Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I have been running Brad Penn/ Penngrade 1 high ZDDP oils on both my flat tappet, and hydraulic roller stuff, for many years, never had an issue. This oil is advertised as "the flat tappet oil" right on the bottle, and I have never felt the need to try to be a backyard chemist by trying to add any other "magic elixir " to it.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I agree and he is very good about quickly answering emails.

lake@totalseal.com

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I know stockers must be running higher spring pressures and more exotic cam profiles then the average circle track or bracket car. I've never owned a roller cam, maybe someday. The last 2 I broke in I did use "break in" oil, in the past I used non detergent 30w or regular 30w with GM EOS additive. Break in is always high anxiety no matter what especially after all of the failures you hear about.
As far as oil goes I've used just about everything on my last bracket motor. I used regular Mobil with Lucas ZDDP additive, Valvoline VR-1, Lucas Hot Rod oil, Mobil 1 10w30 with Lucas additive, Mobil 1 15w-50 no additive and I've run it on AV gas, 110 and Methanol. Valve lash was always spot on. Howards solid flat with the laser hole on a Howards tight lash cam.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I'm sure it depends from combination to combination, as well as the "harshness" of the cam profile, but it seems like on .390/.410 small block Chevrolet stuff, once the duration @.050 gets into the 270s, cast cams and regular lifters don't seem to last very long. This mostly being down to the added spring pressure in order to control the more radical lobe. I've had good luck on multiple engines with solid lifters from Clay Smith Cams. I asked over the phone who manufactures them, and I got the response Howards/Johnson.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Yes, I was considering calling/emailing Lake...

I've seen all the oils mentioned above, but I assumed those are brands people would be using, I have used Castrol and Royal Purple personally, but that was long ago and always in a roller application.

As I am considering building a flat tappet motor in the future, I am quite curious about the current issues and how to avoid those problems.

Do these oil companies have specific oils formulated just for the flat tappet motors?
Or do I have to add additives, and then here we go with the amateur chemist act.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Last 2 solid flat tappet cams I broke in were in the 250-260 @ .050 range. Once broken in I question the special formula oils and additives. I like oil I can buy at a reasonable price easily which is why I went to the Mobil 1 15w-50 which is a higher ZDDP package and didn't require any additives.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

My cam is .398 and 250@.050 Never had an issue breaking in dozens of other cams but.. should I put light break in springs on then switch once its broke in??

I've been using GM EOS for 40 years and have never had a cam lose a lobe, but again, I've never run the spring pressures and lobe profiles like this either.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

100% start with a lighter spring

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

It is ALWAYS a safer bet to run lighter springs, and or low ratio break in rockers. I bought a set of 1.3:1 rocker arms just to break in the cam on one engine, rather than disturb a set of high priced heads that didn't belong to me. I know several builders who keep a set of Shubeck lifters set aside, and used them to burnish every new camshaft, then swapped to break in springs or rockers, and put in the new lifters that were to stay in the engine.


I use moly disulfide paste on the lifters and camshaft, then I use a mixture of Brad Penn oil and one of the extreme pressure red assembly lubes for assembly. Then I use Brad Penn or Lucas break in oil for the break in on the dyno. My engines are all pre lubed, the carburetor is primed, and the ignition spark timed, so that they do not crank for an extended period of time. They start, go to 2500 RPM, get the timing set, and get run between 2500 and 3500 for a full half hour, without stopping unless there's some sort of emergency, like a massive leak, or excessive oil or water temperature. Then they get the oil drained, the filter swapped (I prefill my filters) and any change to the valvetrain, springs, rockers, or both. Then they get 15-30 minutes more run in with fresh break in oil. We check lash, etc, and then start pulls.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

How much seat pressure do you think you need with those little valves and a 2 bbl?

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Both pounds...LOL!

