Titanium Valves Allowed in S/S?

[SSDiv6]

This craziness has to stop.

At the end, it is not worth the extreme cost for marginal gains.
First, unless they are Physical Vapor Deposition or Chromium Nitride coated, Titanium valves will wear at a faster rate than a SS valve.

Although they have OEM applications such as the Corvette and many motorcycles makes, the valves they use are coated and they use valve seats with a higher Copper contents. Which means, if they are allowed, all seats will need to be replaced with a seat with a higher Copper contents.

When NHRA allowed the use of Titanium valves on the 427 Fords, is due to the fact that at the time it was difficult to obtain hollow stem valves. Weight wise, the Titanium and hollow-stem valves are the same. Also, due to valve train dynamics, the RPM gains are not as much as many may believe.

Today, you can buy good hollow stem SS valves from companies such as Ferrea.
It also makes me wonder how many racers out there are using them.

If the rule change is approved, I can see racers, later on, asking the valve stem size rule be deleted so they can run 7mm valve stems.

[BlueOval Ralph]

Which means, if they are allowed, all seats will need to be replaced with a seat with a higher Copper contents.

This is not true I have been using ti valves since 1969 they was on Ford cast iron heads with no seat inserts the seat were not even Induction hardened at that time (they were released by Ford then for use in Tran's Am Boss 302 and 351 C), we used the first as Intakes as there was no Ti for Exhaust, it would not work according to TRW who was the first to supply. I have run the intakes till the margin was thin and started to chip (small V shapped cracks) we then took these valves and turned them down and made exhaust with a much thicker margin and lasted another couple years.

I WOULD NOT be in favor of the change!

Just trying to set the record straight.

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

This craziness has to stop.

At the end, it is not worth the extreme cost for marginal gains.
First, unless they are Physical Vapor Deposition or Chromium Nitride coated, Titanium valves will wear at a faster rate than a SS valve.

Although they have OEM applications such as the Corvette and many motorcycles makes, the valves they use are coated and they use valve seats with a higher Copper contents. Which means, if they are allowed, all seats will need to be replaced with a seat with a higher Copper contents.

When NHRA allowed the use of Titanium valves on the 427 Fords, is due to the fact that at the time it was difficult to obtain hollow stem valves. Weight wise, the Titanium and hollow-stem valves are the same. Also, due to valve train dynamics, the RPM gains are not as much as many may believe.

Today, you can buy good hollow stem SS valves from companies such as Ferrea.
It also makes me wonder how many racers out there are using them.

If the rule change is approved, I can see racers, later on, asking the valve stem size rule be deleted so they can run 7mm valve stems.

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by BlueOval Ralph

Which means, if they are allowed, all seats will need to be replaced with a seat with a higher Copper contents.

This is not true I have been using ti valves since 1969 (they were released by Ford then for use in Tran's Am Boss 302 and 351 C), we used the first as Intakes as there was no Ti for Exhaust, it would not work according to TRW who was the first to supply. I have run the intakes till the margin was thin and started to chip (small V shapped cracks) we then took these valves and turned them down and made exhaust with a much thicker margin and lasted another couple years.

I WOULD NOT be in favor of the change!

Just trying to set the record straight.

Ralph, then we will have to disagree.

For longevity, it is a known fact that you should change the seat material when using Ti valves.

Beryllium bronze seats, which is a Copper-based alloy is used for most applications because is softer and won't wear the Titanium as fast.

You may have got away with the standard seat because in the earlier heads due to the availability of Lead in gasoline. Therefore, OEM's got away with softer seats in cylinder heads.

According to an SAE paper that was written by Chevy engineers as realted to the developemnt of the 'Vette engine, they used a seat alloy called PMF-28.

Here is a great informative article as regards to the use of Ti valves:

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Arti...lications.aspx

[BlueOval Ralph]

If any one has the chance to buy New old stock the exhaust sodium filled pass on them as the sodium reacts to the steel and eats away from the inside out.


