Schubeck lifters

[Alan Roehrich]

Any race engine will occasionally break something.

However, if you're hurting stuff regularly, you're doing it wrong. Either you just aren't buying good enough parts, or you have a package that just doesn't work.

I'm no fan of Schubeck lifters, or any other ceramic lifter. However, I can tell you that of all the parts we have hurt, a Schubeck has never been what we in the automotive industry call the "primary failed part". Every time we've broken one, something else broke first.

Another thing I can tell you is that we've never hurt anything with too much spring pressure. But too little has caused a lot of issues, and that is not only in Stock engines, but even more so in Super Stock. If you have good quality parts, and your valvetrain system is well developed, it will be happy, and breakage will be very rare. If you have something in your system that isn't working with the other stuff, it won't be happy, and you'll have breakage.

I've seen a ton of failed parts in the pits, just from trying to help other racers with their problems. I will tell you that I have seen a lot of stuff that could have been prevented with proper preparation and better maintenance practices, and that especially applies to valvetrain.

We are rapidly phasing out the ceramic lifters, I doubt more than one more engine will use them. I'll be using about 99% Trend stuff for the flat tappet engines from here on out.

Stock has escalated far beyond what it really should have, there is no doubt, and no denying it. However, the genie is out of the bottle at this point. A new spring rule would be just another expensive rule that NHRA would have to police, and it will have far reaching consequences, that will create a host of problems of their own.

I know losing an engine is an expensive and painful thing, we've lost a few in the last 3-4 years. But I can honestly say that it was not due to the rules, and not due to ceramic lifters, either. If you were to do a serious study on it, while it might appear on the surface that ceramic lifters are a big problem, I'm betting in reality there will be a lot more parts with a lot higher rates of failure. We do not need a rule change, not one allowing roller lifters, and not one controlling spring pressure.

[Barry Polley]

Originally Posted by Todd Hoven

So because those 2 guys broke their engine the rules should be changed?
No thanks, sounds like these guys need to look at other things. Trend tool steel lifters? valve springs, cam profiles?
I vote no, and will speak on the other side of this. The 396 guys are not blowing up valve train parts anymore. Maybe try those engine builders.

A few COPO Camaro guys were breaking lifters, and they were roller lifters? Just Ask Dan Fletcher. What is the answer to that?

^^ I agree Todd... NHRA are you listening??

[Glenn Briglio]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Any race engine will occasionally break something.

However, if you're hurting stuff regularly, you're doing it wrong. Either you just aren't buying good enough parts, or you have a package that just doesn't work.

I'm no fan of Schubeck lifters, or any other ceramic lifter. However, I can tell you that of all the parts we have hurt, a Schubeck has never been what we in the automotive industry call the "primary failed part". Every time we've broken one, something else broke first.

Another thing I can tell you is that we've never hurt anything with too much spring pressure. But too little has caused a lot of issues, and that is not only in Stock engines, but even more so in Super Stock. If you have good quality parts, and your valvetrain system is well developed, it will be happy, and breakage will be very rare. If you have something in your system that isn't working with the other stuff, it won't be happy, and you'll have breakage.

I've seen a ton of failed parts in the pits, just from trying to help other racers with their problems. I will tell you that I have seen a lot of stuff that could have been prevented with proper preparation and better maintenance practices, and that especially applies to valvetrain.

We are rapidly phasing out the ceramic lifters, I doubt more than one more engine will use them. I'll be using about 99% Trend stuff for the flat tappet engines from here on out.

Stock has escalated far beyond what it really should have, there is no doubt, and no denying it. However, the genie is out of the bottle at this point. A new spring rule would be just another expensive rule that NHRA would have to police, and it will have far reaching consequences, that will create a host of problems of their own.