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Sorry who is this guy he is amazing

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

What a thorough but concise answer to the problems we in Stock Eliminator have had! This person makes perfectly good sense. It seems that the word of the day here is variables, in that, some people can build a motor and it breaks in and goes the long haul for season after season, and other times the same engine builder builds one that can't get past the initial fire up and break in interval without killing the camshaft. Cast iron is a material that has variables within it by nature of how it is, with softer spots in some places than others, the items like core shift and an unevenness in how things may move around as the engine is running, as well as possible un evenness in thermal expansion rates. add to it that blocks made starting in the early '70's were thinner than their predecessors which didn't help in that area. The fact that the lifter hardness varied so much won't help, as well as quality control issues in the machinery that surfaced the face of the lifter adds to all this. He is right in that the answer to all this is to use a roller camshaft as a replacement for the older flat tappet set ups.
Back in the mid/'70's, it seemed that OEM Chevy motors, both big block and small block, had an unnatural spike in camshaft failures. I remember seeing cars still with half their warranty left having cam and lifter failures as a rather common thing. In 1980, I took a job with the county mechanical department which included both LA County Sheriff's cars with 350 and later on 305 Chevy Novas,Malibus and by 1986 the big Impalas, as well as all kinds on Chevy/GMC trucks, and scarcely a week went by that we didn't have at least one cam and lifter failure hit the shop. There didn't seem to be any obvious answers back then, but by 1990 or so, the steel camshafts with hydraulic roller lifters came along and that seemed to end it.
The answer that seems to be the simplest solution is to go to a steel cam and roller lifters in the basic Stock Eliminator engines. Since the only spec currently being looked at in a tear down is valve lift, it would seem that some kind of a rev kit that would minimize modifying the block to any real extent would be a good answer.
Some of the problem, one that they might not be able to fix, would involve locating the block in some kind of fixture where the lifter bores could be fixed and replaced with some kind of a bushing. Any of you guys with bushed lifter bores having cams go flat? A properly bushed lifter bore could be installed more accurately and may alleviate a tendency toward an improper angle of the lifter bore that would negatively affect the contact pattern of the cam and lifter.
Maybe the thing to do is confront the fact that the restraint on max valve lift has pushed the design limits to the max, and the solution is to use a roller cam with OEM lift and duration specs.We already have roller rocker arms allowed as well as the ratio is the same s the OEM ratio in regards to valve lift. Maybe its time for NHRA tech to allow for conversion to roller cams as well as OEM lift is maintained. Just a thought, but it seems like a possible answer to eliminate the quality control issues we're all facing right now.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

GM had a cam core problem in the 80s...
That was the source I'm told of the woes they had with cams going flat back then.

I don't think you will find a warm welcome to the roller cam solution on here, judging by previous posts.

It is a pandoras box, as far as tech. or lack thereof is concerned.
I don't know how far the limits on duration are on current flat tappet cams is, it sounds as they may have found it.
I don't know if a roller has anything to add as far as duration or profiles go that would increase performance, Stan or someone who is more up to date on current technology than I would probably be able to elaborate on that.

At this point I think tech. would be the major problem to allowing more loosening of a rule regarding this.

It seems like its partially a quality control issue as far as the lifters go.
everything I see or read says the lifter hardness hasn't changed, but that the finish of the face is inconsistent.
I feel like (no, I know) the additive package in the oil has changed due to EPA and such, which is why OEMs have gone roller.

With that in mind there is little motivation for anyone to continue making flat tappet components.
Like many of the parts used in "stock" this is a small market and at some point the parts will be unobtainable, as the bean counters won't allow these low volume items to continue being made.

Just some ramblings...

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

A roller cam may let you have more area under the lift curve for a given seat duration than a flat tappet cam. Max velocity for a flat tappet will vary with lifter diameter. So a flat tappet Chrysler with its .904" lifter can have a greater max velocity than a GM .842" lifter diameter.

It would be interesting to see what these cams which will not live look like on a spin tron.


