I just pulled my twin cam apart for inspection. in 2010 I installed the GP1023 lifters (private labeled through Cycle-Rama). They have 30,000 miles on them. Amsoil 20W50. This is the worst of the four, and the only one with bad marking on the roller. However, the bearings are not good on any of them. When I apply pressure to the roller and turn it, they feel very "notchy".
I don't know if this would be considered normal wear for the mileage or not? But I will definitely be replacing the lifters.
What are others finding long term with these tappets?
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2727_zps5ab19a02.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2727_zps5ab19a02.jpg.html)
What cam were you running?
This one is a Cycle-Rama 575.
Quote(private labeled through Cycle-Rama)
What exactly does that mean?
Pse post up a pic of the full lifter.
Quote from: FSG on March 16, 2014, 08:16:16 PM
Quote(private labeled through Cycle-Rama)
What exactly does that mean?
Pse post up a pic of the full lifter.
It means they put a sticker on the black box that says Cycle-Rama. I'll get a full picture tomorrow, but they look exactly like every 1023 picture. 4 oil inlet holes, uni directional.
I would like to see further pics of these lifters as well, what alerted you to the problem or were you just going through the motor for other reasons? Have you contacted Gaterman or your supplier?
I'd also like to know what they say..wander if it's a problem, or maybe a bad batch?
If you know what hole each lifter was in along with the alignment pins (and their specific placement)... can you check/measure the clearance between this lifter and the pin? Can the lifter be rotated...
tks
How do the cam lobes look?
How deep were the PRs?
I only have 5k on mine but yesterday I could swear I heard a slight chirping from that side at light load cruizing.
Quote from: BVHOG on March 17, 2014, 06:19:40 AM
I would like to see further pics of these lifters as well, what alerted you to the problem or were you just going through the motor for other reasons? Have you contacted Gaterman or your supplier?
2 pictures of the lifters below. I can provide more detailed pictures if wanted.
I took the heads off to add compression releases, there were no apparent issues. I have not yet contacted anyone.
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2728_zps077a0822.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2728_zps077a0822.jpg.html)
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2730_zps89a85f12.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2730_zps89a85f12.jpg.html)
Yup.. Gaterman's
Quote from: Y2KRKNG on March 17, 2014, 08:19:11 AM
How deep were the PRs?
They were 24 flats from zero, per the S&S instructions.
Quote from: citabria on March 17, 2014, 08:14:36 AM
How do the cam lobes look?
From the top, it looks like there might be (is) a bad spot on the lobe with the pictured lifter. I'll pull the cams out probably tonight for a closer look. And measure the pin/tappet clearance as requested.
Those look like earlier Gatermans. I only run my lifter for 15K miles and change them out. Cheap insurance, I've gone thru 2 sets of Gatermans using Dyno oil and have not seen wear like this. Not that the oil has anything to do with it. (don't wanna start an oil war)
Mine are the Newer Design as the tops are shorter on the Opposite the Pin side...
Wonder "IF" there was another change in them at that time besides the top not equally in height ?????
signed....BUBBIE
May I ask? What kind of life span do you guys expect from this heavily stressed part, or what would be a good safe swap out point especially once branching away from a stock engine?
Ron
Gee, I wonder if the engineers are throwing rocks at the accountants over the decision to use centered lifters (concentric with the base circle) to save $2.
Quote from: Winston Wolf on March 17, 2014, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: citabria on March 17, 2014, 08:14:36 AM
How do the cam lobes look?
From the top, it looks like there might be (is) a bad spot on the lobe with the pictured lifter. I'll pull the cams out probably tonight for a closer look. And measure the pin/tappet clearance as requested.
There are too many different lifter brands (even if you discount the private labels) for it to be truly a lifter problem... IMHO. Believe the lifters are just a symptom of the root issues. Too many things have to be correctly machined/tolerances*, whether HD or aftermarket parts for the lifter roller and cam face to align correctly, unlike an American V8 motor.
Winston Wolf, if you can look for anything that might show where the two are not aligned:
Is there any wear marks on the side of the roller to the inside of lifter (side loading of the lifter roller)
Cam/lifter wear to one side of the roller/cam face (the cams and lifter bearing axle not in parallel plains)
(*)
Lifter bores to cam face
alignment pin to lifter, lifter to cam face
Cam plate to locating block pins
inter and outer cam bearings
A .001 difference in a 22" small block camshaft front to rear, verses a 5" Harley cam is a world of difference in how the lifter roller and cam face align...
Quote from: rbabos on March 17, 2014, 09:49:50 AM
May I ask? What kind of life span do you guys expect from this heavily stressed part, or what would be a good safe swap out point especially once branching away from a stock engine?
Ron
Ray, I do mine at 15K. I suppose I could go longer but it works 4 Me. Upon inspection after removal they look fine and that is the way I want to keep it. If I pulled them and they looked worn then it's already too late. Cheap enough swap at under $180
I've got one Gaterman (front exhaust) that bleeds down overnight=cold rattle for 30 seconds. Just came in from re-adjusting, no difference. The SE pushrods have about 78,000 miles on them, so maybe an end on that one has a wear pattern unlike the others and is the culprit. :nix: Do any of you replace the pushrods after a certain amount of miles?
I don't see Why any wear on the Adjustable Push-rod would make a problem on you lifter. AS you said You re-set/adjusted it and no difference... Must be the lifter IF not holding the oil inside. Are you setting at least .140 deep?
JMO
signed....BUBBIE
Yes, .140 deep.
Quote from: q1svt on March 17, 2014, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: Winston Wolf on March 17, 2014, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: citabria on March 17, 2014, 08:14:36 AM
How do the cam lobes look?
From the top, it looks like there might be (is) a bad spot on the lobe with the pictured lifter. I'll pull the cams out probably tonight for a closer look. And measure the pin/tappet clearance as requested.
There are too many different lifter brands (even if you discount the private labels) for it to be truly a lifter problem... IMHO. Believe the lifters are just a symptom of the root issues. Too many things have to be correctly machined/tolerances*, whether HD or aftermarket parts for the lifter roller and cam face to align correctly, unlike an American V8 motor.
Winston Wolf, if you can look for anything that might show where the two are not aligned:
Is there any wear marks on the side of the roller to the inside of lifter (side loading of the lifter roller)
Cam/lifter wear to one side of the roller/cam face (the cams and lifter bearing axle not in parallel plains)
(*)
Lifter bores to cam face
alignment pin to lifter, lifter to cam face
Cam plate to locating block pins
inter and outer cam bearings
A .001 difference in a 22" small block camshaft front to rear, verses a 5" Harley cam is a world of difference in how the lifter roller and cam face align...
The C lifters are the only other ones I have seen that look like that, I have pulled sets of B's that looked like new at 30K. :nix:
Quote from: rbabos on March 17, 2014, 09:49:50 AM
May I ask? What kind of life span do you guys expect from this heavily stressed part, or what would be a good safe swap out point especially once branching away from a stock engine?
Ron
Depends on what you use for a lifter .
I just put mine back in with 20,000 on them . ( woods)
spend an extra 100.00 and you can get a good set that you don't have to worry about .
Quote from: rbabos on March 17, 2014, 09:49:50 AM
May I ask? What kind of life span do you guys expect from this heavily stressed part, or what would be a good safe swap out point especially once branching away from a stock engine?
Ron
I was hoping for more than 1 season. :embarrassed:
Maybe nothing wrong with the Gaterman, pretty sure my "B" lifter in that hole rattled on cold start up also.
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 17, 2014, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 17, 2014, 09:49:50 AM
May I ask? What kind of life span do you guys expect from this heavily stressed part, or what would be a good safe swap out point especially once branching away from a stock engine?
Ron
Depends on what you use for a lifter .
I just put mine back in with 20,000 on them . ( woods)
spend an extra 100.00 and you can get a good set that you don't have to worry about .
Not sure that matters. Needle bearings are the weak point on all of them. Are these something so special nobody else has figured it out. Roller failures in the auto world too, not just harleys and the serious guys swap them out at intervals prior to running into trouble. That's what spawned my question for the safe life expectancy. Back when, I figured 25k as a personal preference since lifter threads are never ending it seems. Don't have the headache any more going to v rod but still curious if some are adopting a service life interval rather then pushing it too far and trashing the engine? I think the days of lifters lasting three panhead rebuilds are pretty much gone due to cam profiles and spring pressures in recent years.
Ron
QuoteThe C lifters are the only other ones I have seen that look like that, I have pulled sets of B's that looked like new at 30K. :nix:
SE http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,49579.0.html (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,49579.0.html)
Believe there are similar threads of lifters with frosting/flaking/etc... IIRC Herco had issues with a number of brands doing the same.
Noise, pump-up, leak-down, etc are as other mention due to running high rpm's, or high lifts and spring rates while running an OEM type lifter in performance motors.
What I haven't seen (might have happen but not indicated) some one with frosted lifters with different cases (S&S for example).
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 17, 2014, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 17, 2014, 09:49:50 AM
May I ask? What kind of life span do you guys expect from this heavily stressed part, or what would be a good safe swap out point especially once branching away from a stock engine?
Ron
Depends on what you use for a lifter .
I just put mine back in with 20,000 on them . ( woods)
spend an extra 100.00 and you can get a good set that you don't have to worry about .
:agree:
Quote from: Durwood on March 17, 2014, 12:02:28 PM
Quote from: q1svt on March 17, 2014, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: Winston Wolf on March 17, 2014, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: citabria on March 17, 2014, 08:14:36 AM
How do the cam lobes look?
From the top, it looks like there might be (is) a bad spot on the lobe with the pictured lifter. I'll pull the cams out probably tonight for a closer look. And measure the pin/tappet clearance as requested.
There are too many different lifter brands (even if you discount the private labels) for it to be truly a lifter problem... IMHO. Believe the lifters are just a symptom of the root issues. Too many things have to be correctly machined/tolerances*, whether HD or aftermarket parts for the lifter roller and cam face to align correctly, unlike an American V8 motor.
Winston Wolf, if you can look for anything that might show where the two are not aligned:
Is there any wear marks on the side of the roller to the inside of lifter (side loading of the lifter roller)
Cam/lifter wear to one side of the roller/cam face (the cams and lifter bearing axle not in parallel plains)
(*)
Lifter bores to cam face
alignment pin to lifter, lifter to cam face
Cam plate to locating block pins
inter and outer cam bearings
A .001 difference in a 22" small block camshaft front to rear, verses a 5" Harley cam is a world of difference in how the lifter roller and cam face align...
The C lifters are the only other ones I have seen that look like that, I have pulled sets of B's that looked like new at 30K. :nix:
Ive pulled B lifters out before that were the same way before and one I can remember for sure was using stock springs and 255 cams. Sometimes "Potty mouth" just happens to good stuff.
Man I know this may sound crazy but no zinc in the Syn. oils we now run may be the difference. I read about the trouble JGR was having with oils and that's why they came up with there own brand with zinc in it. I think red line has zinc as well.
I believe what we are seeing is smearing caused by acceleration.The cam lifts and rolls the lifter/roller and there is some sliding action between the two (limited traction,for lack of a better term).The higher the lift and the faster the ramps the more and sooner it shows up.I also believe spring pressure is also a factor and the balance between enough and too much pressure becomes more of an issue as lift and ramp speed increases.
Increased zinc may help.
However,wtfdik?
:nix:
Bearing Skate from SYN Oils :potstir:
Quote from: HV on March 17, 2014, 05:42:27 PM
Bearing Skate from SYN Oils :potstir:
:doh: Here we go! another oil thread... :oil:
I measured the clearance between the lifters and the pin, and it is .008 on all of them. They do rotate slightly, I don't know how much is acceptable. The bores look generally well. I did not see anything that looked out of alignment. I tore the cams out. That bad lifter did take a nick out of the lobe. The rear intake roller was starting to get pretty bad too (pictured below). The bearings are rough in all tappets, but the tappets are not scored on the outsides at all.
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2739_zpsc9c7dd32.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2739_zpsc9c7dd32.jpg.html)
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2740_zps240c8e3d.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2740_zps240c8e3d.jpg.html)
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2738_zps290704ed.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2738_zps290704ed.jpg.html)
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2737_zps3082a9fa.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2737_zps3082a9fa.jpg.html)
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2736_zpse8dfe149.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2736_zpse8dfe149.jpg.html)
(http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af176/jdaugustin/IMG_2735_zpsf1412a81.jpg) (http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/jdaugustin/media/IMG_2735_zpsf1412a81.jpg.html)
I wouldn't reuse those cams.
:agree: They will tear new lifter rollers up.
Looking at your photo-bucket and seeing the Cam End Shows probably a Bad bearing in the motor cam side... That Might be some of the problem here... Others should go look or post it please for all to see.
Not only rough on the lobes but the End into the motor side looks like metal got to it...
ADDED:
Looking at your photobucket? That might be a different cam ? How do the engine side ends of these cams look? Worn like the lobes?
signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: BUBBIE on March 17, 2014, 07:40:29 PM
Looking at your photo-bucket and seeing the Cam End Shows probably a Bad bearing in the motor cam side... That Might be some of the problem here... Others should go look or post it please for all to see.
Not only rough on the lobes but the End into the motor side looks like metal got to it...
ADDED:
Looking at your photobucket? That might be a different cam ? How do the engine side ends of these cams look? Worn like the lobes?
signed....BUBBIE
That cam you are talking about is an andrews Ev13 out of an Evo. The ends of this twin cam look good. I don't think I would need to replace the bearings.
Quote from: q1svt on March 17, 2014, 12:55:15 PM
QuoteThe C lifters are the only other ones I have seen that look like that, I have pulled sets of B's that looked like new at 30K. :nix:
SE http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,49579.0.html (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,49579.0.html)
Believe there are similar threads of lifters with frosting/flaking/etc... IIRC Herco had issues with a number of brands doing the same.
Noise, pump-up, leak-down, etc are as other mention due to running high rpm's, or high lifts and spring rates while running an OEM type lifter in performance motors.
What I haven't seen (might have happen but not indicated) some one with frosted lifters with different cases (S&S for example).
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 17, 2014, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 17, 2014, 09:49:50 AM
May I ask? What kind of life span do you guys expect from this heavily stressed part, or what would be a good safe swap out point especially once branching away from a stock engine?
Ron
Depends on what you use for a lifter .
I just put mine back in with 20,000 on them . ( woods)
spend an extra 100.00 and you can get a good set that you don't have to worry about .
:agree:
Since that thread . I wore a set of velvet touch lifters out in one trip to Daytona /key west . They wouldn't stay pumped up .
The wood lifters have 15,000 on them with the 662-2's and another 5000 miles on them with the same 266 cams that were in it , when it smeared the original SE lifters . ( scotch brite polished )
The wood's look like they did the day i put them in .
That's good enough for me . Same motor same springs . Just more compression now .
FWIW I haven't seen any other lifters do this except the C's and SE 's
I think you were eluding to the anti rotation pins earlier .
Should be seeing some aftermarket pins in the near future .
Quote from: Winston Wolf on March 17, 2014, 06:23:56 PM
I measured the clearance between the lifters and the pin, and it is .008 on all of them. They do rotate slightly, I don't know how much is acceptable.
Never seen a specification but .008 is to much... my guess is the case would expand more than the steel pin & lifter,
so .001 (+- .0005) for a performance motor. We'll hear clearances from others on this... With .570 lift I would guess you have about 175-180 lbs of seat pressure. That added more load on the components causing the lifters to rotate enough to allow the rollers to slate on the cam face and wiping out the needle bearings and frosting the rollers.
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 17, 2014, 08:07:59 PM
Since that thread . I wore a set of velvet touch lifters out in one trip to Daytona /key west .
The wood's look like they did the day i put them in .
That's good enough for me . Same motor same springs . Just more compression now .
I think you were eluding to the anti rotation pins earlier .
Should be seeing some aftermarket pins in the near future .
I have 15,000 on Jims Powerglide II's and they look new too... @.590 lift, w/higher oil pressure.
New pins cannot get here soon enough ... but as mention in the other thread they are/were available from Woods.
edited: Winston, if your still have the original lifters you might want to install them and measure the alignment pin clearances... could be informative as to the lifter tolerances of the Gaterman to HD... if the HD's is better, then you might want to contact Gaterman about the issue.
edited: this is from Zippers -- http://www.zippersperformance.com/media/wysiwyg/DownloadsPDFs/Red-Shift-Cams/RedShiftTCCamInstallationGuide_02262013.pdf (http://www.zippersperformance.com/media/wysiwyg/DownloadsPDFs/Red-Shift-Cams/RedShiftTCCamInstallationGuide_02262013.pdf)
All Models – Final Setup Tips:
1.) Anti-Rotation Pin – Allowable Lifter Rotation – Now that the cam chest is assembled, install the hydraulic lifters into the engine. Make certain that you have the oil feed hole in the lifter facing outward. Using a set of feeler gauges, measure the clearance between the center of the anti-rotation pin, and the casting, when both lifters are positioned on the base circle of the cam. Do not measure at each individual lifter.
Red Shift recommends between 0.002"to 0.004" of clearance. Oversized pins are available in +0.002" and +0.006" sizes. Most will require the use of the +0.002" pins for proper clearance. Both too much, and too little clearance will result in operational issues. Not enough clearance can cause the lifters to stick, and too much clearance will allow the lifter roller to turn and side load under operation.
New pins are available from Zippers, that second to the last pic with the mark 3-4ths up the lobe on one side shows lifter rotation, I don not believe there is contamination as it would show up in the lifter body and bore.
from Zippers -- http://www.zippersperformance.com/media/wysiwyg/DownloadsPDFs/Red-Shift-Cams/RedShiftTCCamInstallationGuide_02262013.pdf (http://www.zippersperformance.com/media/wysiwyg/DownloadsPDFs/Red-Shift-Cams/RedShiftTCCamInstallationGuide_02262013.pdf)
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
Quote from: Jaycee1964 on March 17, 2014, 09:14:32 AM
Those look like earlier Gatermans. I only run my lifter for 15K miles and change them out. Cheap insurance, I've gone thru 2 sets of Gatermans using Dyno oil and have not seen wear like this. Not that the oil has anything to do with it. (don't wanna start an oil war)
that is the earlier ones :agree:
"that is the earlier ones '
When did they get revised?
John...I think it was early last year. They changed the top of the lifter body so the p/rods were easier to get inside the cup while the lifters were inside the lifter blocks...and I think there was another change also...but I can't remember what it was.
Quote from: Deye76 on March 19, 2014, 04:22:52 AM
"that is the earlier ones '
When did they get revised?
Not sure exaclty. But I was using the newer ones for atleast a years.
June 4th of 2013 is when I finished my build.
I know I ordered the gatermans from FSG right before then.
I too wondered "IF" I would get the newer style 1023's and did.
LOOKING: I ordered them May, 03, 2013... Got them Quick from FSG/Coyote...
I just RE-Set them to 21/22 flats yesterday From 3T.
(SE @ 24 thrds per inch)
I will run them today to Listen. I did develop a Little louder than usual but a smooth Even tic while on a Long several day run here in Az...
just wanted to try 3T- 4 flats to see "IF" they quiet back down... (14,000 miles & Happy with them)
signed....BUBBIE
Added:
Using SE 255's
Thats how mine looked or close to it after about 15K. I dont like the amount of rotation the lifter can do in regards to pin clearance on my engine. Hell I might as well run a mechanical flat tappet.
Quote from: HV on March 17, 2014, 05:42:27 PM
Bearing Skate from SYN Oils :potstir:
Excuse my ignorance but if there is enough friction to wear from "skating" would there not be enough friction to roll the bearing?
Quote from: twincam8888 on March 19, 2014, 10:23:20 AM
Quote from: HV on March 17, 2014, 05:42:27 PM
Bearing Skate from SYN Oils :potstir:
Excuse my ignorance but if there is enough friction to wear from "skating" would there not be enough friction to roll the bearing?
Skate can occur for other reasons too. In a case of a lifter it could be not maintaining full contact on the cam at all times. No oil will save this slip chatter effect.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on March 19, 2014, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: twincam8888 on March 19, 2014, 10:23:20 AM
Quote from: HV on March 17, 2014, 05:42:27 PM
Bearing Skate from SYN Oils :potstir:
Excuse my ignorance but if there is enough friction to wear from "skating" would there not be enough friction to roll the bearing?
Skate can occur for other reasons too. In a case of a lifter it could be not maintaining full contact on the cam at all times. No oil will save this slip chatter effect.
Ron
I think it was skating because the roller bearing was going out. Like I said earlier, you can really feel it (the notchiness) in the bearing.
What do you guys think the spring pressure should be at installed height with a cam like that CR575?
Quote from: Deye76 on March 17, 2014, 10:26:18 AM
I've got one Gaterman (front exhaust) that bleeds down overnight=cold rattle for 30 seconds. Just came in from re-adjusting, no difference. The SE pushrods have about 78,000 miles on them, so maybe an end on that one has a wear pattern unlike the others and is the culprit. :nix: Do any of you replace the pushrods after a certain amount of miles?
I have a similar situation, front exhaust a bit noisy when cold. When the motors warm its better, but always a slight tick. I readjusted them last year, and again last weekend. Still there. The noise doesn't bother me so much as, it wasn't there in the beginning. These have around 7,600 miles on them.
Quote from: Winston Wolf on March 19, 2014, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 19, 2014, 11:30:10 AM
Quote from: twincam8888 on March 19, 2014, 10:23:20 AM
Quote from: HV on March 17, 2014, 05:42:27 PM
Bearing Skate from SYN Oils :potstir:
Excuse my ignorance but if there is enough friction to wear from "skating" would there not be enough friction to roll the bearing?
Skate can occur for other reasons too. In a case of a lifter it could be not maintaining full contact on the cam at all times. No oil will save this slip chatter effect.
Ron
I think it was skating because the roller bearing was going out. Like I said earlier, you can really feel it (the notchiness) in the bearing.
What do you guys think the spring pressure should be at installed height with a cam like that CR575?
Could also be the chicken or egg conditon. Which caused what first?
Can't help on the springs. :idunno:
Ron
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 19, 2014, 12:12:54 PM
Quote from: Deye76 on March 17, 2014, 10:26:18 AM
I've got one Gaterman (front exhaust) that bleeds down overnight=cold rattle for 30 seconds. Just came in from re-adjusting, no difference. The SE pushrods have about 78,000 miles on them, so maybe an end on that one has a wear pattern unlike the others and is the culprit. :nix: Do any of you replace the pushrods after a certain amount of miles?
My front exhaust knocks terribly on cold start, takes about 15 seconds to quiet down, then very quiet. Have about 10K on the lifters.
I have a similar situation, front exhaust a bit noisy when cold. When the motors warm its better, but always a slight tick. I readjusted them last year, and again last weekend. Still there. The noise doesn't bother me so much as, it wasn't there in the beginning. These have around 7,600 miles on them.
Guess my reply didn't take;
Anyway my front exhaust knocks terribly on start up (cold) gets quiet after about 15-20 seconds, then is very quiet until it sit's overnight again.
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 19, 2014, 12:12:54 PM
Quote from: Deye76 on March 17, 2014, 10:26:18 AM
I've got one Gaterman (front exhaust) that bleeds down overnight=cold rattle for 30 seconds. Just came in from re-adjusting, no difference. The SE pushrods have about 78,000 miles on them, so maybe an end on that one has a wear pattern unlike the others and is the culprit. :nix: Do any of you replace the pushrods after a certain amount of miles?
I have a similar situation, front exhaust a bit noisy when cold. When the motors warm its better, but always a slight tick. I readjusted them last year, and again last weekend. Still there. The noise doesn't bother me so much as, it wasn't there in the beginning. These have around 7,600 miles on them.
Brian...I thought you was going to give the S&S premium lifters a try?
I was going to ask you the other day if you did...and how you liked them.
Hold out a little...I think there is going to be a new lifter come out real soon...I can't say no more than that [attach=0]
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
Here are some 99c lifters with 3k miles on them I took out today, bone stock bike syn3.(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/20/mutyvyvy.jpg)
damn Joe...are those pit marks on two of them...can you feel that with your finger?
It looks like you could.
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 19, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
Here are some 99c lifters with 3k miles on them I took out today, bone stock bike syn3.(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/20/mutyvyvy.jpg)
That's fugly. Cam got frosting?
Ron
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 19, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
Here are some 99c lifters with 3k miles on them I took out today, bone stock bike syn3.
Did you happen to check the clearances of the lifters to the alignment pins?
Quote from: No Cents on March 19, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 19, 2014, 12:12:54 PM
Quote from: Deye76 on March 17, 2014, 10:26:18 AM
I've got one Gaterman (front exhaust) that bleeds down overnight=cold rattle for 30 seconds. Just came in from re-adjusting, no difference. The SE pushrods have about 78,000 miles on them, so maybe an end on that one has a wear pattern unlike the others and is the culprit. :nix: Do any of you replace the pushrods after a certain amount of miles?
I have a similar situation, front exhaust a bit noisy when cold. When the motors warm its better, but always a slight tick. I readjusted them last year, and again last weekend. Still there. The noise doesn't bother me so much as, it wasn't there in the beginning. These have around 7,600 miles on them.
Brian...I thought you was going to give the S&S premium lifters a try?
I was going to ask you the other day if you did...and how you liked them.
Hold out a little...I think there is going to be a new lifter come out real soon...I can't say no more than that [attach=0]
I was, but that was when building the 124, before the 107 went sour. I wasn't planning to replace these just to replace them. But late in the year the front exhaust started talking a little. Did I ever mention I'm hard on things?
Will most likely buy a set of the S&S premium lifters this Spring and try them out.
I hate reading this thread..ive got a new set of the gatermans I was gonna install along with a 98" etc..but now im wandering if maybe I should try a different brand. Im running woods now..actually not impressed with the woods..got 1 that bleeds down from time to time. Are the s&s premiums better?
Since the "B" lifters are no more it's probably a crap shoot. Can't believe how many times in the last 40 years, that the next new lifter coming out will be "it".
Quote from: jrgreene1968 on March 19, 2014, 04:55:29 PM
I hate reading this thread..ive got a new set of the gatermans I was gonna install along with a 98" etc..but now im wandering if maybe I should try a different brand. Im running woods now..actually not impressed with the woods..got 1 that bleeds down from time to time. Are the s&s premiums better?
Don't let a thread like this put you off, install those Gatermans.
I took a set of Gaterman out last week on my 120 with 25K miles, put in a set of S&S premiums w/ limiters, I set these one turn back, the Gaterman were set at 3.5 turns with S.E. Taper rods. Got 500 miles on the S&S already and like them, nice and quiet on cold starts and hot. definitely quieter than the Gatermans.
Quote from: rbabos on March 19, 2014, 02:43:37 PM
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 19, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
Here are some 99c lifters with 3k miles on them I took out today, bone stock bike syn3.(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/20/mutyvyvy.jpg)
That's fugly. Cam got frosting?
Ron
Got a 13 in today with stock lifters with one that takes a few seconds to pump up on each start, will be interesting to see if they look like yours.
Quote from: FSG on March 19, 2014, 05:38:07 PM
Quote from: jrgreene1968 on March 19, 2014, 04:55:29 PM
I hate reading this thread..ive got a new set of the gatermans I was gonna install along with a 98" etc..but now im wandering if maybe I should try a different brand. Im running woods now..actually not impressed with the woods..got 1 that bleeds down from time to time. Are the s&s premiums better?
Don't let a thread like this put you off, install those Gatermans.
I'm definitely not saying they're bad lifters.
As I believe given enough time, heavy springs, high lift cams, I can tear any brand up... :bike:
I agree with you. Gatermans that came out look good. Just going to play it safe and change out at 25K mile. Called PM service
Quote from: JohnCA58 on March 19, 2014, 05:43:33 PM
I took a set of Gaterman out last week on my 120 with 25K miles, put in a set of S&S premiums w/ limiters, I set these one turn back, the Gaterman were set at 3.5 turns with S.E. Taper rods. Got 500 miles on the S&S already and like them, nice and quiet on cold starts and hot. definitely quieter than the Gatermans.