I know losing an engine is an expensive and painful thing, we've lost a few in the last 3-4 years. But I can honestly say that it was not due to the rules, and not due to ceramic lifters, either. If you were to do a serious study on it, while it might appear on the surface that ceramic lifters are a big problem, I'm betting in reality there will be a lot more parts with a lot higher rates of failure. We do not need a rule change, not one allowing roller lifters, and not one controlling spring pressure.

Well said. The broken lifter is usually the end product of something else failing first or not designed correctly for the application.

[Bruce Noland]

This is not always true. Some of these lifters were crap when they left the manufacturers. The Schubeck lifters that came apart last year were junk from the start but only two people knew that, Schubeck and Smith. Apparently, Joe had a ton of pucks all set up and received a batch of lifters with ID's that very a tad to big to get the correct press fit when installing the pucks. No problem. Joe had the remedy. Loctite! That's right he put a bunch of those lifters together with Loctite. I checked my broken lifters after hearing this bit of news and sure enough there was a flattened patch of Loctite inside. And from what I was told it's the closed pressure that presents the biggest problem for any lifter - no matter the brand.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

This is not always true. Some of these lifters were crap when they left the manufacturers. The Schubeck lifters that came apart last year were junk from the start but only two people knew that, Schubeck and Smith. Apparently, Joe had a ton of pucks all set up and received a batch of lifters with ID's that very a tad to big to get the correct press fit when installing the pucks. No problem. Joe had the remedy. Loctite! That's right he put a bunch of those lifters together with Loctite. I checked my broken lifters after hearing this bit of news and sure enough there was a flattened patch of Loctite inside. And from what I was told it's the closed pressure that presents the biggest problem for any lifter - no matter the brand.

No doubt there have been some poor quality ceramic puck lifters in circulation. Possibly very poor quality, in some way or another.

That is the primary reason people are making the switch to tool steel. Unfortunately, tool steel lifters are considerably more work than the ceramic puck lifters.

Oh, there should be no doubt that closed pressure can break lifters. Or, more to the point, rather, the lack of closed pressure. If your valves are bouncing on the seats, your lifters are separated from the camshaft by a significant distance, and there is no gentle ramp to take that distance up. That is possibly even worse than lofting.

[Mike Corbett]

My question is, can a person get a set of Trend lifters and install them on your camshaft that you have run Schubecks on? We adjust our Schubecks to 1 thousandth clearance- hot- is that good?? Would Trend lifters also have a similar clearance? Thanks

[Alan Roehrich]

Mike,
Actually, using Schubecks to break in a camshaft is the ideal situation, because the Schubecks will burnish and polish the camshaft. You will, of course, need to follow the usual lower spring pressure, 2500-3000 RPM for 30 minutes break in procedure as you would for a regular camshaft, using molydisulfide break-in lube on the cam lobes and lifter faces, with a good quality break in oil.

Trend Performance tool steel lifters do have a hard face (62-64 Rockwell), and a good polish.

Trend Performance tool steel lifters can be refinished, so long as the crown on the lifter face remains intact, and the surface has not been damaged by any failures.

The refinish process is required before using the lifters on a camshaft other than the one they were originally broken in and used on.

The toughest combination is probably going to be an 8620 billet core cam with a tool steel lifter. The reason being that the closer to moving parts with a sliding interface come to being made of a similar alloy, the higher the risk of galling. Fortunately, 8620 steel, commonly used for camshaft cores, is not truly close to being identical to H-11, H-13, or M2 tool steel.

Trend strongly suggests using a DLC coating when using tool steel lifters on an 8620 steel core camshaft. This increases the cost by a substantial margin. They also want you to upgrade from the Premium (entry level) lifter to the Elite lifter, also a substantial increase in cost. After dealing with an entirely different lifter supplier (NOT Trend Performance) I have little use for, and a great distrust of DLC coatings. DLC can come off, and if it does, it behaves just the same as the ceramic on a Schubeck lifter, it destroys everything it touches. Do not take that as reflecting on Trend Performance lifters, I have not used nor sold their DLC coated lifters.

