Interesting video on lifters

-
Mean416

Mean416

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2021
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
1,162
Location
Georgia
I found this video very interesting. Definitely the first factual and technical discussion of flat tappet lifter issues I've seen. If you're into lots of entertainment or smoke and mirrors this one isn't for you.

I'll be watching more of this guys stuff.

 
Got a bit lost however,I did learn that Alesha Powell was both employee of the month and year. Way to go Aleesha!
 
So it seems it's crappy machine work and not metallic hardness. Interesting.
 
RustyRatRod said:
So it seems it's crappy machine work and not metallic hardness. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Yeah the guy suggested that the hardness wasn't the primary problem. After watching this I'll definitely be having my new cams and lifters checked out and resurfaced to match. I also found it interesting what he was saying about the chamfer.
 
Mean416 said:
Yeah the guy suggested that the hardness wasn't the primary problem. After watching this I'll definitely be having my new cams and lifters checked out and resurfaced to match. I also found it interesting what he was saying about the chamfer.
Click to expand...
Yup you can see where's he's going. The chamfer actually reduces the contact patch of the lifter face. Pretty stupid.
 
If you are looking for a problem head to the corner. You'll find it. :)
 
His math is wrong. The effective diameter of a .842 lifter with a .015 chamfer is gonna be .842-.0106x2 or .821 because the .015 is the long side of that right triangle (you need to apply the Pythagorean theorem) and that gives you a base of .0106. Those look to be hack angle grinder regrind returns. The wear pattern on a break in only Melling slant solid lifter was only .025 wide so that means the lifter crown and the taper of the cam were not equal (to no suprise) as both will lap together over time to the ability of both metals to conform. Remember that you need a certain interference to rotate the lifter and I would certainly want the lifter to rotate over having a perfect 1/2 face wide wear pattern as that larger contact pattern will possibly (doubtful) come with the break in. Im not sure why the lobe width is even a factor as its never gonna need to be more than half the lifter face and even that is a stretch. Interesting vid none the less.
 
pishta said:
His math is wrong. The effective diameter of a .842 lifter with a .015 chamfer is gonna be .842-.0106x2 or .821 because the .015 is the long side of that right triangle (you need to apply the Pythagorean theorem) and that gives you a base of .0106. Those look to be hack angle grinder regrind returns. The wear pattern on a break in only Melling slant solid lifter was only .025 wide so that means the lifter crown and the taper of the cam were not equal (to no suprise) as both will lap together over time to the ability of both metals to conform. Remember that you need a certain interference to rotate the lifter and I would certainly want the lifter to rotate over having a perfect 1/2 face wide wear pattern as that larger contact pattern will possibly (doubtful) come with the break in. Im not sure why the lobe width is even a factor as its never gonna need to be more than half the lifter face and even that is a stretch. Interesting vid none the less.
Click to expand...
I trust the guy with a machine shop, who has a machine to regrind lifters, who is showing us actual taper via a micrometer. I could do the trig too but in general the info and the results are enlightening. Did you see the pattern left from the resurfacing? It was pretty significant.
 
Similar discussion on Speedtalk. A professional engine builder posted that he buys trays of 128 lifters at a time, which he tests for hardness. 18 of them were soft.
 
Mean416 said:
I found this video very interesting. Definitely the first factual and technical discussion of flat tappet lifter issues I've seen. If you're into lots of entertainment or smoke and mirrors this one isn't for you.

I'll be watching more of this guys stuff.

Click to expand...

I posted this on Facebook a couple days ago.
 
I have family in Clemson. I might just ride up there and talk with the guy when the weather warms up for good. He talks a good game.
 
With what comes out of most boxes of lifters these days, the amount of chamfer on a set of 16 can vary greatly.
From almost nothing to “wow!!”.
This past spring I had some normal Hyd lifters here....... from the last of the US made suppliers.
The pattern on the base looked much nicer than what was in the video...... but a handful had a seriously large chamfer.
I looked at a few with the bigger chamfer under a magnifying glass, and eyeballed the effective foot diameter with a caliper.
They were down from .904 OD to about .875.
Fortunately, the cam they were being paired with was designed for use with .842 diameter lifters.

I have a set of NOS Crane Hyd lifters here from the 80’s.
Almost zero chamfer.
My friends Trend tool steel lifters for his stocker have basically zero chamfer.

The giant chamfer thing seems to be somewhat recent(within the last few years or so). At least, I don’t recall noticing it before that and none of the older lifters I have here are like that, and I’m sure it has contributed to some cam failures.
 
I watched that video yesterday, today he made one comparing costs of going roller vs. flat tappet showing it's not as expensive as people think... BUT of course he used Chevy stuff as an example. Nothing against the guy but like everything for us Mopar guys it's never that simple or cheap.

Quick web search shows that Egge, Delta and Schneider are some other options for regrinding lifters.
 
I enjoy the Powell Machine videos.

I figured it would only be a matter of time before the FT cam/lifter debacle would become a black hole of time for them.
A small 3 person shop can’t fix the industry wide problem.

A local shop had a few FT failures over the last year or so.
They won’t use them anymore.

Another local engine builder/machine shop/dyno service stopped using them a couple years ago.
 
I don't recall any mention of the hydraulic effect between the cam and lifter. The viscosity of the engine oil will have a direct effect on the cushioning and dampening of the cam impacting and riding on the lifter face or vise versa. I would like to think their is some softening at and during the approch/entry cycle and a layer of lubricant filling in the microscopic voides between the two surface faces. Obviously or the parts wouldn't last 2 minutes.

Think about the impact effect of an object hitting water at 200 mph or whatever..
 
You don't need a chamfer just break the edge to stress relieve it. It is just a little tricky because the chamfer is machined in the lifter blank before it is ground to finish OD size and the face crown is ground. . I used to measure them with the thin jaw ends of a dial caliper over the chamfer on the face end.
 
Some FT cam lobes DO require lifters with no chamfer because the aggressiveness of the rate of lift requires the full lifter diameter. Take the simple 0.842" lifter & put a 0.020" chamfer on it. It's effective diameter becomes 0.804".
Crower makes specific no-chamfer lifters. Example: Crower 220 series Chev sol lifter series cams require no-chamfer lifters. The same principle applies to Ford & Chrys lifters/lobes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top