Heck! 25K on lifters and your not happy with that? I do 15K between changes and happy with that! I have run 662-2's and 640's and have never had a quieter or better performing lifter. 2 sets into it and they came out looking like the day they went in. No complaints here. Personally I would not push a twin cam lifter in a performance cam profile past 15K. Too many factors involved and a lot of pressures on those lifters.
Very cheap and easy item to replace so I personally see no need to push the threshold.
Quote from: No Cents on March 19, 2014, 02:01:45 PM
damn Joe...are those pit marks on two of them...can you feel that with your finger?
It looks like you could.
I could feel it with the end of my pocket screwdriver.
Quote from: rbabos on March 19, 2014, 02:43:37 PM
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 19, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
Here are some 99c lifters with 3k miles on them I took out today, bone stock bike syn3.(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/20/mutyvyvy.jpg)
That's fugly. Cam got frosting?
Ron
I'll snap some pics tomorow but the cams are not as bad as the lifters.
Quote from: q1svt on March 19, 2014, 02:50:35 PM
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 19, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
Here are some 99c lifters with 3k miles on them I took out today, bone stock bike syn3.
Did you happen to check the clearances of the lifters to the alignment pins?
I did and they were both .008 with the 99c and .006 with the 850-1 lifters. Gotta start getting some oversized pins in stock.
Curious if anyone measured the radial play on the axle?
So the lifter rollers are frosted and the cam looks good?
Quote from: Jaycee1964 on March 19, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: JohnCA58 on March 19, 2014, 05:43:33 PM
I took a set of Gaterman out last week on my 120 with 25K miles, put in a set of S&S premiums w/ limiters, I set these one turn back, the Gaterman were set at 3.5 turns with S.E. Taper rods. Got 500 miles on the S&S already and like them, nice and quiet on cold starts and hot. definitely quieter than the Gatermans.
Heck! 25K on lifters and your not happy with that? I do 15K between changes and happy with that! I have run 662-2's and 640's and have never had a quieter or better performing lifter. 2 sets into it and they came out looking like the day they went in. No complaints here. Personally I would not push a twin cam lifter in a performance cam profile past 15K. Too many factors involved and a lot of pressures on those lifters.
Very cheap and easy item to replace so I personally see no need to push the threshold.
You have never installed a new set and had one or two , that wouldn't stay pumped up ?
It blows my mind that you can install something that is brand new and it isn't as good as what you took out .
It used to be so easy . Now it takes a prayer meeting every time you install half these B knock off's
Seems the last two set I installed ( Gaterman's ) had one lifter never pump up on each motor. My luck with them has been bad so back to Fueling or S & S. Just my experience but most of you guys are having great luck.. I could use some... :scoot:
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 20, 2014, 03:43:25 AM
Quote from: Jaycee1964 on March 19, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: JohnCA58 on March 19, 2014, 05:43:33 PM
I took a set of Gaterman out last week on my 120 with 25K miles, put in a set of S&S premiums w/ limiters, I set these one turn back, the Gaterman were set at 3.5 turns with S.E. Taper rods. Got 500 miles on the S&S already and like them, nice and quiet on cold starts and hot. definitely quieter than the Gatermans.
Heck! 25K on lifters and your not happy with that? I do 15K between changes and happy with that! I have run 662-2's and 640's and have never had a quieter or better performing lifter. 2 sets into it and they came out looking like the day they went in. No complaints here. Personally I would not push a twin cam lifter in a performance cam profile past 15K. Too many factors involved and a lot of pressures on those lifters.
Very cheap and easy item to replace so I personally see no need to push the threshold.
You have never installed a new set and had one or two , that wouldn't stay pumped up ?
It blows my mind that you can install something that is brand new and it isn't as good as what you took out .
It used to be so easy . Now it takes a prayer meeting every time you install half these B knock off's
Shaking a dead chicken helps.. :wink:
Max
Chicken or No Chicken :hyst:, I went back in and Loosened my lifters to re set them...
EVERY Time a thread like this I THINK I can hear noise.
Never,,, "Did" that sewing machine sound change BUT I "did" the re-set of the gatermans to 3T+3 to 4 flats from 3T of original setting... (21/22 flats on SE slender's at 24thrds per inch).
I Thought I could hear More noise on a 3 day run here in Az. Now, I really hear no difference than the Original sewing machine noise that was there before the added adjustment. (Never checked further to check pin play or looks of the lifter..... felt no need there)
When I first set them they sounded like they do now and Only IMAGINATION and Muffled ears make a Sound change here.
Have you ever notice; when your ears have Not Popped you can hear every noise in the motor... Better than a stethoscope...
If I would only quit reading about the problems and wait until I have or Hear them OR like many do AND I Will : change out at 25,000 miles........ 11 thous to go..... :missed:
signed....BUBBIE
I never have liked the clearance of my A.R.pins, I think its time to try to do something about it. I would like to watch the lifters withe the PR tubes off to watch what's going on but not sure if I want the mess to clean up. What would be a minimal acceptable pin clearance?
Not saying that any excess lifter rotation is good with the Twin Cam. But if you look at some Evo's and any Pan or Shovel, then you can be afraid.
Quote from: BUBBIE on March 20, 2014, 08:00:50 AM
Chicken or No Chicken :hyst:, I went back in and Loosened my lifters to re set them...
EVERY Time a thread like this I THINK I can hear noise.
Never,,, "Did" that sewing machine sound change BUT I "did" the re-set of the gatermans to 3T+3 to 4 flats from 3T of original setting... (21/22 flats on SE slender's at 24thrds per inch).
I Thought I could hear More noise on a 3 day run here in Az. Now, I really hear no difference than the Original sewing machine noise that was there before the added adjustment. (Never checked further to check pin play or looks of the lifter..... felt no need there)
When I first set them they sounded like they do now and Only IMAGINATION and Muffled ears make a Sound change here.
Have you ever notice; when your ears have Not Popped you can hear every noise in the motor... Better than a stethoscope...
If I would only quit reading about the problems and wait until I have or Hear them OR like many do AND I Will : change out at 25,000 miles........ 11 thous to go..... :missed:
signed....BUBBIE
Get louder exhaust or turn the radio up always works for me.
Run a shovel with solids, then put a windshield on it and get back to me on noise.
Sorry, not downplaying the potential issue. I have learned something from this thread though, I guess I never thought of a lifter of any make as something you'd replace every < 20K miles. The Jims hydros in my shovel (S&S mill with S&S heads) have been running "solid" cams for over 30K miles now with a pile of those on a S&S 560 cam and then a square Leineweber cam. Maybe I better take a look.
I still think its a bunch of crap that many of these twin cam engines are smooth and quiet and some sound like its ready to come apart at any moment, stock, modified, whatever. Theres an underlying problem and I cant wait to get to the bottom of it.
Quote from: 76shuvlinoff on March 20, 2014, 09:32:33 AM
Run a shovel with solids, then put a windshield on it and get back to me on noise.
Sorry, not downplaying the potential issue. I have learned something from this thread though, I guess I never thought of a lifter of any make as something you'd replace every < 20K miles. The Jims hydros in my shovel (S&S mill with S&S heads) have been running "solid" cams for over 30K miles now with a pile of those on a S&S 560 cam and then a square Leineweber cam. Maybe I better take a look.
How about a Pan without the pan cover felts in there.... rattaataa ttaaa ratttaaattaa
What do you suppose happens to the roller when the lifter turns slightly, first off it will not roll true and slide a bit across the face of it, secondly it will push the roller against one side of the lifter body. Setting the anti rotation pin clearance is going to be even more important with the various lifters being used lately.
Just checked the clearance on an engine I have apart and got .007. Fueling makes a +.002 and a .006 over.. :scratch: clearance is .002-.004 either way I'll be too loose or too tight. Given the circumstance what would you do?
Well I broke out a measuring stick, some new HD -99B's, some GP1023's, took some measurements and drew it up in CAD.
The Flat of the GP1023 is .001" further away from the anti-rotation pin than the HD -99B.
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1370)
Below are what the angles would be if the lifter rotated in the bore so as to take up the slack in the anti-rotation pin.
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1369)
I hope it makes sense to you guys, it does to me. :teeth:
Quote from: N-gin on March 20, 2014, 10:16:24 PM
Just checked the clearance on an engine I have apart and got .007. Fueling makes a +.002 and a .006 over.. :scratch: clearance is .002-.004 either way I'll be too loose or too tight. Given the circumstance what would you do?
What lifters did you do the check with?
Looks like I'll be getting some larger pins also.
How often would u recommend changing hydraulic lifters?
Quote from: FSG on March 21, 2014, 12:40:34 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 20, 2014, 10:16:24 PM
Just checked the clearance on an engine I have apart and got .007. Fueling makes a +.002 and a .006 over.. :scratch: clearance is .002-.004 either way I'll be too loose or too tight. Given the circumstance what would you do?
What lifters did you do the check with?
Looks like I'll be getting some larger pins also.
I checked clearance with the GP1023 installed in the original harley block. The block has 30k miles on it. The lifters have about 3k. Also note that the pins show signs of rotating.
I'll see if I can get a pic.
I'm going to get some shim stock from my eng shop tomorrow. Perhaps cut to length, fold to an L and have the anti-rotational pin lock it into position.
(http://i.imgur.com/jJcKFbz.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/80bQlm6.png)
I went on the zippers web site and found nothing on the anti-rotation pins. So I sent them an email about the purchase of all different sizes. Looking for .252,.254, and .256
FSG isn't it a good thing that these rotate? I don't understand the meaning of making them stationary. Or did I read that wrong?
so i just installed new GM 1023 last week end,i didnt check clearence on pin,do i take it apart and check,darn :emoGroan:
My anti-rotational pin lock it into position isn't going to prevent it rolling a little if that's what it wants to do, without a shim the pins cant roll all that much anyway, it may roll up but will be stopped by the gasket and fingers on the lifter cover.
While you have things open can you measure what vertical movement is possible?
(http://i.imgur.com/sjbtx2e.png)
Quote from: bobbyjoes54 on March 21, 2014, 03:37:20 AM
so i just installed new GM 1023 last week end,i didnt check clearence on pin,do i take it apart and check,darn :emoGroan:
There are slight variances in everything, lifters, pins, cases, etc, that I'd probably open the lifter covers just to know.
Ran a set of Black opps for 12k on one build. There were no witness marks at the antirotation pins. This tells me they do nothing in normal lifter operations. I'd be a bit worried to tighten up the clearances too much. Little things like lifter rock on the toe of the cam jamming the pins sometimes if this isn't taken into account. Even set up a .002, there's enough rotation that could cause a problem. Basically the lifter is held in anti rotation from axle, needles and roller contact to the cam and the pins only a secondary device that hardly ever sees action. I for one do not trust the alignment between to lifter flat, pin, needles and roller to be on the exact same plane from the cam lobe on up. Hense the clearance at the anti rotation pins. I could be out in left field but it does offer food for thought.
Ron
:agree:
Ron what you say makes sense but if there is .007" as N-gin has measured then some .004" shim stock would bring it back within the .002 or .004 range and do no harm. A lot easier than having multiple size pins on hand.
Quote from: FSG on March 21, 2014, 05:47:33 AM
Ron what you say makes sense but if there is .007" as N-gin has measured then some .004" shim stock would bring it back within the .002 or .004 range and do no harm. A lot easier than having multiple size pins on hand.
No harm at all bring it back into the low end spec. I would do it myself for the warm and fuzzy feeling, however I just don't feel it will solve the needle bearing deterioration down the road. I feel it's more load/impact related in some form.
Ron
Racing always teaches you that the weakest link is what breaks, fix that and the next weakest link is discovered....
Reply# 19 was to stress that all of the lifter threads bounce around on the topic like everything is related and is caused by the same thing when that is seldom the case. If we understand and fix the alignment pin issue (hopefully lifter manufacturers will correct their problem with clearances), then we will be able to gather better data on whether there are other alignment issues, and the effect of high lift/valve spring on lifter.
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 03:29:48 AM
I went on the zippers web site and found nothing on the anti-rotation pins. So I sent them an email about the purchase of all different sizes. Looking for .252,.254, and .256
FSG isn't it a good thing that these rotate? I don't understand the meaning of making them stationary. Or did I read that wrong?
i couldnt find them on the site either..but called, and they had em in stock. 32 bucks.
Quote from: FSG on March 21, 2014, 02:17:08 AM
I'm going to get some shim stock from my eng shop tomorrow. Perhaps cut to length, fold to an L and have the anti-rotational pin lock it into position.
(http://i.imgur.com/80bQlm6.png)
FSG, good idea... I was thinking to bend it into a ' [ ' and the short tabs face away from the roll pin into the pocket (in the picture, to the right of the feeler gauge).
Why not tie em together, this is what we run in the solid roller sbc's
Link (https://www.google.com/search?q=roller+tappets+small+block+chevy&client=firefox-a&hs=ILh&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9EosU8W2NcK0ygHtvYHYCA&ved=0CIQBELAE&biw=1280&bih=622#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=sGgn1_FAk1_0oM%253A%3BaZav4N2PZ2J9mM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.crower.com%252Fmedia%252Fcatalog%252Fproduct%252Fcache%252F1%252Fimage%252F9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%252F6%252F6%252F66290X937H-16.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.crower.com%252Froller-lifters-small-block-chevy-937-od-with-hi-pressure-pin-oiling-set-16.html%3B300%3B300)
Someone would need to sell a different lifter cover... but I've been looking at these...
http://www.jegs.com/i/GM-Performance/809/12550002/10002/-1 (http://www.jegs.com/i/GM-Performance/809/12550002/10002/-1)
edited: I'm a ford guy so my search started with these... I know the ford lifters are larger in diameter not sure if the lifter cuts/keepers are different than a chevy.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0710_chevy_small_block/photo_04.html (http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0710_chevy_small_block/photo_04.html)
Quote from: q1svt on March 21, 2014, 07:29:34 AM
Someone would need to sell a different lifter cover... but I've been looking at these...
http://www.jegs.com/i/GM-Performance/809/12550002/10002/-1 (http://www.jegs.com/i/GM-Performance/809/12550002/10002/-1)
Yup, saw those as well, heck kury or someone could whip up some covers and tube clips.
and where are these gatermans made?
could be the "source" of the problem
Quote from: garyajaz on March 21, 2014, 08:11:45 AM
and where are these gatermans made?
could be the "source" of the problem
I agree. Korean made, came out last year, a lot of guys jumped on band wagon, problems after some mileage, and guys are surprised.
I called and ordered both oversizes. Each pin kit is 32 and some change. Zippers is going balls deep for these pins.
They probly sell the pin stock somewere in length, I just dont know were to get it.
As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
I called and ordered both oversizes. Each pin kit is 32 and some change. Zippers is going balls deep for these pins.
They probly sell the pin stock somewere in length, I just dont know were to get it.
As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Looks like drill rod to me. Use to get that stuff in 3' lengths. Could likely be ordered in from a machine tool center ground to whatever size you want. I agree, it should float or it risks being gouged from repeated lifter flat (edge) contacts.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
I called and ordered both oversizes. Each pin kit is 32 and some change. Zippers is going balls deep for these pins.
They probly sell the pin stock somewere in length, I just dont know were to get it.
As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Looks like drill rod to me. Use to get that stuff in 3' lengths. Could likely be ordered in from a machine tool center ground to whatever size you want. I agree, it should float or it risks being gouged from repeated lifter flat (edge) contacts.
Ron
3' pcs of 1/4 inch drill rod
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg.html)
Quote from: hrdtail78 on March 21, 2014, 08:55:03 AM
Quote from: garyajaz on March 21, 2014, 08:11:45 AM
and where are these gatermans made?
could be the "source" of the problem
I agree. Korean made, came out last year, a lot of guys jumped on band wagon, problems after some mileage, and guys are surprised.
There's 2 statements here ........
could be the "source" of the problem Which problem is being referred to?
Korean made, came out last year, ......... Really, you need to brush up on your geography and improve your data retention.
QuoteFSG, good idea... I was thinking to bend it into a ' [ ' and the short tabs face away from the roll pin into the pocket (in the picture, to the right of the feeler gauge).
Yep that'd work, heck there's a lot of bikes with parts glued on to the inside of primary cover. :teeth:
Quote........ As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Shim stock doesn't mean the pin couldn't move.
Quote from: FSG on March 21, 2014, 12:19:10 PM
Quote from: hrdtail78 on March 21, 2014, 08:55:03 AM
Quote from: garyajaz on March 21, 2014, 08:11:45 AM
and where are these gatermans made?
could be the "source" of the problem
I agree. Korean made, came out last year, a lot of guys jumped on band wagon, problems after some mileage, and guys are surprised.
There's 2 statements here ........
could be the "source" of the problem Which problem is being referred to?
Korean made, came out last year, ......... Really, you need to brush up on your geography and improve your data retention.
Not really. They are not USA made, and if I have my choice, I prefer USA made parts. Details aren't important to me on this, and I would rather care about other things than waste my time.
Correct me if I am wrong. Are they USA made?
A pitiful response but to be expected.
Quote from: hrdtail78 on March 21, 2014, 12:40:26 PM
Correct me if I am wrong. Are they USA made?
Quote from: FSG on March 21, 2014, 12:46:17 PM
A pitiful response but to be expected.
From what I gathered about your thoughts on me from your private PM's. Can it go any other way? Should I bother to engage in a tech conversation with you? Or should I just blow it off and dismiss the issue. Since I haven't used a Gaterman lifter and don't plan on it. I will stick with S&S and not worry about it.
Good day.
There's nothing wrong with choice, it's a free country or at least it was last time I looked. You prefer USA made parts, I've no problem with that, there's some USA made parts that I prefer myself.
QuoteShould I bother to engage in a tech conversation with you?
Probably not, there wasn't anything tech in your post so your safe there , but if your going to have a go at a products country of origin do try to get it right.
For those wondering how a GM Lifter might fit, below are the measurements of a GM 17122490 Lifter.
While it's flat is recessed .0429" it must be noted that it's diameter is .002" less than a HD -99B, it's top diameter is .0035" less than a HD -99B meaning that it's flat is .002" further away from the roll pin as a HD -99B.
(http://i.imgur.com/mUJ8BZd.png)
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
I called and ordered both oversizes. Each pin kit is 32 and some change. Zippers is going balls deep for these pins.
They probly sell the pin stock somewere in length, I just dont know were to get it.
As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Looks like drill rod to me. Use to get that stuff in 3' lengths. Could likely be ordered in from a machine tool center ground to whatever size you want. I agree, it should float or it risks being gouged from repeated lifter flat (edge) contacts.
Ron
3' pcs of 1/4 inch drill rod
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg.html)
hmm were can I get drill rod? Ill do a search. If I come up empty are hou willing to sell?
of course thats if it will work.
Try McMaster-Carr for drill rod.
You can get it at some industrial supply shops like where they sell threaded rod and such. Another source is where they sell machine shop tools. Even Ebay has it.
Ron
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 04:10:11 PM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
I called and ordered both oversizes. Each pin kit is 32 and some change. Zippers is going balls deep for these pins.
They probly sell the pin stock somewere in length, I just dont know were to get it.
As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Looks like drill rod to me. Use to get that stuff in 3' lengths. Could likely be ordered in from a machine tool center ground to whatever size you want. I agree, it should float or it risks being gouged from repeated lifter flat (edge) contacts.
Ron
3' pcs of 1/4 inch drill rod
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg.html)
hmm were can I get drill rod? Ill do a search. If I come up empty are hou willing to sell?
of course thats if it will work.
Good luck finding drill rod that is any other size other than 0.250 or 0.277.. I suspect that Jim's caliper is off unless he found a place that will grind him some..
Drill rod that size is typically +- 0.0005 Not sure how he got 0.254.. 0,250 and 0.277 are standard sizes..
Max
ALRO Is also a place to call.
A short link, or the original.
http://alturl.com/2pga4 (http://alturl.com/2pga4)
or....
http://www.alro.com/datasearch/results.aspx?cx=013968448853096328073%3Avz3seqv5w4m&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=drill+rod&sa=Search&siteurl=www.alro.com%2Flocations%2Flocations_dy.aspx&ref=www.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CD4QFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.alro.com%252Flocations%252Flocations_dy.aspx%26ei%3D1M8sU-TJE-ONygHQsYCYDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNFirMht9PLw7vDlR2Sy4hVpShURDw%26sig2%3DYY0mmFtzz89ZQRW1JRtjeg&ss=250j62500j2 (http://www.alro.com/datasearch/results.aspx?cx=013968448853096328073%3Avz3seqv5w4m&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=drill+rod&sa=Search&siteurl=www.alro.com%2Flocations%2Flocations_dy.aspx&ref=www.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CD4QFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.alro.com%252Flocations%252Flocations_dy.aspx%26ei%3D1M8sU-TJE-ONygHQsYCYDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNFirMht9PLw7vDlR2Sy4hVpShURDw%26sig2%3DYY0mmFtzz89ZQRW1JRtjeg&ss=250j62500j2)
Looks like your "drill rod" is called "silver steel" over here and is readily available in short (1.5") and longer lengths (1m) in various diameters.
(http://i.imgur.com/m4ifSkC.png)
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 21, 2014, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 04:10:11 PM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
I called and ordered both oversizes. Each pin kit is 32 and some change. Zippers is going balls deep for these pins.
They probly sell the pin stock somewere in length, I just dont know were to get it.
As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Looks like drill rod to me. Use to get that stuff in 3' lengths. Could likely be ordered in from a machine tool center ground to whatever size you want. I agree, it should float or it risks being gouged from repeated lifter flat (edge) contacts.
Ron
3' pcs of 1/4 inch drill rod
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg.html)
hmm were can I get drill rod? Ill do a search. If I come up empty are hou willing to sell?
of course thats if it will work.
Good luck finding drill rod that is any other size other than 0.250 or 0.277.. I suspect that Jim's caliper is off unless he found a place that will grind him some..
Drill rod that size is typically +- 0.0005 Not sure how he got 0.254.. 0,250 and 0.277 are standard sizes..
Max
Depends. Another option here. I see a .257 listed here. That could be slimmed down to suit with drill and 320.
http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html (http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html)
Ron
Quote from: FSG on March 21, 2014, 05:32:31 PM
Looks like your "drill rod" is called "silver steel" over here and is readily available in short (1.5") and longer lengths (1m) in various diameters.
(http://i.imgur.com/m4ifSkC.png)
Still only see .2519 and .2559 ar still the same size as zippers sells.
I'm still looking, but for now I have both sizes coming so at any rate I will post what I find.
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 21, 2014, 04:45:04 PM
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 04:10:11 PM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 21, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 21, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
I called and ordered both oversizes. Each pin kit is 32 and some change. Zippers is going balls deep for these pins.
They probly sell the pin stock somewere in length, I just dont know were to get it.
As for the shim stock... I dont know if I like the idea of more moving parts in the engine. Even if fixed dont think the pin will work like its supos to stationary. Its ment to roll.
Looks like drill rod to me. Use to get that stuff in 3' lengths. Could likely be ordered in from a machine tool center ground to whatever size you want. I agree, it should float or it risks being gouged from repeated lifter flat (edge) contacts.
Ron
3' pcs of 1/4 inch drill rod
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/3A74E5CF-BF85-402B-91BE-641707037754.jpg.html)
hmm were can I get drill rod? Ill do a search. If I come up empty are hou willing to sell?
of course thats if it will work.
Good luck finding drill rod that is any other size other than 0.250 or 0.277.. I suspect that Jim's caliper is off unless he found a place that will grind him some..
Drill rod that size is typically +- 0.0005 Not sure how he got 0.254.. 0,250 and 0.277 are standard sizes..
Max
Depends. Another option here. I see a .257 listed here. That could be slimmed down to suit with drill and 320.
http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html (http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html)
Ron
We have .250 .255 .257 .258
I went through the stack until I found the smallest piece.
Calipers are calibrated every 3 months for QS -ISO and corporate six sigma quality .
Might think about checking the hardness of a stocker before slipping a piece of that drill rod into your engine.
Quote from: mike jesse on March 22, 2014, 01:32:32 AM
Might think about checking the hardness of a stocker before slipping a piece of that drill rod into your engine.
:agree:
The anti-rotation pins that come stock appear to me to be hardened dowel pins.
what is the length of the pin, maybe a right size drill bit cut to length will work, sae or metric might get close enough.
Just a thought... is this our problem to solve?
HTT has power and many contacts so why don't we use them...
Lets measure the different lifters that are sold/advertised as Harley Lifters
Then use that information and begin to contact those companies where we have a relatingship with, S&S, Woods, Fueling, Jims, Gaterman, etc and point out the problem and ask them for a fix.
Zippers clearly knows there is a problem and is providing a fix for a number of the lifter manufacturers but @ $32.00+ over the cost of premium lifter $$$$$ we've been buying, the companies need to know we know about the problem and/will communicate the issue by brand. :wink: It gives them the ability to check their tolerances, and or offer sized pins or another correction at a fair price.
I believe that Harley Davidson needs to know that we know the 'C' lifters and their machining tolerances suck... there are several HTT members that should be able to forward the information to their contacts too...
Quote from: Billy on March 22, 2014, 03:49:04 AM
Quote from: mike jesse on March 22, 2014, 01:32:32 AM
Might think about checking the hardness of a stocker before slipping a piece of that drill rod into your engine.
:agree:
The anti-rotation pins that come stock appear to me to be hardened dowel pins.
Appearances can be deceiving. :wink: Drill rod is pretty damn hard, compared to the soft lifter body and the aluminium the pin sits in.
Ron
Quote from: q1svt on March 22, 2014, 07:03:08 AM
Just a thought... is this our problem to solve?
HTT has power and many contacts so why don't we use them...
Lets measure the different lifters that are sold/advertised as Harley Lifters
Then use that information and begin to contact those companies where we have a relatingship with, S&S, Woods, Fueling, Jims, Gaterman, etc and point out the problem and ask them for a fix.
Zippers clearly knows there is a problem and is providing a fix for a number of the lifter manufacturers but @ $32.00+ over the cost of premium lifter $$$$$ we've been buying, the companies need to know we know about the problem and/will communicate the issue by brand. :wink: It gives them the ability to check their tolerances, and or offer sized pins or another correction at a fair price.
I believe that Harley Davidson needs to know that we know the 'C' lifters and their machining tolerances suck... there are several HTT members that should be able to forward the information to their contacts too...
Pretty sure MoCo knows why they have the 2nd worst motorcycle rating. As long as people keep buying and the bottom line is doing well, not much will change.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on March 22, 2014, 07:19:15 AM
Quote from: Billy on March 22, 2014, 03:49:04 AM
Quote from: mike jesse on March 22, 2014, 01:32:32 AM
Might think about checking the hardness of a stocker before slipping a piece of that drill rod into your engine.
:agree:
The anti-rotation pins that come stock appear to me to be hardened dowel pins.
Appearances can be deceiving. :wink: Drill rod is pretty damn hard, compared to the soft lifter body and the aluminium the pin sits in.
Ron
59.5 Rockwell on this drill rod :up:
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/F0659CA3-5862-441A-AD54-5F4D67499129.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/F0659CA3-5862-441A-AD54-5F4D67499129.jpg.html)
Quote from: harley#1 on March 22, 2014, 05:54:53 AM
what is the length of the pin, maybe a right size drill bit cut to length will work, sae or metric might get close enough.
Drill bit . Just a little over 72 Rockwell
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/9664A65D-36F5-4C98-91FF-DCBA6DE3678D.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/9664A65D-36F5-4C98-91FF-DCBA6DE3678D.jpg.html)
That's a better drill bit then the crap I own. :hyst:
Ron
Quote
Pretty sure MoCo knows why they have the 2nd worst motorcycle rating. As long as people keep buying and the bottom line is doing well, not much will change.
Ron
I guess I was to subtle ... If FSG's measurements on the 'C' lifter is commend (more clearance than 'B' lifters), and as Joe_Lyon's is seeing this frosting of lifters on low mileage bikes with 'C' lifters, then anyone/everyone with a newer HD running 'C's should visit their dealer about lifter noise and asks about lifter to pin alignment clearances and frosting of the rollers. Seems the only current fix HD has is to install another set under warranty... not a fix cause I would be back again with lifter noise :wink: and yes again, again ...
