Need help from the flathead gurus...? Valve clearance issue

[crazycasey]

Hey there,

I'm assembling a '49 Ford flathead V8 engine. It's my first flathead build; I bought the usual books, and I've felt fairly confident in the build so far.

I'm running an Isky 88 cam, reground from my stock core, stock hollow bodied lifters, and Chevy valves, and now I'm adjusting the valves. I set all the intakes at 0.011" and all the exhausts at 0.014". Except for one. The number 4 exhaust valve is at 0.014" when I assemble it in the block, but then I crank the engine over and check it again, and it's at 0.016", and again and I'm at 0.020", and so on and so forth. It'll grow all the way to about 0.030".

I'm kind of at my wits end. The cam looks good. The lifter appears to be in good shape, spinning it in a pair of calipers it appears to be perfectly square top to bottom. Valve, guide, spring, locks, and retainer are all new and look good. The only thing I didn't replace is the little crows foot that holds the guide in the block, but it appears to be seating properly and in good shape. What am I missing!?

Thanks for the help. I've gotta call it a night. Hope somebody can point me in the right direction.

[crazycasey]

I think I've got to set a dial indicator on top of the valve, and see if the head of the valve is moving as my clearance increases. It doesn't look like it's moving. I'd think I could see 0.015" with the naked eye.

[51 MERC-CT]

Assuming that you are taking the reading when the cam is in it's correct position. A 'sticky' valve guide could cause this. When it is at it's widest gap, tap down on the valve to see if the gap changes. If not then it's most likely a problem below the valve such as in the lifter or cam area.

[chap52]

I recently had an issue where the gap would lessen after turning the engine a couple of times and rechecking. Found that the lifter was not settling on the cam as it should. So I always make sure that I push down on a lifter to be sure it is seated before I adjust it.
I am sure you are adjusting the exhaust valve just as the intake valve closes, right?
Don't get discouraged. You'll get it.

[Walt Dupont--Me.]

I had a cam ground years ago, who ever ground it didn't cut the meat between the lobes and the lifters would ride up on that meat, had to sent the cam back. Also the cam will ride ahead with out the front cover on. I just take a piece metal and drill a 5/16 hole in it and bolt it to front so the cam will ride against the piece of metal. SO, make sure the lifters are rideing in the center of the cam lobes.

[Walt Dupont--Me.]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I spend alot of time ajusting valves, good thing I don't punch a clock. I usually ajust them about .002 tight and hook them all up, spin the cam over a few times, now check clearance one at a time, usually have to grind .001 or .002 it takes a long time but they will be perfect, I hate to have one valve going tick tick tick. Walt

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by 51 MERC-CT

Assuming that you are taking the reading when the cam is in it's correct position. A 'sticky' valve guide could cause this. When it is at it's widest gap, tap down on the valve to see if the gap changes. If not then it's most likely a problem below the valve such as in the lifter or cam area.

I think this has got to be what's happening, but what's the fix!? Shouldn't the spring hold the guide tight against the block? Anyway, I'll get out there in a little bit and check as you suggested, just not sure what to do from there.

Originally Posted by chap52

I recently had an issue where the gap would lessen after turning the engine a couple of times and rechecking. Found that the lifter was not settling on the cam as it should. So I always make sure that I push down on a lifter to be sure it is seated before I adjust it.
I am sure you are adjusting the exhaust valve just as the intake valve closes, right?
Don't get discouraged. You'll get it.

Thanks. Yes, I am using the EOIC method. And I am pushing down on the lifters.

Originally Posted by Walt Dupont--Me.

I had a cam ground years ago, who ever ground it didn't cut the meat between the lobes and the lifters would ride up on that meat, had to sent the cam back. Also the cam will ride ahead with out the front cover on. I just take a piece metal and drill a 5/16 hole in it and bolt it to front so the cam will ride against the piece of metal. SO, make sure the lifters are rideing in the center of the cam lobes.

Thanks for the suggestions. If the first idea doesn't fix it, I'll yank the cam and scrutinize it more closely. I'll also do your suggestion with the piece of metal to keep the cam from walking.

Thanks for all the support you guys. I'll check back this afternoon.

[GOSFAST]

Originally Posted by Walt Dupont--Me.

I spend alot of time ajusting valves, good thing I don't punch a clock. I usually ajust them about .002 tight and hook them all up, spin the cam over a few times, now check clearance one at a time, usually have to grind .001 or .002 it takes a long time but they will be perfect, I hate to have one valve going tick tick tick. Walt

Hi Walt, this is really some excellent advice, good post. Doesn't get any more accurate! While moving forward go back sporadically and check the already finished ones.

With this in mind I would just add one note, get this procedure totally finished BEFORE the crank/pistons/rods are installed. Much, much easier!

(Add) On most street rides we normally set them at .010" and .012" cold. We do pay attention to the cam-grinders recommendations however, but in the end we do make the final call.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. On a side note, it is one more reason to use the adjustable lifter platform, this is an area where "grinding-in" the clearances would really be difficult with a non-adjustable valve train. If you DON"T do these builds regularly the adjustables are the way only to go in my opinion. Also, with the non-adjustable platform should you "miss" one it becomes a major issue, worst case scenario with the adjustables is a fairly simple intake removal.

[crazycasey]

Are all the hollow bodied lifters the same diameter? I know they vary in length by several thousands of an inch. Perhaps I can find a longer lifter if I HAVE in fact gone too far on this wandering valve.

[rotorwrench]

This may have no bearing but I figured I would add it any way. A lot of the current manufacture cam followers are kind of an unknown.The follower face is profiled in such a way that there could be some inconsistencies with the process depending on what equipment is used in the manufacture of these parts namely the radius and how accurate the machining is. The follower may have a tendency to rotate in operation which might bring this to light but I wouldn't think it would make that large difference in the clearances. A worn follower might also be a problem due to uneven wear. Hardness could also be in question.

[JSeery]

"I think this has got to be what's happening, but what's the fix!? Shouldn't the spring hold the guide tight against the block? Anyway, I'll get out there in a little bit and check as you suggested, just not sure what to do from there."

Believe he is referring to the valve being sticky in the guide and not returning to the same position every time. Lightly tap the center of the valve to assure it is seated when you check clearance. Something has to be moving to get difference readings and it about has to be the valve in the guide or the lifter riding on something on the cam.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

Are all the hollow bodied lifters the same diameter? I know they vary in length by several thousands of an inch. Perhaps I can find a longer lifter if I HAVE in fact gone too far on this wandering valve.

IF that is the case, that is not the best way to resolve it. Use a cap on the valve stem, or weld up the valve stem, etc.

[flatjack9]

I would lean more to the possibility that the lifter is a little sticky in the bore and not always returning to the same position.

[flatheadmurre]

If it´s just a couple of thousands that is missing touch it up in the valvegrinder.
If its a lot to short a lashcap.
You have checked so the valve is straight...stuff get dropped and may have been damaged ?

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

IF that is the case, that is not the best way to resolve it. Use a cap on the valve stem, or weld up the valve stem, etc.

Just curious why? I mean, I've got lifters in this motor ranging all the way from 1.699" to 1.740". That's a lot of range, and maybe it's not ideal, but it's what's in there. The one that's in the #4 exhaust bore is pretty short...a longer lifter would fix my problem. Just curious. I value everyone's input, I'm just the type to always ask "why".

Thank you!

[crazycasey]

Ok, well, I feel like a moron. The camshaft was walking, leading to ALL of my inconsistency. Now my valve clearances are WAY out of whack. I've got to make up 0.014" on the #4 exhaust. i can switch some lifters around and get within 0.005". Can I take that one valve back to the machine shop, have them touch up the valve face, and then re-lap it into the seat? I've already hand lapped ALL of the valves into the respective seats. Thanks again for all the advice.

[Mart]

Hey, at least you found what was causing it. We're all on a voyage of discovery every day.

Mart.

[chap52]

Finding the issue is a lot better than chasing several possibilities. Good news!

[GOSFAST]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

I got talked out of the adjustable lifters by the machine shop. He used a Chevy valve that was less expensive, but he said that there wasn't enough hardness in the tip of the valve to use IT with an adjustable lifter.

Hi Casey, that's the "lamest" excuse I've ever heard in my entire life of engine building, really?? That is strictly a sales pitch in my book, and you can tell whoever told you that, I said so! Not your fault at all, but very lame on him! An adjustable lifter, a stock length Ford valve, a good set of OEM springs, and all your problems disappear! Would've been so easy!

[QUOTE=crazycasey;1356530]Ok, well, I feel like a moron. The camshaft was walking, leading to ALL of my inconsistency. Now my valve clearances are WAY out of whack. I've got to make up 0.014" on the #4 exhaust. i can switch some lifters around and get within 0.005". Can I take that one valve back to the machine shop, have them touch up the valve face, and then re-lap it into the seat? I've already hand lapped ALL of the valves into the respective seats. Thanks again for all the advice.[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming you haven't gotten anywhere near the spring hgt/pressure requirements yet? I've posted up here many times against using the Chevy length valves and am in the middle (still) of setting up an "adjustable spring-seat-register" to deal with this very issue. Comp Cam's is holding us up at the moment with mfg the necessary spring seat locators for the Flathead guides.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. I would regroup and come up with some very accurate numbers and pay closer attention to the final installed spring hgts at the same time. Another "major" issue may be lurking! There's so much info to be gotten from this site I can't foresee having any real substantial problems! The available amount of knowledge up here is really immeasurable. "Good Luck"

[Greg58]

I had a similar problem on mine, I replaced a valve, guide and lifter a few years back and used the wrong clearance. Somehow I came up with .030 instead of .014. I got feed up with the tap and turned a valve lash cap down to .016 and installed it, all I took off was the intake. It sounds much better now

[JSeery]

I'm surprised you are finding so much variation in the lifter heights. Are these new lifters? Why the variation? Has anyone else run across this amount of variation in a set of lifters?

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

I'm surprised you are finding so much variation in the lifter heights. Are these new lifters? Why the variation? Has anyone else run across this amount of variation in a set of lifters?

I'm going to assume they were the set that came out of my motor. Unless some of them were swapped out when the valves were being adjusted.