NEVER use DLC against any cast iron cam core. The resulting failure is spectacular, and catastrophic. Cast iron is abrasive, and it will remove the DLC coating, it is just a matter of time. And that information comes directly from three of the largest and most reputable DLC coating companies.

Competition Cams offers a plasma gas nitriding service for their camshafts, it is an excellent upgrade for durability. It is not the same as the old GM "tufftride" process which GM used on severe duty forged steel crankshafts, but it does result in a similar surface hardness increase over untreated metal. This hardness tends to reduce the possibility of other metals sticking to that surface. They also offer micropolishing, and the next step up, their Xtreme surface finish enhancement (specifically intended for steel on steel applications, such as a tool steel lifter on a steel core camshaft).

A harder surface will, as mentioned above, resist the tendency of other metals to stick, or "microweld", or "friction weld" to that surface. Also, harder surfaces are easier to polish, and will also polish to a higher/finer finish, which also reduces the tendency for galling or sticking.

Cam to tappet clearance is something else entirely, and not something to be changed without serious thought and knowledge. A "hydraulic" lifter lobe is designed to be run with zero lash. It really has no "clearance ramp" to take up the clearance between the camshaft lobe and the lifter face commonly called "lash", and as such any real clearance can result in an excessively harsh take up of that clearance. A "solid" lifter lobe does have a clearance ramp designed to take up the lash gently. The lash spec given with a given cam lobe is directly tied to that clearance ramp. If you go too far from that spec in either direction, you significantly alter the characteristics of the lobe in general, and the clearance ramp in particular. That is not a move to be taken lightly. Too little or too much lash will result in the clearance being taken up on a part of the lobe not intended for that purpose, and can result in an early failure of the cam and/or lifter. This applies to both flat tappet and roller lobes. If you are varying your lash from the spec by a significant amount, you really need to be talking to your cam company rep, and he better be really sharp on cam design.

[Leif Andersson]

How much spring can you safley use whith the toolsteel lifters and the different cam cores avalible for a mech. flat tappet set up.
454/425hp whith its heavy valve train in mind.

Thanks
B/SA 529
Leif Andersson

[Greg Reimer 7376]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

This is not always true. Some of these lifters were crap when they left the manufacturers. The Schubeck lifters that came apart last year were junk from the start but only two people knew that, Schubeck and Smith. Apparently, Joe had a ton of pucks all set up and received a batch of lifters with ID's that very a tad to big to get the correct press fit when installing the pucks. No problem. Joe had the remedy. Loctite! That's right he put a bunch of those lifters together with Loctite. I checked my broken lifters after hearing this bit of news and sure enough there was a flattened patch of Loctite inside. And from what I was told it's the closed pressure that presents the biggest problem for any lifter - no matter the brand.

I had heard some time ago that they were Loctited together. I think that the big deal now is to switch over to coated tool steel lifters. Do we get those direct or do we go through someone else?
Also, conflicting opinions on camshafts:do we use them on a cam that has 50-75 runs with Schubecks,does the cam have to be recoated,can they be simply dropped in,the valves readjusted,with push rod substitutions as necessary,what is the next step? Also, how do the guys with the 396/325 engines get them to live with that cam profile?Or, is that the engine most prone to ceramic lifter failure?

[Bill Diehl]

Originally Posted by Leif Andersson

How much spring can you safley use whith the toolsteel lifters and the different cam cores avalible for a mech. flat tappet set up.
454/425hp whith its heavy valve train in mind.

Thanks
B/SA 529
Leif Andersson

You need to use the Pac 1427 spring with Pac ret and locks...the ret and lock combo is 12 grams, and the lightest valves on the market are the ferrea hollow stems 110 and just under 120

same stuff I use in the ford the valve sizes are the same you have .018 more lift than I have.... DLC lifters, tool cam core BTW the spring weighs 85g and the frequency is just what you need, something most overlook

Of course somebody will say otherwise but that's the best valvetrain package that's available for the combo