Warranty dollars tend to get attention, yes it's HD but hey even a blind pig finds a truffle once in a while. I'm hope for a new SE Dog Bone for them lifter issues or at least a set of larger alignment pins.
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 22, 2014, 08:27:55 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 22, 2014, 07:19:15 AM
Quote from: Billy on March 22, 2014, 03:49:04 AM
Quote from: mike jesse on March 22, 2014, 01:32:32 AM
Might think about checking the hardness of a stocker before slipping a piece of that drill rod into your engine.
:agree:
The anti-rotation pins that come stock appear to me to be hardened dowel pins.
Appearances can be deceiving. :wink: Drill rod is pretty damn hard, compared to the soft lifter body and the aluminium the pin sits in.
Ron
59.5 Rockwell on this drill rod :up:
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/strokerjlk/F0659CA3-5862-441A-AD54-5F4D67499129.jpg) (http://s496.photobucket.com/user/strokerjlk/media/F0659CA3-5862-441A-AD54-5F4D67499129.jpg.html)
Could you check the HRC of a anti-rotation pin?
Quote from: FSG on March 18, 2014, 12:48:11 PM
from Zippers -- http://www.zippersperformance.com/media/wysiwyg/DownloadsPDFs/Red-Shift-Cams/RedShiftTCCamInstallationGuide_02262013.pdf (http://www.zippersperformance.com/media/wysiwyg/DownloadsPDFs/Red-Shift-Cams/RedShiftTCCamInstallationGuide_02262013.pdf)
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
I rechecked these tappets the way this says to above. Front was .008 and rear was .007
I'll take a pin to work on Monday and check it for myself.
I'll build my own.
If you run into a tight one, a few swipes on the lifter body flat with a
quality stone just might bring it into spec.
A person could also use gauge pins to bring the clearance right on the money.
Gauge pins in this size range can be had for under $4 ea.
For you people without the means to make your own, I'd go that route.
QuoteIf you run into a tight one, a few swipes on the lifter body flat with a
quality stone just might will bring it into spec.
Fixed it for you. Been there, done that. :up:
Quote from: Billy on March 22, 2014, 07:31:33 PM
QuoteIf you run into a tight one, a few swipes on the lifter body flat with a
quality stone just might will bring it into spec.
Fixed it for you. Been there, done that. :up:
There you go! :up:
For reference purposes P/N 18535-99 Pin, Dowel, .250" x 1.750"
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 21, 2014, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 21, 2014, 04:45:04 PM
Snip
Good luck finding drill rod that is any other size other than 0.250 or 0.277.. I suspect that Jim's caliper is off unless he found a place that will grind him some..
Drill rod that size is typically +- 0.0005 Not sure how he got 0.254.. 0,250 and 0.277 are standard sizes..
Max
Depends. Another option here. I see a .257 listed here. That could be slimmed down to suit with drill and 320.
http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html (http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html)
Ron
We have .250 .255 .257 .258
I went through the stack until I found the smallest piece.
Calipers are calibrated every 3 months for QS -ISO and corporate six sigma quality .
Oops typo... 277 is really 257..
Well the caliper could have still had something between the jaws when you zeroed it.. :wink: If you had picked up a 0.257 rod and zeroed the caliper with 0.003 crap between the jaws,, Just guessing.. :smile: Where did you find the 0.255 rod? Non STD size..
Max
:pop:
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 22, 2014, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 21, 2014, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 21, 2014, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 21, 2014, 04:45:04 PM
Snip
Good luck finding drill rod that is any other size other than 0.250 or 0.277.. I suspect that Jim's caliper is off unless he found a place that will grind him some..
Drill rod that size is typically +- 0.0005 Not sure how he got 0.254.. 0,250 and 0.277 are standard sizes..
Max
Depends. Another option here. I see a .257 listed here. That could be slimmed down to suit with drill and 320.
http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html (http://www.tmtco.com/products/drill-rod-o1.html)
Ron
We have .250 .255 .257 .258
I went through the stack until I found the smallest piece.
Calipers are calibrated every 3 months for QS -ISO and corporate six sigma quality .
Oops typo... 277 is really 257..
Well the caliper could have still had something between the jaws when you zeroed it.. :wink: If you had picked up a 0.257 rod and zeroed the caliper with 0.003 crap between the jaws,, Just guessing.. :smile: Where did you find the 0.255 rod? Non STD size..
Max
I sorted through the bin measuring them all .
Just the measurements I got .
Billy
Next time I have a anti rotation pin out I will gauge it .
Just didn't have one or I would .
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof (http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof)
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 23, 2014, 05:49:58 AM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof (http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof)
Perfect. Any diameter you would need to the 1/2 thousandth, HRC 60-62, 2" long, $3.37ea. Just trim 1/4" and you're good to go. :up:
QuoteBilly
Next time I have a anti rotation pin out I will gauge it .
Just didn't have one or I would .
Cool. Thanks. :up:
What clearance is ideal?
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 23, 2014, 05:49:58 AM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof (http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof)
Thanks for the link!
I've got some coming in the mail.
I'll compare them to see if they are the same.
$20 for 6 pins and three sizes.
Quote from: N-gin on March 23, 2014, 07:04:36 AM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 23, 2014, 05:49:58 AM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof (http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof)
Thanks for the link!
I've got some coming in the mail.
I'll compare them to see if they are the same.
$20 for 6 pins and three sizes.
Post up some pics when you get them, This could be a very affordable alternative to the Zippers stuff
What is the targeted ideal clearance?
:scratch:
Thought it said in Previous postings that .002 to .004 was best...
signed....BUBBIE
Sorry, didn't see it, thanks. Also not sure how I managed to ask 3 times, thought I was modifying it.
:gob:
No Problem Allen. I had to go back and look for myself and saw your question, thought I might as well post it "IF" others wanted to Know..
( :idea: Info. from FSG Post he is Usually spot-on) :up:
signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 23, 2014, 05:49:58 AM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof (http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof)
:up:
Good find..
Max
Your welcome.
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 23, 2014, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 23, 2014, 05:49:58 AM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof (http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof)
:up:
Good find..
Max
Quote from: mike jesse on March 23, 2014, 01:54:35 PM
Your welcome.
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 23, 2014, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 23, 2014, 05:49:58 AM
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof (http://www.mcmaster.com/#gauge-pins/=r7uyof)
:up:
Good find..
Max
:embarrassed:
Sorry for the miss-directed credit.. Max
No problem Max. I still like you.
It wouldn't surprise me if Zipper's isn't doing the same thing.
I get the gauge pins in length's of 6 in. Cut what I need.
Of course I'm using them for inspection purpose's only.
Now you need to decide "plus or minus".
Quote from: q1svt on March 21, 2014, 07:29:34 AM
Someone would need to sell a different lifter cover... but I've been looking at these...
http://www.jegs.com/i/GM-Performance/809/12550002/10002/-1 (http://www.jegs.com/i/GM-Performance/809/12550002/10002/-1)
edited: I'm a ford guy so my search started with these... I know the ford lifters are larger in diameter not sure if the lifter cuts/keepers are different than a chevy.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0710_chevy_small_block/photo_04.html (http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0710_chevy_small_block/photo_04.html)
They went away from pins on the sporty, kinda makes it hard to run a directional lifter.
(http://i.imgur.com/K88Ipeq.png)
Thanks FSG... the dog bone was used by everyone but HD on roller lifters, well until now. Never liked the alignment pins. Cannot image running high RPM's and 650+ lift with one.
Cannot find detail yet on S&S cases but think they run something like that too...
I plan on working with .015 max. clearance since we have lifter bore to lifter clearance to allow for also.
Has anyone checked the clearance from top of AR pin to top of lifter galley with gasket in place?
good question!
I noticed the last time I had my lifter block off that the lifter block gasket looked to have the imprint of the pin on it.
Going with an over sized pin...you might have to have the bottom side of the lifter block area addressed where the pin rides up against the ridges.
I've not checked, yet, but if as Ray says the gasket looked to have the imprint of the pin on it you wouldn't think there was any room for them to roll in sympathy with the lifter up and down movement.
Here you go FSG...here is a picture I just snapped of my old lifter block gaskets. I didn't think I threw them away.
You can clearly see on the fingers of the gasket where the imprint of the roll pin was pressed up against it.
This was with the stock HD roll pins...not over sized.
[attach=0]
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
This has all been educational .
But what was first the chicken or the egg.
B lifters never needed oversize anti rotation pins .
Biggest question with B's was ... Change lifters at 30,000 when you swapped cams or leave the stock ones in ? because they looked like new . :scratch:
QuoteBut what was first the chicken or the egg.
another good question
QuoteB lifters never needed oversize anti rotation pins
how do we know, I for one never checked, not a once, did you
it's another one of those things that slips under the radar but once caught we find it's been there all along
I'll see if I still have my old set of lifters.
I believe I still do.
I'll have to measure.
Another thing is we would have to measure the height of the lifter pin boss. This will tell us if it is tall enough to suport oversize pins. Even if the pin were to be held in place with the gasket I believe it will still turn.
Could this be the reason why all the failures. If it were as simple as a pin diameter.
So if a engine is spinning 5000 rpm how often is the lifter going up and down a second? 42 times a second? Is there enough shatter that creates a harmonic that destroys a lifter?
Quote from: FSG on March 23, 2014, 07:06:02 PM
QuoteBut what was first the chicken or the egg.
another good question
QuoteB lifters never needed oversize anti rotation pins
how do we know, I for one never checked, not a once, did you
it's another one of those things that slips under the radar but once caught we find it's been there all along
Maybe the problem has been there all along . ( rotation)
the results we are seeing now never were a problem when B lifters were the norm.
Something has changed in the manufacturers material and or the manufacturing process .
In the last 5 years manufacturing cost has sky rocketed , if it involves metal of any kind .
Where I work we have seen a 197% increase in metal cost . This includes precious metals .
We have went to great measures to lower cost . Part of that is testing and sourcing lower grades of metal where permitted . All along the customer and consumer can't see a increase in price .
It's happing everywhere lean is mean .
QuoteEven if the pin were to be held in place with the gasket I believe it will still turn.
I'm not sure they will. The pins are downhill from the lifters so any clearance should be between the lifter flat and the pin before the cover goes on and should remain there unless the act of putting the cover on rolls them uphill. But then again I've not measured the boss height but is it possible the mark on the gasket is from the pin rolling up against it driven by the lifter rather than compression from holding the pin down?
FYI, I just measured that pocket depth the pin rests in.
It's .251 in.
The gasket is doing it's job holding the pin.
.001-.002 in. more on the pin diameter won't matter.
Quote from: mike jesse on March 23, 2014, 08:26:36 PM
FYI, I just measured that pocket depth the pin rests in.
It's .251 in.
The gasket is doing it's job holding the pin.
.001-.002 in. more on the pin diameter won't matter.
Well I have .2535, .2545, and .2555 on their way. Should be here by end of week.
I would have to check the gasket on the lifter covers I don't remember seeing a mark for the pin, but I wasn't looking neither. The pins were defiantly turning though... I'm at work now as soon as I leave I'll go in the garage and hav a looksee
HA!! Just lifted a cover myself, the gasket broke so I'll need to go further to replace it.
The Boss and Pin compression marks are easy to see, this pin ain't moving anywhere.
These lifters are -99B's and a .04mm (.0015") feeler gauge fits between the pin and the boss whereas a .06mm (.0023") will not.
So it' probably .05mm (.0019"), the pin itself measures a solid .2505".
As I have to replace this cover gasket I may replace both and drop some GP1023's into this bike at the same time, taking some measurements also.
(http://i.imgur.com/LWWDRVY.png)
A close examination of this pin under this lighted mag glass show no signs of ever having touched a moving lifter.
(http://i.imgur.com/0fz7rrU.png)
Blow Ray's pic up and it's easy to see the boss compression marks as well
(http://i.imgur.com/ewHkocD.png)
Mine looks the same FSG.
Has this turned into the mountain or the mole hill? :fish:
Yes. But I now know more than I did before this thread started. :chop:
FWIW not an extreme/severe duty application, factory installed stock B lifters and 203 cams with stock springs went 80K quiet miles in my bike with very little sign of wear to lifters or cam before lifters were replaced. Rick
Quote from: FSG on March 23, 2014, 09:45:29 PM
Yes. But I now know more than I did before this thread started. :chop:
Your right. Gotta have some fun though. :potstir:
my take on the roll pin is it isn't designed to roll in the engine case. They are there to prevent the lifter body from turning too far sideways. An over sized pin should hold a lifter straighter sooner if it came in contact with the side of the lifter body...but my thoughts are the pin does not spin because you have lifters moving in the opposite directions (one up & one down) against the same pin...so in theory the pin is one piece and could not spin in both directions at the same time.
Quote.... so in theory the pin is one piece and could not spin in both directions at the same time.
but this is a HD, all things are possible :hyst:
Quote from: FSG on March 24, 2014, 03:07:36 AM
Quote.... so in theory the pin is one piece and could not spin in both directions at the same time.
but this is a HD, all things are possible :hyst:
:hyst: so true!
If anything the pin would roll a little up & down or...or rock back & forth if the lifters contacted it.
It looks like to me like it wasn't designed for the pin to spin in a 360* circle making contact with the lifter body...I look at it as more of a safety feature keeping the lifter roller in line on the cam lobe. :nix:
I didn't see any contact marks on my roll pins or on my lifter bodies the last time I had my engine apart and I inspected the parts in the cam chest.
Quote from: No Cents on March 24, 2014, 02:54:36 AM
my take on the roll pin is it isn't designed to roll in the engine case. They are there to prevent the lifter body from turning too far sideways. An over sized pin should hold a lifter straighter sooner if it came in contact with the side of the lifter body...but my thoughts are the pin does not spin because you have lifters moving in the opposite directions (one up & one down) against the same pin...so in theory the pin is one piece and could not spin in both directions at the same time.
If it was not designed to roll why is it not machined flat on one side?
Quote from: black on March 24, 2014, 04:01:19 AM
Quote from: No Cents on March 24, 2014, 02:54:36 AM
my take on the roll pin is it isn't designed to roll in the engine case. They are there to prevent the lifter body from turning too far sideways. An over sized pin should hold a lifter straighter sooner if it came in contact with the side of the lifter body...but my thoughts are the pin does not spin because you have lifters moving in the opposite directions (one up & one down) against the same pin...so in theory the pin is one piece and could not spin in both directions at the same time.
If it was not designed to roll why is it not machined flat on one side?
Because that is an unnecessary step that would cost more money. It is held just fine by the gasket as designed.
Added:
As shown earlier these pins were first used by HD in the sportster where they were threaded and screwed into the case, when they designed the twincams they removed the threaded part to save time and money and just drop them in and hold them with the tappet cover and gasket.
Very small contact point on the pin heel compared to the full distance of a flat.
In reality the lifter should never contact the pin when the lifter is going up and down. My view it's only there for safety, like a valve sticking, taking the load off the roller which could allow it to spin sideways in the bore. Take a good close look at the flats and roller. If they were used any amount there would be lines gouged in them or rub marks on the lifer flat. I ran Black Opps in my 113 and after 12k the black coating on the flats was fully intact. Possibly if the clearance on the pin was dropped to .002 it may have shown more contact. :idunno:
Ron
Just checked both of mine.
.006 in. and .007 in. clearance.
Gaterman's looked perfect.
If I have the right diameters at the shop I'll make some.
If not, time to order some 6 in. gauge pins.
In my mind the lifters will be held straight by the spring pressure, only time the lifter would be free to twist would be, as already mentioned, if a valve stuck or floated or a lifter bleeds off for whatever reason, No Cents is on the money as far the pin goes, makes complete sense, thought provoking thread non the less.
Picture of a set of used pins 48,000km on them. My gaskets look like the pictures Ray posted. By the witness marks looks like they might go back and forth a little but not rotate. Bob
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
Bob, what lifters ?
The stock ones in 2005 Dyna. Stock cam has well. Bob
:up: -99B's then
Quote from: FXDBI on March 24, 2014, 06:53:21 PM
Picture of a set of used pins 48,000km on them. My gaskets look like the pictures Ray posted. By the witness marks looks like they might go back and forth a little but not rotate. Bob
That would make sense. I don't remember now but doesn't the gasket finger actually push against the pin when the cover is tightened up?
Ron
Ron...yes the stock size pin does contact the gasket and the lifter block fingers pushes down on the pin when the lifter block is torqued down. My pictures shows the imprint that it leaves.
That is why I said if a thicker (over sized) pin is installed...I'm not sure of how much additional down pressure the lifter block fingers can handle...and that area might need addressed if an over size pin is installed...and possibly a little material removed so it doesn't over stress the finger. It could get ugly inside the lifter block area if one of those finger fatigued enough from the added down pressure on it and broke off...and ending up flopping around in there against the lifters. :nix:
How an OS pin is handled will depend on the starting gasket thickness, I don't have a new one to measure but the one I have in pieces measures .040" on the finger and .034" where it's been pressing on the pin.
Below is the broken portion I measured resting on a spare cover.
(http://i.imgur.com/OxrUMmQ.png)
Just checked both lifter housings with a strait edge with the pins in the slots and both the strait edge rolls on the pin rear one has a few thousands rock on the straight edge from the pin being higher. Wondering if a custom made key with a Cpl of 1/2 moons milled in for the lifter coming out of the bore might work better to keep the lifters square and still fit the stock case. My machinist buddy would love that little project. Bob
Some one needs to check how much the lifter turns when the cams are out and the lifter block is still in place. The gasket may provide pressure on the pin to take up some of the slack. Need to use a feeler gauge between lifter and pin with the block in place also to double check this.
Ok, I'll jump in.
Like others have said, I feel the lifters will "try" to stay straight as long as there is contact roller-to-cam. Self-centering and self-aligning. Pins are there for initial install and in the case of float or stuck valve issues.
That being said.............. what if there was the slightest mis-manufacturing of the cam lobe where it was not perfectly perpendicular to the lifter bore ? What if the case angle is off the slightest amount ? Either of these scenarios would result in lifter "frosting" or failure. More to think about.
Another thing to throw in the mix is what support plate is being used with the frosting problem motors ? Stock, aftermarket ?
If the bearing bores in the plate are off the slightest amount, same problem. Engine case (support plate dowels) could even be just a tiny bit wrong. Just sayin if it's consistently the same case/support plate combo trashing lifters, could be other forces at work.
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 25, 2014, 05:05:41 AM
Some one needs to check how much the lifter turns when the cams are out and the lifter block is still in place. The gasket may provide pressure on the pin to take up some of the slack. Need to use a feeler gauge between lifter and pin with the block in place also to double check this.
The theoretical angle that a lifter might be able to turn unrestrained by cam or valve spring pressure.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,71385.msg778970.html#msg778970 (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,71385.msg778970.html#msg778970)
I saying that the gasket may take up that .004"-.008" and make the possible rotating angle less than that you listed. Just saying to check it as it is assembled and in running order.
I'll bet you can test my thoughts (posts 193-194) by leaving the lifter cover off, no pin, turn the lifter a few degrees either way from where the pin would have held it and start adjusting the pushrod. See if the lifter self-aligns with where the pin would be, then -see if the pin drops in or not. Do this on the top of the lobe.
Quote from: rbabos on March 24, 2014, 11:12:52 AM
In reality the lifter should never contact the pin when the lifter is going up and down. My view it's only there for safety, like a valve sticking, taking the load off the roller which could allow it to spin sideways in the bore. Take a good close look at the flats and roller. If they were used any amount there would be lines gouged in them or rub marks on the lifer flat. I ran Black Opps in my 113 and after 12k the black coating on the flats was fully intact. Possibly if the clearance on the pin was dropped to .002 it may have shown more contact. :idunno:
Ron
:up:
Thats why there is no damage done if a guy forgets to put the pins in .
Quote from: blackhillsken on March 25, 2014, 05:27:38 AM
Ok, I'll jump in.
Like others have said, I feel the lifters will "try" to stay straight as long as there is contact roller-to-cam. Self-centering and self-aligning. Pins are there for initial install and in the case of float or stuck valve issues.
That being said.............. what if there was the slightest mis-manufacturing of the cam lobe where it was not perfectly perpendicular to the lifter bore ? What if the case angle is off the slightest amount ? Either of these scenarios would result in lifter "frosting" or failure. More to think about.
That too was the point I was trying to make. Up lobe and down lobe can cause the oscillations if alignment isn't perfect. This would occur even setting up the pin with .002 and does one really want to try and control this with the pin anyway. It's been shown the pin doesn't rotate and no lifter witness marks from operation. Seems pointless since the original problem will still exist. That could very well be a slight rotation as the roller transfers from one side of the lobe to the other if alignment isn't dead nuts. Throw in some .002 lifter body clearance to make things even worse.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on March 25, 2014, 06:16:11 AM
Quote from: blackhillsken on March 25, 2014, 05:27:38 AM
Ok, I'll jump in.
Like others have said, I feel the lifters will "try" to stay straight as long as there is contact roller-to-cam. Self-centering and self-aligning. Pins are there for initial install and in the case of float or stuck valve issues.
That being said.............. what if there was the slightest mis-manufacturing of the cam lobe where it was not perfectly perpendicular to the lifter bore ? What if the case angle is off the slightest amount ? Either of these scenarios would result in lifter "frosting" or failure. More to think about.
That too was the point I was trying to make. Up lobe and down lobe can cause the oscillations if alignment isn't perfect. This would occur even setting up the pin with .002 and does one really want to try and control this with the pin anyway. It's been shown the pin doesn't rotate and no lifter witness marks from operation. Seems pointless since the original problem will still exist. That could very well be a slight rotation as the roller transfers from one side of the lobe to the other if alignment isn't dead nuts.
Ron
:up:
Category: Harley-Davisdon Lifters
V-Lift - HyLift Johnson lifters for Harley Davidson
V-Lift - HyLift Johnson lifters for Harley Davidson
V-LIFT HiLift Lifter Kits
- Manufactured by: Parts4PowerToys
Back by popular demand, the original V-Lift Harley Davidson Hylift Johnson lifters are now back. Order your set of stock V-2313 Twin Cam lifters for excellence bleed down specification and higher oil capacity delivery and better cooling for your valves. This is the lifter everyone is looking for. These are the original lifters Harley used before HyLift Johnson closed and moved to Delphi unit. Better built to higher specifications for Harley Davidsons Twin Cams. Now starting from as low as $ 119.00 US for a set of 4 plus shipping and handling
V-Lift - HyLift Johnson lifters for Harley Davidson
V-Lift - HyLift Johnson lifters for Harley Davidson
V-LIFT HiLift Lifter Kits
- Manufactured by: Parts4PowerToys
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 25, 2014, 05:48:36 AM
I saying that the gasket may take up that .004"-.008" and make the possible rotating angle less than that you listed. Just saying to check it as it is assembled and in running order.
:agree:
If someone needs to install a pin that's .006-8 oversized just double up the gaskets... it only keeps the oil in and maybe holds the pin a little :wink:
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 05:53:14 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 24, 2014, 11:12:52 AM
In reality the lifter should never contact the pin when the lifter is going up and down. My view it's only there for safety, like a valve sticking, taking the load off the roller which could allow it to spin sideways in the bore. Take a good close look at the flats and roller. If they were used any amount there would be lines gouged in them or rub marks on the lifer flat. I ran Black Opps in my 113 and after 12k the black coating on the flats was fully intact. Possibly if the clearance on the pin was dropped to .002 it may have shown more contact. :idunno:
Ron
:up:
Thats why there is no damage done if a guy forgets to put the pins in .
:wtf:
I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when that motor grenades...
Kinda like saying you don't need axle nuts cause the gyo effect of the wheels will keep the axles on :hyst: :hyst:
When the lifter is on a cam ramp, the cam more or less holds the lifter straight.. At the top of the cam and heal the lifter is free to rotate.. I would expect that for the most part they could staiy in alignment without the pin as the ramps could set them straight and there isn't much of a force wanting to turn the lifter. As Ken says cam alignment comes into play here..
Don't believe me??. Next time you have a motor apart, see at what points on the cam the lifter can turn.. On the ramps, the lifter will rise as it's twisted which means the valve train load will keep it straight.
Max
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 05:53:14 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 24, 2014, 11:12:52 AM
In reality the lifter should never contact the pin when the lifter is going up and down. My view it's only there for safety, like a valve sticking, taking the load off the roller which could allow it to spin sideways in the bore. Take a good close look at the flats and roller. If they were used any amount there would be lines gouged in them or rub marks on the lifer flat. I ran Black Opps in my 113 and after 12k the black coating on the flats was fully intact. Possibly if the clearance on the pin was dropped to .002 it may have shown more contact. :idunno:
Ron
:up:
Thats why there is no damage done if a guy forgets to put the pins in .
:wtf:
I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when that motor grenades...
Kinda like saying you don't need axle nuts cause the gyo effect of the wheels will keep the axles on :hyst: :hyst:
The point is it didn't grenade .
Google broken lifter dog bone...
GM, Ford, Dodge, Jessel and others wouldn't be selling high dollar parts to keep them lifters from turning.
I got $$$ burning a hole in my pocket if you want to strap one of your bikes down on a dyno?
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 07:06:22 AM
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 05:53:14 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 24, 2014, 11:12:52 AM
In reality the lifter should never contact the pin when the lifter is going up and down. My view it's only there for safety, like a valve sticking, taking the load off the roller which could allow it to spin sideways in the bore. Take a good close look at the flats and roller. If they were used any amount there would be lines gouged in them or rub marks on the lifer flat. I ran Black Opps in my 113 and after 12k the black coating on the flats was fully intact. Possibly if the clearance on the pin was dropped to .002 it may have shown more contact. :idunno:
Ron
:up:
Thats why there is no damage done if a guy forgets to put the pins in .
:wtf:
I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when that motor grenades...
Kinda like saying you don't need axle nuts cause the gyo effect of the wheels will keep the axles on :hyst: :hyst:
The point is it didn't grenade .
Then they were very lucky...
... to suggest that pins are not needed could be acted upon by someone to dumb to know better...
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 07:06:22 AM
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 05:53:14 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 24, 2014, 11:12:52 AM
In reality the lifter should never contact the pin when the lifter is going up and down. My view it's only there for safety, like a valve sticking, taking the load off the roller which could allow it to spin sideways in the bore. Take a good close look at the flats and roller. If they were used any amount there would be lines gouged in them or rub marks on the lifer flat. I ran Black Opps in my 113 and after 12k the black coating on the flats was fully intact. Possibly if the clearance on the pin was dropped to .002 it may have shown more contact. :idunno:
Ron
:up:
Thats why there is no damage done if a guy forgets to put the pins in .
:wtf:
I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when that motor grenades...
Kinda like saying you don't need axle nuts cause the gyo effect of the wheels will keep the axles on :hyst: :hyst:
The point is it didn't grenade .
Then they were very lucky...
... to suggest that pins are not needed could be acted upon by someone to dumb to know better...
Not sure he is saying that.. Just that it's possible for the motor to run without grenading.
Max
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 07:14:51 AM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 07:06:22 AM
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 05:53:14 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 24, 2014, 11:12:52 AM
In reality the lifter should never contact the pin when the lifter is going up and down. My view it's only there for safety, like a valve sticking, taking the load off the roller which could allow it to spin sideways in the bore. Take a good close look at the flats and roller. If they were used any amount there would be lines gouged in them or rub marks on the lifer flat. I ran Black Opps in my 113 and after 12k the black coating on the flats was fully intact. Possibly if the clearance on the pin was dropped to .002 it may have shown more contact. :idunno:
Ron
:up:
Thats why there is no damage done if a guy forgets to put the pins in .
:wtf:
I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when that motor grenades...
Kinda like saying you don't need axle nuts cause the gyo effect of the wheels will keep the axles on :hyst: :hyst:
The point is it didn't grenade .