[JSeery]

So are you putting used lifters on a new camshaft?! Hope they have been resurfaced.

[crazycasey]

So, after rearranging all of my lifters (they haven't been run on THIS cam yet, and they're all in really good condition), all of my intakes are between 0.011"-0.014" and all of my exhausts are between 0.015"-0.021". I only have a couple outliers; the majority of the valves are at the low end of the spec. I'd like to bring all of the intakes to 0.011" and all of the exhausts to 0.015".

My question is, can I take 0.003"-0.006" off of my clearance by hand lapping the valve into the seat?

If not, can I take the valves to the machine shop to have JUST the faces recut, or do I have to have the seats recut as well (I've already hand lapped all valves to their respective seats before attempting the adjustment).

[flatheadmurre]

Starting to think your machineshop has given you a few not to good advices here.
Putting used lifters on a new camshaft without resurfacing them is a gamble...with all the money involved why wouldn´t they resurface them for you ?
My suggestion to make this go togetter as fast and smooth a possible is a couple of A101 valve spring shims and a set of adjustable lifters...just my 2c.
Otherwise resurface the lifters and get a set of lashcaps.
You shouldn´t try and lap the valve into the seat grind the seat or valve instead and either is just fine without affecting the other.

[JSeery]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Now the next question, and GOSFAST already brought it up, is who set the spring height and pressure and how did they do it?

"I'm assuming you haven't gotten anywhere near the spring hgt/pressure requirements yet? I've posted up here many times against using the Chevy length valves and am in the middle (still) of setting up an "adjustable spring-seat-register" to deal with this very issue. Comp Cam's is holding us up at the moment with mfg the necessary spring seat locators for the Flathead guides."

The only reason I bring it up is if your going to all of this trouble with the clearance issue might want to be sure the spring height and pressure is correct.

I have never heard of anyone recommending used lifters on a new cam. The used lifters might explain your variation in lifter height. Used lifters can be resurfaced but I thought they were not a flat surface and had a slight curve to them. I'm not a used parts (in this area) type of guy, need an engine builder with used lifter experience to jump in on this one!

[Bored&Stroked]

The lifters should have a slight convex shape to the bottoms of them - they should not be surfaced to a flat state. It sounds like he has a set of used lifters - which could explain the large differences in length.

Lapping: This procedure can't be used to tighten up your clearances - it is only to fine tune the sealing surfaces, not anything more.

As many noted: I'd be suspect of the whole valve train setup:

a) Spring heights need to be correctly setup - such that you have the correct amount of pressure on the valve seats. Using Chevy valves makes this a bit more difficult - but there are plenty of ways to deal with it - depending on the combination of lifter types/lengths, shims, retainers, lash-caps, keepers, etc..

b) The lifters should be newly resurfaced - or new. Unless the bottoms of the lifters are practically new (and convex) - you probably do not want to reuse them "as is". I would not - it is not worth saving a few bucks in this area.

c) Machine Shop: The comment about "not being hard enough" would worry me. Seems like a way to sell you more parts and/or work - has nothing to do with Chevy valves. Truth be told, the stem ends have a lot more pressure and wear tendencies with a rocker arm, than a direct tappet on a flathead.

If it was me - I'd find a much better machine shop and ensure that everything gets done by experienced flathead folks.

Punting: If you have the capabilities and equipment to measure and set spring heights, you may be able to use the same valves, same guides and change the lifters to adjustables . . . but that is a big assumption on my part. It is really important to know what your current spring heights/pressures are - before thinking of that approach.

Best of luck . . .

B&S

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Now the next question, and GOSFAST already brought it up, is who set the spring height and pressure and how did they do it?

"I'm assuming you haven't gotten anywhere near the spring hgt/pressure requirements yet? I've posted up here many times against using the Chevy length valves and am in the middle (still) of setting up an "adjustable spring-seat-register" to deal with this very issue. Comp Cam's is holding us up at the moment with mfg the necessary spring seat locators for the Flathead guides."

The only reason I bring it up is if your going to all of this trouble with the clearance issue might want to be sure the spring height and pressure is correct.

I have never heard of anyone recommending used lifters on a new cam. The used lifters might explain your variation in lifter height. Used lifters can be resurfaced but I thought they were not a flat surface and had a slight curve to them. I'm not a used parts (in this area) type of guy, need an engine builder with used lifter experience to jump in on this one!

Ok, so I wasn't trying to turn this into a shop-bashing thread. There were a handful of things that were overlooked, and the general quality of the work was not the best, and some of the advice given may not have been right. I've had to take the block/crank/rods into a different machine shop to have a some of the work redone. To be fair, I really screwed up, and told the first shop that price was a primary consideration and the car was a "build to sell". This has ALL been a big learning curve for me in what not to do when you build an engine.

As for the lifters, they HAVE BEEN resurfaced. That said, they are all over the place in terms of height, but when the initial valve install was done, the valve stem lengths were matched (sort of) to the lifter lengths I have in the engine. The majority of them are within a few thousands, and that's why I was able to help my valve adjustment by switching a few of them around.

The springs were single springs with a progressive wind sourced from Egge, and I was charged $40. I can't find ANY spring set on Egge's site for $40, so
I'm not sure what I have. I asked for Zephyr springs, as I'd read a few articles that THAT was the hot setup for a street flathead with an Isky 88. I've read a few sites that say the same, but they ALL mention shimming the spring for a 2.00" installed height, and these springs have NO shims. I will sort all of this out.

I've had to scrap and start over so much of this project at this point, that I'm probably nearing $5,000 in for parts and machine shop fees on a basic street flathead that's still in pieces. I'd like to not scrap the valvetrain at this point, if possible. There's a lot that's NOT ideal on this build, but it will work, and work well. Example, I've got four ring pistons and the heavy wrist pins that Egge sells that add almost a pound to the total reciprocating weight of the engine...should have read the book FIRST! But now I've got a crankshaft balanced to those heavy parts, so I'm NOT going to do that over.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

The lifters should have a slight convex shape to the bottoms of them - they should not be surfaced to a flat state. It sounds like he has a set of used lifters - which could explain the large differences in length.

Lapping: This procedure can't be used to tighten up your clearances - it is only to fine tune the sealing surfaces, not anything more.

As many noted: I'd be suspect of the whole valve train setup:

a) Spring heights need to be correctly setup - such that you have the correct amount of pressure on the valve seats. Using Chevy valves makes this a bit more difficult - but there are plenty of ways to deal with it - depending on the combination of lifter types/lengths, shims, retainers, lash-caps, keepers, etc..

b) The lifters should be newly resurfaced - or new. Unless the bottoms of the lifters are practically new (and convex) - you probably do not want to reuse them "as is". I would not - it is not worth saving a few bucks in this area.

c) Machine Shop: The comment about "not being hard enough" would worry me. Seems like a way to sell you more parts and/or work - has nothing to do with Chevy valves. Truth be told, the stem ends have a lot more pressure and wear tendencies with a rocker arm, than a direct tappet on a flathead.

If it was me - I'd find a much better machine shop and ensure that everything gets done by experienced flathead folks.

Punting: If you have the capabilities and equipment to measure and set spring heights, you may be able to use the same valves, same guides and change the lifters to adjustables . . . but that is a big assumption on my part. It is really important to know what your current spring heights/pressures are - before thinking of that approach.

Best of luck . . .

B&S

Saw your reply after my other reply.

The lifters ARE resurfaced flat. Does that mean they're junk!? I can't imagine anybody resurfacing lifters is NOT just surfacing them flat. Is this one of those esoteric ideal vs. reality arguments that everybody gets into on the Internet? We've both talked Hemi's over on the other site...I'm plenty used to those.

Machine shop; already on to the second shop. They machine all the motors for one of the most well-known flathead builders in California. I've paid to do just about everything twice now, with the exception of the valve job, so what the hell, might as well do that too!?

Thanks for the advice.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

The lifters should have a slight convex shape to the bottoms of them - they should not be surfaced to a flat state. It sounds like he has a set of used lifters - which could explain the large differences in length.

Lapping: This procedure can't be used to tighten up your clearances - it is only to fine tune the sealing surfaces, not anything more.

As many noted: I'd be suspect of the whole valve train setup:

a) Spring heights need to be correctly setup - such that you have the correct amount of pressure on the valve seats. Using Chevy valves makes this a bit more difficult - but there are plenty of ways to deal with it - depending on the combination of lifter types/lengths, shims, retainers, lash-caps, keepers, etc..

b) The lifters should be newly resurfaced - or new. Unless the bottoms of the lifters are practically new (and convex) - you probably do not want to reuse them "as is". I would not - it is not worth saving a few bucks in this area.

c) Machine Shop: The comment about "not being hard enough" would worry me. Seems like a way to sell you more parts and/or work - has nothing to do with Chevy valves. Truth be told, the stem ends have a lot more pressure and wear tendencies with a rocker arm, than a direct tappet on a flathead.

If it was me - I'd find a much better machine shop and ensure that everything gets done by experienced flathead folks.

Punting: If you have the capabilities and equipment to measure and set spring heights, you may be able to use the same valves, same guides and change the lifters to adjustables . . . but that is a big assumption on my part. It is really important to know what your current spring heights/pressures are - before thinking of that approach.

Best of luck . . .

B&S

I'm going to have to read up on spring installed height. I don't believe I'm going to have the capability to measure this myself.

[JSeery]

Lot of issues here and sorry we are the bearers of bad news, but there is NO way the valve springs could be installed correctly without shims. This is a sure sign someone has no idea what their doing! In fact with the Chevy valves it should require a LOT of shim which is a whole different discussion.

The curve surface on the lifter is not a nice thing to have, it is how they work. As far as I know not just anyone can properly resurface lifters. Another consideration is the cam warranty will be voided with used lifters (at least that is my understanding) and with $5K in the engine I wouldn't want to be tearing it down to replace the cam and lifters again in a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) miles.