Stan

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Alan R. Sent this to me..
Eye opener.




https://youtu.be/NYtMCZYnF7I?si=3FFbDLZB1KlzoaN9

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I find it humorous that even after 14 pages of arguing and complaining, some don't understand that if you want a roller cam, either build a car that came with one, or run Super Stock. A close friend often jokes with me that Stock Eliminator is going to morph into a class where engine rules will be as follows: Bore and Stroke, compression, cam lift, stock castings with no welding or epoxy. It's always a good laugh, but the sad part is that if this class does last long enough, I wouldn't be surprised at something like that happening. First it's "I can't get a flat tappet cam to live, let me run a roller." Next it will be "I can't get .8,.9,1,1.2mm rings and spacers for my approved pistons with all the grooves moved around, so you should let me run a piston designed for a thin ring." So on and so forth, until it becomes even more of a joke than what's allowed now.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I found the podcast to be very informative. It’s getting very hard to get quality metal and coatings. We are loosing venders ( bought up) then there goes the one on one handshake for parts.
I’m not pushing for rollers. I’m sure you understand that.
I have a small pile of flat tappet mechanical cams…not because they are damaged, because we found a better cam.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Barry wasn't asking for rollers. He and I have been discussing cams, and the problems associated with flat tappets. I have talked to a few people about trying to get racers some help getting better quality flat tappet stuff. The point of the video was how much of an uphill battle we are facing. The industry isn't too terribly interested in helping us.


However, that is absolutely not an excuse to just change the rule. We remain opposed to changing the rule. I refuse to simply give up.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I understand completely. The material that camshafts were made out of 15-20 years ago seems to have been a much better material than what they are now. The camshaft I ran in my engine has had hundreds if not close to a thousand passes on it, and still looks brand new, but it was made 20+ years ago. I was fortunate to have a donation of old camshafts over this past season. A few may be of use the way they are, but at least if the lobe separation is what I want, I could always get them reground. Especially with cam prices, I’d much rather send an old cam out to get reground than have a new one done. As expensive as things are in stock, I would think that more and more would switch to a billet cam rather than a cast cam. I’m still amazed how cheap you can get an off the shelf cam from summit, competition products nowadays. For less than $200, you can get a cam and a set of flat tappet lifters(hydraulic of course). Not that you could race with one, but IMHO it’s crazy how prices can double and triple for a cast custom grind cam. There’s some users in this thread that seemed to have given up, and the only solution to make them happy would be to allow rollers. I hope that NHRA is smart enough to leave that rule alone.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Did I hear them say in the conversation that they took a flat tappet grind, pretty much copied for a roller and saw negative gain?
I’ll watch it again.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

So it is being said that CWC, the company that was doing cast cores, is going to severely curtail production of cast cores, if not cease it entirely. I'm sure they'll kill the "P-55" cores, the lobe lock cores, etc. None of the cam companies will invest in large enough runs to make it feasible to cast them. The current cost of labor and quality materials, and the current anti foundry climate is driving this as well.



The steel billet cores are extremely expensive. Most are intended for high lift roller cams. If you were to grind them for low lift stock applications, you'll grind through the heat treat. This will require another heat treat operation, a finish grind operation, and a polish operation. They're also not necessarily always available. There has been a serious shortage of billets for even custom rollers. I've had to wait months for cams I once got in a week.



The cost of tool steel lifters has more than quadrupled, and the wait time is measured in quarters, not weeks or months. I have been a dealer almost since they were first released.


There is no quick, simple solution, especially since most of the camshaft companies have been bought by "private equity" corporations, who have zero interest in any custom work. They want only "A" and "B" movers that they can move, mostly through big box stores, for a consistent fairly large margin. The same applies to most suppliers of flat tappets.


Still, merely switching to roller lifters is not the solution that the uninitiated think it is, nor what the people on that round table think it is.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

"There’s some users in this thread that seemed to have given up, and the only solution to make them happy would be to allow rollers."