Then they were very lucky...
... to suggest that pins are not needed could be acted upon by someone to dumb to know better...
It does help make the point the pins are there to prevent the lifter from turning in the event it should try to but not installed to guide the lifter in normal continues contact. As Ron and others have pointed out it is more of a safety factor and if your lifter anti-rotation pins show much sign of contact or wear you have other problems. Given the small contact patch where the lifter would be using the pin for a guide how long would it take to wear either the edge of the lifter or a notch in the pin if it had much pressure at all.
Based on the number of frosted lifters in Harley's... the loose tolerances that have already been posted within this thread by people like FSG, Joe_Lyon's, them pins and the clearances are important ...
Yes I think he said it, otherwise I would not have questioned him and others... and FWIW I can ride my bike without axle nuts, brakes, with low tire pressure, no shocks, no seat, etc without incurring any issues, damage, or lost of life... but for how long? and the bigger question is why the hel1 would someone do it?
Remember we're talking HD, if they could remove the pins to save a nickel don't you think they would have done it already... heck, using pins (compared to other motors using roller lifters), they've done it as cheep as can be done. :wink:
I think this subject has officially regressed to an :oil: thread
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 09:00:52 AM
Based on the number of frosted lifters in Harley's... the loose tolerances that have already been posted within this thread by people like FSG, Joe_Lyon's, them pins and the clearances are important ...
It is a pretty big assumption that this extra clearance is the cause of the frosting. You could just as easily assume the large number of bikes running the large tolerances reported proves that the pins do little at all.
Plenty of assumptions and opinions but no root cause analyses leading to any definite conclusion.
I've laid out my thoughts in replies # 19, 28, 40... plus a few more. So where are yours?
You clearly been working on HD's longer than me, but I'm going with Zipper's specifications in blue printing lifter to pin clearances (.002-.004). Something tells me Dan knows (h)is "Potty mouth".
I agree that very little if any contact should take place between lifter and pin. I can also see how without near perfect cam lobe to lifter bore alignment some radial movement of the lifter is going to happen causing roller frosting, excess noise. Will have to make a mess and run the engine without lifter covers in place and then with covers in place without push rod tubes. Run without the pins? I not that much of a gambler.
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 09:00:52 AM
Based on the number of frosted lifters in Harley's... the loose tolerances that have already been posted within this thread by people like FSG, Joe_Lyon's, them pins and the clearances are important ...
Yes I think he said it, otherwise I would not have questioned him and others... and FWIW I can ride my bike without axle nuts, brakes, with low tire pressure, no shocks, no seat, etc without incurring any issues, damage, or lost of life... but for how long? and the bigger question is why the hel1 would someone do it?
Remember we're talking HD, if they could remove the pins to save a nickel don't you think they would have done it already... heck, using pins (compared to other motors using roller lifters), they've done it as cheep as can be done. :wink:
I think this subject has officially regressed to an :oil: thread
Why did he do it ?
Because It was his first cam swap .
I guess I should have put a disclaimer in the post .
Do not try this at home .
I wasn't advocating the practice . Just pointing out it has happened .
I bet there are a few other around here that have done the same thing .
I have had the gaskets and lifter blocks in place and discovered I forgot the pins .
This guy discovered the pins under a shop towel , after he had rode the bike on two afternoon rides . He was cleaning up his workbench and found them .
He was pretty shook up when he called me. But all is well and he still has the bike to this day .
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 09:34:31 AM
I've laid out my thoughts in replies # 19, 28, 40... plus a few more. So where are yours?
You clearly been working on HD's longer than me, but I'm going with Zipper's specifications in blue printing lifter to pin clearances (.002-.004). Something tells me Dan knows (h)is "Potty mouth".
Nothing wrong with tightening up the specs in any production motor. I posted the link to the site where my pins came from so others can benefit also. I think that if you are going to bother to address this, the site gives you the ability to set the clearance at the .002 minimum instead of accepting the.004 because of a lack of choices. I just do not see anything saying this is a cure to frosting.
What if any testing or evidence do you see that says it does?
Also from your post #40
Quote from: q1svt on March 17, 2014, 08:56:51 PM
Never seen a specification but .008 is to much... my guess is the case would expand more than the steel pin & lifter, so .001 (+- .0005) for a performance motor. We'll hear clearances from others on this... With .570 lift I would guess you have about 175-180 lbs of seat pressure. That added more load on the components causing the lifters to rotate enough to allow the rollers to slate on the cam face and wiping out the needle bearings and frosting the rollers.
What leads you to believe that spring pressures are the cause of lifter rotation?
I am trying to understand how a force applied down on the top of the lifter might cause the lifter to spin in it's bore.
Added:
Have you seen cases where the higher the spring pressure the more wear in the pins from contacting the lifters harder?
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 09:34:31 AM
I've laid out my thoughts in replies # 19, 28, 40... plus a few more. So where are yours?
You clearly been working on HD's longer than me, but I'm going with Zipper's specifications in blue printing lifter to pin clearances (.002-.004). Something tells me Dan knows (h)is "Potty mouth".
q1svt,
Thanks for editing out your "
...heck, using pins (compared to other motors using roller lifters), they've done it as cheep as can be done. :wink: " comment out of your post. I was all set to let you know Harley does use roller lifters. :wink:
edit:
Ooops, I was looking at the wrong post.
Guess you meant pins vs. girdles in other roller motors..........
All these pin theories are good, but I still say it's the lifter, not the pin clearance, I brought it up and Jim brought it up and no one wants to address the fact that up until the "C" lifter this was a NON issue...JMO
Now back to your regularly scheduled brain storming session :teeth:
no one wants to address the fact that up until the "C" lifter this was a NON issue
[/quote]
:up: :agree:
Quote from: Durwood on March 25, 2014, 11:06:17 AM
All these pin theories are good, but I still say it's the lifter, not the pin clearance, I brought it up and Jim brought it up and no one wants to address the fact that up until the "C" lifter this was a NON issue...JMO
Now back to your regularly scheduled brain storming session :teeth:
Quote from: No Cents on March 25, 2014, 11:27:56 AM
no one wants to address the fact that up until the "C" lifter this was a NON issue
:up: :agree:
[/quote]
Not to be a smart ass but isnt the thread called
Gaterman GP-1023 Lifters Long Term Wear that showed issues we are discussing? :hyst:
Ron
Quote from: Durwood on March 25, 2014, 11:06:17 AM
All these pin theories are good, but I still say it's the lifter, not the pin clearance, I brought it up and Jim brought it up and no one wants to address the fact that up until the "C" lifter this was a NON issue...JMO
Now back to your regularly scheduled brain storming session :teeth:
Exactly. I never saw this problem with B lifters either. Max brings up the point of lifter being able to rotate off the cam lope. Can it rotate as easy with 20 psi oil, 32, 45? Or just when we let it sit and bleed off?
Exactly. I never saw this problem with B lifters either. Max brings up the point of lifter being able to rotate off the cam lope. Can it rotate as easy with 20 psi oil, 32, 45? Or just when we let it sit and bleed off?
[/quote]
Good question.
That was why I suggested loading the lifter by adjusting the pushrod (generate pressure until it bleeds).
Without actually trying it, I'd be inclined to agree with Max that you could rotate the lifter on the nose and heel of the cam.
Quote from: blackhillsken on March 25, 2014, 12:03:00 PM
Exactly. I never saw this problem with B lifters either. Max brings up the point of lifter being able to rotate off the cam lope. Can it rotate as easy with 20 psi oil, 32, 45? Or just when we let it sit and bleed off?
Good question.
That was why I suggested loading the lifter by adjusting the pushrod (generate pressure until it bleeds).
Without actually trying it, I'd be inclined to agree with Max that you could rotate the lifter on the nose and heel of the cam.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Tip of the cam/ radius of the roller might as well be two ball bearings for a brief time frame even with valve spring pressures in play. The time frame would be too short for the mass of the body to follow.
Ron
As far as whether lifter wear started before or after the B lifters, I'm sure some of these motors were subjected to overly rich air/fuel mixtures from the start (1999), but there is no doubt that, by now, there are substantially more fuel injected motors running around than when the TC debuted, and that many of them are running way too rich due to bad maps or poor O2 sensor locations.
I bring this up because I have seen the effects of gas-diluted oil (not another oil thread, thank God) on cams and lifters. Not a pretty sight. Rings aren't the only thing that wear from diluted oil. Lifters take a real beating being forced up the steep cam lobe ramp and if the oil can't do it's job, the result will be wear.
Easy indicator of diluted oil (if you can't smell it on the dipstick) is crappy mileage. If your gas mileage is in the 20s or low to mid 30s, you just might be a redne...... ( No, that's another joke )
........you (no poster in particular, general statement ) just might be diluting your oil and resulting in wear.
More random thoughts
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 25, 2014, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: q1svt on March 25, 2014, 09:00:52 AM
Based on the number of frosted lifters in Harley's... the loose tolerances that have already been posted within this thread by people like FSG, Joe_Lyon's, them pins and the clearances are important ...
Yes I think he said it, otherwise I would not have questioned him and others... and FWIW I can ride my bike without axle nuts, brakes, with low tire pressure, no shocks, no seat, etc without incurring any issues, damage, or lost of life... but for how long? and the bigger question is why the hel1 would someone do it?
Remember we're talking HD, if they could remove the pins to save a nickel don't you think they would have done it already... heck, using pins (compared to other motors using roller lifters), they've done it as cheep as can be done. :wink:
I think this subject has officially regressed to an :oil: thread
Why did he do it ?
Because It was his first cam swap .
I guess I should have put a disclaimer in the post .
Do not try this at home .
I wasn't advocating the practice . Just pointing out it has happened .
I bet there are a few other around here that have done the same thing .
I have had the gaskets and lifter blocks in place and discovered I forgot the pins .
This guy discovered the pins under a shop towel , after he had rode the bike on two afternoon rides . He was cleaning up his workbench and found them .
He was pretty shook up when he called me. But all is well and he still has the bike to this day .
:up:
That's what I thought too... my reply just didn't do a good job of adding a nice disclaimer :embarrassed:
Quote from: Durwood on March 25, 2014, 11:06:17 AM
All these pin theories are good, but I still say it's the lifter, not the pin clearance, I brought it up and Jim brought it up and no one wants to address the fact that up until the "C" lifter this was a NON issue...JMO
Now back to your regularly scheduled brain storming session :teeth:
:agree:
But most just blame the cheaper 'C' lifter... FSG's measurement shows (one C lifter) is .001 smaller than the 98B lifters. was the B lifter & pin near it's limit and the extra .001 is making a difference?? bottom-line I would not use the C's
Saying it started with the C's because we didn't see it before... is there machining differences between the 88ci vs 96ci cases for pin/lifter clearances???
If you look outside of the HD world, generally @ .600 lift at the valve Chevy, Ford, Mopar guys move from the Dog Bone/ Spider etc type of lifter retainer to Link Bar Lifters... people here are using a pin between the lifters and the aluminum used by HD (and we have all heard the feelings from the porters to the quality of material used).
Except as Ron pointed out this thread is about a Gatorman lifter not a Harley C lifter.
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 25, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Except as Ron pointed out this thread is about a Gatorman lifter not a Harley C lifter.
I guess you missed this...
Quote from: FSG on March 21, 2014, 12:29:54 AM
Well I broke out a measuring stick, some new HD -99B's, some GP1023's, took some measurements and drew it up in CAD.
The Flat of the GP1023 is .001" further away from the anti-rotation pin than the HD -99B.
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1370)
Below are what the angles would be if the lifter rotated in the bore so as to take up the slack in the anti-rotation pin.
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1369)
I hope it makes sense to you guys, it does to me. :teeth:
But the pin doesn't contact the lifter. So any clearance is just that , clearance.
Ron
One measurement doesn't cut it for me. Is that the average of all four? What is the tolerance of 1000?
Quote from: rbabos on March 25, 2014, 07:00:11 PM
But the pin doesn't contact the lifter. So any clearance is just that , clearance.
Ron
You got that right. I wasn't calling Bruce out. I have found TDC on a warmed up engine and twisted push rods. IME once you "help" it twisting with a wrench. It will spin freely. BUT... Lets not forget a cold start after 4 weeks sitting and that one stuck, noisy lifter. I'd bet the pin is doing it's job and the lifter isn't doing a 180.
Here's the dims of a -99C lifter, note it's OD is larger by .001" and it's flat is recessed .001" more than the new -99B lifter I measured.
(http://i.imgur.com/n4fZmie.png)
QuoteOne measurement doesn't cut it for me. Is that the average of all four? What is the tolerance of 1000?
Which measurements are you referring to?
Here's the new -99C Lifter I measured. Cant say I like the look of it, although the green marking on the flat looks to match the green on the wrapping paper. And I've not heard a new lifter rattle when shaken by hand before. There is lots of axial movement of the roller while the radial movement is easily felt by hand. :emsad:
(http://i.imgur.com/HKCXkyC.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/MTBnjjs.png)
18635-99 Jan 1999 $0.50/ea
18635-99A Jan 2004 $1.80/ea
18635-99B Jan 2005 $2.10/ea
I must admit I prefer the older thicker -99/99A's but I've run out and just bought these 18635-99B Metal Gaskets that measure .034" , it'll be interesting to fit OS Pins and use these gaskets at the same time.
(http://i.imgur.com/dkvXxDD.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/bK18cIT.png)
Does anybody know what the clearances are on some of the typical V8 stuff. I think they have as much or more clearance on most applications. I ran it past a friend today who is on the sharper end of this stuff typically. He thoughts were that the frosting is more of a compatibility problem between lifter roller and cam, material/hardness, based on automotive applications. He also mentioned that a hydraulic lifter adjusted and working properly remains loaded and in contact with the cam...doesn't unload and skid the roller like a solid does, nor should it try to rotate Some folks around here do adjust their lifters to where they are almost solids. Also backs up what Jim stated, that its possible for a bike to run without pins, at least for a while. Rick
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 25, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Except as Ron pointed out this thread is about a Gatorman lifter not a Harley C lifter.
Yes it is Eric, it's about Gatorman lifter rollers frosting/peeling, which IMO makes the C relevant as a reference point to this discussion as they do the same thing as the Gatorman lifter in the OP.
I am personally going to keep using American made lifters until which time they are not available.
Quote from: 04 SE DEUCE on March 25, 2014, 10:32:03 PM
Does anybody know what the clearances are on some of the typical V8 stuff. I think they have as much or more clearance on most applications. I ran it past a friend today who is on the sharper end of this stuff typically. He thoughts were that the frosting is more of a compatibility problem between lifter roller and cam, material/hardness, based on automotive applications. He also mentioned that a hydraulic lifter adjusted and working properly remains loaded and in contact with the cam...doesn't unload and skid the roller like a solid does, nor should it try to rotate Some folks around here do adjust their lifters to where they are almost solids. Also backs up what Jim stated, that its possible for a bike to run without pins, at least for a while. Rick
I agree. Looking at the big picture , the pins are so far down the list as a possible problem they are not worth bothering with as a solution. Auto dog bones are really sloppy in comparison.
Ron
Quote from: Durwood on March 26, 2014, 05:21:40 AM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 25, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Except as Ron pointed out this thread is about a Gatorman lifter not a Harley C lifter.
Yes it is Eric, it's about Gatorman lifter rollers frosting/peeling, which IMO makes the C relevant as a reference point to this discussion as they do the same thing as the Gatorman lifter in the OP.
I am personally going to keep using American made lifters until which time they are not available.
Ok
I did not see where you were headed with this. If your theory is in the difference between the US made lifters and imports then that is a different story. Why not just say import lifters instead of singling out the "C" lifter, that would have been less confusing.
I think FSG has shown that both the Gatorman and the "C" lifter would be able to rotate more under average installation than the "B" but because I agree with Ron that the lifter should not be trying to rotate in the first place, fixing this clearance will not solve the root cause.
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 26, 2014, 06:01:30 AM
Quote from: Durwood on March 26, 2014, 05:21:40 AM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 25, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Except as Ron pointed out this thread is about a Gatorman lifter not a Harley C lifter.
Yes it is Eric, it's about Gatorman lifter rollers frosting/peeling, which IMO makes the C relevant as a reference point to this discussion as they do the same thing as the Gatorman lifter in the OP.
I am personally going to keep using American made lifters until which time they are not available.
Ok
I did not see where you were headed with this. If your theory is in the difference between the US made lifters and imports then that is a different story. Why not just say import lifters instead of singling out the "C" lifter, that would have been less confusing.
I think FSG has shown that both the Gatorman and the "C" lifter would be able to rotate more under average installation than the "B" but because I agree with Ron that the lifter should not be trying to rotate in the first place, fixing this clearance will not solve the root cause.
Sorry for the clarification error :embarrassed:, I could have also said SE lifters as well, Stroker pulled his SE lifters at about 10k IIRC and they looked just like the one in the OP, he then installed some Wood lifters and put another 20k on the engine, he has had those lifters in and out a couple of times just recently and the rollers look as good as the day they were installed :nix:
Quote from: FSG on March 25, 2014, 08:37:51 PM
QuoteOne measurement doesn't cut it for me. Is that the average of all four? What is the tolerance of 1000?
Which measurements are you referring to?
I am sure your measurement is spot on for the part you measured. I was questioning the tolerance in the print the part was made off of. IME every print and every dimension on the print has a tolerance. Some are taken to the 3rd place and some are taken to the 4th. Some have engineering notes. Spent 2.5 years of my life going between technicians making parts and engineers designing parts. Me stuck in the middle making sure parts were made to print and to the tolerance printed in writing. The engineers would print a radius dimension tolerance out to the 3rd place, but neither technicians or QA had a measuring device that could measure it. Change the print or buy better measuring equipment.
Point is, you can measure 100 of them. Come up with 25 different measurements and they can all be correct and with in tolerance. I wonder what the print calls out for the flat dimensions?
Quote from: Durwood on March 26, 2014, 05:21:40 AM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 25, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Except as Ron pointed out this thread is about a Gatorman lifter not a Harley C lifter.
Yes it is Eric, it's about Gatorman lifter rollers frosting/peeling, which IMO makes the C relevant as a reference point to this discussion as they do the same thing as the Gatorman lifter in the OP.
I am personally going to keep using American made lifters until which time they are not available.
So are you saying that the Gaterman lifters are the problem and should not be used?
Quote from: citabria on March 26, 2014, 07:26:05 AM
Quote from: Durwood on March 26, 2014, 05:21:40 AM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 25, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Except as Ron pointed out this thread is about a Gatorman lifter not a Harley C lifter.
Yes it is Eric, it's about Gatorman lifter rollers frosting/peeling, which IMO makes the C relevant as a reference point to this discussion as they do the same thing as the Gatorman lifter in the OP.
I am personally going to keep using American made lifters until which time they are not available.
So are you saying that the Gaterman lifters are the problem and should not be used?
I am saying is that the imported lifters, SE, HD's "C" lifters that I have seen personally, are not something I would use, as they all have the same appearance as the one in the OP after a few thousand miles.
Draw your conclusion from the evidence that is presented...
Ride safe
While reading this thread, it has occurred to me that no one has mentioned the relation of the pushrod and its effects on the lifter. As the pushrod goes up and down the angle changes slightly into the lifter cup.
I would think there would be some sideforces being applied which could cause the lifter to try to turn in its bore. The pins are there to prevent this from getting too far out of hand.
I believe if my pins had .007 clearance I would certainly tighten them up to .002-.003. Of course I believe the larger lifts,higher spring pressures could only aggravate the situation.
Does anyone else think these thoughts have any merit. Buffalo
I would have to say all of the above has some % of negative effect How about these new roller lifters that are coming out now with a tiny hole drilled in the center for extra roller lube. Somebody must have found some problems somewhere to decide to add this feature, and after all of these years of roller lifters on the market? :hug:
One thing I've not touched on regarding the pins. SNS easystarts need the pins to prevent the lifter from spinning from off center roller contact when the lift bump engages. That would get ugly.
Ron
What we need here is a comparative metallurgical analysis :idea:. You can't hide crappy steel. Surface Temper Etch, Hardness, micro structure (look at grain structure and look for white layer), residual stress. etc. Any lab can do this... just costs a few bucks.
Laser
Quote from: laserp on March 26, 2014, 12:55:58 PM
What we need here is a comparative metallurgical analysis :idea:. You can't hide crappy steel. Surface Temper Etch, Hardness, micro structure (look at grain structure and look for white layer), residual stress. etc. Any lab can do this... just costs a few bucks.
Laser
Wonderful idea, a lot better than guessing, I would be willing to donate a little to the cause.
Wasn't that done and posted in a frosted lifter thread here a while back?
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,49579.msg520426.html#msg520426 (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,49579.msg520426.html#msg520426)
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 26, 2014, 01:09:57 PM
Wasn't that done and posted in a frosted lifter thread here a while back?
I thought so, but I looked this am and couldn't find it... Jim posted it, IIRC but that was done on a SE or C lifter,
for comparison sake a S&S or Wood ect should be tested along side a Gaterman to have a good A & B comparison.
Quote from: Durwood on March 26, 2014, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 26, 2014, 01:09:57 PM
Wasn't that done and posted in a frosted lifter thread here a while back?
I thought so, but I looked this am and couldn't find it... Jim posted it, IIRC but that was done on a SE or C lifter,
for comparison sake a S&S or Wood ect should be tested along side a Gaterman to have a good A & B comparison.
It's a start. Needles and axles would need to be tested too. Is frosting the first stage or second stage of failure, since the OP mentions notchy feel to the roller as well?
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on March 26, 2014, 01:26:21 PM
Quote from: Durwood on March 26, 2014, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on March 26, 2014, 01:09:57 PM
Wasn't that done and posted in a frosted lifter thread here a while back?
I thought so, but I looked this am and couldn't find it... Jim posted it, IIRC but that was done on a SE or C lifter,
for comparison sake a S&S or Wood ect should be tested along side a Gaterman to have a good A & B comparison.
It's a start. Needles and axles would need to be tested too. Is frosting the first stage or second stage of failure, since the OP mentions notchy feel to the roller as well?
Ron
I will gladly donate my lifters.
Here are the comparison between the pins. The pins that came out of the engine look to be turning. I dought its constantly spinning but maybe turning slightly at times.
the new pins came from the website that was linke earlier.
The pins in the bag are from zippers. They look to be cut from a lenght of stock. I didnt open the bag cause theree is no way im going to pay $30 a set when i can get them for $8.
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
Here are the zippers. They are a tad shorter than the originals from the engine. If i had to estimate a length i would say .010 to .020 shorter. Cant get a measurement cause they are in the bag. Ans i plan on returning these.
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
Just a closup of the pins
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
I see conclusions on Gaterman's being bad. But didn't we see many C lifters going bad, and is this just one set of Gaterman's. Maybe donate one lifter back to Gaterman for them to analyze and explain or theorize. I'd like to see their response.
I see the pins from Zippers are metric. :teeth:
I noticed that too....
Wonder why they did that :nix:
Dare I say/suggest that they got them from OS?
QuoteThe pins that came out of the engine look to be turning.
Can you take a close up pic of one pin?
Those are metric gauge pins that have been machined to length.
6.40 mm.
But why metric?
Quote from: FSG on March 27, 2014, 01:21:15 AM
But why metric?
Doesn't much matter, as long they're the size ordered.
6.4mm = .2519685", but you knew that.
:teeth: yes I did, I prefer metric but can work with either, I just find it odd for Zippers to supply metric, I wonder if they have metric PRs for a BT.
Quote from: N-gin on March 26, 2014, 08:33:01 PM
Here are the zippers. They are a tad shorter than the originals from the engine. If i had to estimate a length i would say .010 to .020 shorter. Cant get a measurement cause they are in the bag. Ans i plan on returning these.
Trade them back in for one of their Axtell bypass springs .
Quote from: FSG on March 27, 2014, 03:31:48 AM
I just find it odd for Zippers to supply metric, I wonder if they have metric PRs for a BT.
:hyst:
Quote from: N-gin on March 26, 2014, 11:44:11 PM
I noticed that too....
Wonder why they did that :nix:
You could have had metric too, they are at the bottom of the page that I posted the link for. :wink:
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 27, 2014, 03:43:58 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 26, 2014, 08:33:01 PM
Here are the zippers. They are a tad shorter than the originals from the engine. If i had to estimate a length i would say .010 to .020 shorter. Cant get a measurement cause they are in the bag. Ans i plan on returning these.
Trade them back in for one of their Axtell bypass springs .
bypass and tensioners :wink:
Quote from: N-gin on March 27, 2014, 05:14:48 AM
Quote from: strokerjlk on March 27, 2014, 03:43:58 AM
Quote from: N-gin on March 26, 2014, 08:33:01 PM
Here are the zippers. They are a tad shorter than the originals from the engine. If i had to estimate a length i would say .010 to .020 shorter. Cant get a measurement cause they are in the bag. Ans i plan on returning these.
Trade them back in for one of their Axtell bypass springs .
bypass and tensioners :wink:
Money well spent .
Quote
Those are metric gauge pins that have been machined to length.
6.40 mm.
If zippers pins are just gauge pins... then it seems funny that they only offer them in +.002 or +.006, no +.004.
"Red Shift recommends between 0.002"to 0.004" of clearance. Oversized pins are available in +0.002" and +0.006" sizes. Most will require the use of the +0.002" pins for proper clearance."
Wondering if the +.002 are/were for the older 99-B's, S&S, fueling, jims, etc (zippers only sell a couple brands) and HD cases... and the +.006 was a newer offering for what zippers is seeing with the 99-C's, gatermans, offshore lifters.
Someone mentioned that Woods offered OS pins, anyone know what size the Woods pins are/were?
Nice pictures N-gin tks
Just pulled the tappet covers off of a 13 cvo but before I did I checked the clearance and both rear were .002" and the fronts were .004". Then when I pulled the covers and gaskets off the rear was then .006" and the front was .008" so I would say that oversized pins would be not needed.
Quote from: q1svt on March 27, 2014, 06:52:10 AM
If zippers pins are just gauge pins... then it seems funny that they only offer them in +.002 or +.006, no +.004.
Easy.. One is 6.4mm and the other 6.5mm Diff between the 2 is roughly 0.004 inches.
Max
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 27, 2014, 12:01:10 PM
Just pulled the tappet covers off of a 13 cvo but before I did I checked the clearance and both rear were .002" and the fronts were .004". Then when I pulled the covers and gaskets off the rear was then .006" and the front was .008" so I would say that oversized pins would be not needed.
so your measuring between the lifter flat and the pin
were the gaskets the thin metal type and were there obvious compression points on them
can you check the clearance again after reassembly
Gary, have you talked to Bill about the frosting issue? My bud tells me the car guys have been through this and typically it's a metal compatibility/hardness problem. Bill will know. Rick
Quote from: FSG on March 27, 2014, 02:12:46 PM
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 27, 2014, 12:01:10 PM
Just pulled the tappet covers off of a 13 cvo but before I did I checked the clearance and both rear were .002" and the fronts were .004". Then when I pulled the covers and gaskets off the rear was then .006" and the front was .008" so I would say that oversized pins would be not needed.
so your measuring between the lifter flat and the pin
were the gaskets the thin metal type and were there obvious compression points on them
can you check the clearance again after reassembly
Yes measuring between lifter and pin.
Idk about the gasket but its a stock one from 2013. When were they different?
Here are some other findings that I worked on today with the tornados flying around. I cleaned all of the oil out of the rollers so they were dry and zeroed the gauge on the roller and then used a magnet to pull up on the roller to see the play the roller had vertically. I think this with the quality of the roller and bearings are why 99C lifters suck. Your results may vary.
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/zu6e2a5a.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/uvybyhun.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/a8uva5ap.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/dypejenu.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/sy5uqube.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/ega8une7.jpg)
:up: Joe well done. HD -99B's :up: Thanks.
QuoteIdk about the gasket but its a stock one from 2013. When were they different?
You have the latest metal gasket then as the changed back on '05.
Rick, by email.