[40 Deluxe]

A lifter bottom has to be ground on a radius to rotate in the lifter bore. Seems like I remember it being a 100" radius or something like that. It takes specialized equipment to do it right. If you put two new lifters against each other you can see this clearly.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Lot of issues here and sorry we are the bearers of bad news, but there is NO way the valve springs could be installed correctly without shims. This is a sure sign someone has no idea what their doing! In fact with the Chevy valves it should require a LOT of shim which is a whole different discussion.

The curve surface on the lifter is not a nice thing to have, it is how they work. As far as I know not just anyone can properly resurface lifters. Another consideration is the cam warranty will be voided with used lifters (at least that is my understanding) and with $5K in the engine I wouldn't want to be tearing it down to replace the cam and lifters again in a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) miles.

And with a flat cam lobe and concave lifters, where is that missing metal hiding?!

[rotorwrench]

All cam followers (lifters) have a radius grind and it is a special large radius. This takes special equipment that not all machine shops have. I wouldn't let a machine shop do my followers till they sold me that they can do it correctly. Many of these old engines have chilled cast iron followers and this process doesn't always have a lot of depth to the hardness. The more you grind on them the thinner the hard surface is. Your follower height dimensions being all over the place is not good. I would consider purchasing NOS if you are grind adjusting clearances or at least a decent set of hollow adjustables. Johnson's haven't been around for a long time but a used set of those with a regrind are preferable to some of the new sets. The solid cast iron ones work OK on a tractor but they are a bit heavy for anything more than a stock engine.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Lot of issues here and sorry we are the bearers of bad news, but there is NO way the valve springs could be installed correctly without shims. This is a sure sign someone has no idea what their doing! In fact with the Chevy valves it should require a LOT of shim which is a whole different discussion.

The curve surface on the lifter is not a nice thing to have, it is how they work. As far as I know not just anyone can properly resurface lifters. Another consideration is the cam warranty will be voided with used lifters (at least that is my understanding) and with $5K in the engine I wouldn't want to be tearing it down to replace the cam and lifters again in a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) miles.

Ok. I have to clarify a few things so that I can start moving forward.

First, do the adjustable lifters have this curved bottom? It must be VERY subtle, because the ones I have seen have looked flat.

Second, if my lifters have been surfaced, I'm going to assume a new set of stock lifters will take up my 0.003"-0.006" slack. This seems like the easiest answer, salvaging as many of the parts as I already have.

Third, I've read horror stories about adjustable lifters backing off. Is there any real concern here?

Fourth, the Chevy valves are supposed to need 0.070"-0.100" removed to work with adjustable lifters. This is said to remove all the hardness from the valve tip. I've read that this isn't actually a big concern, and I've read that it is. In my opinion, that's another reason to find a set of stock lifters and go that route. Opinions?

Fifth, am I correct in understanding that ANYTHING I do to shim the valve spring is NOT going to affect the tip of the valve stem in relation to the lifter face (i.e. I can sort the clearances out BEFORE I worry about installed height, or do I need to figure that out first)!?

Sixth, and finally...due to my limited tools/abilities, is there a more simple answer? Can I buy Ford Valves and Zephyr springs and adjustable lifters and just stick them all together without shims, etc, etc!?

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

All cam followers (lifters) have a radius grind and it is a special large radius. This takes special equipment that not all machine shops have. I wouldn't let a machine shop do my followers till they sold me that they can do it correctly. Many of these old engines have chilled cast iron followers and this process doesn't always have a lot of depth to the hardness. The more you grind on them the thinner the hard surface is. Your follower height dimensions being all over the place is not good. I would consider purchasing NOS if you are grind adjusting clearances or at least a decent set of hollow adjustables. Johnson's haven't been around for a long time but a used set of those with a regrind are preferable to some of the new sets. The solid cast iron ones work OK on a tractor but they are a bit heavy for anything more than a stock engine.

Thanks! You answered my question about the cam follower radius. You also answered my question about adjustable lifter quality. There is a set of NOS hollow-bodied followers available to me...I just have to find out if they're the long version or the short version. Evidently there were two types!? This will allow me to dial my valve clearances in. Then I just need to sort spring pressure/installed height.

[flatheadmurre]

If your tappets has been surfaced you should have a nice consistent swirlpattern on them.
Not sure how many actually is ground with a radius...my tobin-arp does them with an angle.
You can check your adjustable lifters with a torq wrench.
Stainless valves and hardened tips...wow..
Valve spring shims don´t affect anything else then the pressure of the valvespring.

[GOSFAST]

Hi Casey, I know exactly what you're experiencing with this build, been down this road too many times with "new" customers, we don't have the problem anymore now after the fact.

Any decent shop should have set you up with a nice package (see below) that would solve ALL your problems you have now, NOT created a bunch of new ones? Those tappets are the original Johnson's and the owner of Topline (Johnson-Tappet) today is a very close friend of one of my own good friends, Greg R.

We try to keep things simple over here, life is already too complicated for many, including myself.

Here's a couple shots below here, I know it's late in the game for you at this stage but it may help others here on their future builds??

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Whatever you do don't "give up" at this point, it WILL come together in the end! I'm certain about this. The components below here will fit about 99% of all Flathead builds and most times without a single issue. The new spring locators we've been working on are the only items not in the pictures, they will be coming soon we hope. If you "click" on the either photo it will take you to site with much many Flathead shots.

[JSeery]

I use adjustable (hollow) lifters, but it may be a little difficult for you to go that way at this point. They are much easier to use with a few modifications to the block. NOS lifers sounds like a good way to go. Don't forget about lash caps if you end up way short with your new lifters.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by GOSFAST

Hi Casey, I know exactly what you're experiencing with this build, been down this road too many times with "new" customers, we don't have the problem anymore now after the fact.

Any decent shop should have set you up with a nice package (see below) that would solve ALL your problems you have now, NOT created a bunch of new ones?

We try to keep things simple over here, life is already too complicated for many, including myself.

Here's a couple shots below here, I know it's late in the game for you at this stage but it may help others here on their future builds??

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Whatever you do don't "give up" at this point, it WILL come together in the end! I'm certain about this. The components below here will fit about 99% of all Flathead builds and most times without a single issue. The new spring locators we've been working on are the only items not in the pictures, they will be coming soon we hope. If you "click" on the either photo it will take you to site with much many Flathead shots.

Yep, that's beautiful! Are those the Comp adjustable tappets? And are those a "Zephyr" spring or a stock spring? After doing a little more research, it appears I have stock springs in this motor, so those will need to be changed as well. If you had the spring locators ready to ship I'd probably just give you my credit card number and start fresh at this point. I really thought I was FINALLY on the home stretch with this thing.

It seems like the basic answer is that you can't build a flathead with Chevy valves, unless you have the ability to make/modify the spring seat or retainer.

[rotorwrench]

The Tobin ARP or Sunnen TR-6700 tappet refacing machines do use a relatively straight face grinding wheel but it only contacts between the center and the outside edge of the follower since the follower is set on a slight angle to the wheel and basically centered between the center point and outside diameter. The cam follower or tappet is spun in this position and the feed pushes the tappet into the grinder wheel along with a coolant flow. A quick skim pass off the surface will sometimes show up the wear areas on the face until it is completely refinished. I think there is a U-tube video of a machinist operating one of these bad boys.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

The lifters should have a slight convex shape to the bottoms of them - they should not be surfaced to a flat state. It sounds like he has a set of used lifters - which could explain the large differences in length.

Lapping: This procedure can't be used to tighten up your clearances - it is only to fine tune the sealing surfaces, not anything more.

As many noted: I'd be suspect of the whole valve train setup:

a) Spring heights need to be correctly setup - such that you have the correct amount of pressure on the valve seats. Using Chevy valves makes this a bit more difficult - but there are plenty of ways to deal with it - depending on the combination of lifter types/lengths, shims, retainers, lash-caps, keepers, etc..

b) The lifters should be newly resurfaced - or new. Unless the bottoms of the lifters are practically new (and convex) - you probably do not want to reuse them "as is". I would not - it is not worth saving a few bucks in this area.

c) Machine Shop: The comment about "not being hard enough" would worry me. Seems like a way to sell you more parts and/or work - has nothing to do with Chevy valves. Truth be told, the stem ends have a lot more pressure and wear tendencies with a rocker arm, than a direct tappet on a flathead.

If it was me - I'd find a much better machine shop and ensure that everything gets done by experienced flathead folks.

Punting: If you have the capabilities and equipment to measure and set spring heights, you may be able to use the same valves, same guides and change the lifters to adjustables . . . but that is a big assumption on my part. It is really important to know what your current spring heights/pressures are - before thinking of that approach.

Best of luck . . .

B&S

Dale,

Your post from the other site (it's a GOOD ONE):

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/t...inions.420484/

I think THAT's my answer, with the turned down Comp Retainers and a new set of oem non-adjustable lifters to bring my clearances back in spec. Either that, or the Comp adjustable tappets, as they seem to be short enough to use Chevy valves without removing a TON of material. I just have no clue as to their quality, and whether or not they're heavy enough to warrant more valvespring.

Where's the best place to buy a set of Zephyr springs? Red's!?

[flatheadmurre]

Start by asking yourself how much springpressure do you really need...are you going to rev it hard...is it a really that wild cam with fast lift...no more then you absolutely need is best.
With a harder/longer spring you might end up with just enough pressure on the seat as is...think it over and measure some before you go shopping for more parts.

[JSeery]

Is there a problem with your current springs? The lifter you use is not a big factor in the spring selection. It will be a little bit difficult to use adjustable lifters with your reground cam without some block modifications. It can be done, but a little hard to adjust. I think your NOS lifters is the best selection.

Spring pressure is established at a spring height and thus the shims. With Chevy valves the keeper grooves are futher from the head and require a lot more shiming.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Is there a problem with your current springs? The lifter you use is not a big factor in the spring selection. It will be a little bit difficult to use adjustable lifters with your reground cam without some block modifications. It can be done, but a little hard to adjust. I think your NOS lifters is the best selection.

Spring pressure is established at a spring height and thus the shims. With Chevy valves the keeper grooves are futher from the head and require a lot more shiming.

I follow all of that, and I've seen on other posts where you can shim your way out of the spring register pretty quickly with the Chevy valve, often before the correct spring preload is achieved on something like a Zephyr spring.

Isky didn't give me a spring spec, they just tried to sell me a spring. I emailed Ron to see if he can give me some better information, but haven't heard back.

My stock springs are meant to be installed at a 2.130" seat height. I should actually be really close to this with the Chevy valve, but I haven't measured yet, and that's only going to give me between 40-45 lbs on the seat...not likely enough for the Isky 88 cam and ANY kind of rpm.

Anybody care to weigh in on my thought process here!?

[GOSFAST]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by crazycasey

Yep, that's beautiful! Are those the Comp adjustable tappets? And are those a "Zephyr" spring or a stock spring? After doing a little more research, it appears I have stock springs in this motor, so those will need to be changed as well. If you had the spring locators ready to ship I'd probably just give you my credit card number and start fresh at this point. I really thought I was FINALLY on the home stretch with this thing.

It seems like the basic answer is that you can't build a flathead with Chevy valves, unless you have the ability to make/modify the spring seat or retainer.

Hi Casey, one more time, that setup in the photos doesn't use the locators we're waiting on, the guides would be slightly different for the locator setup.

We are a Comp dealer but we buy the Flathead lifters direct from Topline, Comp Cams also buys theirs (811-FH's) from them so I know you'd be getting the correct parts for sure!

(Add) Have never needed a "Zephyr" spring in my life, and back in the mid '80's were doing 15 Flatheads per year. We were involved heavily with a build for a Flathead powered stock-car from upstate N.Y. Owner is very good friend to this day, sold the ride a while back. Saw 5000 RPM+ every weekend going in circles??

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. It's really a headache when things don't go as planned, hang in there! Don't be "afraid" to come up here and ask questions still, like I said earlier, it'll all come around eventually.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by GOSFAST

Hi Casey, one more time, that setup in the photos doesn't use the locators we're waiting on, the guides would be slightly different for the locator setup.

We are a Comp dealer but we buy the Flathead lifters direct from Topline, Comp Cams also buys theirs (811-FH's) from them so I know you'd be getting the correct parts for sure!

(Add) Have never needed a "Zephyr" spring in my life, and back in the mid '80's were doing 15 Flatheads per year. We were involved heavily with a build for a Flathead powered stock-car from upstate N.Y. Owner is very good friend to this day, sold the ride a while back. Saw 5000 RPM+ every weekend going in circles??

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. It's really a headache when things don't go as planned, hang in there! Don't be "afraid" to come up here and ask questions still, like I said earlier, it'll all come around eventually.

Gary,

I really appreciate all the info. Hey, so is that a stock spring!? And do you install it at the recommended 2.130" height, resulting in...40-ish lbs on the seat? I'm going to take my springs in and have them bench tested, and then take some measurements with a test spring in my block.

[JSeery]

Think around 55 lbs seat pressure is a common recommendation.

Corrected psi LOL

[40cpe]

I used chevy valves and adjustable lifters on a reground camshaft. I also used Zephyr springs. I don't remember what my final installed height was, but I was able to get 48-55 lbs using one .060 shim on all of them and a .010 on a few. The ones that have .010 shims are on the retainer end because of no more register on the guide. I know that ideally one shouldn't install the shims on the moving end, but the .010 shim is really light. Certainly no more that a lash cap is how I justified it to myself.

Jim at Red's Headers told me the Zephyr spring would produce about 80# on a stock ford valve. I didn't want that much, hence the longer valve and use of shims.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by 40cpe

I used chevy valves and adjustable lifters on a reground camshaft. I also used Zephyr springs. I don't remember what my final installed height was, but I was able to get 48-55 lbs using one .060 shim on all of them and a .010 on a few. The ones that have .010 shims are on the retainer end because of no more register on the guide. I know that ideally one shouldn't install the shims on the moving end, but the .010 shim is really light. Certainly no more that a lash cap is how I justified it to myself.

Jim at Red's Headers told me the Zephyr spring would produce about 80# on a stock ford valve. I didn't want that much, hence the longer valve and use of shims.

Interesting approach. Did you drill a hole in the lifter boss to adjust your lifters? This approach might be a good work around for my situation.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Think around 55 lbs seat pressure is a common recommendation.

Corrected psi LOL

So, rather than install the stock spring at the suggested 2.130" seat, I would run it on a Spring tester, see where in it's travel it made 55psi, and then install the springs AT that height!?

[40cpe]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

Interesting approach. Did you drill a hole in the lifter boss to adjust your lifters? This approach might be a good work around for my situation.

Yes, I did.

Originally Posted by crazycasey

So, rather than install the stock spring at the suggested 2.130" seat, I would run it on a Spring tester, see where in it's travel it made 55psi, and then install the springs AT that height!?

Correct. I think you would want to test each spring and label it with the correct height. Mine varied a bit. Installed height varied a bit, so with matching springs with installed height, shim them to your final pressure.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by 40cpe

I used chevy valves and adjustable lifters on a reground camshaft. I also used Zephyr springs. I don't remember what my final installed height was, but I was able to get 48-55 lbs using one .060 shim on all of them and a .010 on a few. The ones that have .010 shims are on the retainer end because of no more register on the guide. I know that ideally one shouldn't install the shims on the moving end, but the .010 shim is really light. Certainly no more that a lash cap is how I justified it to myself.

Jim at Red's Headers told me the Zephyr spring would produce about 80# on a stock ford valve. I didn't want that much, hence the longer valve and use of shims.

Were the tappets from Red's? Do you recall how much you had to take off the valve stem to get them to work? Is valve stem hardness a concern at that point?

[40cpe]

Yes, tappets from Red's. I didn't have to take any off the valve stems. My cam is a 3/4 grind on an original ford cam, so the lifters were lower in the bores than if I was using a stock cam. If your cam used a new blank your mileage may vary.

[flatheadmurre]

Ok a bit of metalurgy stainless steel doesn´t harden like carbonsteel, so there´s not hardened stems,tips or such if the valve is stainless.
Heat treatening stainless gives you different grainstructures but not hardening.
What you do to add wear strenght to a stainless valve stem is coating it with something.
Hard tips are welded or sprayed on.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by flatheadmurre

Ok a bit of metalurgy stainless steel doesn´t harden like carbonsteel, so there´s not hardened stems,tips or such if the valve is stainless.
Heat treatening stainless gives you different grainstructures but not hardening.
What you do to add wear strenght to a stainless valve stem is coating it with something.
Hard tips are welded or sprayed on.

I don't believe that my valves are stainless steel. How would I know for sure? Magnet I guess!?

[flatheadmurre]

Magnet is the way to go.
Valves are not always 1 piece either.
Can be 3 pieces welded togetter.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by flatheadmurre

Magnet is the way to go.
Valves are not always 1 piece either.
Can be 3 pieces welded togetter.

I'm pretty sure they're just a basic, cheap, cast valve because they're dull grey in color everywhere they're not machined. I'll magnet test them tonight, though I'm failing to understand why it matters.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

though I'm failing to understand why it matters.

It doesn't, think these are responses to your question about loosing the hardness in the valve tip. In an OHV engine the rocker slides back and forth on the valve tip and even with a roller rocker there is some movement. A flathead has the valve directly above the lifter and a hardened surface is not as big a concern as an OHV engine.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by GOSFAST

Hi Casey, one more time, that setup in the photos doesn't use the locators we're waiting on, the guides would be slightly different for the locator setup.

We are a Comp dealer but we buy the Flathead lifters direct from Topline, Comp Cams also buys theirs (811-FH's) from them so I know you'd be getting the correct parts for sure!

(Add) Have never needed a "Zephyr" spring in my life, and back in the mid '80's were doing 15 Flatheads per year. We were involved heavily with a build for a Flathead powered stock-car from upstate N.Y. Owner is very good friend to this day, sold the ride a while back. Saw 5000 RPM+ every weekend going in circles??

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. It's really a headache when things don't go as planned, hang in there! Don't be "afraid" to come up here and ask questions still, like I said earlier, it'll all come around eventually.

Gary,

Can you tell me, conveniently, what the overall height on those TopLine adjustable lifters is, at both ends of the adjustment? Curious how close they'll be with my Chevy valves and reduced base circle cam.

Thanks again for all your help!

Casey

[rulovin]

I've built many motors and never lapped the valves in. If you lap them you may take off.0001 if your lucky!Lapping .006 would take about 20 hours or may a couple of days! P.S. I worked for a new car dealer at the time that I was rebuilding motors for their customers and never had one come back with any kind of a problem!

[GOSFAST]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

Gary,

Can you tell me, conveniently, what the overall height on those TopLine adjustable lifters is, at both ends of the adjustment? Curious how close they'll be with my Chevy valves and reduced base circle cam.

Thanks again for all your help!

Casey

Hi Casey, I can only give you "shortest" (adjuster all the way in) dimension, don't have the "longest" (adjuster all the way out) dimension handy.

These appear to be able to get down to 1.600"/1.625" (nominal), at this number I strongly recommend you have the lifter-bores drilled, if not, could be another "project" getting them adjusted!

This section of this post is really important:I'll give you another "tip" for what it's worth. Years ago when we did use the longer (Chevy) valves due to "necessity" (and these were on very rare occasions) we finally realized if we really did need the extra length on the valves it was much better using conventional Chevy lash caps along with the "standard" Ford length valves to add between .060" and .080" to the overall height. This method had NO ill effects on the spring heights/pressures necessary, it ALL remained "standard" for the most part. It was so simple it was "scary"!

My good friend ran that stock car (I mentioned here earlier) I believe up at Loudon with the lash cap setup for many years and always up in the 5000 RPM range. If you go over to my photo-hosting site there is a shot of this ride there.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Just one final tip about the lifters, under NO circumstances purchase any lifters advertised/labeled as "Johnson-Style", chances are they will be "off-shore" mfd!! If you have any lifter questions simply call "Hylift-Johnson" @ 800-441-1400, ask for Paul. This is the division of "Topline Automotive".

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by GOSFAST

Hi Casey, I can only give you "shortest" (adjuster all the way in) dimension, don't have the "longest" (adjuster all the way out) dimension handy.

These appear to be able to get down to 1.600"/1.625" (nominal), at this number I strongly recommend you have the lifter-bores drilled, if not, could be another "project" getting them adjusted!