Yep. That's me. After 3 failures in a role, not racing for 2 years while waiting on parts and then the cost. Yep, That is me.
Not to worry, I sold the car. Guess I'll quit racing as everyone wants to stick their head in the sand and go about this problem like it doesn't exist.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Alan, it seems to me (and I'm saying this with a grin on my face and my tongue in my cheek!) that with the attrition-rate of aftermarket parts manufacturers and the availability of hard-core parts, we may soon all be either racing new (newer) combos or front-wheel-drive pieces of s!!t! ;-(

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

ROFLMAO!!!!!


You are utterly oblivious. There are several people who are working behind the scenes to find a viable solution to the problem. They're talking to cam companies and lifter companies, trying to find the requisite quality, availability, and affordability, to solve the problem. Some people are doing a lot more for the class than just posting whines and begging for rule changes. But you just go right on crying, I'm sure that will help more than anything.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Despite cancer trying to kill me, and bankrupt me, I have not quit just yet. I love the class. I have a few certain combinations I'm interested in, and there's an ET and MPH that is the minimum to make it enjoyable for me. I don't care to race the newer stuff, and if I want to go slow, I can bracket race my tow vehicle. I much prefer Stock, for some reason. Probably because I'm stubborn and somewhat stupid in certain ways. I should know better. The fact is, it's probably smarter and not too much more expensive to run Super Stock. Hell, I've already got what is probably still a relatively competitive 396 Super Stock engine in the shop. But it's not what I really want to do. And honestly, I feel a certain devotion to Stock, and I get some satisfaction out of working for the class. I like talking to the suppliers and trying to convince them to support the class. I believe the class is worth it.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Well that sounds like a logical chain of events to me.... Did you try something different all three times, or did the same thing over and over again expecting different results? I've always been an advocate of running as little valve spring pressure needed to avoid valve float at the peak rpm your engine is going to see. I'm not trying to get up on a soap box and tell you how to build your engine. I build my own stuff, and it's slow, but I'm working on it. I am trying a new, well new to me, camshaft this season. With any luck all of my talk on here won't cause my cam to flatten on startup. I've had good luck with Clay Smith lifters on the handful of flat tappet engines I've built.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Each was different. Let's just say I've learned and paid dearly because of it. lol
BUT prob won't be messing with a heavy valve flat tappet motor the rest of my lifetime. To me, it makes no since to try when the materials and manufacturing we are getting are just not what they use to be.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

In listening I also heard the oil additives we are buying for extended wear capability is not even close to what the oil chemists used in the oil we are using. My guess is regulations won’t allow it.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

True. Oil is not what it used to be.





This isn't directed at Barry, but rather just general information that racers really need to know.


Way too many people are trying to play "home chemist" by "brewing up" their own additive packages. It simply doesn't work. There's only so much of any additive that will even stay in suspension. Excess moly-disulfide and ZDDP not only won't even stay in suspension, but they will clog your oil filter, they will accumulate in the bottom of your oil pan and restrict the pick up, and worse still, they'll actually cause the damage you're trying to prevent. Beyond a certain concentration, ZDDP and moly-disulfide will literally cause flat tappet failure.


If you're dealing with these problems, and you want to know what's actually going on, for oil, seek a real tribologist, like Lake Speed Jr.


People also need to understand that certain base materials are not an ideal mix. You can't just buy a camshaft and assume you can by just any lifter and they'll work together.And certain coatings are far more dangerous than they are helpful.


I refuse to use DLC, for the simple reason that you cannot trust it. Not ever DLC will work on any camshaft. No DLC will run against cast iron. Not just anly DLC will adhere to every material. And you can't assume any DLC will work with any oil, some have severe reactions to certain base oils and additive packages. Some companies applying DLC are not necessarily that trustworthy either. They want to sell you their coating. But they don't all necessarily want to make sure that everything you have will work together.



Believe it or not, the old Shubeck lifter, properly cared for, is far less hazardous to your engine than many DLC coated lifters. The problem is, we can't find anyone interested in manufacturing them.


