and appear he had "fallen on his sword and died a warrior".

That's my take and no offense to 64speed. I know what it's like to answer to "the boss" after crumpling a couple snowmobiles over the years.

Well, I broke a Mr Gasket BBC rocker stud with a sold ft cam. And it broke at low RPM, 2500-3000.
I let it off immediately and towed it home. No broken or bent anything except for that stud. Cam is only .557 lift.
If that thing had let go at 6000 RPM on the big end of the track and thrown that lifter out of the bore it absolutely could have been catastrophic.
With a medium sized ft cam. Anything can happen.

[69FIREBIRD76MM]

Last time I did a 455 with FTS I removed the inner spring, regular Castrol 20w50 and iT work out great no failures after at the track.

[NeighborsComplaint]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Well you don't even understand how a carb works and now you want us all to believe you're suddenly an expert engine builder?
Yeah ok, whatever. You aren't worth my time.

I see how your

Very adult of you, almost as good as your deleted post on the Race board grousing about how only an idiot could blow up a nice engine referring to 64speed's unfortunate engine failure.

My car runs fine and I also know how your little mind works. You're a childish boor.

[Baron Von Zeppelin]

Let's call it even .
Don't need to lock the thread before 64speed gets his other pictures posted