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 27, 2014, 02:03:58 PM
Quote from: q1svt on March 27, 2014, 06:52:10 AM
If zippers pins are just gauge pins... then it seems funny that they only offer them in +.002 or +.006, no +.004.
Easy.. One is 6.4mm and the other 6.5mm Diff between the 2 is roughly 0.004 inches.
Max
Max we're did you see a 6.5? Zippers 2014 catalog just list a .002 & .006 oversized pins...
Tks
Joe, nice job on the comparison of roller play. Do you happen to have a Gaterman GP-1023 you can measure?
If any one wants to send me one I will:). New and used would be nice but no I don't have any here.
Quote from: q1svt on March 27, 2014, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Max Headflow on March 27, 2014, 02:03:58 PM
Quote from: q1svt on March 27, 2014, 06:52:10 AM
If zippers pins are just gauge pins... then it seems funny that they only offer them in +.002 or +.006, no +.004.
Easy.. One is 6.4mm and the other 6.5mm Diff between the 2 is roughly 0.004 inches.
Max
Max we're did you see a 6.5? Zippers 2014 catalog just list a .002 & .006 oversized pins...
Tks
Didn't,,, but I did see 6.4mm here for the 0.002 over-sized pin..
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,71385.msg781367.html#msg781367 (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,71385.msg781367.html#msg781367)
Ain't too hard to assume that the 0.006 over sized pin is 6.5mm.
Thanks for the measurements, Joe.
Max
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 27, 2014, 04:06:12 PM
Quote from: FSG on March 27, 2014, 02:12:46 PM
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 27, 2014, 12:01:10 PM
Just pulled the tappet covers off of a 13 cvo but before I did I checked the clearance and both rear were .002" and the fronts were .004". Then when I pulled the covers and gaskets off the rear was then .006" and the front was .008" so I would say that oversized pins would be not needed.
so your measuring between the lifter flat and the pin
were the gaskets the thin metal type and were there obvious compression points on them
can you check the clearance again after reassembly
Yes measuring between lifter and pin.
Idk about the gasket but its a stock one from 2013. When were they different?
Here are some other findings that I worked on today with the tornados flying around. I cleaned all of the oil out of the rollers so they were dry and zeroed the gauge on the roller and then used a magnet to pull up on the roller to see the play the roller had vertically. I think this with the quality of the roller and bearings are why 99C lifters suck. Your results may vary.
Pretty interesting findings there Joe. :up:
Makes me want to put the set of NOS 'B's I have in my 117 instead of S&S Premiums.
Hope your tornado's were only flying, and not landing.
The sns may be just as good as the 99b lifter. This is just what I had within my reach. Touched down north of here a ways but got some hail.
Excellent Joe. Thank you. :up:
:up: :up: Joe
Thanks for sharing
:agree:
excellent findings Joe!
good work :up:
:up: :up: :up:
Thanks Joe... You-Da-Man :hug:
PM sent you :idea:
signed....BUBBIE
I've got 3 99B lifters to check tomorow that have frosting on the rollers.
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 27, 2014, 07:24:21 PM
I've got 3 99B lifters to check tomorow that have frosting on the rollers.
[/
quote]Joe the pictures I posted on my frosted lifters were also 99B's from my 2010 bike. Here they are again.
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
Looks like the comp 850-1 is very close to the "B", .0005 ten thousandths is nearly nothing, nice little oil clearance.
FWIW, I just put a new set of these in my bike, I will pull for inspection at the end of this riding season.
Good info Joe, thanks for taking the time to measure and post :up:
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 27, 2014, 07:24:21 PM
I've got 3 99B lifters to check tomorow that have frosting on the rollers.
So, if roller cleance still comes in on the low end of this frosted lifter , where's the reason and solution for it? Do we start picking on the cams? :hyst:
Ron
Nope oil again:p
I agree Joe.
The oil for EPA requirements has a lot of anti-wear additives taken out and That Might be the problem here with the Frosting on cams and rollers...
signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: BUBBIE on March 28, 2014, 07:47:05 AM
I agree Joe.
The oil for EPA requirements has a lot of anti-wear additives taken out and That Might be the problem here with the Frosting on cams and rollers...
signed....BUBBIE
:agree:
And this is one of the reasons I run oil with Zinc in it.
Reminds me of the 80's when all the Chevy small block's had cam & lifter failure's. :pop:
Any motorcycle oil has way more zddp then any roller lifter requires. Even the basic HD360 has plenty. Still not the root cause of failures from my perspective. :idunno:
Ron
Quote from: 06roadglide on March 28, 2014, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: BUBBIE on March 28, 2014, 07:47:05 AM
I agree Joe.
The oil for EPA requirements has a lot of anti-wear additives taken out and That Might be the problem here with the Frosting on cams and rollers...
signed....BUBBIE
:agree:
And this is one of the reasons I run oil with Zinc in it.
Reminds me of the 80's when all the Chevy small block's had cam & lifter failure's. :pop:
I remember the 305 Chevy issues well, we replaced them to the tune of 5 or 6 a month, for about 5 years, and GM was footing the bill. Their failure wasn't oil related, it was improper heat treat.
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: 06roadglide on March 28, 2014, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: BUBBIE on March 28, 2014, 07:47:05 AM
I agree Joe.
The oil for EPA requirements has a lot of anti-wear additives taken out and That Might be the problem here with the Frosting on cams and rollers...
signed....BUBBIE
:agree:
And this is one of the reasons I run oil with Zinc in it.
Reminds me of the 80's when all the Chevy small block's had cam & lifter failure's. :pop:
I remember the 305 Chevy issues well, we replaced them to the tune of 5 or 6 a month, for about 5 years, and GM was footing the bill. Their failure wasn't oil related, it was improper heat treat.
Yup, always the #2 Ex lobe on them Chevy's,
Quote from: Durwood on March 28, 2014, 11:10:52 AM
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: 06roadglide on March 28, 2014, 09:40:39 AM
Quote from: BUBBIE on March 28, 2014, 07:47:05 AM
I agree Joe.
The oil for EPA requirements has a lot of anti-wear additives taken out and That Might be the problem here with the Frosting on cams and rollers...
signed....BUBBIE
:agree:
And this is one of the reasons I run oil with Zinc in it.
Reminds me of the 80's when all the Chevy small block's had cam & lifter failure's. :pop:
I remember the 305 Chevy issues well, we replaced them to the tune of 5 or 6 a month, for about 5 years, and GM was footing the bill. Their failure wasn't oil related, it was improper heat treat.
Yup, always the #2 Ex lobe on them Chevy's,
No doubt you saw a lot of that action too! :wink:
Taking 2 sets of Gatorman's to work tonight. Both are used with about 3500 miles.
I'll check them like Joe has and report tomorrow.
Quote from: mike jesse on March 28, 2014, 01:32:54 PM
Taking 2 sets of Gatorman's to work tonight. Both are used with about 3500 miles.
I'll check them like Joe has and report tomorrow.
:up: :pop:
I'm not getting how excessive radial play can result in roller OD failure. I would think the failure would be in the inner element/race area. Maybe a separate problem from the roller OD? :scratch: Unless there is "lift"-off..
But what do I know..
I think excessive roller and bearing clearance would cause the roller to slide across the lobe, rather than roll and follow it. Maybe has more friction with excessive clearance?
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
I think excessive roller and bearing clearance would cause the roller to slide across the lobe, rather than roll and follow it. Maybe has more friction with excessive clearance?
Sorry, I've not experienced more friction from sloppy clearances. This applies to lifters too. :hyst:
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on March 28, 2014, 04:57:58 PM
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
I think excessive roller and bearing clearance would cause the roller to slide across the lobe, rather than roll and follow it. Maybe has more friction with excessive clearance?
Sorry, I've not experienced more friction from sloppy clearances. This applies to lifters too. :hyst:
Ron
Gee Ron, sorry to hear that... I always have very tight clearances.... :potstir:
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 28, 2014, 04:57:58 PM
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
I think excessive roller and bearing clearance would cause the roller to slide across the lobe, rather than roll and follow it. Maybe has more friction with excessive clearance?
Sorry, I've not experienced more friction from sloppy clearances. This applies to lifters too. :hyst:
Ron
Gee Ron, sorry to hear that... I always have very tight clearances.... :potstir:
Not what she said.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on March 28, 2014, 05:20:42 PM
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: rbabos on March 28, 2014, 04:57:58 PM
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
I think excessive roller and bearing clearance would cause the roller to slide across the lobe, rather than roll and follow it. Maybe has more friction with excessive clearance?
Sorry, I've not experienced more friction from sloppy clearances. This applies to lifters too. :hyst:
Ron
Gee Ron, sorry to hear that... I always have very tight clearances.... :potstir:
Not what she said.
Ron
You know Bertha lies! She does! :dgust:
I don't want this to turn this into an oil thread...but my take (for what ever it's worth) on the lifter rollers frosting is that the oil needs Zinc in it.
I ran the Amsoil Dominator synthetic SAE 60wt (which has a good amount of Zinc in it) in my 124 last summer with a new set of Gaterman 1023's in it since I first built it and fired it up. My lifter rollers...the last time I looked...still looked brand new and showed no signs of any kind of frosting or wear.
It might go back to the hardening process the manufactures put their rollers thru...and not the proper additives (like Zinc) in a lot of oils that are advertised as motorcycle oils.
OK...back to the regular scheduled programming. :hug:
Quote from: No Cents on March 28, 2014, 05:34:00 PM
I don't want this to turn this into an oil thread...but my take (for what ever it's worth) on the lifter rollers frosting is that the oil needs Zinc in it.
I ran the Amsoil Dominator synthetic SAE 60wt (which has a good amount of Zinc in it) in my 124 last summer with a new set of Gaterman 1023's in it since I first built it and fired it up. My lifter rollers...the last time I looked...still looked brand new and showed no signs of any kind of frosting or wear.
It might go back to the hardening process the manufactures put their rollers thru...and not the proper additives (like Zinc) in a lot of oils that are advertised as motorcycle oils.
OK...back to the regular scheduled programming. :hug:
Too much zinc can cause the same effect as in increasing wear. Theres a limit between saving and creating destruction, not that we are close to that with our oil choices . The way I see it, the oils most of us use that are MC rated are safe for flat tappets so shouldn't be a problem for rollers. One thing they are not forgiving of is debri. Where a flat tappet will scrape a particle away in it's path usually , the roller will try to drive over it, possibly pitting the surface. Over time with this repeated action the surface takes a dump then the process starts feeding itself from the metal coming off the contact areas. If oil was to blame, it would have to be the level of contamination within it, as I see it.
Ron
If you want to get back to cause and effect. What's wrong with the gaterman lifters? Oil? Come on. :sheep:
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 28, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
I think excessive roller and bearing clearance would cause the roller to slide across the lobe, rather than roll and follow it. Maybe has more friction with excessive clearance?
Too Loose:
How about; it IS "Hammering" when starting out with too much clearance and then "Pounding" and Failure ... That is the light tapping then gets Louder as it gets looser... :fish:
signed....BUBBIE
Hammering...Pounding...tapping...Louder, you left out faster...yeah it gets looser after all that, normally right after louder.
13 pages and 300+ replies, has anybody communicated with a cam/lifter manufacturer/company for answers? Or other industry types that would know. Rick
My possible thought with the excess clearance is that mabie the rollers are possibly able to try to cock and angle a bit and stop the roller for just brief bit. Or it could just be from some crappy hardening.
Joe, What does the MOCO say, do they still have regional service reps? Rick
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 28, 2014, 08:02:59 PM
My possible thought with the excess clearance is that mabie the rollers are possibly able to try to cock and angle a bit and stop the roller for just brief bit. Or it could just be from some crappy hardening.
they are still hard . i tested them ( SE lifters ) . and the cams (SE comp cams)
its the crappy metal. like I said before all metal prices are high. everyone is forced to make changes,to offset the bottom line.
Rick
when I talked to the head of SE engineering about my lifters.....he said they were aware of the problem.
did he want two of my lifters free of charge ,and not expecting anything in return? ....No thats OK thanks
So do you think that the last of the 99B lifter rollers we're going to crap metal? I want unobtanium lifters and cams.
Ohh ya FSG I installed VT-850 lifters in the CVO today and came up with .002" and .003". The gasket takes up the play when its torqued down.
QuoteSo do you think that the last of the 99B lifter rollers we're going to crap metal? I want unobtanium lifters and cams.
good question . :nix:
I have seen B'S and C'S in the same stock motor :scratch:
As promised.......
For the heck of it I also checked the B's that the RG came from the factory with.
All 4 lifters had .0005 in. of movement using Joe's set up. 3 were frosted.
The Gatorman's I checked had from .0007 to .0014 in. of movement.
That's 2 sets with about 3500-4000 miles each. The rollers looked pristine
with no frosting or marks of any kind. Amsoil or VR 1.
Bottom line for me is to take the stock lifters out of a new bike at the first service, or with the first cam swap.
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 28, 2014, 08:32:24 PM
So do you think that the last of the 99B lifter rollers we're going to crap metal? I want unobtanium lifters and cams.
Ohh ya FSG I installed VT-850 lifters in the CVO today and came up with .002" and .003". The gasket takes up the play when its torqued down.
Joe I have the Comp 850-1's installed and after reading all 13 pages of this debate I feel pretty good about the choice now but as you and I spoke of I too think that some oils that have less ZDDP could help in the frosting of the rollers. I always used Amsoil but after looking at my lifters at 27,000 miles and did a little digging into oils and ZDDP the Mobil 1 V-Twin has 1700 ppm compared to 1400 ppm in Amsoil. Redline and JGR have more than either but a lot harder to find. Again not trying to start a oil debate but no doubt the ZDDP does have or I should say imo it would have somewhat of a effect on the wear of the rollers over a period of time. This is why you have to use a cam break-in oil for a flat tappet cam now or it will end up like Fast & Loud bunch, took the cam out in 20 mins due to oil not having enough ZDDP added.
By the way, who actually makes the lifters for Comp Cams, do they produce there own?
Thank you for measuring those lifters.
lots of info.
I add zddp to my assembly oil when putting together an engine.
As mentioned earlier by (search) a straight edge across the pin will rock slightly.
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1406)
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1398)
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1401)
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1402)
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1403)
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1404)
(http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/MGalleryItem.php?id=1405)
What is the clearance after you put the cover on and torque it down?
I checked four 99b lifters that had frosting on the rollers and they were all at .0005" I agree with Jim I think its just a crappy metal/ dissimilar metal problem. But the extra roller clearance can't be helping at all.
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 30, 2014, 07:34:50 AM
What is the clearance after you put the cover on and torque it down?
It's all mock up for pix, I'll finish it off today and measure before and after.
Here's the front -99B Lifters that I took out, they have around 40Kmi on them, Mobil 1 V-Twin 20W-50 from the first service. Cams (Andrews 26G) show slight markings but nothing of concern, same with the lifters, which I'd easily put back in.
(http://i.imgur.com/xrokuSS.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/iVI1lTf.png)
Quote from: FSG on March 30, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on March 30, 2014, 07:34:50 AM
What is the clearance after you put the cover on and torque it down?
It's all mock up for pix, I'll finish it off today and measure before and after.
OK, fitted some GP1023 and SB PRs.
Before the cover went on a .06mm (.0023") feeler gauge fits between the pin and the boss whereas a .07mm (.0027") would not.
The gap closed up a touch once the cover and gasket went on, a .05mm (.0019") feeler gauge fits easy while there is drag on a .06mm feeler.
Past the point of shimming.
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
How's the rollers look?
Ron
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
You remember the fix
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j163/bfreeman55/IMG_1826.jpg) (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/bfreeman55/media/IMG_1826.jpg.html)
Quote from: Billy on March 31, 2014, 10:18:37 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
You remember the fix
snip
Billy
No, He didn't I had to remind him that you had done one.. How many miles on the fix?
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.msg139211.html#msg139211 (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.msg139211.html#msg139211)
Max
It's been running strong for about 8,000, and (slowly) counting.
Quote from: Billy on March 31, 2014, 10:49:39 AM
It's been running strong for about 8,000, and (slowly) counting.
Thanks for the update..
Max
Quote from: Billy on March 31, 2014, 10:18:37 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
You remember the fix
(http://s80.photobucket.com/user/bfreeman55/media/IMG_1826.jpg.html)
Very nice repair work..
I noticed your comment in reply# 22 from the repair thread... looks like more than just Timken Bearings have changed since 2002 model year. http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.0.html (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.0.html)
"
Quote from: Billy on July 19, 2009, 07:43:08 PM
Poorboy, I don't know what the clearance spec is suppose to be between the flat of the lifter and the anti-rotation pin but I mocked up the front lifters in their bores (undamaged side on this case) and I could get .003 feeler gauges between both lifters and the pin at the same time, I set up the rear lifters the same at .003 and you could turn the lifters a little, I'm hoping it's OK. Makes sense for it to have clearance there.
"
2013's within this thread are .008
Quote from: q1svt on March 31, 2014, 11:03:12 AM
Quote from: Billy on March 31, 2014, 10:18:37 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
You remember the fix
(http://s80.photobucket.com/user/bfreeman55/media/IMG_1826.jpg.html)
Very nice repair work..
I noticed your comment in reply# 22 from the repair thread... looks like more than just Timken Bearings have changed since 2002 model year. http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.0.html (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.0.html)
"Quote from: Billy on July 19, 2009, 07:43:08 PM
Poorboy, I don't know what the clearance spec is suppose to be between the flat of the lifter and the anti-rotation pin but I mocked up the front lifters in their bores (undamaged side on this case) and I could get .003 feeler gauges between both lifters and the pin at the same time, I set up the rear lifters the same at .003 and you could turn the lifters a little, I'm hoping it's OK. Makes sense for it to have clearance there.
"
2013's within this thread are .008
Thanks.
With the gauge pins, we can easily bring the clearance to a more warm and fuzzy .003. Don't know if it will help from frosting the lifters or not though...
Billy, has the lifter bore been bushed as well? Looks that way from the pic.
Neat trick to save a case BTW.
Quote from: mike jesse on March 31, 2014, 12:10:02 PM
Billy, has the lifter bore been bushed as well? Looks that way from the pic.
Neat trick to save a case BTW.
Yeah, I sleeved it. Lifter was turned about 90°, made a mess. Max posted a link to the thread, here it is again.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.msg139211.html#msg139211 (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,13823.msg139211.html#msg139211)
Quote from: rbabos on March 31, 2014, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
How's the rollers look?
Ron
Yep, 120,000 on the engine. When the failure took place I can't say, I just noticed it this morning. There has never been a problem with lifters, but I will examine them closely and let you know.
Quote from: Billy on March 31, 2014, 10:18:37 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
You remember the fix
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j163/bfreeman55/IMG_1826.jpg) (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/bfreeman55/media/IMG_1826.jpg.html)
I was considering pins, fasteners, and other options as well as replacing the case. I would like to restore it to the original line contact for the AR Pin, but if point contact is working it may be a simpler solution. The wheels are turning. :scratch:
Thanks for the link.
I posted in that thread, must have been where I got the pin idea from.
Quote from: rbabos on March 31, 2014, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
How's the rollers look?
Ron
Rollers were fine, only 8,000 - 10,000 on them, this engine has never shown abnormal wear patters on the cam lobes or lifters.
Quote from: PanHeadRed on April 01, 2014, 03:26:38 AM
Quote from: rbabos on March 31, 2014, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
How's the rollers look?
Ron
Rollers were fine, only 8,000 - 10,000 on them, this engine has never shown abnormal wear patters on the cam lobes or lifters.
So the motor has 120,000 miles , but the lifter bore just went out of round in the last 8000-10,000 miles ? :scratch:
Kinda blows the sloppy anti rotation pin theory out of the water .
The lifter bore is not out of round, there is a crack at the base of the AR Pin boss adjacent to the front intake hole. I am assuming the lifter was oscillating and tapping on the pin. When the crack occurred I have no idea, I noticed it for the 1st time yesterday AM.
Quote from: PanHeadRed on April 01, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
The lifter bore is not out of round, there is a crack at the base of the AR Pin boss adjacent to the front intake hole. I am assuming the lifter was oscillating and tapping on the pin. When the crack occurred I have no idea, I noticed it for the 1st time yesterday AM.
Ahh ... :up:
Quote from: PanHeadRed on April 01, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
The lifter bore is not out of round, there is a crack at the base of the AR Pin boss adjacent to the front intake hole. I am assuming the lifter was oscillating and tapping on the pin. When the crack occurred I have no idea, I noticed it for the 1st time yesterday AM.
Think for that to happen the pin clearance was too tight in relation to the lifter bore clearance. Continual lifter rocking on the cams down ramp likely cracked it. This is where pin clearance should be measured for minimum. When the lifter is opening the valve it cocks to a most most clearance condition. Sitting there static is not a true reading for actual operating clearances.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on April 01, 2014, 06:13:28 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on April 01, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
The lifter bore is not out of round, there is a crack at the base of the AR Pin boss adjacent to the front intake hole. I am assuming the lifter was oscillating and tapping on the pin. When the crack occurred I have no idea, I noticed it for the 1st time yesterday AM.
Think for that to happen the pin clearance was too tight in relation to the lifter bore clearance. Continual lifter rocking on the cams down ramp likely cracked it. This is where pin clearance should be measured for minimum. When the lifter is opening the valve it cocks to a most most clearance condition. Sitting there static is not a true reading for actual operating clearances.
Ron
I would think is was the opposite.. The pin was a little loose.. You can see a grove where the pin sets also.. The pin was able to float around. There may be something wrong with the tappet cover.. May bent slightly from using the 99 fiber gasket and not flat on the bottom? Anyway after 120K (or part) of tapping, the block cracked..
Another possibility would be that the flat, on the a lifter that was installed in that hole, was not machined far enough down the side of the lifter.. When the lifter moved up it jammed the pin up against the block in the case..
Max
Quote from: Max Headflow on April 01, 2014, 08:05:42 AM
Quote from: rbabos on April 01, 2014, 06:13:28 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on April 01, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
The lifter bore is not out of round, there is a crack at the base of the AR Pin boss adjacent to the front intake hole. I am assuming the lifter was oscillating and tapping on the pin. When the crack occurred I have no idea, I noticed it for the 1st time yesterday AM.
Think for that to happen the pin clearance was too tight in relation to the lifter bore clearance. Continual lifter rocking on the cams down ramp likely cracked it. This is where pin clearance should be measured for minimum. When the lifter is opening the valve it cocks to a most most clearance condition. Sitting there static is not a true reading for actual operating clearances.
Ron
I would think is was the opposite.. The pin was a little loose.. You can see a grove where the pin sets also.. The pin was able to float around. There may be something wrong with the tappet cover.. May bent slightly from using the 99 fiber gasket and not flat on the bottom? Anyway after 120K (or part) of tapping, the block cracked..
Another possibility would be that the flat, on the a lifter that was installed in that hole, was not machined far enough down the side of the lifter.. When the lifter moved up it jammed the pin up against the block in the case..
Max
Possibly on the lifter flat theory. The pin did pound a nice dent into the guide over time though, until it got tired and cracked. Plain old floating clearances won't do that. Don't think if it was a loose pin it would have enough inertia to pound with enough force to cause that. :scratch: Gasket finger would dampen it also from chatter.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on April 01, 2014, 08:20:47 AM
Possibly on the lifter flat theory. The pin did pound a nice dent into the guide over time though, until it got tired and cracked. Plain old floating clearances won't do that. Don't think if it was a loose pin it would have enough inertia to pound with enough force to cause that. :scratch: Gasket finger would dampen it also from chatter.
Ron
An incorrect lifter flat would explain why the cover is not flat and the boss cracked. The groove in the lower part of the case was made from play alone..
Loose to start? Cut at the base is sharp and case cast. Casting flaw with loose pin.. Possible.
Max
:nix: :scratch:
Wondered IF my 1023 gaterman lifters were ALL checked for Looseness of the roller and bearing OR just sampled along the way ? IF that... :missed:
So far; gaterman checked at .000? and another at .001?... Hoping mine are the Tight ones...
Next time apart I'd check mine like Joe did but will not tear into it while it is seeming Good for now just to check.
signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
What cams, lifters and springs are in this engine?
A lot of speculation about sloppy pins but has anyone made sure that the cams aren't lifting the lifters too high and forcing the pin against the case. Or how about to soft of spring pressure and the lifter ramps up off the lobe at highest lift and the lifter bounces into the AR pin.
Just doesn't seem likely to me that little bit of clearance in the AR pins can allow the lifter to rotate ENOUGH to cause any problems.
IMO
"Or how about to soft of spring pressure and the lifter ramps up off the lobe at highest lift and the lifter bounces into the AR pin."
Could be a valid concern. :up:
Pulled another set of these Gaterman's out last week. Under 20,000 miles, stock 96" with cam only. 3 of the 4 looked pretty good, but the front exhaust roller was glazed and took the finish off the tip of the cam lobe also.
Guy replaced with a 222 Wood cam and S&S premiums.
Front exhaust will put em to the test .
Wonder how much a crappy tune done too rich will have an effect on oil dilution and subsequent lifter failures?
Ron
Quote from: strokerjlk on April 23, 2014, 06:40:24 AM
Front exhaust will put em to the test .
Yes, not really the front exhaust in itself but the drive and cam ramp loadings effects on this lifter during the front exhaust events.
Ron
Could it be the Gas and Contaminates in the oil Helping to Eat the finish off the cams and rollers... Starting on the hardest driven one, the front exhaust?
That was my BAD one. It showed the No Shine lobe and roller. :idunno:
signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: BUBBIE on April 23, 2014, 07:45:18 AM
Could it be the Gas and Contaminates in the oil that Eats the finish off the cams and rollers... Starting on the hardest driven one, the front exhaust?
That was my BAD one. It showed the No Shine lobe and roller. :idunno:
signed....BUBBIE
Gas itself won't eat anything but thins the oil. Front exhaust might show the issue sooner.
Ron
OK Guys,
We are pulling our original Gatermans this week, I've got a set of the new style soaking
in oil getting ready for the install. When we put our Gatermans back in this was the set
that made noise and I found a piece of metal in one of them, we took them down and
cleaned and inspected the whole set and installed them.
At this time we were chasing the tick again, talking to Baisley's he mentioned the anti rotation
pin clearance and we ordered a couple sets in the different size after seeing how much our
lifters were rotating. We had to use Front .0025 Rear .003 to bring them into Zippers spec.
So we have right at 8000 miles on these and again we are chasing the tick pulling the front
rocker arm cover and see if we are hitting on that exhaust side.
So what pictures and measurements do you guys want to see here??? I'll try to take the measurements
before and after the lifter covers are removed.
A question for the guys that have seen the front exhaust lifter failing.
Were they on gear driven cams?
Wondering if reverse rotation of the front cam is causing anything with some cams profiles?
Quote from: 06roadglide on April 23, 2014, 01:22:18 PM
A question for the guys that have seen the front exhaust lifter failing.
Were they on gear driven cams?
Wondering if reverse rotation of the front cam is causing anything with some cams profiles?
:scratch:
Gear drive cams,,, the front cam rotates the same direction as chain...
Max
Quote from: Max Headflow on April 23, 2014, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: 06roadglide on April 23, 2014, 01:22:18 PM
A question for the guys that have seen the front exhaust lifter failing.
Were they on gear driven cams?
Wondering if reverse rotation of the front cam is causing anything with some cams profiles?
:scratch:
Gear drive cams,,, the front cam rotates the same direction as chain...
Max
Doh! You are correct.
So, you're saying 65,000 high rpm miles on my lifters with a 55 cam is too much?
Quote from: Thumper Buttercup on April 23, 2014, 12:35:32 PM
OK Guys,
We are pulling our original Gatermans this week, I've got a set of the new style soaking
in oil getting ready for the install. When we put our Gatermans back in this was the set
that made noise and I found a piece of metal in one of them, we took them down and
cleaned and inspected the whole set and installed them.
At this time we were chasing the tick again, talking to Baisley's he mentioned the anti rotation
pin clearance and we ordered a couple sets in the different size after seeing how much our
lifters were rotating. We had to use Front .0025 Rear .003 to bring them into Zippers spec.
