Lifter testing; Stage IV complete

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:38 am

This test was still very close to the wear we saw in stage III as far as pictures illustrate!!

Wear was up significantly in our measurements on 2 lifters.... The others were about the same...

Round number 5 will be the big test, thats when the big springs get installed!

dstar · Post by **dstar** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:43 am

You gotta quit biting your nails...........

BTW, the check is in the mail for the flywheel!
EXCELLENT DEAL!

Don

Plastermaster · Post by **Plastermaster** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:42 pm

Maybe the manufacture will be willing to help get to the bottom of this. They have their niche already, but on the other hand they might be interested in what youre doing.

Ron

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:53 pm

They are more than interested... They are amazed that this happened!

Kelley · Post by **Kelley** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:54 pm

After all of Jake's testing so far, I think I've made my mind up. I'm gonna bite the bullet and go for ceramic lifters, much more bang for the buck and no perceptable wear.

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:22 pm

Cannot go wrong with Ceramics!!

I justadded my update to the lead post on the thread..

Mark the canuck · Post by **Mark the canuck** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:16 pm

That sucks Jake

At least you have the balls to test them and say there's a problem.

I'm glad I got ceramics, but this still blows chunks.

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:31 pm

Just a question Jake, what is this doing to the cam lobes? Is it also possible that a perfectly good...but bullet proof lifter ,may be pitting a cam lobe? I'm wondering if....when the cam lobe gets ground up....if the friction then gets so high and the surface oiling so poor, that a lifter that may not have failed otherwise....may start to fail? Am I making sense?

So maybe a cam failure would give false readings/damage on a lifter that otherwise would have done fine? Ray

Mark the canuck · Post by **Mark the canuck** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:11 pm

Ray has a point there... whats the cam like?

When the bergs were doing this exact same thing (yes I know your system is better

), they found that a lifter with a couple of more or less rockwell points than the cam faired the best.

Could the hard lifter be wiping out the cam, then it wipes out the lifter?

Damn...I had a couple of guys wanting these

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:32 pm

The cam lobes don't have enough taper........ Problem found and being solved ASAP! But the test has to finish first..

cnavarro · Post by **cnavarro** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:37 pm

If it was that the lifters had too high a surface rockwell hardness, then the ceramics would stand to cause the most damage to the cam, when in actuality, it doesn't even wear at all. Also, it can't be the RA finish of the lifter face, as the billet lifters were mirrors and to the same level of finish as provided on the ceramics. It might be interesting to take comparative shots of the cam lobes with respect to each brand of lifter. That might make things even more enlightening!

Charles Navarro
LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:44 pm

I have set up folders with each brand of lifter, and sub folders from each group of tests from that lifter... We'll get those posted on the site soon in a new format so everyone can see the differences!

Post by **sparkmaster1** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:38 pm

Great work as usual. Thank you for sharing your findings with the general public also. Can you expain how to measure taper on the cam? I have a bunch laying around and I 'd like to check them out and see how the wear pattern matches up to the measurement. Thanks, Tim

raygreenwood · Post by **raygreenwood** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:43 pm

OK Charles....you opened teh can of worms, so I will eat a few. You mentioned Ra. I understand that totally. I have a nifty little Ra/Rz meter I use at work here. Jake/Charles...for the sake of info/argument...lets explore something.

You can get a surface to smooth for some purposes. For friction purposes...we can't get smooth enough...agree? For holding lubricant on the surface to ensure a film between parts? ....It may be a different story. I'm not suggesting making the cam lobe or lifter crown any rougher. But....we have failures in materials here at work...due to surface "wettability". Oil has critical wettability factors too. The factors that can go into wettability....are temperature, porosity, grain structure, electrical charge polarity, local atmospheric pressure....and a handful more.

Suffice it to say for one reason or another... even when Rz or Ra is perfect...you may have a surface wetting problem or difference just due to a difference in hardness/durometer...or actual material differences at the molecular level. We use DYNE pens to check the surface wettability. These are numbered felt tip markers that have specially adjusted wetting solutions inside. Just drawing across the surface will either show asmooth continuous stripe...or will bead up and totally disapera..indicating that the surface dyne level is lower than the # on the side of that marker. They comein a wide range.....and are aout $6 ea. Though many times you can
cannot do anything about surface dyne level...at least you know when its a factor that has changed. Ray

cnavarro · Post by **cnavarro** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:59 am

Ray, it can't hurt to check. I'd be curious to check the wettability of the ceramics vs the billet, to see if it's a material difference, since the RA finishes were visually the same. Great suggestion!

Charles Navarro
LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance