Using Late 51 thru 53 Rotators in HP Applications

[JSeery]

This came up in another thread. The question is using the Later 51 through 53 rotator retainers on a Chevy valve and a high performance cam. I have never used them, would never consider using them and know very little about them. I have always heard they should not be used in high performance applications and that there were spring issues with using them.

Again I have zero practical experience in this area! Any knowledge/experience in this area?

[Ronnieroadster]

The answer is simple don't do it. Theres no need plus the spring stack height will be incorrect the retainer is a weak design so it will fail under the higher load and added lift.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by Ronnieroadster

The answer is simple don't do it. Theres no need plus the spring stack height will be incorrect the retainer is a weak design so it will fail under the higher load and added lift.

Hear ya, just trying to get some supporting information.

[Mart]

I'm a bit reluctant to answer this, but I used 'em on the chevy inlets on my roadster. I found the stack height of shortened French type rotator keepers worked well on the shortened Chevy valves on a Schneider cam. It's a mildly hopped motor on a budget, not "High performance" by a lot of peoples standards, but it scoots down the road well enough for me. I did a post on it and was told it was a bad idea. I thought, oh well, I've done it now. The motor is still running well. I've got standard US Ford parts on the exhausts.

Mart.

Edit: I found the post:
https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132840

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by Mart

https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132840

Mart, thanks for the link, interesting reading.

Some related post:

http://fordbarn.com/forum/showthread...light=retainer

http://fordbarn.com/forum/showthread...light=retainer

[JSeery]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Anyone else with experience with these retainers?

[40cpe]

No experience in using them, but I tried one on my Chevy valve/Zephyr spring combo and it was way too tight. I had new seats and new valves, so they set pretty high in the chamber.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by 40cpe

No experience in using them, but I tried one on my Chevy valve/Zephyr spring combo and it was way too tight. I had new seats and new valves, so they set pretty high in the chamber.

Did you happen to measure the spring height?

[40cpe]

Sorry, no.

[JSeery]

Would be interesting to have inputs from the engine builder on the Barn.

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by JSeery

Would be interesting to have inputs from the engine builder on the Barn.

You have it see post #2 only built over 200 flathead Ford V-8's so far plus hold Ford flathead land speed records at Bonneville to back it up just thought you should know

[Ol' Ron]

I've only done this on 3 engines, two have allot of miles on them and my 280 has them, but it has only a few hundred. So far I haven't had any trouble. This brings up a point. If you have an Idea and someone says "Oh that won't work". You might want to ask them if they ever tried it and facts to prove it doesn't. "I wonder if I add another carb to my engine?" Remenber, we learn by doing.

[Brian]

There is a Canadian engine called a C69A that has real thick cylinder walls; a favourite for boring big. They do not have hardened intake valve inserts, exhaust only. I built one of these as a 284cu in [3 5/16x 4 1/8] and opened up the entire intake big and ran custom made [by me] inlet valves that were massive; just about touched the stock sized exhaust valves. On a stock lift cam, but I fitted the valve rotator valve spring assemblies because of the non hardened inlet seats. I understand the concept of running rotating valves is so that as they open and shut, they actually rotate a smidge, thereby seating in a different place every time, which with cast iron seats is preferable for long valve/seat life. You don't need to worry about this with hardened seats.
Anyway, although I no longer run this engine, a fellow barner runs it regularly and has had no trouble whatsoever with valve rotators etc in this application

[Ross F-1]

My basically stock EAB engine with rotators had severe valve recession on a long highway trip, burning gasohol. On leaded gas, rotators probably eliminated the need for hardened seats, but they sure didn't do me any good on gasohol.

[JWL]

The use of "Rotators" for our street driven Flatheads seems like a good concept. They are certainly plenty strong for normal use with reasonable spring pressures. The Ford engineers developed the design with thousands and thousands of miles anticipated. Rotating the valve is good. Whether seat rings are present or not. This is especially true for those who choose camshaft profiles and use driving techniques which promote carbon accumulation at the seats.

For competition, I would never use the heavy, 2 piece retainers. I chose to use titanium retainers but I don't argue with people who like chrome moly.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by Ronnieroadster

You have it see post #2 only built over 200 flathead Ford V-8's so far plus hold Ford flathead land speed records at Bonneville to back it up just thought you should know

LOL, I'm with you Ronnie, just was interested in what other's had to say on the topic! Seems like some others don't see a problem with them, I was a little surprised at that. I had always heard stock low profile cams only with the OEM rotators.

[rotorwrench]

Mart's idea likely made them even stronger since there is less protrusion but some may wonder why bother if you have something else at hand. Use what ya got & run what you brung. S'all Good in my book.