So we have right at 8000 miles on these and again we are chasing the tick pulling the front
rocker arm cover and see if we are hitting on that exhaust side.
So what pictures and measurements do you guys want to see here??? I'll try to take the measurements
before and after the lifter covers are removed.
Using tapered pushrods?
Hey Joe,
Yep using SE tapered, we pulled the front rocker arm cover and inspected clearances
everything looked good, as I had the front push rods out and was installing them I reached
up and grabbed the front exhaust rocker arm, there was a catch in it. I had just read
about Coyotes post on his tick and thought the parts were new 8000 miles ago but just
thought to reach up and grab it while the push rods were out.
This rocker arm and rod was replaced 8000 miles ago with the lifters and new push rods.
The rocker arm developed a bur where the seam is in the rocker arm, this was on the
pressure side near the exhaust valve. I dressed out the support plate was not much
there and filed and dressed out the rocker arm very smooth now.
Here is what the front lifters looked like, also a shot of the Zippers Anti Rotation
Pin, there were no marks on the Pin except where the gasket pressed on it, there
is no marks at all from the lifter.
One thing that concerns us in the marks on the bottom portion of the lifters, the rollers
are fine no wear or marks, the lifter bore on the crankcase is perfect and no marks
in it or anything you can feel.
There are no marks on the cams either.
The new Gatermans are so tight that it had to be perfectly aligned to get it in, the
fit to me is a lot better than the old ones. There is no play at all with the new lifters
and how they fit into the crankcase.
(http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx132/Thumper2010/2014%20Bike%20Work/antirotate_zps2fef9001.jpg)
(http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx132/Thumper2010/2014%20Bike%20Work/lifter2_zpsaa486aeb.jpg)
(http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx132/Thumper2010/2014%20Bike%20Work/lifter1_zps2ddfc95a.jpg)
The B lifters (25,000mi on 'em) I pulled from my motor last year have marks in the same location as above (Thumpers) on all but the front exhaust. They are not as pronounced as the ones above, very fine lines, lifter bores looked good also, and the rollers look almost new.
Don't see too much unusual there. Fairly typical of a lifter on the thrust side where the aluminum traps some fine debri into the surface and shows up as marks on the soft steel body.
Ran Black Opps once and this was the first area for the oxide to show wear also, other then the roller itself.
Ron
That Pin had a clearance of .003 on one lifter and .004 on the other, there were
no marks on the pin that the lifter had ever made contact either. I put the new
Gatermans in and the clearance checked out the same as the old Gatermans.
OK, I'll weigh in now that I've changed the Gaterman lifters, and installed a set of HD 'B' lifters. The Gaterman have just under 10,000 miles. Last year around 7,500 miles the motor started getting a ticking from the front exhaust lifter when the motor was cold. It would mostly go away when warm. Eventually it would still tick when warm, just not as bad as when cold. There was another noise that I wasn't even aware of until I had put the 'B's in this weekend. I immediately noticed that the motor was almost silent when going down the road. Prior to the lifter change, there was always a mechanical sound at cruise, I assumed it was the roller rockers, guess it wasn't.
I suspect this mechanical noise was the lifter body to anti rotation pin clearances. When I measured the Gaterman to pins I was getting anywhere from 0.010" to 0.011". The 'B's measure 0.005" to 0.006". I used a feeler gauge to check these clearances. As well, both pins have marks in them from the lifter body rotation back and forth. The indents in the pins match the lifter body flats exactly. There was also a wear mark starting on the roller of the front intake lifter, as well there is a matching mark on the front intake cam lobe. Very light, barely noticeable on the cam.
So new 'B' lifters, new standard size anti rotation pins, replaced SE push rods with Smith Bros push rods. Motor no longer has a cold start tick. As I stated above I notice at cruise the motor is silent. When the motor is very warm, heat soaked from several hours of riding, both sets of lifters Gaterman and the 'B's exhibited a little mechanical noise at the cam chest. With the 'B's it's a little less. I attribute this to the clearances all expanded when heat soaked, and I think the Fueling 594 cams have some aggressive lobes. Nothing like a Wood cam or Leineweber, but far from stock, and I think more aggressive than most.
All in all the 'B's are quieter, but then they are new, and the Gaterman had almost 10,000 miles.
[attach=0]
[attach=1]
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
[attach=0]
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
[attach=0]
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
I'm also stocked up to replace them if needed, I have several compete sets (5 sets) and have several sets with one or two missing as well. :teeth:
[attach=0]
[attachment removed after 60 days by system]
So was it the lifter change or the pushrods? :scratch:
Max
Max, the cold tapping I'm sure was the lifter(s) as it wasn't there when I installed the motor, and it got a little worse over time. The mechanical noise at cruise that was always there, may have been the push rods, or may have been the excessive clearance between the lifters and anti rotation pins, or both. Either way, it sounds much better now.
I know I'll probably get hammered for this but after dealing with noise myself at times and talking to several riders I think some of our issues is the weight of oil we now run and the make up of it as well. I'm trying some straight 50wt VR1 racing oil that has some zinc in it to see what happens. The Syn oils of today get thin as water when heated plus again they have less zinc than before which in turn I'm thinking can cause some of the lifter wear we've seen. I'm not trying to start a oil thread at all but several of the bad lifters have been running Amsoil, suppose to be the best on the market, heck I ran it in my 2010 and my lifters were frosted as well.
If you read HD manual it states that 60 degree and above a straight 50wt oil can be used so why do we run a 20w-50 instead of 50wt ? I'll see how it does as far as sound and I've never had one but may spring for a oil heat gauge to see where the temp runs also.
:up:
thanks for posting up the pic's Brian.
It's looks like the lifters were definately rocking back and forth and banging on the pin fairly hard to make those kind of deep marks.
I will be checking for pin to lifter clearance from now on. I didn't realize that there was such a clearance issue with the lifters to the pins...until this thread.
That has to be causing some noise in the valve train.
Did the other 3 Gaterman's look all right...I'm assuming the one you have in your hand was the front exhaust lifter?
No actually the lifter that showed roller wear was the front intake. The other three there was not any wear like this.
I may also order set of 0.002" over size pins for the next time I may be in there. I really think there may have been a relation to the slight mechanical noise I would hear at cruise speeds. Possibly the sound traveled up the push rods?
what did the Gaterman lifter flats look like that made those marks in the roll pins? I would have thought the pin would have been a harder metal than the lifter body...but apparently not with the marks you showed us on the pins.
The .005 difference in between the clearance on the B's to the Gaterman's is a bunch...almost unacceptable if you think about it.
Apparently the Gaterman lifter needs a wider body at the flat to take up some of this clearance gap. With that kind of clearance...the lifter has to be moving (twisting/ rocking) back and forth in it's bore against the pin with it's flats ..which in turn is letting the roller not stay truly inline on the cam lobe.
I wonder if Gaterman is aware of this kind of difference in the lifter flat to the pin clearance that you have witnessed Brian? :scratch:
It would be interesting if someone called Bill Gaterman and let him know of your findings and see what he has to say.
Brian, what is the diameter of that marked up AR pin?
QuoteThe .0005- .0006 difference in between the clearance on the B's to the Gaterman's is a bunch...almost unacceptable if you think about it.
:scratch:
:bf:
I got carried away with the zero's :hyst:
I meant to say .005 difference between the two set of lifters.
I'll go back and edit it FSG...I should learn to proof read before I post. :doh:
Quote from: FSG on May 12, 2014, 03:11:25 PM
Brian, what is the diameter of that marked up AR pin?
QuoteThe .0005- .0006 difference in between the clearance on the B's to the Gaterman's is a bunch...almost unacceptable if you think about it.
:scratch:
Gary they both measured right at 0.250" with a digital caliper. What this measurement doesn't take in account is any variation in lifter bore size or location of that bore from the retaining boss the pin sets against. But the marks in the pins definitely shows too much clearance. I think that all lifters are going to have some tendency to rotate. But allowing too much clearance, I think the lifters get a rocking motion going on, and will start the pins wearing. Also could account for wear patterns on rollers and cam lobes.
QuoteWhat this measurement doesn't take in account is any variation in lifter bore size or location of that bore from the retaining boss the pin sets against.
And it looks to me at least that the 96" cases and later have a greater bore to boss offset than the early cases.
QuoteI think the lifters get a rocking motion going on
All lifter rollers are crowned and self centring or at least should be and a lot will depend on the diameter of that crown.
now I have to pull my p/rods out and the lifter blocks off to see where my Gaterman's clearance at.
This has me a little concerned now. :banghead:
Quote from: FSG on May 12, 2014, 04:02:14 PM
QuoteI think the lifters get a rocking motion going on
All lifter rollers are crowned and self centring or at least should be and a lot will depend on the diameter of that crown.
Yes, I know they should run true as designed. :up:
There are just so many angular and dimensional tolerances that can stack up in the cases, the cams, the lifters, it's really amazing things run as well as they do. And when we run these harder than designed at that.
I just pulled a set of C's this past weekend, 2012 103 with 6900 miles, both front and rear measured .008, however the rear's were frosted and the fronts still looked new...FWIW
What was the clearance before you took the tappet cover off?
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on May 13, 2014, 03:55:22 PM
What was the clearance before you took the tappet cover off?
so...I guess what we are ideally shooting for here is .002- .003 between the lifter flat and the pin with the tappet cover in place?
Quote from: joe_lyons50023 on May 13, 2014, 03:55:22 PM
What was the clearance before you took the tappet cover off?
Didn't measure it prior to removal.
I think that you would be surprised what the clearance is with the gasket pushing on the pins. And then the gasket provides a cushion i needed.
Quote from: No Cents on May 13, 2014, 06:01:13 PM
so...I guess what we are ideally shooting for here is .002- .003 between the lifter flat and the pin with the tappet cover in place?
Zippers Performance write up indicated the ideal is .002-.004 measured this way...
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
I'm assuming that the Zipper's method of checking the clearance in between the pin and the casting...in the center is the correct way to check :nix:
I see Brian checked his between the lifter flat and the pin...I'm guessing the same measurement would still be gotten.
Would it even be possible to do the Zipper's method measuring between the casting and the pin with the lifter block torqued down?
Quote from: No Cents on May 14, 2014, 06:22:33 AM
I'm assuming that the Zipper's method of checking the clearance in between the pin and the casting...in the center is the correct way to check :nix:
I see Brian checked his between the lifter flat and the pin...I'm guessing the same measurement would still be gotten.
Would it even be possible to do the Zipper's method measuring between the casting and the pin with the lifter block torqued down?
Believe I was the one that started the whole AR clearance discussion after a lot of researching for blue printing specifications , and Zippers is the only company that produced a procedure that anyone has found... Others and I have heard from Baisley Performance, that they too use the Zippers AR procedure. Two highly respected companies, the rest of the comments appear to be based on :nix: :scratch:
jm2c
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
(http://i.imgur.com/nGw1Lkd.png)
So PHR where are you with repairing this?
I stopped by my bearing shop today with a stock AR Pin in hand, I was looking for alternatives to Gauge Pins. Old Bill (20 yrs my senior, I'm 61) says to me "Gary my boy, what you have there is a common as duck chit, 1/4" x 1-3/4" Dowel Pin, about A$2/each".
I mentioned to him what I was doing and asked about gauge pins, to which he replied, "forget gauge pins, yes you can get the diameter but they will be special order to get the length or your going to pay dearly for someone to cut them to length. Stock dowel pins are in 1/16" increments, so get a 5/16" pin and rip 2 or 3 sides until you have the dimensions you want."
Below is a pic of just ripping 2 sides, 1/16" off the top brings it down to .250" while the right side brings it in to .256". It could go in flat side up or flat side down, but then perhaps 1/32" of the top and bottom might be better.
I think I'll rip a couple of each just for the hell of it.
(http://i.imgur.com/RbEuna7.png)
:up: :pop:
QuoteI stopped by my bearing shop today with a stock AR Pin in hand, I was looking for alternatives to Gauge Pins. Old Bill (20 yrs my senior, I'm 61) says to me "Gary my boy, what you have there is a common as duck chit, 1/4" x 1-3/4" Dowel Pin, about A$2/each".
I mentioned to him what I was doing and asked about gauge pins, to which he replied, "forget gauge pins, yes you can get the diameter but they will be special order to get the length or your going to pay dearly for someone to cut them to length. Stock dowel pins are in 1/16" increments, so get a 5/16" pin and rip 2 or 3 sides until you have the dimensions you want."
:scratch: You can cut gauge pins to length with a cut off wheel, then dress the cut end with a bench grinder.
Quote from: FSG on May 16, 2014, 01:21:35 AM
I stopped by my bearing shop today with a stock AR Pin in hand, I was looking for alternatives to Gauge Pins. Old Bill (20 yrs my senior, I'm 61) says to me "Gary my boy, what you have there is a common as duck chit, 1/4" x 1-3/4" Dowel Pin, about A$2/each".
I mentioned to him what I was doing and asked about gauge pins, to which he replied, "forget gauge pins, yes you can get the diameter but they will be special order to get the length or your going to pay dearly for someone to cut them to length. Stock dowel pins are in 1/16" increments, so get a 5/16" pin and rip 2 or 3 sides until you have the dimensions you want."
Below is a pic of just ripping 2 sides, 1/16" off the top brings it down to .250" while the right side brings it in to .256". It could go in flat side up or flat side down, but then perhaps 1/32" of the top and bottom might be better.
I think I'll rip a couple of each just for the hell of it.
(http://i.imgur.com/RbEuna7.png)
I like it.. I would so the one on the right but both would probably work.. It brings up the question.. Why not use a square / rectangular piece??. It would increase the surface area that the lifter runs against.. IIRC some of these lifters are used with a die stamped anti rotation plate..
Max
Quote from: FSG on May 16, 2014, 12:29:35 AM
Quote from: PanHeadRed on March 31, 2014, 07:59:23 AM
Past the point of shimming.
(http://i.imgur.com/nGw1Lkd.png)
So PHR where are you with repairing this?
It's fixed.. Motor has been back running for a while.. The crack didn't start life as a crack. It was part of a casting flaw.. Red routed a rectangular section that was big enough to take a block then dropped a press fit aluminum block in..
I'll see if I can get him to post the pics.
Max
QuoteIt brings up the question.. Why not use a square / rectangular piece??. It would increase the surface area that the lifter runs against.. IIRC some of these lifters are used with a die stamped anti rotation plate..
perhaps price, stock off the shelf 1/4" dowel pins would be next to nothing in the qtys HD would buy
But I could go a rectangular one though, it's not a wear surface, just there to stop the rotation, if any, but I'k knock the corners off.
(http://i.imgur.com/JJ55gLc.png)
If you used a rectangular spacer as AR devices, betters be sure it's 90 degrees to the lifter wear surface. Otherwise the corners will probably start to wear faster than the flush surface would.
Quote from: FSG on May 17, 2014, 02:53:43 PM
QuoteIt brings up the question.. Why not use a square / rectangular piece??. It would increase the surface area that the lifter runs against.. IIRC some of these lifters are used with a die stamped anti rotation plate..
perhaps price, stock off the shelf 1/4" dowel pins would be next to nothing in the qtys HD would buy
But I could go a rectangular one though, it's not a wear surface, just there to stop the rotation, if any, but I'k knock the corners off.
(http://i.imgur.com/JJ55gLc.png)
I like it but I'd chamfer all the edges.. That way you can use any side..
Max
:up: a machinist would probably say it's just as easy to fully radius both corners as is knock two corners off.
Which gets us back to this shape, but starting with rectangular stock rather than round.
(http://i.imgur.com/QAgoez5.png)
QuoteI like it but I'd chamfer all the edges.. That way you can use any side..
I'm thinking it to be wider than high so it's only go in one way.
Keyway stock is another option, hell if they can make knife blades out of the stuff, surely I can use it for AR pins. :teeth:
shirley :smilep:
My 2013 Street Glide with a 120r just turned 10,000 miles, valve train/lifters were noisy from day one, dealer kept saying "it's normal, they all make that noise. So last Saturday I replaced the stock lifters (they were C's and in perfect shape), there was .006 between the lifters and anti rotation pin, I installed Gaterman's, +.002 Zippers AR pins, and SE tappered adjustable push rods. I'm very happy, not as quiet as a stock 103, but pretty close. And I don't know if it's just in my head, but I think it runs better.
Don't the 120r motors use the 18573-07 SE lifters?
SE120R SCREAMIN' EAGLE PRO RACE-USE CRATE ENGINE
Insts K/Number Date Lifters Oil Pump
J05076 19220-11 8/Sep/10 18538-99B 26037-06 Alpha Engine
J05135 19206-11 25/Aug/10 18538-99B 26037-06 Beta Engine
J05441 19220-12 25/May/11 18573-07 62400001 Alpha Engine
J05483 19289-12 10/Jun/11 18573-07 62400001 Alpha Engine
J05612 19220-13 21/May/12 17900022 62400001 Alpha Engine
They sure look like Cs, I'll post some pictures.
Sorry, my mistake, they are the 17900022
No worries, I was just wondering when they snuck the 'C' lifters in on us.
So many lifter part number changes? I pulled my gatermans out last night, I have about 25k miles on them now, other than a few tiny scratches on the roller no frosting at all, .004 pin clearance, 21g can, Mackie valve springs.
To the op, I missed what valve spring pressures are on that engine? IMHO there was a lack of lubrication to the lobes/rollers.
Quote from: Jaycee1964 on March 17, 2014, 06:26:36 PM
I wouldn't reuse those cams.
Whats wrong here is the lack of ZINC in the oil. This is what the Zinc was in our oil forto help cam and lifter wear, we can thank the EPA for this, Just buy some Lucas Zinc additive and add to your oil changes should take care of this problem
I agree but, is their test data available?
The main reason I had taken the Gaterman lifters out, and put a set of -B's in was because the Gaterman lifters were getting noisy. Here's a video for the sound, that I took in May of this year before taking the Gaterman lifters out. I also had a loud tapper, front exhaust when the motor was cold. It would eventually stop tapping when the motor was hot enough, but there was always a noise associated with the valve train. The 2nd video was yesterday after I got home from a days ride. The -B's are definitely quieter. The Gaterman lifters had about 10,000 miles on them, the -B's have about 4,000 miles.
Gaterman
http://youtu.be/FNhnLE_lQ-M (http://youtu.be/FNhnLE_lQ-M)
-B's
http://youtu.be/KSjpaYKkdHk (http://youtu.be/KSjpaYKkdHk)
Sounds like the motor wasn't completely warmed up on the bottom.. High idle..
Max
It does idle faster than the previous tune.
[attach=0]
As long as it both motors were at the same temps (stabilized), :up: .
Max
I can't vouch for the same temperature for sure Max, but both times they were right off the road. Ambient temperature is a little less this time of the year, a little warmer in May. I do think that with the cams we use, and the spring pressures, lifters are a preventive maintenance item. My '09 Ultra is stone stock, the motor is quieter than the 117, almost silent. I suspect as log as it stays stock, it'll sound that way.
Brian do you have the lifter bore dimensions?
I didn't measure the lifter bores Mark. I just figured that with the consistent noise I had, that they were near done. I guess in 6,000 more miles I can make a fairly even comparison between the two. All in all, the -B's are quieter, even when cruising. But like Max pointed out in a separate post, I also changed the push rods from SE tapered to Smith Bros. That could have some bearing on the cruise noise.
Mine are on the edge of service limit also. I hate to split the cases but will have to to get lifter bores right.
What exactly is the problem with the se tapereds? Deflection-tube bump?
The SE units have a reputation of the jam nuts cracking. Since I had a set of Smith Bros, they went in when I replaced the lifters. I run things entirely to hard to take chances with anything that isn't top shelf in quality.
damn Brian...that 117 sound badass!
I bet you get a lot of compliments on that bike. :up:
Ray
Well im running the tapereds last 6 weeks,but i try not to overtighten jam nuts,thought they corrected that. Does that gaterman noise carry through all rpm?
Quote from: clawdog60 on October 12, 2014, 03:26:54 PM
Well im running the tapereds last 6 weeks,but i try not to overtighten jam nuts,thought they corrected that. Does that gaterman noise carry through all rpm?
Mark, it did, but also got a little quieter with higher RPM. At a cruise in 5th or 6th gear I could here them pretty well. That was one of the things I noticed right away, at cruise the motor was almost silent now. But like Max had said, the push rod change may have been part of that, how the sound transferred through them. :nix:
I know other guys run their motors hard, but I can honestly say that most don't push them as hard, as often as I do. At least that's what I see with guys I know. I'll wear out a part quick.
Quote from: No Cents on October 12, 2014, 12:42:03 PM
damn Brian...that 117 sound badass!
I bet you get a lot of compliments on that bike. :up:
Ray
It's running good Ray. Since my load at work has slowed, I've been working on dialing everything in the last month. The motor is getting happy! :teeth:
My HD SE taper rods have been in the King from short after new ( Sept bought in 09).
I have not had a Nut break on 2 Older SE units in my bikes plus this newer set. (92,000 and in and out 6 to 8 times)
I was just in and re-set the front two, I can say the Lock Nut goes right into the tightness needed and IT stops & locks with out REEFING the nut.
Many Probably Over Tighten the nut and Then it would crack... I know I have had the Older sets of SE's when others were having trouble with the nut cracking BUT never on mine.
I have Never had one come loose From the easy way I lock mine. I can Feel the nut go over into the tight lock position... That is good enough...
signed....BUBBIE
Added: Answers: Quotes
The SE units have a reputation of the jam nuts cracking.
Well im running the tapereds last 6 weeks,but i try not to overtighten jam nuts,thought they corrected that.
It sure sounds good with the B's. Wish i hadnt thrown mine away. :doh: :slap:
Quote from: clawdog60 on October 12, 2014, 05:31:35 PM
It sure sounds good with the B's. Wish i hadnt thrown mine away. :doh: :slap:
Mark, by going from the GP1023's to the -B's, the clearance to the anti rotation pin was better too. I don't know if that contributed to the noise with the Gaterman's or not, but you can see the wear on my pins. Just using oversize pins may help them
say stay quiet.
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,71385.msg797749.html#msg797749 (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,71385.msg797749.html#msg797749)
I would like to have some of those used Gatermans
I have some B lifters here and others so I can do my leakdown tests for reference purposes. I test them with kerosene so it separates the good from the also eligible.
Don, if you want a set of Gaterman. I got the set that came out of my 120 with 25K miles. let me know.
Quote from: gouger on October 10, 2014, 03:37:14 PM
Quote from: Jaycee1964 on March 17, 2014, 06:26:36 PM
I wouldn't reuse those cams.
Whats wrong here is the lack of ZINC in the oil. This is what the Zinc was in our oil forto help cam and lifter wear, we can thank the EPA for this, Just buy some Lucas Zinc additive and add to your oil changes should take care of this problem
Dont think its that. I run zinc. My lifters are noisier than the last time I had them out. The last time I had them out was 2k ago (been busy, not much riding) last time showed roller was a tad loose...
Someone has mentioned on here about the Gaterman rollers getting oil from the reservoir in the body of the lifter. Since then its been found that lifters had been trapping bad oil there... Maybe this is the reason for the failures ??? Other lifters get the oil from oil splash... Wonder if that makes all the difference?
QuoteSomeone has mentioned on here about the Gaterman rollers getting oil from the reservoir in the body of the lifter.
Someone may have said that, but it's not true.
The base of the body doesn't have a feed hole to the roller?
It is not feed from the internals of the lifter... it has a separate feed from the side through to the roller area. Oil comes from the lifter bore area, same as the lifter it's self.
edited: here's a pic, also where the extra rollor feed is a plus, the GMan only gets that oil after the lifter is under load [riding the cam lobe upward] and the oil hole enters the lifter bore oil feed chamber.
Good pic.
Will have to take a closer look at mine.
Another report of Gaterman lifter failure in a 120" that was installed in a trike. 12k miles on the clock as per the forum member on triketalk forum. Damaged the engine that the member decided to buy another engine.
Quote from: FLTR2008TRIKE on October 28, 2014, 11:38:08 AM
Another report of Gaterman lifter failure in a 120" that was installed in a trike. 12k miles on the clock as per the forum member on triketalk forum. Damaged the engine that the member decided to buy another engine.
Disappointing if true.
Is the lifter what actually caused the engine damage?
"A couple weeks ago my 120r motor ate a lifter (front cylinder intake), and not aware what was wrong i tried to make it home (knew something was wrong but not exactly what) and only got about 2-3 miles and all went to hell!!"
http://www.triketalk.com/forum/threads/23358-120r-Rebuild (http://www.triketalk.com/forum/threads/23358-120r-Rebuild)
I think it's 2-3 miles to late to know what the actual cause was... other than the owner knowing something was wrong and keep riding it.
A bent/broken pushrod will kill a valve train.
True and it did take out the motor.
Heads have a bent valve, crank shrapnel in the rods, case bad due to bad lifter.
:up: piston hitting a stuck valve too... that will take all of the spring pressure off of the valve train causing the lifter to bounce off of the cam lobe. That would be a quick death to a motor.
The valve was free in the guide to begin with. Hard to know the exact order of events just a bad hit for sure and good reason to run adequate but not excessive spring pressure if you will be touring with these motors.
Quote from: Hossamania on October 28, 2014, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: FLTR2008TRIKE on October 28, 2014, 11:38:08 AM
Another report of Gaterman lifter failure in a 120" that was installed in a trike. 12k miles on the clock as per the forum member on triketalk forum. Damaged the engine that the member decided to buy another engine.
Disappointing if true.
18 pages to establish that ~ metal isn't up to the task?
Bogie
Quote from: FLTR2008TRIKE on October 28, 2014, 11:38:08 AM
Another report of Gaterman lifter failure in a 120" that was installed in a trike. 12k miles on the clock as per the forum member on triketalk forum. Damaged the engine that the member decided to buy another engine.
Might want to ask him the outcome. Not exactly as reported.
Lol. Think i would have a serious look at sns 124 for replacement
There has been a lot of interest on my phone and email. Especially the lc version. S&S does have it together for sure.
Don't forget R&R as an option. Their long block has a 1 year warranty, but limits miles to 5,000. But it also has their Stage 5 Cast Heads. Use your chrome, induction, rocker arms, and you're ready.
http://rrcycles.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=37&products_id=165 (http://rrcycles.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=37&products_id=165)
Added:
You need your push rods and tubes too.
Had to edit my posting due to a rule violation I made.
Quote from: HD Street Performance on October 28, 2014, 02:39:24 PM
There has been a lot of interest on my phone and email. Especially the lc version. S&S does have it together for sure.
Yep,124LC in a trike, how could that be wrong?
FLTR2008TRIKE
Thats it, rebuilt motor.
I have the heads and cylinders here being reworked.
It will live again and reliably
New lifters are US, HDSP premiums.
QuoteHard to know the exact order of events
For sure, but the lifter is being held responsible regardless. :nix:
19 pages and growing but no hard facts.
Quote from: FSG on October 29, 2014, 01:48:17 AM
QuoteHard to know the exact order of events
For sure, but the lifter is being held responsible regardless. :nix:
More importantly I think in these high lift high spring pressure builds guys need to make the lifters a maintenance item that needs to be checked. Easy work for the insurance of not loosing a motor.
If I needed to run those kinds of lifts (or over size valves), then go with lower spring rates and titanium valves... about the price of two sets of premium lifters and no need to check them over and over again. and you get other benefits too. :wink:
As in regards to another recent topic post, on cam lift. I considered over .6. To be excessive for a long range bagger under 110"?
Quote from: q1svt on October 29, 2014, 08:41:31 AM
If I needed to run those kinds of lifts (or over size valves), then go with lower spring rates and titanium valves... about the price of two sets of premium lifters and no need to check them over and over again. and you get other benefits too. :wink:
I have a set of custom 7mm valves coming to test. 2.1 & 1.625
I will be ordering a set of Bob Wood or S&S lifters for when I check my 1023s. My 5-6 cam and 180 springs should have given them a good work out over the last 18 to 20 k. I need to pull the filter and check for metal after reading the last couple pages.