This section of this post is really important:I'll give you another "tip" for what it's worth. Years ago when we did use the longer (Chevy) valves due to "necessity" (and these were on very rare occasions) we finally realized if we really did need the extra length on the valves it was much better using conventional Chevy lash caps along with the "standard" Ford length valves to add between .060" and .080" to the overall height. This method had NO ill effects on the spring heights/pressures necessary, it ALL remained "standard" for the most part. It was so simple it was "scary"!

My good friend ran that stock car (I mentioned here earlier) I believe up at Loudon with the lash cap setup for many years and always up in the 5000 RPM range. If you go over to my photo-hosting site there is a shot of this ride there.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Just one final tip about the lifters, under NO circumstances purchase any lifters advertised/labeled as "Johnson-Style", chances are they will be "off-shore" mfd!! If you have any lifter questions simply call "Hylift-Johnson" @ 800-441-1400, ask for Paul. This is the division of "Topline Automotive".

Looks like I just missed them. Thanks for the closed spec. Care to wager a guess at how far out they adjust? Do they have a 1/4" in them? I need about 1.745" for my shortest valves, and would like to be somewhere in the middle of the adjustment at that length. I can't get anybody with a NOS set of non-adjustable lifters to measure a lifter for me.

Also, from asking around, it looks like a set of Zephyr springs at my tall Chevy valve installed height will be pretty close on the seat pressure. Maybe close enough that I can run a single shim anyway.

I'm not out of the woods yet, but I'm developing a plan of attack...

[JSeery]

Just measured an adjustable lifter as they come out of the box, 1.795 with a lot of adjustment in either direction. I don't want to move the adjusters around it loosens the interference fit.

Lincoln Zephyr springs measure about 2.44 out of the box. Doesn't mean much, but that is the relaxed length.

[crazycasey]

Ok, so Ron Iskenderian called me back while I was driving home this afternoon. He said that with the Isky 88 cam, I'd want to run between 80-110 lbs of seat pressure. He said I could go as low as 70-75 lbs, but that he "really wouldn't hot rod it" without more spring. Ron's numbers seem hi, but he ground the cam, and I'm inclined to listen to him. He said that if I shot for between 1.950" and 2.000" installed height, I'd be right in the neighborhood of 80-90 lbs on his Isky 185G spring. Just based on what I've read, I'm thinking I want to end up on the very bottom of his range, so I'm going to measure HIS springs when they show up and aim to install them right at 80 psi on the seat.

I'm going to number my Chevy valves to their respective cylinder and duty, and take them to the machine shop to have all their stems trimmed and squared up at the same length. And since I can't get anybody with a set of NOS valve lifters to measure me a set, I'm just going to buy some adjustable units. I'm still up in the air on whether to run the Isky's, the TopLine's, or the Red's lifters. It sounds like all three options are good, quality, pieces. The TopLine's are the shortest, the Red's the lightest, but Ron has been such a HUGE help to me, AND he offered me an incredible price, so I'm leaning that way.

Lastly, I'm going to use Dale's (@Bored&Stroked) method of converting a Comp 743-16 Chrome Moly retainer for flathead duty, which will take up MOST, if not all of my seat height discrepancy with the longer Chevy valves.

I'll document my findings here. And hopefully make his thing run hard. Does anybody care to weigh-in on/critique my approach before I start ordering parts in the morning!?

Thanks for all the help guys!

[GOSFAST]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by crazycasey

Ok, so Ron Iskenderian called me back while I was driving home this afternoon. He said that with the Isky 88 cam, I'd want to run between 80-110 lbs of seat pressure. He said I could go as low as 70-75 lbs, but that he "really wouldn't hot rod it" without more spring. Ron's numbers seem hi, but he ground the cam, and I'm inclined to listen to him. He said that if I shot for between 1.950" and 2.000" installed height, I'd be right in the neighborhood of 80-90 lbs on his Isky 185G spring. Just based on what I've read, I'm thinking I want to end up on the very bottom of his range, so I'm going to measure HIS springs when they show up and aim to install them right at 80 psi on the seat.

I'm going to number my Chevy valves to their respective cylinder and duty, and take them to the machine shop to have all their stems trimmed and squared up at the same length. And since I can't get anybody with a set of NOS valve lifters to measure me a set, I'm just going to buy some adjustable units. I'm still up in the air on whether to run the Isky's, the TopLine's, or the Red's lifters. It sounds like all three options are good, quality, pieces. The TopLine's are the shortest, the Red's the lightest, but Ron has been such a HUGE help to me, AND he offered me an incredible price, so I'm leaning that way.

Lastly, I'm going to use Dale's (@Bored&Stroked) method of converting a Comp 743-16 Chrome Moly retainer for flathead duty, which will take up MOST, if not all of my seat height discrepancy with the longer Chevy valves.

I'll document my findings here. And hopefully make his thing run hard. Does anybody care to weigh-in on/critique my approach before I start ordering parts in the morning!?



Thanks for all the help guys!

Hi Casey, just another tip, before spending hours machining those retainers??, we have Comps chromemoly's on the shelf ready to go for the Flatheads, fit the OEM springs perfectly. You would only end up machining a very small portion if necessary for the spring hgts.

Good luck machining that material? The springs/retainers on the left in the photo are Comp's chromemolys. I will also add this (again), I would be using some bronze-lined guides as well, this is another area may come back to bite you later!

(Add) The Isky 185G springs we have here will give you about 70# @ 2.060" (nominal). This would be my goal for the installed pressure.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. I know the guys out at a Isky and respect them all but I would NOT be running anywhere near 100# seat pressure, unnecessary on any Flathead.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by GOSFAST

Hi Casey, just another tip, before spending hours machining those retainers??, we have Comps chromemoly's on the shelf ready to go for the Flatheads, fit the OEM springs perfectly. You would only end up machining a very small portion if necessary for the spring hgts.

Good luck machining that material? The springs/retainers on the left in the photo are Comp's chromemolys. I will also add this (again), I would be using some bronze-lined guides as well, this is another area may come back to bite you later!

(Add) The Isky 185G springs we have here will give you about 70# @ 2.060" (nominal). This would be my goal for the installed pressure.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. I know the guys out at a Isky and respect them all but I would NOT be running anywhere near 100# seat pressure, unnecessary on any Flathead.

Gary,

I wasn't aware Comp had a chromemoly retainer for the flathead ready to go. The reason I wanted to machine down their other set of retainers is because Dale said (on another forum) that THAT was the best way to tighten up the installed height. It doesn't look like the off the shelf retainer is going to help me in that regard, unless I'm missing something. Here look at this pic of Dale's modified 743-16 retainer and tell me what you think!? It's got a ton of meat on it which can preload those springs without stacking shims on the register.

Also, just for kicks, what do you get for a full set of your guides. I hate buying things twice, but you seem pretty adamant that yours are the ONLY way to go.

The only other thing I ask, is, why blatantly disregard a cam manufacturers recommendation on spring!? I DO plan to drive the car hard. I hope to anyway. I've spent enough money. Haha.

[JSeery]

There are competition engines and street engines. 100 lb seat pressure is to high for a flathead street engine.

[GOSFAST]

Hi Casey, that cam you are using is in the build that's in the ride in my signature. It has well over 30,000 street miles on it by now, maybe close to 40,000, and belongs to a long time friend. Feel free to click on the link, interesting read!

We set up and dynoed it with NOT one single issue, basically speaking we "bolted-it-together", ran it and delivered it. It made over 150 HP and over 250# torque. Stock length stainless valves, stock retainers, and the Isky 185G's with 70# spring pressure. It doesn't get any better/easier really.

It just appears to me that when you realize you have a problem you come up with a solution that simply creates another problem. This scenario opens the door for a higher risk rate of more problems later on, I hope not?

With respect to machining chromemoly retainers, it may be a really great idea, we just haven't needed to do it in over 50 years of building engines! I would not have the time to machine them OR be able to charge it out on a ticket. IT IS NOT NECESSARY! (At least over here)

(Add) If you machine .060" off the retainers you will only see a 10# difference, to see around a 20# difference would require .125" (1/8") machining on the retainers!

If Comp ever comes through for us with these "locators" it would allow us to use as many as (6) .060" shims below the springs, way, way more than would ever be needed on any builds. But entirely doable.

I've had a few days off this week, not sure how often I will be able to get back up here this week? I wish you good luck, and I mean it! On side note, bronze-lining your guides is a "snap" for us now, we made new tooling recently.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. The only reason I mention the bronze guides, I haven't had 1 single "hang" EVER since we began using them. I had an F-1 myself that eventually got them installed after a few of my own valves ended up "hanging" during long storage periods, that's all in the history books now. If you need to contact me directly (for this week anyway) it would be better by an e-mail, [email protected].

[Bored&Stroked]

As some have mentioned, you don't need anywhere near 100# of spring pressure - heck, I run that with a very high-lift roller cam. If it was my engine, I'd be shooting for about 60 - 65 lbs on the seat (that will give you the most longevity on the cam core). You're not building a race engine - my guess is that you'll probably never rev it over 5000 RPM, so be conservative on your spring pressure and your engine will last a lot longer. Given the mild cam and mild engine, I'd go with a 'Zephyr' style of spring - you also don't really need the 185G Iskys. Good luck - you're getting through it!

D

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

As some have mentioned, you don't need anywhere near 100# of spring pressure - heck, I run that with a very high-lift roller cam. If it was my engine, I'd be shooting for about 60 - 65 lbs on the seat (that will give you the most longevity on the cam core). You're not building a race engine - my guess is that you'll probably never rev it over 5000 RPM, so be conservative on your spring pressure and your engine will last a lot longer. Given the mild cam and mild engine, I'd go with a 'Zephyr' style of spring - you also don't really need the 185G Iskys. Good luck - you're getting through it!

D

Dale,

I was just typing you a PM. Ron (Iskenderian) told me yesterday that the 185G was Isky's copy of the Zephyr spring, though your numbers over on Soup to Nuts put it very slightly stouter. I'm ashamed to admit that I don't have a set of dividers, but with a snap gauge I'm getting a reading of approximately 1.950" installed height on my STOCK flathead springs. I've got to purchase a spring tester, but my guesstimate is that THAT installed height puts me right around 65 lbs on the seat.

