Titanium Valves Allowed in S/S?

[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.

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by SS Engine Guy

Brought to you by the same "group" that got worked over combustion chambers thru tech and then got them made "legal". Apparantly can't run legally with the fast stuff. By the way, this won't be the first time a engine has passed tech with titanium valves which were switched right in front of techs eyes. To prevent it, just check the guy with the shop towel wiping down the valves.

Oh, and for the record I am against allowing titanium. They are light, they are tough, but they are unforgiving as Jeff said. Also need replacement frequently if they are the high dollar ones.

I agree fully. It would be stupid in SS. I ran them in the past in Modified Eliminator and later my sprint car. They do also need the seats changed for longevity. I think the Honda rod deal was stupid also. Some engine builders just wanting to sell more expensive parts is all I can figure. No other logical reason I can ome up with. Had some out dated Comp parts on the shelf they needed to move?

[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.

[David Barton]

People, please write NHRA more letters so they don't continue to ruin the little bit of Super Stock that is left. Its not about how much it cost, its about the sport, the challenge, the strict rules. Once you take that away what's left?

If they allow this they should just jump right into eliminating cylinder head volumes too. Tunnel rams, inline carburetor placement, smaller rod journals, clutchless transmissions, all completely uncalled for changes that were made. What was wrong with the previous rules?

[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

[Alan Roehrich]

You don't have to turn more RPM, which reduces the life cycle of the rest of the components, and requires other expensive changes to the car. You can always go to a more aggressive cam profile, if possible.

If nothing else changed, yes, a reduction in valve weight could result in an increase in the life of some components.

But do you really think that nothing else will change?

If one guy uses the reduced valve weight to make a performance gain, then the rest, at least those who try to remain competitive, are forced to follow suit. Automatically negating any gains in reliability or reduced cost.

[Ed Carpenter]

Originally Posted by 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

CW I have no issues with you on a personal level. Most of us don't have 60K engines that border on pro stock stuff. These added changes that keep coming up are going to run regular guys like myself outta here. It's a case of the have's once again gaining on the have nots. This is just my opinion whatever that's worth. LOL

[SSGN]

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

Seems very logical and easy to police,remove V/C and chech spring pressures.Class racing is getting so far from it's roots it's almost a new class Slightly Pro Stock

Kevin