Thanks guys :up:
so, why do lifters last 400,000 miles in my truck? and everyone seems to recommend replace at 25,000 in HD?
Totally different Beast...
LOW Lift cams and Soft springs in your worn-out truck... Not the Same as in our high performance HD's...
If your lifters out of your truck, fit your bike,,, try them... :up:
signed....BUBBIE
ouch
I AIN'T Here to Sweet Talk...
Even when I'm wrong, it IS a lot of DONATED Work... :unsure:
signed....BUBBIE
:up:
Quote from: HogBag on October 29, 2014, 11:58:53 PM
I will be ordering a set of Bob Wood or S&S lifters for when I check my 1023s. My 5-6 cam and 180 springs should have given them a good work out over the last 18 to 20 k. I need to pull the filter and check for metal after reading the last couple pages.
Thanks guys :up:
I pulled my 1023's for a look Brian, they look OK and are still quiet but my new regime will be regular replacement intervals as our increased lift, spring pressure and frequent high rpm's are asking much more from the components, preventative maintenance if you like :up:
Quote from: BUBBIE on October 30, 2014, 10:13:10 AM
I AIN'T Here to Sweet Talk...
Even when I'm wrong, it IS a lot of DONATED Work... :unsure:
signed....BUBBIE
It's ok by me if you'd like to take a break. Rick
Hilly
To be honest these 1023 have been very quite and the front exhaust lifter has been holding up very well compared to the last couple HD sets. l will pull the filter tomorrow and check the magnet for paste fingers crossed it will be good. I got slack and didn't replace the gaskets when I fitted the gatermans so as murphy dictates the engine has developed a few oil weeps. I brought the gaskets a few weeks back but will add a set of wood lifters and maybe cam chain followers depending on the filter check.
Cheers mate :beer:
Why does the front exhaust lifter always take more of a beating?
Quote from: gregfxs on October 31, 2014, 05:34:06 AM
Why does the front exhaust lifter always take more of a beating?
Ideally you want a straight line from the c/l of the cam to the rocker arm... when there are different angles it creates side loading and other issues. More angles and lift compounds the problem.
Quote from: q1svt on October 31, 2014, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: gregfxs on October 31, 2014, 05:34:06 AM
Why does the front exhaust lifter always take more of a beating?
Ideally you want a straight line from the c/l of the cam to the rocker arm... when there are different angles it creates side loading and other issues. More angles and lift compounds the problem.
At one time I checked the front and rear for alignment. I couldn't detect any real difference between the two that could cause a problem. There is a difference on how the cam lobe front exhaust interfaces with the lifter from over the center effects from the rear cam lobes. The result can be like a mini chatter effect. Minimizing this is one of the side benifits of the new Zippers tensioners as they could keep the drive between the two cams more stable.
Ron
Interesting... thxs
Quote from: clawdog60 on October 29, 2014, 06:20:39 AM
19 pages and growing but no hard facts.
Yes from either side, just evidence of failures of a component that can and did cause catastrophic damage. Personally I am not ready to blame the Gatermans however the perception will remain until someone can prove otherwise. Markets are influenced by these things. Not my way but the way of the world.
Quote from: q1svt on October 31, 2014, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: gregfxs on October 31, 2014, 05:34:06 AM
Why does the front exhaust lifter always take more of a beating?
Ideally you want a straight line from the c/l of the cam to the rocker arm... when there are different angles it creates side loading and other issues. More angles and lift compounds the problem.
True but at mid lift, due to the arc of movement the C/L changes but we are splitting hairs on this long pushrod motor.
Quote from: HD Street Performance on October 31, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
Quote from: q1svt on October 31, 2014, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: gregfxs on October 31, 2014, 05:34:06 AM
Why does the front exhaust lifter always take more of a beating?
Ideally you want a straight line from the c/l of the cam to the rocker arm... when there are different angles it creates side loading and other issues. More angles and lift compounds the problem.
True but at mid lift, due to the arc of movement the C/L changes but we are splitting hairs on this long pushrod motor.
Agree the matter if far more complex than how I stated it... just provided a simple answer to a general question :up:
Not sure that the c/l of a cam ever changes... but yes the lobe profile will always create side loading of the lifter against the lifter bore. more lift and or aggressive ramps create more.
It is true and downright scary to look at :agree:
Quote from: q1svt on October 31, 2014, 08:05:07 AM
Quote from: HD Street Performance on October 31, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
Quote from: q1svt on October 31, 2014, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: gregfxs on October 31, 2014, 05:34:06 AM
Why does the front exhaust lifter always take more of a beating?
Ideally you want a straight line from the c/l of the cam to the rocker arm... when there are different angles it creates side loading and other issues. More angles and lift compounds the problem.
True but at mid lift, due to the arc of movement the C/L changes but we are splitting hairs on this long pushrod motor.
Agree the matter if far more complex than how I stated it... just provided a simple answer to a general question :up:
Not sure that the c/l of a cam ever changes... but yes the lobe profile will always create side loading of the lifter against the lifter bore. more lift and or aggressive ramps create more.
Not that a lot can be done about it but I've always felt the bores and bodies are too short to provide good support, given what these things are being pushed to. Too much clearance too which is about the only thing we could have control over. Then again with inadequate support it would be short lived also.
Ron
There ya go over head cams on a tc engine, hell even just 1 cam per head still call it a twin cam,many issues solved.?
Larger rollers
Quote from: clawdog60 on October 31, 2014, 09:36:17 AM
There ya go over head cams on a tc engine, hell even just 1 cam per head still call it a twin cam,many issues solved.?
Then we could add Variable Valve timing too! That would appease the EPA and still allow us to make gobs of power!
SnS looked at all of the twin cam problems and started with a clean sheet and came up with the X wedge. Is that what you want?
BTW, Getting back to the thread. My 2012 TK has 8K miles on the Gaterman's and every morning fo rthe last few weeks they clack like all hell on initial start up for about 5-10 seconds. Time to pull em.
Quote from: HD Street Performance on October 31, 2014, 09:45:05 AM
Larger rollers
Possibly or bigger dia bores and bodies to reduce side loading. Bigger rollers would need a whole new set of grinds for them however.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on October 31, 2014, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: HD Street Performance on October 31, 2014, 09:45:05 AM
Larger rollers
Bigger rollers would need a whole new set of grinds for them however.
Ron
And a means of installation. Big rollers won't drop from top.
Quote from: citabria on October 31, 2014, 10:06:43 AM
SnS looked at all of the twin cam problems and started with a clean sheet and came up with the X wedge. Is that what you want?
No. Looking to scrap archaeic push rods and lifters. We are in the 21st century now.
The problem with the overhead cam design is that it just gets so tall. Look at the old flathead motors. They are so short and make the bikes so much smaller and manageable. But, don't make nearly the power, obviously.
And we like our power.
Quote from: Jaycee1964 on October 31, 2014, 10:18:44 AM
BTW, Getting back to the thread. My 2012 TK has 8K miles on the Gaterman's and every morning fo rthe last few weeks they clack like all hell on initial start up for about 5-10 seconds. Time to pull em.
Keep us posted on your findings jay.
Monsoons back today and tonight so decided to change 1023 gatermans out.
With the New "B"s in, started bike in garage NO Unnecessary noise, No tap... Just that sweet sewing-machine sound. I'll find out tomorrow IF they are a little quieter than the 1023's.
Figured out, 27,000 miles on the 1023 gatermans I Had in... Yes there was Just a little tap Starting toward the front. (thinking intake)
Looking at them Out, they looked good and much better than in the crummy pictures I took earlier 2,000 miles ago...
Funny NO stains just the Faint lines on them now... NOT like in the picture I took on Sept 17th... (if below attached?)
Can't feel anything Wrong with them... Rollers roll good and no slack/play in the bearings? (imagination reading here?????) :hyst: :pop:
signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: rbabos on October 31, 2014, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: HD Street Performance on October 31, 2014, 09:45:05 AM
Larger rollers
Possibly or bigger dia bores and bodies to reduce side loading. Bigger rollers would need a whole new set of grinds for them however.
Ron
Depends on how big, going to a .750 wheel is a change that has by tried by some with no real bad effects and this starts the lift easier, does effectively reduce duration by a few degrees. Another thing that would help is a larger base circle, up to a point.
Quote from: HD Street Performance on November 02, 2014, 04:21:53 PM
Quote from: rbabos on October 31, 2014, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: HD Street Performance on October 31, 2014, 09:45:05 AM
Larger rollers
Possibly or bigger dia bores and bodies to reduce side loading. Bigger rollers would need a whole new set of grinds for them however.
Ron
Depends on how big, going to a .750 wheel is a change that has by tried by some with no real bad effects and this starts the lift easier, does effectively reduce duration by a few degrees. Another thing that would help is a larger base circle, up to a point.
Gave it a lot of thought back when. :wink: Decided I don't need the aggrivation and went OC. Problem went away. :hyst: Loved the heads you did for me though.
Quote from: clawdog60 on October 31, 2014, 12:45:25 PM
Quote from: citabria on October 31, 2014, 10:06:43 AM
SnS looked at all of the twin cam problems and started with a clean sheet and came up with the X wedge. Is that what you want?
No. Looking to scrap archaeic push rods and lifters. We are in the 21st century now.
Why can GM get over 500 HP out of a pushrod motor (LS7) and give 100k warranty?
Y'all can have your ohc, the TC will probably carry me to the end of my (riding) days...
Quote from: FlaHeatWave on November 08, 2014, 09:45:34 AM
Quote from: clawdog60 on October 31, 2014, 12:45:25 PM
Quote from: citabria on October 31, 2014, 10:06:43 AM
SnS looked at all of the twin cam problems and started with a clean sheet and came up with the X wedge. Is that what you want?
No. Looking to scrap archaeic push rods and lifters. We are in the 21st century now.
Why can GM get over 500 HP out of a pushrod motor (LS7) and give 100k warranty?
Liquid cooled, 11.0:1 compression, 8 cylinders still only 1.18 hp/ci so not really apples to apples
Ls1 pushrods are 7.25".. That's about 3" shorter than a Harley.. I would like to be able to see how much my stock thin walled P'rods flex under a load.. They're coming out soon..
Plus, valve,push rod,port angles, better geometry.
I don't ever do this, but here goes. After reading all 20 pages of this thread I thought I would put my 2 cents in backed with some REAL data learned from many years of doing this. A few basic points that many have left out. First of all, the center line of the camshaft MUST be 90° to the centerline of the lifter bore. Highly unlikely in these engines. As someone pointed out a few pages back, the bearing (Roller wheel) is not flat, it's crowned. Pushrod angularity will try and "turn" a lifter in it's bore. This effect is almost unmeasurable in some cases, and much more pronounced in others such as applications using offset pushrod seats in the lifter. Unless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe. Ever. I could go on and on.
Someone posted about sending this to a lab for analysis. Only cost a few bucks. OK, here's where it gets real. We've sent countless sets of lifters along with the corresponding camshafts to one of the most well known, best respected metallurgical engineering service laboratories in the world for forensic failure analysis. In every case the findings have been the same. Surface finish incompatibility between the two contact materials, and lubrication failure. Lubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication. Anyone can send these lifters to a lab and get the same results. Only costs $3,500.00 for the full micro hardness, chemical analysis, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, failure analysis. Twenty pages of pin diameter posts don't have anything to do with this failure.
Thanx Mr.P
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 15, 2014, 06:28:48 PM
I don't ever do this, but here goes. After reading all 20 pages of this thread I thought I would put my 2 cents in backed with some REAL data learned from many years of doing this. A few basic points that many have left out. First of all, the center line of the camshaft MUST be 90° to the centerline of the lifter bore. Highly unlikely in these engines. As someone pointed out a few pages back, the bearing (Roller wheel) is not flat, it's crowned. Pushrod angularity will try and "turn" a lifter in it's bore. This effect is almost unmeasurable in some cases, and much more pronounced in others such as applications using offset pushrod seats in the lifter. Unless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe. Ever. I could go on and on.
Someone posted about sending this to a lab for analysis. Only cost a few bucks. OK, here's where it gets real. We've sent countless sets of lifters along with the corresponding camshafts to one of the most well known, best respected metallurgical engineering service laboratories in the world for forensic failure analysis. In every case the findings have been the same. Surface finish incompatibility between the two contact materials, and lubrication failure. Lubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication. Anyone can send these lifters to a lab and get the same results. Only costs $3,500.00 for the full micro hardness, chemical analysis, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, failure analysis. Twenty pages of pin diameter posts don't have anything to do with this failure.
nice 1st posting. :dgust:
Now you need to meet our Max!
You two will get along together nicely :wink:
Ray
Now which direction do we turn?
It's winter here.... oil thread anybody?? :unsure:
Im dreaming of a 124" christmas.
QuoteUnless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe.
QuoteLubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication.
Aren't these 2 statements contradictory?? If not please explain..
FWIW, The rollers I've seen are flat and not crowned.. They show even contact on the both the lifers and the cams when all is working well.. I suppose there might be enough slop that the contact show up as even but one would think that the patterns would favor the center in that case..
Max
:pop:
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 15, 2014, 06:28:48 PM
I don't ever do this, but here goes. After reading all 20 pages of this thread I thought I would put my 2 cents in backed with some REAL data learned from many years of doing this. A few basic points that many have left out. First of all, the center line of the camshaft MUST be 90° to the centerline of the lifter bore. Highly unlikely in these engines. As someone pointed out a few pages back, the bearing (Roller wheel) is not flat, it's crowned. Pushrod angularity will try and "turn" a lifter in it's bore. This effect is almost unmeasurable in some cases, and much more pronounced in others such as applications using offset pushrod seats in the lifter. Unless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe. Ever. I could go on and on.
Someone posted about sending this to a lab for analysis. Only cost a few bucks. OK, here's where it gets real. We've sent countless sets of lifters along with the corresponding camshafts to one of the most well known, best respected metallurgical engineering service laboratories in the world for forensic failure analysis. In every case the findings have been the same. Surface finish incompatibility between the two contact materials, and lubrication failure. Lubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication. Anyone can send these lifters to a lab and get the same results. Only costs $3,500.00 for the full micro hardness, chemical analysis, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, failure analysis. Twenty pages of pin diameter posts don't have anything to do with this failure.
Thanks for taking the time to make an informational first post. Firsthand information from someone that has work experience in this field is always welcome. Knowing that rollers are ground with a 23.03" radius crown that you cannot see with your eye across the short distance of the roller width is paramount when trying to get to the root cause of a complicated problem. I hope you will continue to post because we can always use more factual information.
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 15, 2014, 06:28:48 PM
I don't ever do this, but here goes. After reading all 20 pages of this thread I thought I would put my 2 cents in backed with some REAL data learned from many years of doing this. A few basic points that many have left out. First of all, the center line of the camshaft MUST be 90° to the centerline of the lifter bore. Highly unlikely in these engines. As someone pointed out a few pages back, the bearing (Roller wheel) is not flat, it's crowned. Pushrod angularity will try and "turn" a lifter in it's bore. This effect is almost unmeasurable in some cases, and much more pronounced in others such as applications using offset pushrod seats in the lifter. Unless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe. Ever. I could go on and on.
Someone posted about sending this to a lab for analysis. Only cost a few bucks. OK, here's where it gets real. We've sent countless sets of lifters along with the corresponding camshafts to one of the most well known, best respected metallurgical engineering service laboratories in the world for forensic failure analysis. In every case the findings have been the same. Surface finish incompatibility between the two contact materials, and lubrication failure. Lubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication. Anyone can send these lifters to a lab and get the same results. Only costs $3,500.00 for the full micro hardness, chemical analysis, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, failure analysis. Twenty pages of pin diameter posts don't have anything to do with this failure.
Thank's for your contribution to the subject matter here on HTT...
Earlier in this thread and in other threads lifter rotation, side loading of the lifter roller/needle bearings and the HD alignment pin clearances was discussed. Can you provide any more information as to is impact to lifters, any guidance on proper clearances that should be maintained, etc
Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
The lubrication part we should be able to deal with. Surface finish incompatibility,how the he'll we deal with that? Cryogenics?
Why would end users of a product, regardless of the origin, spend money of this magnitude to find a problem such as this? I see this as the manufacturers responsibility.
If the surface has zero "skidding" then how does wear occur?
Quote from: HD Street Performance on November 16, 2014, 07:14:12 AM
Why would end users of a product, regardless of the origin, spend money of this magnitude to find a problem such as this? I see this as the manufacturers responsibility.
:agree: with you Don.
is it possible eddiepointdexter works for a lifter manufacture and is speaking of their testing that has been done? :nix:
$3500.00 for testing lifters from a private individual looking for an answer to this problem...would be quite expensive.
Ray
Yes and even if for the sake of discussion if the testing was done the conclusion would likely point to what can be improved with the part the lab was presented not provide a root cause analysis. Now we go back to Reliability Engineering 101 and study all of the mating parts for answers.
When an electrical system is blowing fuses should we focus on the fuse and what may or may not be wrong with the fuse? Similar analogy.
Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 16, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
Thanks for taking the time to make an informational first post. Firsthand information from someone that has work experience in this field is always welcome. Knowing that rollers are ground with a 23.03" radius crown that you cannot see with your eye across the short distance of the roller width is paramount when trying to get to the root cause of a complicated problem. I hope you will continue to post because we can always use more factual information.
Sorry, Some putz that has no real experience just skewering the Internet..
http://kams.publishpath.com/flat-tappets-roller-followers (http://kams.publishpath.com/flat-tappets-roller-followers)
http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Lifters (http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Lifters)
As far as I can tell only flat tappet lifters need a crown.. Just trying to learn here..
Max
Quote from: No Cents on November 16, 2014, 07:29:00 AM
Quote from: HD Street Performance on November 16, 2014, 07:14:12 AM
Why would end users of a product, regardless of the origin, spend money of this magnitude to find a problem such as this? I see this as the manufacturers responsibility.
:agree: with you Don.
is it possible eddiepointdexter works for a lifter manufacture and is speaking of their testing that has been done? :nix:
$3500.00 for testing lifters from a private individual looking for an answer to this problem...would be quite expensive.
Ray
There was an Eddie Poindexter that worked at Crane Cams, just may be the same guy.
In my view a crowned roll will cause more issues then it suppose to stop.
Ron
According to the Delphi specs they use a roller follower crown radius.
https://delphi.com/shared/pdf/ppd/pwrtrn/gas_vlvlift.pdf
Quote from: Max Headflow on November 16, 2014, 08:03:47 AM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 16, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
Thanks for taking the time to make an informational first post. Firsthand information from someone that has work experience in this field is always welcome. Knowing that rollers are ground with a 23.03" radius crown that you cannot see with your eye across the short distance of the roller width is paramount when trying to get to the root cause of a complicated problem. I hope you will continue to post because we can always use more factual information.
Sorry, Some putz that has no real experience just skewering the Internet..
http://kams.publishpath.com/flat-tappets-roller-followers (http://kams.publishpath.com/flat-tappets-roller-followers)
http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Lifters (http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Lifters)
As far as I can tell only flat tappet lifters need a crown.. Just trying to learn here..
Max
Max your link goes here:
"The right side of the diagram above shows a cam lobe and roller follower. Sometimes the roller or both the roller and the pin are crowned. Across a roller that is 5/8" wide, the amount of crown might be 0.00025"-0.00300". The purpose of the crown on a roller is to reduce edge loading, and the amount of crown is intended to flatten under load so that the roller is effectively flat during operation. "
The roller crown is likely just enough to cause the footprint to shrink on contact under the force of the valve springs and provide the traction that ensures the roller rolls and doesn't skid. :nix: It would be very helpful if lofting or similar events occur.
Just saw the q1svt post and it makes good sense now :up:
Quote from: kd on November 16, 2014, 09:57:28 AM
The roller crown is likely just enough to cause the footprint to shrink on contact under the force of the valve springs and provide the traction that ensures the roller rolls and doesn't skid. :nix: It would be very helpful if lofting or similar events occur.
Just saw the q1svt post and it makes good sense now :up:
You will also notice different max contact stress numbers for different cam materials.
The roller must be fully supported by the lobe.
Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 16, 2014, 09:45:12 AM
According to the Delphi specs they use a roller follower crown radius.
https://delphi.com/shared/pdf/ppd/pwrtrn/gas_vlvlift.pdf
Thanks..
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 09:53:18 AM
Max your link goes here:
"The right side of the diagram above shows a cam lobe and roller follower. Sometimes the roller or both the roller and the pin are crowned. Across a roller that is 5/8" wide, the amount of crown might be 0.00025"-0.00300". The purpose of the crown on a roller is to reduce edge loading, and the amount of crown is intended to flatten under load so that the roller is effectively flat during operation. "
Oops :embarrassed: missed it.. I thought they were still talking about flat tappet rollers..
Max
Quote from: Max Headflow on November 15, 2014, 10:40:09 PM
QuoteUnless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe.
QuoteLubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication.
Aren't these 2 statements contradictory?? If not please explain..
FWIW, The rollers I've seen are flat and not crowned.. They show even contact on the both the lifers and the cams when all is working well.. I suppose there might be enough slop that the contact show up as even but one would think that the patterns would favor the center in that case..
Max
Don't see a contradiction. Should have been more specific, lubrication failure attributed to a chemical breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubricant.
The bearing crown has been addressed.
Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 16, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 15, 2014, 06:28:48 PM
I don't ever do this, but here goes. After reading all 20 pages of this thread I thought I would put my 2 cents in backed with some REAL data learned from many years of doing this. A few basic points that many have left out. First of all, the center line of the camshaft MUST be 90° to the centerline of the lifter bore. Highly unlikely in these engines. As someone pointed out a few pages back, the bearing (Roller wheel) is not flat, it's crowned. Pushrod angularity will try and "turn" a lifter in it's bore. This effect is almost unmeasurable in some cases, and much more pronounced in others such as applications using offset pushrod seats in the lifter. Unless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe. Ever. I could go on and on.
Someone posted about sending this to a lab for analysis. Only cost a few bucks. OK, here's where it gets real. We've sent countless sets of lifters along with the corresponding camshafts to one of the most well known, best respected metallurgical engineering service laboratories in the world for forensic failure analysis. In every case the findings have been the same. Surface finish incompatibility between the two contact materials, and lubrication failure. Lubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication. Anyone can send these lifters to a lab and get the same results. Only costs $3,500.00 for the full micro hardness, chemical analysis, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, failure analysis. Twenty pages of pin diameter posts don't have anything to do with this failure.
Thanks for taking the time to make an informational first post. Firsthand information from someone that has work experience in this field is always welcome. Knowing that rollers are ground with a 23.03" radius crown that you cannot see with your eye across the short distance of the roller width is paramount when trying to get to the root cause of a complicated problem. I hope you will continue to post because we can always use more factual information.
Not sure about this 23.03" dimension, would need to know what the gauge width is to correctly measure the crown. It's ever so slight, measured out to minutes and seconds. For example, a plotter printout of the crown on a .842" diameter tappet is about eight feet long...
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 15, 2014, 06:28:48 PM
I don't ever do this, but here goes. After reading all 20 pages of this thread I thought I would put my 2 cents in backed with some REAL data learned from many years of doing this. A few basic points that many have left out. First of all, the center line of the camshaft MUST be 90° to the centerline of the lifter bore. Highly unlikely in these engines. As someone pointed out a few pages back, the bearing (Roller wheel) is not flat, it's crowned. Pushrod angularity will try and "turn" a lifter in it's bore. This effect is almost unmeasurable in some cases, and much more pronounced in others such as applications using offset pushrod seats in the lifter. Unless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe. Ever. I could go on and on.
Someone posted about sending this to a lab for analysis. Only cost a few bucks. OK, here's where it gets real. We've sent countless sets of lifters along with the corresponding camshafts to one of the most well known, best respected metallurgical engineering service laboratories in the world for forensic failure analysis. In every case the findings have been the same. Surface finish incompatibility between the two contact materials, and lubrication failure. Lubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication. Anyone can send these lifters to a lab and get the same results. Only costs $3,500.00 for the full micro hardness, chemical analysis, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, failure analysis. Twenty pages of pin diameter posts don't have anything to do with this failure.
Thank's for your contribution to the subject matter here on HTT...
Earlier in this thread and in other threads lifter rotation, side loading of the lifter roller/needle bearings and the HD alignment pin clearances was discussed. Can you provide any more information as to is impact to lifters, any guidance on proper clearances that should be maintained, etc
Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
Like to see .0015" / .0025" lifter to lifter bore clearance depending on lifter bore material, so I would think .003" / .004" lifter to pin would be the target.
As for side loading, even the above average engine builder won't be able to get rid of it. Engine architecture, and if nothing else, cost would make this prohibitive. First of all you would need to index the lifter bores so they are perfectly 90° to the centerline of the cams. Once you accomplished this you would need to address pushrod angle along with the rest of the valve train geometry. While in theory this could all be fixed you're pretty much designing and building a different engine at that point. Again, too cost prohibitive.
Quote from: BVHOG on November 16, 2014, 07:18:58 AM
If the surface has zero "skidding" then how does wear occur?
When the boundary layer breaks down it exasperates the surface finish incompatibility issue.
Quote from: HD Street Performance on November 16, 2014, 07:56:06 AM
Yes and even if for the sake of discussion if the testing was done the conclusion would likely point to what can be improved with the part the lab was presented not provide a root cause analysis. Now we go back to Reliability Engineering 101 and study all of the mating parts for answers.
When an electrical system is blowing fuses should we focus on the fuse and what may or may not be wrong with the fuse? Similar analogy.
Correct. We have a good idea of root cause. The Moco buys/makes a million camshafts. They specify a surface finish for the lobes. Then Eaton/Delphi someone makes millions of lifters for the Moco. Eaton/Delphi whoever buys millions of bearings from Ina or SKF and they specify a surface finish on that bearing that will be compatible. Everything's happy. The problem is we're dealing with aftermarket parts. There is no industry standard. And while they're all real close, tolerances vary from company to company.
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
Quote from: Max Headflow on November 15, 2014, 10:40:09 PM
QuoteUnless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe.
QuoteLubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication.
Aren't these 2 statements contradictory?? If not please explain..
FWIW, The rollers I've seen are flat and not crowned.. They show even contact on the both the lifers and the cams when all is working well.. I suppose there might be enough slop that the contact show up as even but one would think that the patterns would favor the center in that case..
Max
Don't see a contradiction. Should have been more specific, lubrication failure attributed to a chemical breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubricant.
The bearing crown has been addressed.
Well for a roller, doesn't it have to break through the layer and make contact for it not to slide? Or is the layer thin enough roller still gets some traction?
Yeah figured out the roller crown..
Max
What is the correct finish and steel properties for a camshaft to be compatible with the rollers?
What API grade, composition, and viscosity of oil would be optimum for use with these lifters?
I understand the explanation to rest of the proposed solutions.
Problem I have seen is excessive side thrust in the bores, evidence scratches on the lifter bodies after very low hours of use. I can't prove it but the noise is a strong evidence that the lifters are lofting and/or launching. So regardless of the brand or materials we are dealing with a similar part to the street mechanical roller used by the car guys, a maintenance item. The best of the lifters and the other items addressed, to the best of cost affordable reality, can extend the life but we still have to get in and check them. How often? I don't know.
Quote from: VRC-HTT on November 16, 2014, 09:16:31 AM
Quote from: No Cents on November 16, 2014, 07:29:00 AM
Quote from: HD Street Performance on November 16, 2014, 07:14:12 AM
Why would end users of a product, regardless of the origin, spend money of this magnitude to find a problem such as this? I see this as the manufacturers responsibility.
:agree: with you Don.
is it possible eddiepointdexter works for a lifter manufacture and is speaking of their testing that has been done? :nix:
$3500.00 for testing lifters from a private individual looking for an answer to this problem...would be quite expensive.
Ray
There was an Eddie Poindexter that worked at Crane Cams, just may be the same guy.