There are certain surface treatments we are looking at. But it's a delicate balance. You have to maintain a surface that will create and sustain an oil film, or it will never survive. And you have to spin the lifter.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Quote AR;


This isn't directed at Barry, but rather just general information that racers really need to know.

I’ve got big shoulders! Let ‘er rip. I won’t cry I promise! 😢

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

ROFLMAO!!!!


Yeah, well, you and I talk about this stuff damned near every day. So I'm not posting anything here that you and I haven't discussed at length.



But you brought up a great point, and when I was talking to Lake recently, he absolutely went off on the oil and additives issue.


Also, I saw a video that David Vizard did on the subject. Now, he was also selling Oil Extreme, a calcium carbonate based additive. But he had some pictures of failures induced by excess ZDDP. Does Oil Extreme work? I don't know.



People are buying oils, good oils, like the Brad Penn, and then dumping 1-3 different additive with ZDDP into it. And then wondering why they have failures.


You also brought up a great point about rollers vs. flat tappet. Few people understand that in certain areas, flat tappets actually out accelerate roller lifters. And even fewer understand what that does to performance.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

95 percent of the time it's bracket racing. Even more so now that we don't race class. If the rule were to change no one is forcing anyone to change. If a guy thinks what he has is the best or "good enough" so be it. Since I started this post I have received a bunch of email from guys who have had failures. This is suppose to be the entree level class. Guys aren't going to continue spending money of voodoo oils, etc, etc. to race for $1500 (or I'm not). I'll put a roller in, run pump gas, and run the NMCA races.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

I have been involved in Stock since 1982, in one capacity or another, as an transmission builder, crew chief, engine builder, and driver.


It hasn't been "entry level" since before I became involved. Trick ring packages, trick cams, 8" torque converters, trick clutches, expensive aluminum drums, special gear sets, expensive custom headers, expensive custom camshafts..... None of that is "entry level". All of that has been in Stock for more than 40 years.



It's not "bracket racing", considering you have to make the car run under the index or under, simply to be able to go rounds. Never mind heads up races, which still do happen. And class will still be contested at Indy, at some LODRS races, and some opens.


Any rule change that changes an engine component affects every racer in the class, and forces them to adapt to remain competitive. It also affects everything else in the engine. An engine is not a collection of parts, it's a developed system. At least it is if it runs for very long, and makes competitive HP.


If you have a decent understanding of camshafts, lifters, lobe design, and valvetrain, you know that everything about the lifter is critical, and everything about it affects lobe design, reliability, and power.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Yer kiddin' right?

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Yep, First race was 1973. Flat towed. it is entry level. Any rule change does not effect every racer. Example. Roller lifters. 60 percent of cars racing now already have them.
No more from me.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

LOL, 60% isn't the correct number. The current factors are based on all combinations having the OE type and size lifter. Changing the rule, to allow combinations that do not have an OE roller lifter to run a roller lifter, changes the current balance of the class. That affects every racer.


You continue to be incorrect, and you do not try to learn in order to be correct.


Perhaps that is why no one was able to help you resolve your camshaft failures.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Dont race stock but watched the epe video and it looked like Harhiem and Godbold both did not jump in and say ya oil thats the problem in fact it seemed they looked the other way. It seems that all cam companys would rather not deal with the problem or look for an answer.
Lake speed has the credentials but I dont see this as just the oils fault alone (personally dont care for him) . It was said maybe the limit has been reached . If a roller would cure this without needing million dollar springs/ billet cores / $1000 lifters without affecting perf. adding longevity and in the long run saving tons of $.
I know guys already have the flat tappet setups but they dont last forever either so after they wear out or break stay or change .If the lift rule stays its been said a roller has no perf advantage. I dont know it just seems no one has the answer. Sorry for the rant.

Re: Flat tappet lifter failure
 

Most certainly not just an oil issue I agree. Metal is not what it once was nor are the coatings involved..