The work on this mill was all pretty shade tree, but, it'd likely have worked before I screwed up the valve job by adjusting clearances on a walking cam. I guess it's not the worst thing I could have done. Per your previous comment, I've found that there are quite a few "reputable" shops who are flat surfacing tappets, though I AM sold on starting with a fresh set.

Should I just buy an NOS set of lifters, grind in my lash, and stick this thing back together!?

My BIG question is, WHY am I observing such a tighter installed height with a Chevy valve than everybody else? I'm attaching a picture of my retainer setup.

[JSeery]

What is on there for retainers? They look like rotators to me (I'm on a cell phone, a little hard to see). They sure are not normal retainers.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

What is on there for retainers? They look like rotators to me (I'm on a cell phone, a little hard to see). They sure are not normal retainers.

*A quick Google search showed that these are just the standard 52-53 style two-piece retainers. Looks like THEY maybe work better on the longer Chevy valve.

I'm not familiar with what "rotators" are. They've got a retainer, and then a tapered piece, and that holds the standard style locks. It's a long story, but they came out of a 1953 8BA, along with the lifters.

[JSeery]

Rotates are later 8ba items that were added when they stopped using hardened seats. They explain how you are getting away with out a lot of shims! Things are starting to be clear here. Not something I have (or ever would! ) messes with. If the solution to the Chevy valve shimming issue was this simple everyone would be doing it! I'll let other weigh in on this one, but if it was me those would be off of there pronto!!!

[rotorwrench]

Those are the mid 51 thru end of production rotator type retainers. There is nothing wrong with them for longer valve applications. The two piece design just allows the valve to rotate which it will during normal use. Some rotator retainer designs actually cause a bit of rotation but they found that this wasn't really necessary. Things move on their own when they are bee-bopping up and down that fast. The only thing that can cause you trouble is that certain springs are designed for use with certain retainers so you would have to question folks in the know whether it would work well with the springs you are using or not.

[HP Hunter]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Rotates are later 8ba items that were added when they stopped using hardened seats. They explain how you are getting away with out a lot of shims! Things are starting to be clear here. Not something I have (or ever would! ) messes with. If the solution to the Chevy valve shimming issue was this simple everyone would be doing it! I'll let other weigh in on this one, but if it was me those would be off of there pronto!!!

I would listen to jseery here ^ raelly good advice.

Harry

[Mart]

Not got a spring tester? Neither have I but I do have a drill press and some bathroom scales though.

Mart.

[JSeery]

Per Joe Abbin: A shorter valve spring, 2.2" long, with 9 3/8 coils must be used with the rotating assemblies.

Assume this is in reference to the original valves, not sure how this translates over to the Chevy valves.

[40cpe]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Per Joe Abbin: A shorter valve spring, 2.2" long, with 9 3/8 coils must be used with the rotating assemblies.

Assume this is in reference to the original valves, not sure how this translates over to the Chevy valves.

I wonder if Joe says they "must be used" simply because of the difference in length or if there is something more unique about them.

[40cpe]

Originally Posted by Mart

Not got a spring tester? Neither have I but I do have a drill press and some bathroom scales though.

Mart.

This is my spring tester. Set the nut on the post at your installed height, put the metal tab on top of the spring and compress. When your ANALOG ohm meter shows contact observe the bathroom scale. Adjust the nut to see how shims affect the pressure.

PS, sorry about the picture orientation

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by 40cpe

I wonder if Joe says they "must be used" simply because of the difference in length or if there is something more unique about them.

There are also comments about the inside radius not being compatible with some springs. But again I wouldn't even dream of using them, so really have no experience with them nor have I ever researched much on them. Most references I have seen state something like used on stock rebuilds only and not used on high performance applications.

Just started a separate thread on this topic. It will be interesting to see if anyone else has any experience with this.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by 40cpe

This is my spring tester. Set the nut on the post at your installed height, put the metal tab on top of the spring and compress. When your ANALOG ohm meter shows contact observe the bathroom scale. Adjust the nut to see how shims affect the pressure.

PS, sorry about the picture orientation

It's an interesting idea. Have you ever had anybody test your results? I just picked up a Proform spring tester with built in spring mic from Summit for a whopping $100. In the interest of putting it through it's paces, I'd be happy to measure a new Egge stock flathead spring and/or a new Isky 185G spring at any height you request for your own comparative purposes. I mean, I'm sure the bathroom scale method is "close enough", but, I figured I'd offer just in case you were curious.

[Mart]

My bathroom scales seem ridiculously high every time I stand on them. I'm sure they must be faulty.

Mart.

[tubman]

Casey, I just saw this thread, and a page or so back, you said you couldn't find anyone with a NOS set of stock lifters to measure. I have a set on the shelf up at my shop. I could put a calipers on them if you still would like that measurement. It sounds like you are beyond that now, but let me know.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by tubman

Casey, I just saw this thread, and a page or so back, you said you couldn't find anyone with a NOS set of stock lifters to measure. I have a set on the shelf up at my shop. I could put a calipers on them if you still would like that measurement. It sounds like you are beyond that now, but let me know.

I am past this, though, if you're interested in letting those lifters go, and they're ALL 1.750", I might be interested.

It seems that there are two lengths of the common hollow-bodied ford cam followers. Early seem to be 1.720" and late seem to be 1.750". I'm not exactly sure where in production the change occurred.

[rotorwrench]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The new for 52 that begun in 51 was the largest valve train change since the 59 series production ended in 1948. A new cam, valves, springs, & rotator type retainers in this change. The tappet followers 8BA-6500-A changed to the EAB-6500-A so there was a difference.

Now days the EAB stuff is still a bit harder to source so most folks ditch it and change back to the 8BA stuff when major replacements are needed. It does lead to some confusion though when parts are mixed & matched.

[crazycasey]

Well, I'm really reluctant to use heavy adjustable lifters. And the lower keeper groove on the Chevy valve makes fitting lash caps a bit of an issue. If anybody has a set of NOS EAB-6500-A valve tappets (lifters), I'd love to buy them. Need a full set of 16, and would need you to verify that they are all in fact 1.750" tall.

[Russ/40]

Having read this thread all the way through, I feel really bad for you. There is a lot of good advice above, but the number of respondents surely must be getting confusing. The problem I see with the respondents, is the degree of complexity you are being exposed to. The flathead is a very forgiving motor that will tolerate a very broad range of technology. Today it seems to be the case, many are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Throwing a lot of money into a flathead can be an exercise in futility, only making one feel high tech. The performance increase is only realized with extreme expense. Running 4 ring pistons is fine, but some will argue they rob horsepower. Are you really concerned about maybe loosing 2 horses in an 100 HP motor. Light piston pins? come on really, who cares. Sleeved guides, good bet with alcohol fuels, but necessary, no. Adjustable lifters, buy a good set and forget about it. High flow valves, if your not running a blower, forget it. There are several other examples, but if you start chasing them all your just throwing your money away. You already have, $5000 and still having an incomplete solution is atrocious. I suggest, and I'm not trying to slam anyone, you work with an old timer who does a lot of builds, but is not a "performance guru" but builds nice reliable and affordable motors like Walt Dupont. It might be too late, Your chasing after too many opinions.

[crazycasey]

Alright, while I fully admit to being on a process of discovery, I just got my NOS set of 8BA-6500-A FoMoCo Valve Tappets, and it's quite obvious they have never been in a motor, but there is NO discernable convex shape to them. Is it THAT subtle!? I mean, somebody...Gary, maybe, said that when you put them end to end it becomes aparrent...well, I sure can't tell.

One of the old manuals that I saw said that they should have a 96" radius, but that flat is "ok", and to replace if concave. Am I chasing a ghost!?

Pics or it didn't happen...

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by Russ/40

Having read this thread all the way through, I feel really bad for you...

Haha. Thanks. It's ok. I'm cherry picking. And I'm determined to get this thing together.

[Russ/40]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

Alright, while I fully admit to being on a process of discovery, I just got my NOS set of 8BA-6500-A FoMoCo Valve Tappets, and it's quite obvious they have never been in a motor, but there is NO discernable convex shape to them. Is it THAT subtle!? I mean, somebody...Gary, maybe, said that when you put them end to end it becomes aparrent...well, I sure can't tell.

One of the old manuals that I saw said that they should have a 96" radius, but that flat is "ok", and to replace if concave. Am I chasing a ghost!?

Pics or it didn't happen...

Yes, it IS that subtle. The only way to see it is to hold them up to a light. You will see light around the edges that dissappears in the middle. If you mic a new ground cam, you would see a difference in the lobe to accommodate the crown on the lifter.

[rotorwrench]

If you figure a 96-inch radius into a circle diameter of 192 inches, that is a pretty large circle indeed. 16 feet as a matter of prospective. If you imagine a circle that large and cut a pie section of 1-inch width at the circumference, you would see that that 1-inch wide end would look to be almost a straight line to the naked eye. If you put an accurate straight edge from a machinist's square or something at least as accurate across the middle of the tappet face, I'm sure you would see a bit of daylight in the center. If not, then maybe it is flat.

There was a reason for the radius there. It makes the tappet rotate a bit so as to not wear a divot in the face during 100K miles of operation. It also helps to reduce wear in the tappet bore due to a reduction of side forces caused by the pressure of the cam lobe forcing it to move. I read a statement from Barney Navarro about what happened when they tried to use smaller diameter mushroom tappets from a 6-banger in a flathead V8 back in the day. He mentioned that the wear on the sleeves they put in the tappet bores to reduce the diameter was too rapid so they went back to regular tappets. I think he tried locked in roller tappets too and they just caused even more wear.

The old Tobin ARP tappet facing machines could be set for the desired radius but most all manufacturers were near a 100-inch radius, give or take a small amount, back then.

[GOSFAST]

Hi Casey, they must have that radius to work correctly, without a doubt. That very slight radius helps the lifters to turn and keep a constant new oil supply on the lobe! They also (help) keep the cam positioned where it belongs, the cam lobes are normally ground with a slight taper also.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Hold 2 lifters against each other, the surfaces that ride on the lobes, and they should "rock" ever so slightly. See the shot here.