I recently held a 427 / 425 HP Ford intake valve from an old Hollman-Moody engine built in 1967 or so (the fishing boat engine I brought up on this forum). When disassembling the heads the head on an intake vale broke off. The dang thing was rifle drilled in the stem! Couldn't believe how light it was and it was a pretty large diameter valve. Now I know the exhaust are sodium filled on this engine but I didn't know they were doing this to intake valves back in the '60's.

I'd have to say I'm with SS Engine guy and others on this. Based on my limited experience, I can't see the need. Sure it may be faster but I see no other benefit. Cost goes up, maintenance and replacement goes up and engine damage can be a real issue if one breaks.
I lost two Stocker engines thanks to Mr. Schubeck, don't think I would want to go down this road.[/QUOTE]

[art leong]

Originally Posted by Jess Suter

I cant stand it anymore
The simple solution is to implement the valve spring rule-period! Stock spring pressure. There would be no 9800 rpm hemis or 9800 rpm anything else. IMO this was the downfall of stock. Lower rpm no acid heads or manifolds needed. No $1000 lifters no $7500 heads. Wouldnt matter cause they cant flow at lower rpm. Just my 2 cents

They are talking about Superstock which has never had to use stock valve springs.
If you went back to the stock spring pressure in stock an awful lot of cars would slow down a bunch. And a lot of camshafts would become short pool cues.

[X-TECH MAN]

Originally Posted by art leong

They are talking about Superstock which has never had to use stock valve springs.
If you went back to the stock spring pressure in stock an awful lot of cars would slow down a bunch. And a lot of camshafts would become short pool cues.

THAT would be a cost effective and smart move. No more Shubeck type lifters, no extream hi RPM's, "Ported" heads and intakes would become mostly obsolete, engines would last longer, building and maintaining a stocker would be less expensive, and less work. They dont HAVE to be stock pressures.....just an across the board maximum pressure would be fair for all combos. Todays stocker runs more spring pressure than my 1977-78 era Super Stocker and it would turn about 8000 RPM. No more square lobe cams.

[charlie westcott]

I dont know if David is implying that I asked for this, but last year, after indy, I asked them to consider it. After I went to Jesel, and we got it to spin to 10,900 clean, with steel valves that weigh 148 grams, I didnt really care anymore. I think some of the facts in that letter are slightly skewed, I pay 50.00 a piece for custom ferrea valves, I can get Ti valves from CV for 100.00. I think that the spring life would double (50.00 ea) and that would pay the difference of the valves in about 30 runs. I think to say that 20 hemi customers havent broken a valve in 6 years is BS also, cause Daniels broke one at Vegas (Jim told me himself). We have all broke things in our racing careers, if you race, things break, and I am not ashamed to say I have tore up my share of parts. I dont really see why its a big deal. The motors cost 60K plus, whats another 400.00. MY customers by the way, are in favor of it. I hadnt heard a word about it until jeff K. told me at indy it was a done deal. I said whatever. Just let me know what the rules are, and I will figure out how to deal with them.
cw

[Alan Roehrich]

What about the rest of us who don't spend $60K on an engine, and don't need or want to?

I'd be okay with them making special rules for SS/AH, if that's what you guys want.

At least some of the rest of us have no desire to add $1K to the cost of an engine, and cut the life of the engine by 50% to turn them 10K RPM.

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

What about the rest of us who don't spend $60K on an engine, and don't need or want to?

I'd be okay with them making special rules for SS/AH, if that's what you guys want.

At least some of the rest of us have no desire to add $1K to the cost of an engine, and cut the life of the engine by 50% to turn them 10K RPM.

I agree. Let the Hemi guys have them. Leave the rest of us alone.

[Dyno]

A few months back, David Reher (Reher-Morrison) wrote an article on how the use of titanium valves saved his customers money over the use of stainless valves. He claimed a longer life of all the valve train components (springs, lifters,etc.) and allowed a longer life between freshen ups. Not all combinations benefit from a higher RPM limit, but all could benefit from longer life of the parts. I would like to see them allowed, although I probably would not use them. Dan Zrust