[Russ/40]

In regards to your Tappets photo, I have seen, so called NOS that were flat. Can't explain that. Still not right.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by Russ/40

Yes, it IS that subtle...

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

If you figure a 96-inch radius...

Originally Posted by GOSFAST

Hi Casey, they must have that radius to work correctly, without a doubt...

Well, I must have just about the world's worst luck. I cleaned the dried Cosmoline off these lifters, held them together, and tried to rock them back and forth...held them up to the brightest light in my shop, and they are DEAD flat. I'm sure they're true NOS, but maybe they just weren't made right. I DID notice that there is no swirl on the bottom. There are the slightest machine marks in a very slight arc across the lifter face moving in one direction. Picture for reference. This is getting frustrating.

[Ronnie]

Hold the lifters together and try to insert a piece of .001" feeler gauge at the edge.It will confirm flat or not. "Pete" should chime in as he is resident cam guru.

R

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

Hold the lifters together and try to insert a piece of .001" feeler gauge at the edge.It will confirm flat or not. "Pete" should chime in as he is resident cam guru.

R

My thinnest feeler gauge is 0.0015" but she won't fit. These suckers are flat. In fact, they may even be slightly concave, because they seem to stick together ever so slightly (suction!?) when sticking them end to end. I may as well just start lighting $100 bills on fire at this point. Haha!

[crazycasey]

So, I plugged some numbers into an arc calculator. The stock ford tappet is ground on a 96" radius. With a width of only 1", that creates an arc that is 0.0013" tall in the center. Stick two 0.0013" tall arcs together and you've got over 0.0025" at the edges, so my 0.0015" feeler gauge should have definitely fit. I sure would appreciate if somebody with more knowledge than myself would confirm my thinking.

Elgin cams is in my town. He'll resurface tappets to my desired radius. Bummer part is, last I heard he charges $8 each. So I'll be about $250 total into these solid hollow tappets.

[weemark]

a lot of NOS parts are still on the shelf for a reason - a lot of them are 2nds at best and they just aren't right hence the reason they have never been used and still sitting on a shelf but someone doesn't want to get rid of them for whatever reason but then these parts end up on the market as NOS and the rest is history...

You seem to be getting hung up on little details and making what should be a simple build incredibly complicated. As someone up thread said find an old timer who has built lots of these engines to work with and get them to build yours.

[scooder]

Here's a quote from Pete from 1/10/16 thread titled Ford lifters on an iskenderian cam.

"NOS lifters are not recommended.
They are ground flat.
Ford decided it was cheaper to live with the failures than to install the machinery to do them right."

I've put this here as there's lots of talk about the 96" radius face profile on original and NOS lifters, I've not seen a NOS lifter that wasn't flat, can't say I've had masses of them through my hands, but a reasonable amount. This observation does tally with Pete's comment quoted above. So folk must have been using flat face lifters for 60 years plus.

I can't comment on the new Johnson lifters Gary sells, I've not had them in my hand but from his pics and posts, they are not flat. The 96" radius of his lifter faces are most definitely the best way to go, can't argue with the science. The cam lobes should be ground with a slight taper to get the full rotating benefit conducive to long life.

I'm not saying that the radius is not necessary, it is ideally perfect. Just saying that flat lifters have been used for years in engines rebuilt using genuine NOS Ford lifters.

Any one else had experience with stock NOS flat lifters? I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this post.
Martin.

[GOSFAST]

Originally Posted by scooder

I'm not saying that the radius is not necessary, it is ideally perfect. Just saying that flat lifters have been used for years in engines rebuilt using genuine NOS Ford lifters.

Martin.

Hi Martin, one of the issues that I would foresee affecting the flat-faced lifters is the final spring pressures. I'm sure with any new factory-built units with spring pressures in the 40# range there would not be an immediate issue, when you get up into "performance-oriented" spring pressures I suspect that time-frame would be shortened considerably?

I do believe that is excellent info from Ron out at Isky! And I'm certain Isky and most other cam vendors buy from Paul at "Hy-lift-Johnson", I know for a fact Comp Cams is one company that uses their lifters. Its the same company we use when we need add'l supplies! All the new cam blanks are likely from CMC (Camshaft Machine Co) and are tapered??

It is also my strong belief (due to the Flathead design with the valve riding directly on the lifters, lacking pushrods/rocker arms) that the radiused face plays a part in causing the valve to "rotate" some, which is also why I don't believe you need an alternate "valve-rotator" type retainer on the topside to be used. I can't prove any of this but it does make perfect sense to me. Remember, the opening/closing spring action also helps some with valve rotation.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. In all my years of machining/building units, the old "Nailhead" Buicks were the ONLY ones I ever HEARD of having non-radiused lifter bottoms, and I'm not certain about this either, I have never seen any that way.

[scooder]

You've not seen the NOS Ford lifters with flat bottoms? That really surprises me. I'm not mad, they genuinely do exist. Can't just be me,Pete and crazycase that have seen this?
I totally agree that a radius base lifter (not talking 1"or 2" hot dog radius lifters here) is like I said ideally perfect, i was just pointing out that there are "stock" NOS Ford lifters with a flat base out there and have been for a long time, and must have been used an ungodly amount.
I get what you say about "performance" spring pressure, but the guy has an isky 88, not what I'd think needs performance spring pressure. Stock springs at 2" installed hight is most likely adequate, isky 185 g or red's "zephyr" at the max, it's a pretty gentle little cam. In my opinion it's a waste of money (the 88 cam) there's much much better streetable cams out there.
Martin.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by scooder

You've not seen the NOS Ford lifters with flat bottoms? That really surprises me. I'm not mad, they genuinely do exist. Can't just be me,Pete and crazycase that have seen this?
I totally agree that a radius base lifter (not talking 1"or 2" hot dog radius lifters here) is like I said ideally perfect, i was just pointing out that there are "stock" NOS Ford lifters with a flat base out there and have been for a long time, and must have been used an ungodly amount.
I get what you say about "performance" spring pressure, but the guy has an isky 88, not what I'd think needs performance spring pressure. Stock springs at 2" installed hight is most likely adequate, isky 185 g or red's "zephyr" at the max, it's a pretty gentle little cam. In my opinion it's a waste of money (the 88 cam) there's much much better streetable cams out there.
Martin.

Well then Martin, it's the perfect cam for me then, because that's all I've been doing on this whole build, wasting money; buying flat lifters, paying for all the machine work twice, and the cam is just icing on the proverbial cake. Haha!

These tappets are definitely flat, if not even very VERY slightly concave. Dale pointed out to me in a pm that you could slide one tappet base across another tappets side, and it's much easier to judge the profile that way. Sure enough, in the CENTER of the tappet I caught just the faintest glimmer of light shining through.

And even still, while I'm pretty sure that I AM over complicating things, and that I could likely run these without ANY issue, ever, I'm going to further explore the aftermarket adjustable options. Wonder how many of those have flat bases!?

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

Well then Martin, it's the perfect cam for me then, because that's all I've been doing on this whole build, wasting money; buying flat lifters, paying for all the machine work twice, and the cam is just icing on the proverbial cake. Haha!

I really had to laugh at this one! AND I KNOW it's not the least bet funny in real life. I believe we all feel you pain, but have to admit you do appear to have a good attitude about it all (at least so far, are we approaching the breaking point? )

Ok maybe a bright spot to consider. If you were paying for training in old Fords your investment so far wouldn't be that much for what you have learned. Hang in there, you've come too far to throw in the towel!!!

We haven't even gotten to you most likely not selecting the best pistons, or rings, etc, LOL. As bad as it seems it is much better to straighten this all out now vs. assembling it and installing it in the car and then having no end of problems that are hard to track down.

Also, keep in mind some of this is OK vs better vs best. On some of these issues if you were just starting from scratch one might be a better option than another approach. But sometimes you just live with what you have to work with. Other issues are things that really need to be corrected now to avoid future problems.

[Bored&Stroked]

You've had a bit of tough luck on this sucker now haven't yah! LOL

I think you're doing the right thing - making sure you have the right parts, right setup, etc.. - stick to it. Also, you're learning a lot and this thread helps others. The only bad part is that it is your wallet and time that are being sucked up in the process. That sucks.

I'd not run flat lifters if it was mine - why compromise at this point? Either have them resurfaced with the correct radius, or find some others. When lifters DON'T rotate, then things wear out in a hurry - so why risk it.

I appreciate that you're keeping a good attitude and not just throwing this engine together with a 'Fxxx It' attitude - in the end, this will benefit you and your engine greatly.

Hang in there . . .

B&S

[JSeery]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

An exaggerated view of cam / lifter interface. With a flat lifter it would be ridding on the edge of the cam lobe. Maybe not the end of the world, but certainly not ideal.

[scooder]

If you've got a hint of light in the center of the lifter base it's concave, worse than flat. The ideal is a slight hint of light at the edges, as in convex.
On the plus side these stock Ford lifters are the lightest buy a country mile. With your slight hint of light in the center, I'd definitely get um ground to radius 96".
The 88 cam, some folk love um dearly, Brian loves his in his 21 stud. Me, I prefer more cam, hence my comment, only my opinion though. You may love it. You got it already, so run it.
I didn't mean to offend you, hope I didn't. You sure have been an a real steep learning curve with this engine ain't you, though the biggest villain in the story is your first machine shop! They really f@#!ed you, never understand how these places stay in business? I admire your perseverance, keep at it and you'll have a nice little runner.
Martin.

[crazycasey]

Guys, don't worry, nobody is offending me. I've got a pretty great sense of humor.

In the interest of keeping this thread informative, Ron Iskenderian recommends that "the spherical radius on the cam face should be between 60 and 80 inches for best results" when running his Isky 88 regrind.

Furthermore, it dawns on me that as the difference between the "96" radius" and "flat"is only 0.0013", it's not at all surprising that a great number of NEW Ford tappets are FLAT, because NO OTHER SPEC in my flathead manual is held that tight. Am I wrong!?

[GOSFAST]

Originally Posted by JSeery

An exaggerated view of cam / lifter interface. With a flat lifter it would be ridding on the edge of the cam lobe. Maybe not the end of the world, but certainly not ideal.

Hi "J", close on the diagram but let me add to it some with one direct from Isky (below). Just appears slightly more accurate??

(Add) Probably the main reason for us not seeing any "flat" style lifters over the years is due to the fact that when a unit comes in here for a build just about every old piece ends up in the dumpster unless the customer wants them back! Cam, lifters, timing gears, pistons, etc ALL in the dumpster! By the time these pieces get here they have "outlived" their intended useful life for the most part!

On a side note, this (flat) style lifter MAY be the sole reason Ford went over to the rotators on the valves, just an educated guess on my part? The time frame definitely would fit?

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Casey, get the right parts and call it a day! Those lifters I showed in my earlier post are the very SAME ones in my good friend's ride (again, in my signature), he has the very same cam you mention (Isky's 88), it has about 40,000 miles it now?, and at the time the unit was FULLY assembled here in about a total of 4 or 5 hours! Not a single "snag" along the way, not one. That ride weighs close to 4000# (maybe more) and "pulls like freight-train", this was my friend's description when the unit was new and just installed.

[crazycasey]

So, I'm going to certainly offend some people here. I've got an engineer buddy who's fond of pointing out people's proclivities towards applying "Brand X" technology towards more unique power plants; in our discussions it has generally centered around Chrysler Hemi engines, but in this case, it's the Ford Flathead.

The staunchest advocates (on this thread) of the 96" tappet bottom radius as being "absolutely necessary" (you know who you are) have all said that it is because the camshaft lobe is ground with a slight taper, and without the corresponding camshaft follower (tappet) radius, the camshaft will ultimately go flat.

Well, I walked into Dema Elgin's office yesterday morning; if you don't know the Elgin name, one need only glance around Dema'a office at the multitude of signed "Thank You" photographs from all the record setting Bonneville cars he's ground camshafts for, to see that this man knows his business (Vern Tardel's 177mph Blown Flathead Roadster is among those cars). I had told Dema that I had a set of NOS Ford Tappets that were flat, and that I wanted them resurfaced with a radius on the bottom. AND, I had told him that Ron Iskenderian had specified that I run a 60"-80" radius for best results.

Well, as I handed Mr. Elgin the box of tappets, he was astounded, first, that they were in fact NOS, but not surprised in the slightest that they were totally flat, but then he went on to explain WHY flathead tappets are flat. He dug around for an old technical drawing of a flathead camshaft, and explained that flathead cams DO NOT, in fact have a tapered lobe. The 96" radius was purely spec'd on an engineering sheet to make up for any inconsistencies in tappet bore to lobe alignment, but the tappets are in actuality, flat.

Well, what about Ron Iskenderian's recommended tappet radius, stories of Isky articles recommending against running stock Ford tappets on reground cams because they're flat, etc. Dema told me to call Ron Iskenderian, and to ask him if his flathead camshafts had any lobe taper. And he said to be sure I tell him Dema Elgin's the one asking. And Ron said, you know, I'm not sure, I know the OHV V8's do, and that's where you need the 60"-80" radius, but I'm going to have to go to the blueprints and get back to you about the flathead. Mr. Elgin was shaking his head.

The next day I get a call back from Ron. Flathead camshafts, including Isky grinds DO NOT have a tapered lobe. And you can run a flat bottomed Ford tappet all day long, but having a tapered radius is still good insurance against tappet bore to lobe alignment inconsistencies, and so he'd still recommend it.

So, there you have it, straight from the mouths of two living legends, two of the most successful names in the camshaft business...you guys are all wet! Though, ultimately your advice is still sound, and I'm greatful to have gone on this journey to know definitively (what I keep asking) WHY!? And to pass that info on to anybody who's still paying attention...

[JSeery]

LOL, so Ron didn't know the answer without checking, now that is funny!!!

[rotorwrench]

There has been a lot of engineering done since the begining of the 20th century as related to internal combustion engines. Many things were tried and many things were determined to be with merit but did everyone follow those trends, probably not and for a lot of different reasons. One reason being, planned obsolescence. FoMoCo kept making parts for flatheads long after they were out of production so they weren't making a lot of bucks off of that stuff. They just did so to satisfy a need to keep their customers happy. Even that has limits though. Now days, they will supply parts for about 10-years and that's it. A lot of these parts are contracted out so that FoMoCo can concentrate on the new stuff.

For folks that worry, use plenty of ZDDP in your motor oil during break in. It may not help at all but it will calm the worries. An old Sargent Major told me once what he thought about experts. "An Ex is a former and a spert is a drip under pressure". After that, I never wanted to be one.

[flatjack9]

Thanks crazycasey for rooting out this information. I think we all learned something. That also explains why I see a straight line wear pattern in a lot of old used lifters.

[scooder]

Casey,
Thank you for finding this out, proof that I'm not mad, and not imaging what I've seen lots of. That being flat stock NOS Ford lifters. Like I said, they've been used for years.
Again thank you, Elgin cams really know there stuff.
Martin

[Mart]

Thanks cc for the info. Very interesting.

Mart.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by scooder

Casey,
Thank you for finding this out, proof that I'm not mad, and not imaging what I've seen lots of. That being flat stock NOS Ford lifters. Like I said, they've been used for years.
Again thank you, Elgin cams really know there stuff.
Martin

The fact of the matter is, as Elgin pointed out, when the engines were brand new and everything was in perfect alignment it was no big deal, but now that things are worn, that radius IS important. Just not for the reasons most folks here were saying.

[Mart]

I'm a little out of my depth here, but this is an interesting subject. The thing that occurs to me though, is that it is an offset of the cam lobe to the lifter centre that promotes a rotation in the lifter. The radius may be a red herring as far as rotation is concerned. If the cam lobe wiped directly across the centre of the lifter it would not want to rotate. Offset that wipe area and the lifter will receive a little rotational push every time.

Mart.

[russcc]

I will add that reground cams have a reduced base circle, which weakens cam, effecting the rigidity, and can result in flex in the cam as you adjust the valves. We spent a whole night years ago adjusting the valves on a 3/4 race cam, over & over again until we got them where we wanted them. Went like a goosed moose after that tedious all night session.

[scooder]

Mart,
The cam lobe doesn't really just wipe across the lifter base. Lobe to lifter contact starts in the middle of the lifter base on the clearance ramp of the lobe, then the contact area moves outward to the edge of the lifter, then back to the middle, then out to the other side, then back to the center. Doesn't actually go right to the edges, if it did it'd wipe out the lobe.
Martin.

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by russcc

I will add that reground cams have a reduced base circle, which weakens cam, effecting the rigidity, and can result in flex in the cam as you adjust the valves. We spent a whole night years ago adjusting the valves on a 3/4 race cam, over & over again until we got them where we wanted them. Went like a goosed moose after that tedious all night session.

Dema mentioned that too. He said you can actually measure that deflection. Crazy to think about.

[flatheadmurre]

Originally Posted by Mart

I'm a little out of my depth here, but this is an interesting subject. The thing that occurs to me though, is that it is an offset of the cam lobe to the lifter centre that promotes a rotation in the lifter. The radius may be a red herring as far as rotation is concerned. If the cam lobe wiped directly across the centre of the lifter it would not want to rotate. Offset that wipe area and the lifter will receive a little rotational push every time.

Mart.

This i agree with fully !
And valve rotators has nothing to do with lifter rotation, they promote uniform heat, wear and deflection of the valve and helps keep the seat clean from deposits.
So not a bad idee to use them in my book.
The weight difference between rotators and non rotators are 3g so more to be gained from hollow lifters for weight.
And that they should break....they are used with the same design on heavy diesels with lot´s of more springpressure then any race flathead ever is going to see.
Then when it comes to mixing parts...lot´s of ways of doing it...not only one way that is correct.
Most of the time personal taste is what descides....

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by flatheadmurre

This i agree with fully !
And valve rotators has nothing to do with lifter rotation, they promote uniform heat, wear and deflection of the valve and helps keep the seat clean from deposits.
So not a bad idee to use them in my book.
The weight difference between rotators and non rotators are 3g so more to be gained from hollow lifters for weight.
And that they should break....they are used with the same design on heavy diesels with lot´s of more springpressure then any race flathead ever is going to see.
Then when it comes to mixing parts...lot´s of ways of doing it...not only one way that is correct.
Most of the time personal taste is what descides....

I think the way this motor WAS set up, it probably would have run pretty good. The valve clearances were all a little off, but the rotator retainers held the spring at a 1.950"-ish height yielding something like 55 lbs on the seat, and the flat bottom lifters wouldn't have likely caused any issue. Now I'be got a much stouter setup, and everything is very well sorted, but I've spent another $500 and I have no idea if it was worth it. Glad for the knowledge though, and I'm already planning my next flathead build.

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by crazycasey

I think the way this motor WAS set up, it probably would have run pretty good. The valve clearances were all a little off, but the rotator retainers held the spring at a 1.950"-ish height yielding something like 55 lbs on the seat, and the flat bottom lifters wouldn't have likely caused any issue. Now I'be got a much stouter setup, and everything is very well sorted, but I've spent another $500 and I have no idea if it was worth it. Glad for the knowledge though, and I'm already planning my next flathead build.

Awesome and great attitude. Certainly learned a lot from this thread.

[JSeery]

I have a question, have you checked the NOS lifters you just received for length? I remember your original ones were all over the place, are the NOS ones fairly consistent on length?

[crazycasey]

Originally Posted by JSeery

I have a question, have you checked the NOS lifters you just received for length? I remember your original ones were all over the place, are the NOS ones fairly consistent on length?

No, they were all 1.720" +/- 0.001".

[AnotherDay2020]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I drag race my flathead, have for years. No trouble with adjustments using double Isky springs, high lift cam, fuel injected alcohol at 6000 rpm.

Now that said I'm building a new motor and am trying to source non-rotating radius bottom hollow adjustable lifters, I am using the Isky 404 jig and tool kit from the 50's.

Has anyone seen a set of lifters like this?
Thanks good talk!