There is not now, nor has there ever been an employee of Crane Cams named Eddie Poindexter. :wink:
Quote from: Max Headflow on November 16, 2014, 08:03:47 AM
Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 16, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
Thanks for taking the time to make an informational first post. Firsthand information from someone that has work experience in this field is always welcome. Knowing that rollers are ground with a 23.03" radius crown that you cannot see with your eye across the short distance of the roller width is paramount when trying to get to the root cause of a complicated problem. I hope you will continue to post because we can always use more factual information.
Sorry, Some putz that has no real experience just skewering the Internet..
http://kams.publishpath.com/flat-tappets-roller-followers (http://kams.publishpath.com/flat-tappets-roller-followers)
http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Lifters (http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Lifters)
As far as I can tell only flat tappet lifters need a crown.. Just trying to learn here..
Max
While I may be a putz from time to time, I have been involved in professional motorsports and aftermarket parts manufacturing for 35 years. I learn new things every day. I like to say I know a lot about a whole lot of things, and a whole lot less about a whole lot more.
And I am cheating just a little bit and relying on years and years, a few hundred million cycles at this point, of SpinTron data.
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: BVHOG on November 16, 2014, 07:18:58 AM
If the surface has zero "skidding" then how does wear occur?
When the boundary layer breaks down it exasperates the surface finish incompatibility issue.
Well that certainly is a more plausible answer the the common answer of dirt/contaminants being the cause. But then again what causes the boundary layer to break down?
Quote from: Max Headflow on November 16, 2014, 10:55:44 AM
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
Quote from: Max Headflow on November 15, 2014, 10:40:09 PM
QuoteUnless lofting is occurring the bearing does not skid across the face of the lobe.
QuoteLubrication failure attributed to a breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubrication.
Aren't these 2 statements contradictory?? If not please explain..
FWIW, The rollers I've seen are flat and not crowned.. They show even contact on the both the lifers and the cams when all is working well.. I suppose there might be enough slop that the contact show up as even but one would think that the patterns would favor the center in that case..
Max
Don't see a contradiction. Should have been more specific, lubrication failure attributed to a chemical breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubricant.
The bearing crown has been addressed.
Well for a roller, doesn't it have to break through the layer and make contact for it not to slide? Or is the layer thin enough roller still gets some traction?
Yeah figured out the roller crown..
Max
The boundary layer is close to microscopic, it's filling in the peaks and valleys of the material. The "flow" in front of the wheel is carrying away most of the heat. When the layer breaks down due to heat, contaminants etc., it stops filling in those peaks and valleys.
A visual indication of lofting will be lines in the wheel running in the same direction of rotation. Think airplane wheel touching the ground on landing. Problem is contaminants in the average street engine will cause the same wear so it's hard to determine. In a race engine much easier.
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 11:29:32 AM
The boundary layer is close to microscopic, it's filling in the peaks and valleys of the material. The "flow" in front of the wheel is carrying away most of the heat. When the layer breaks down due to heat, contaminants etc., it stops filling in those peaks and valleys.
A visual indication of lofting will be lines in the wheel running in the same direction of rotation. Think airplane wheel touching the ground on landing. Problem is contaminants in the average street engine will cause the same wear so it's hard to determine. In a race engine much easier.
I can understand the lofting causing visual wear marks, makes sense. But lofting can't be the only culprit to he visual wear lines. We see them on pure stock motors that shouldn't be able to float a valve due to RPM restrictions and mild cam lobes.
Quote from: HD Street Performance on November 16, 2014, 11:05:09 AM
What is the correct finish and steel properties for a camshaft to be compatible with the rollers?
What API grade, composition, and viscosity of oil would be optimum for use with these lifters?
I understand the explanation to rest of the proposed solutions.
Problem I have seen is excessive side thrust in the bores, evidence scratches on the lifter bodies after very low hours of use. I can't prove it but the noise is a strong evidence that the lifters are lofting and/or launching. So regardless of the brand or materials we are dealing with a similar part to the street mechanical roller used by the car guys, a maintenance item. The best of the lifters and the other items addressed, to the best of cost affordable reality, can extend the life but we still have to get in and check them. How often? I don't know.
Surface finish will vary. Most if not all manufactures will consider this information proprietary. As for material, 5150, 5120, 1040, 8620, 9310 along with some tool steels are all in use today. As for the oil, read up on some of the tech articles done by Lake Speed Jr. Very informative. I for one use Mobile1, a good oil cooler, and change it every 2000 miles. Yet to have a problem in many, many years.
I don't know either. Spring pressure, lobe, riding style will all come into play here making this a moving target. I can tell you the marine world is the harshest environment a hydraulic roller lifter will ever see. High valve train mass, 5800 RPM under load for hours at a time. Most high end marine engine builders change lifters out every 100 to 125 hours.
Don't see a contradiction. Should have been more specific, lubrication failure attributed to a chemical breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubricant.
Max
[/quote]
The boundary layer is close to microscopic, it's filling in the peaks and valleys of the material. The "flow" in front of the wheel is carrying away most of the heat. When the layer breaks down due to heat, contaminants etc., it stops filling in those peaks and valleys.
[/quote]
I don't want to start an oil thread here, :oil: but would the features in synthetic oil (attraction to heat and shear qualities) be a good choice to combating the problems with the boundary layer collapsing?
Added later,
Eddie,
I see you use a synthetic oil. Does that answer my question about your opinion on oil choices (going synthetic)?
Quote from: BUBBIE on November 02, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
Monsoons back today and tonight so decided to change 1023 gatermans out.
With the New "B"s in, started bike in garage NO Unnecessary noise, No tap... Just that sweet sewing-machine sound. I'll find out tomorrow IF they are a little quieter than the 1023's.
Figured out, 27,000 miles on the 1023 gatermans I Had in... Yes there was Just a little tap Starting toward the front. (thinking intake)
Looking at them Out, they looked good and much better than in the crummy pictures I took earlier 2,000 miles ago...
Funny NO stains just the Faint lines on them now... NOT like in the picture I took on Sept 17th... (if below attached?)
Can't feel anything Wrong with them... Rollers roll good and no slack/play in the bearings? (imagination reading here?????) :hyst: :pop:
signed....BUBBIE
EDDIE,
Maybe you can look at some foggy pictures of Stain issues? on my Gaterman 1023's using Redline 20w50 max 4,000 mile oil changes HD filters then now using K&N 171 C's..... Never Ever any metal on the magnetic drain plug... About 31,000 miles on them, New cam SE255 103" build all at one time.
What can you see and thank you for your Valued Informative information you have given here...
I Guess, you'll have to go back to page 20 and post #484 to see the pictures, they never came up with the link above...
Above is page 20 post 484...signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: Ohio HD on November 16, 2014, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 11:29:32 AM
The boundary layer is close to microscopic, it's filling in the peaks and valleys of the material. The "flow" in front of the wheel is carrying away most of the heat. When the layer breaks down due to heat, contaminants etc., it stops filling in those peaks and valleys.
A visual indication of lofting will be lines in the wheel running in the same direction of rotation. Think airplane wheel touching the ground on landing. Problem is contaminants in the average street engine will cause the same wear so it's hard to determine. In a race engine much easier.
I can understand the lofting causing visual wear marks, makes sense. But lofting can't be the only culprit to he visual wear lines. We see them on pure stock motors that shouldn't be able to float a valve due to RPM restrictions and mild cam lobes.
It's not the only culprit. Most common cause is debris in the oil. And what's going on with that mild lobe would probably surprise you. If you take two lobes in the same "family" one in say, 260° @ .050" and one at 220° @ .050", the shorter duration lobe will in most, but not all cases be harsher on the valve train.
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 10:42:46 AM
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
Like to see .0015" / .0025" lifter to lifter bore clearance depending on lifter bore material, so I would think .003" / .004" lifter to pin would be the target.
As for side loading, even the above average engine builder won't be able to get rid of it. Engine architecture, and if nothing else, cost would make this prohibitive. First of all you would need to index the lifter bores so they are perfectly 90° to the centerline of the cams. Once you accomplished this you would need to address pushrod angle along with the rest of the valve train geometry. While in theory this could all be fixed you're pretty much designing and building a different engine at that point. Again, too cost prohibitive.
Sorry, yes I understand your comment
I was trying to get a better understanding. American V8's use several means to aid a lifter from over rotating (Dog bones, H bars, link bar, slotted lifter/lifter bores. HD uses a round pin, I have collected info that there can be .008 play allowing the lifter to rotate side to side quite a bit.
So, let me reword my question: Is there a standard as to the an allowable tolerance with the use of Dog bones, H bars, link bar, slotted lifter/lifter bores to allow the lifter to rotate/shift to accommodate alignment/machining inaccuracies? What point might be too much?
TIA
Quote from: BUBBIE on November 16, 2014, 11:51:06 AM
Quote from: BUBBIE on November 02, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
Monsoons back today and tonight so decided to change 1023 gatermans out.
With the New "B"s in, started bike in garage NO Unnecessary noise, No tap... Just that sweet sewing-machine sound. I'll find out tomorrow IF they are a little quieter than the 1023's.
Figured out, 27,000 miles on the 1023 gatermans I Had in... Yes there was Just a little tap Starting toward the front. (thinking intake)
Looking at them Out, they looked good and much better than in the crummy pictures I took earlier 2,000 miles ago...
Funny NO stains just the Faint lines on them now... NOT like in the picture I took on Sept 17th... (if below attached?)
Can't feel anything Wrong with them... Rollers roll good and no slack/play in the bearings? (imagination reading here?????) :hyst: :pop:
signed....BUBBIE
EDDIE,
Maybe you can look at some foggy pictures of Stain issues? on my Gaterman 1023's using Redline 20w50 max 4,000 mile oil changes HD filters then now using K&N 171 C's..... Never Ever any metal on the magnetic drain plug... About 31,000 miles on them, New cam SE255 103" build all at one time.
What can you see and thank you for your Valued Informative information you have given here...
I Guess, you'll have to go back to page 20 and post #484 to see the pictures, they never came up with the link above...
Above is page 20 post 484...
signed....BUBBIE
Between my tired old eyes and those out of focus pictures it's hard to say.
Nothing you can Feel on the rollers but the Color of them... using 20/50 Redline oil..
I re-installed the two in picture and put on about 2000 miles using a new oil 10w60 Moly.
When re-taken out to be replaced by "B"s....... the rollers Didn't have that Color Stain on them.? :nix:
signed....BUBBIE
Quote from: kd on November 16, 2014, 11:49:38 AM
Don't see a contradiction. Should have been more specific, lubrication failure attributed to a chemical breakdown of the boundary layer of the lubricant.
Max
The boundary layer is close to microscopic, it's filling in the peaks and valleys of the material. The "flow" in front of the wheel is carrying away most of the heat. When the layer breaks down due to heat, contaminants etc., it stops filling in those peaks and valleys.
[/quote]
I don't want to start an oil thread here, :oil: but would the features in synthetic oil (attraction to heat and shear qualities) be a good choice to combating the problems with the boundary layer collapsing?
Added later,
Eddie,
I see you use a synthetic oil. Does that answer my question about your opinion on oil choices (going synthetic)?
[/quote]
Ha ha, I've been trying to avoid the short answer to this. The leading cause of the failure that started this post is...
Oil.
You have to do two things. Keep the oil clean. Don't overheat it. For the second you have two choices. Closely control the oil temperature, which isn't a viable solution, or use a oil that's better suited to the heat range of the system. A synthetic or semi-synthetic is better suited for the latter.
so eddiepoindexter...where do you...or did you work at?
You seem like a very smart man and have a lot of knowledge in the area of valve trains and how oil affects it.
I'm just curious...and I see you met our Max :wink:
Ray
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 11:58:34 AM
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 10:42:46 AM
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
Like to see .0015" / .0025" lifter to lifter bore clearance depending on lifter bore material, so I would think .003" / .004" lifter to pin would be the target.
As for side loading, even the above average engine builder won't be able to get rid of it. Engine architecture, and if nothing else, cost would make this prohibitive. First of all you would need to index the lifter bores so they are perfectly 90° to the centerline of the cams. Once you accomplished this you would need to address pushrod angle along with the rest of the valve train geometry. While in theory this could all be fixed you're pretty much designing and building a different engine at that point. Again, too cost prohibitive.
Sorry, yes I understand your comment
I was trying to get a better understanding. American V8's use several means to aid a lifter from over rotating (Dog bones, H bars, link bar, slotted lifter/lifter bores. HD uses a round pin, I have collected info that there can be .008 play allowing the lifter to rotate side to side quite a bit.
So, let me reword my question: Is there a standard as to the an allowable tolerance with the use of Dog bones, H bars, link bar, slotted lifter/lifter bores to allow the lifter to rotate/shift to accommodate alignment/machining inaccuracies? What point might be too much?
TIA
No. Less is better. Seriously, I know of no such standard. Late model GM LS based engines for instance use a lifter "tray" made from a composite material and the lifter is a tight fit in this tray. When new you can remove spring pressure and rotate the engine and the lifter will stay "up" in the tray. In some applications with offset pushrod seats/high pushrod angularity you may find a lot with a link bar style lifter to keep it from breaking the bar. The keyway style lifters tend to be tight. My point is it's all over the place. Someone, somewhere has probably tested this, or done the math to figure it out, but not at this level.
As the tolerance stack of the assembly is going to be different with every engine, in a perfect world this number would be different for every build.
Quote from: No Cents on November 16, 2014, 12:29:30 PM
so eddiepointdexter...where do you...or did you work at?
You seem like a very smart man and have a lot of knowledge in the area of valve trains and how oil affects it.
I'm just curious...and I see you met our Max :wink:
Ray
I know it won't help my credibility, but unfortunately I would rather not say. And as for my knowledge in this area, you could put it all into a thimble as compared to some. Realize you have NASCAR teams that have dedicated SpinTrons doing oil tests and based on the data from these tests, they have there own oil blended. Temperature is the key here. The reason they're always removing tape, adding tape is to control that temperature. With the materials used in today's components and the advent of MLS head gaskets, you can run those engines without water for a long time as long as the oil isn't overheated. Even with water temperatures at normal, if you run the oil outside it's intended temperature range they fail real fast.
no problem...I could tell you have been involved with testing in these areas from your 1st post.
Well...if you could make a lifter that would hold up to the twin cam abuse...you just may have found your get rich quick scheme.
Ray
eddiepointdexter, I guessing that you are associated with a cam company that if so I've purchased many products from :up:.
So here is a question that comes up here a lot. car companies use lifters in motors that are generally set for about 60# oil pressure, performance upgrades generally include a higher output oil pump increasing the oil pressure in the 70-80# range.
HD oil pressure range from 0-10# at hot idle, and because of the pop-off valve at about 40# at rpm on a stock motor.
The question is what affect if any is there running an aftermarket lifter designed for a performance auto 70-80# oil pressure, in a HD motor with stock pressure? and or increased pressure of 55-60#
TIA
Quote from: BVHOG on November 16, 2014, 07:18:58 AM
If the surface has zero "skidding" then how does wear occur?
Heat,pressure and some friction even if minute.
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 03:22:36 PM
eddiepointdexter, I guessing that you are associated with a cam company that if so I've purchased many products from :up:.
So here is a question that comes up here a lot. car companies use lifters in motors that are generally set for about 60# oil pressure, performance upgrades generally include a higher output oil pump increasing the oil pressure in the 70-80# range.
HD oil pressure range from 0-10# at hot idle, and because of the pop-off valve at about 40# at rpm on a stock motor.
The question is what affect if any is there running an aftermarket lifter designed for a performance auto 70-80# oil pressure, in a HD motor with stock pressure? and or increased pressure of 55-60#
TIA
As much as I would like to answer this question and open a discussion on the internal pieces of these lifters, I can't. Sorry.
Interesting read on oil temp, surface finish and boundary layer but there's still one inherent problem with the big twins. Take the worlds best lifter and shove it into a bore with .0025 clearance and you are still going to have issues. .0025 could be the good part of the bore and the bottom thrust area could be worn much more then that. That area needs to be addressed first.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on November 17, 2014, 05:11:43 AM
Interesting read on oil temp, surface finish and boundary layer but there's still one inherent problem with the big twins. Take the worlds best lifter and shove it into a bore with .0025 clearance and you are still going to have issues. .0025 could be the good part of the bore and the bottom thrust area could be worn much more then that. That area needs to be addressed first.
Ron
What do you think that clearance is when up to temp? If you're seeing .0025" on cool parts I'm betting it gets much worse at operating temp.
Quote from: 06roadglide on November 17, 2014, 05:16:24 AM
Quote from: rbabos on November 17, 2014, 05:11:43 AM
Interesting read on oil temp, surface finish and boundary layer but there's still one inherent problem with the big twins. Take the worlds best lifter and shove it into a bore with .0025 clearance and you are still going to have issues. .0025 could be the good part of the bore and the bottom thrust area could be worn much more then that. That area needs to be addressed first.
Ron
What do you think that clearance is when up to temp? If you're seeing .0025" on cool parts I'm betting it gets much worse at operating temp.
Absolutely. Alum expands more then the steel lifter body. There are two normal clearance specs for bores and lifters depending on alum or iron. .002 which is common for the big twin isn't in that spec.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on November 17, 2014, 05:26:42 AM
Quote from: 06roadglide on November 17, 2014, 05:16:24 AM
Quote from: rbabos on November 17, 2014, 05:11:43 AM
Interesting read on oil temp, surface finish and boundary layer but there's still one inherent problem with the big twins. Take the worlds best lifter and shove it into a bore with .0025 clearance and you are still going to have issues. .0025 could be the good part of the bore and the bottom thrust area could be worn much more then that. That area needs to be addressed first.
Ron
What do you think that clearance is when up to temp? If you're seeing .0025" on cool parts I'm betting it gets much worse at operating temp.
Absolutely. Alum expands more then the steel lifter body. There are two normal clearance specs for bores and lifters depending on alum or iron. .002 which is common for the big twin isn't in that spec.
Ron
I tried measuring mine years ago when I did the 117 build but my gauge just wasn't very trust worthy. Not to mention the bores just LOOKED horrible visually but they felt fine.
Should we forget the rollers and just go back to flat tappets and live with hp losses? Or have the parts cryod?
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 12:31:46 PM
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 11:58:34 AM
Quote from: eddiepoindexter on November 16, 2014, 10:42:46 AM
Quote from: q1svt on November 16, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/70Crz2g.png)
Like to see .0015" / .0025" lifter to lifter bore clearance depending on lifter bore material, so I would think .003" / .004" lifter to pin would be the target.
As for side loading, even the above average engine builder won't be able to get rid of it. Engine architecture, and if nothing else, cost would make this prohibitive. First of all you would need to index the lifter bores so they are perfectly 90° to the centerline of the cams. Once you accomplished this you would need to address pushrod angle along with the rest of the valve train geometry. While in theory this could all be fixed you're pretty much designing and building a different engine at that point. Again, too cost prohibitive.
Sorry, yes I understand your comment
I was trying to get a better understanding. American V8's use several means to aid a lifter from over rotating (Dog bones, H bars, link bar, slotted lifter/lifter bores. HD uses a round pin, I have collected info that there can be .008 play allowing the lifter to rotate side to side quite a bit.
So, let me reword my question: Is there a standard as to the an allowable tolerance with the use of Dog bones, H bars, link bar, slotted lifter/lifter bores to allow the lifter to rotate/shift to accommodate alignment/machining inaccuracies? What point might be too much?
TIA
No. Less is better. Seriously, I know of no such standard. Late model GM LS based engines for instance use a lifter "tray" made from a composite material and the lifter is a tight fit in this tray. When new you can remove spring pressure and rotate the engine and the lifter will stay "up" in the tray. In some applications with offset pushrod seats/high pushrod angularity you may find a lot with a link bar style lifter to keep it from breaking the bar. The keyway style lifters tend to be tight. My point is it's all over the place. Someone, somewhere has probably tested this, or done the math to figure it out, but not at this level.
As the tolerance stack of the assembly is going to be different with every engine, in a perfect world this number would be different for every build.
While on this AR pin subject I wanted to add about the end to end clearance, changed mine to .001", stock pins were near 1/8th"
" end to end clearance"
:scratch: what is that? Zippers procedure is to measure clearance between the al pin and the center of case riser...
clearance at one end of the pin or other end, doesn't matter which side, to the case boss.
I guess you can develop your own process to check...
I have been looking for blueprint specifications on HD Vtwins for a couple of years and have only found one printed document... and many shops like Basiley HP, when asked, state they use Zippers procedure and clearances.
I think it would be better to check the clearance when the tappet blocks are bolted down.
Quote from: joe_lyons on November 17, 2014, 03:48:43 PM
I think it would be better to check the clearance when the tappet blocks are bolted down.
:up: :wink:
Ray
Quote from: joe_lyons on November 17, 2014, 03:48:43 PM
I think it would be better to check the clearance when the tappet blocks are bolted down.
Good idea, maybe before and after, see what if any changes.
Quote from: joe_lyons on November 17, 2014, 03:48:43 PM
I think it would be better to check the clearance when the tappet blocks are bolted down.
Plus under a valve lift event to rock the lifter over in the bore. Personally the whole exercise is a waste of time.
Ron
Ron
:up:
Yeah run flat tappets no issue
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 18, 2014, 07:38:03 AM
Yeah run flat tappets no issue
[/quote
Think you have lifter noise now!!
I meant with a properly ground cam for them.
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 18, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
I meant with a properly ground cam for them.
Not going to work unless the cams are locked into minimum end play needed for control in the rotations. Flat tappets are not the sulution.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on November 19, 2014, 05:40:47 AM
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 18, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
I meant with a properly ground cam for them.
Not going to work unless the cams are locked into minimum end play needed for control in the rotations. Flat tappets are not the solution.
Ron
Agreed, quality metal is what's needed, it has been mentioned in this thread more than once, and facts are facts, I have seen 2 sets of C's with 7k or less that the rollers were frosted just like the one in the OP, in contrast to a set of B's out of a 2006 with 52k that looked great. I have pics of all of them and anyone interested in seeing them, pm me your email address.
Everyone can stay in denial if they like, or choose to use a better quality USA made tappet and leave the frosting to Duncan Hines.
Ok, guess i will have to try the parts after a dip in the cryo chamber.
Doesn't look like we will be getting quality metal any time soon.
Quote from: rbabos on November 19, 2014, 05:40:47 AM
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 18, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
I meant with a properly ground cam for them.
Not going to work unless the cams are locked into minimum end play needed for control in the rotations. Flat tappets are not the sulution.
Ron
Timing chain is all that controls the cam end play in most all older motors, I haven't been in to any newer than 2005 motors to know about them.
Quote from: Ohio HD on November 19, 2014, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: rbabos on November 19, 2014, 05:40:47 AM
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 18, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
I meant with a properly ground cam for them.
Not going to work unless the cams are locked into minimum end play needed for control in the rotations. Flat tappets are not the sulution.
Ron
Timing chain is all that controls the cam end play in most all older motors, I haven't been in to any newer than 2005 motors to know about them.
Are you referring to HD twin cam motors here?
Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 19, 2014, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Ohio HD on November 19, 2014, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: rbabos on November 19, 2014, 05:40:47 AM
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 18, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
I meant with a properly ground cam for them.
Not going to work unless the cams are locked into minimum end play needed for control in the rotations. Flat tappets are not the sulution.
Ron
Timing chain is all that controls the cam end play in most all older motors, I haven't been in to any newer than 2005 motors to know about them.
Are you referring to HD twin cam motors here?
No, I should have been clearer, flat tappets in V8 motors. They lived with a fair amount of end play.
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 19, 2014, 07:43:10 AM
Doesn't look like we will be getting quality metal any time soon.
S&S premiums seem to be holding the QC standard, BVBOB @ Razerback performance has a line of American made lifters as does GMR and Bob Wood. All of these mentioned seem to be holding their own as well.
and at how many miles??
Jim is over 20k with his wood lifters.
I have a set of gmr, not that many miles on them yet but I'm not a bit worried about them. After talking to Steve about them I'm confident they will last.
Quote from: joe_lyons on November 17, 2014, 03:48:43 PM
I think it would be better to check the clearance when the tappet blocks are bolted down.
Wouldn't that give a false reading?
Quote from: N-gin on November 20, 2014, 04:58:08 AM
Quote from: joe_lyons on November 17, 2014, 03:48:43 PM
I think it would be better to check the clearance when the tappet blocks are bolted down.
Wouldn't that give a false reading?
It would be an operational reading. More important in my view.
Ron
Quote from: Ohio HD on November 19, 2014, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: rbabos on November 19, 2014, 05:40:47 AM
Quote from: clawdog60 on November 18, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
I meant with a properly ground cam for them.
Not going to work unless the cams are locked into minimum end play needed for control in the rotations. Flat tappets are not the sulution.
Ron
Timing chain is all that controls the cam end play in most all older motors, I haven't been in to any newer than 2005 motors to know about them.
Hmm, in regards the the V8s flat tappets, not too sure about that. If lobe angles are one direction and bore offsets to match, it would force the gear face to the block and act as the thrust surface. At least that's how I'd build the damn thing. :hyst:
Ron
I know SBC solely relied on the timing chain, when you installed a gear drive you had to install a button under the timing cover to hold the cam gear to the block.
Somebody explain to me how a chain can hold end play to about .002-.005? :banghead:
Ron
I could have sworn their was a thrust plate?
Quote from: 06roadglide on November 19, 2014, 11:31:10 PM
Jim is over 20k with his wood lifters.
I have a set of gmr, not that many miles on them yet but I'm not a bit worried about them. After talking to Steve about them I'm confident they will last.
I saw Jim's Wood lifters, they looked like new :up:
Quote from: rbabos on November 20, 2014, 07:07:13 AM
Somebody explain to me how a chain can hold end play to about .002-.005? :banghead:
Ron
The angle on the lobes will force the cam to the rear of the block as it spins the lifters that are under valve spring pressure. The chain really does not hold it but it does not try to move it. When you go to gear drive the bevel of the teeth tend to fight the lifters for control so the button is added to keep the cam in place.
Quote from: 1FSTRK on November 20, 2014, 12:36:15 PM
Quote from: rbabos on November 20, 2014, 07:07:13 AM
Somebody explain to me how a chain can hold end play to about .002-.005? :banghead:
Ron
The angle on the lobes will force the cam to the rear of the block as it spins the lifters that are under valve spring pressure. The chain really does not hold it but it does not try to move it. When you go to gear drive the bevel of the teeth tend to fight the lifters for control so the button is added to keep the cam in place.
Ah yes, I've heard the noise those things can make if the clearance gets too big. Occasional snapping sound if I recall on some GMs.
Ron
looking for lifters for my 57h (.030 HG) 103 build... was considering those but not anymore... wich one are your favorites now ?
S&S standard or premium, GMR lifters, HD Street Performance lifters. There is a list of good lifters out there if you want a set that has been proven then S&S comes to mind
SnS Standard are Good...140$ area, Many using them...
SnS premium for More money...
GMR has some...
HD Street Performance ( Don) sells a good set that he checks Before they are sent out to make sure they Hold oil properly.. I run a set of his, they are really Quiet... About the same as SnS standards cost... :SM:
ADDED: Don sels Delphi Lifters Pre Checked by him to be working in his Range of Acceptance... :SM:
signed....BUBBIE
whats your opinion on woods ?
i like the new jims steady rolls, but the price hurts..
Gaterman 8k miles .660 lift
Anybody still running Gaterman Lifters should be Committed.
Quote from: gabbyduffy on December 23, 2015, 11:40:38 PM
Anybody still running Gaterman Lifters should be Committed.
What?? I read online they were the best !! :hyst:
Quote from: Tattoo on December 24, 2015, 03:03:54 AM
Quote from: gabbyduffy on December 23, 2015, 11:40:38 PM
Anybody still running Gaterman Lifters should be Committed.
What?? I read online they were the best !! :hyst:
Installing SS .
Gatermans was just a flavor of the month..lucked out and got 2 good sets according to what other have been running into.
Quote from: N-gin on December 24, 2015, 03:10:24 AM
Quote from: Tattoo on December 24, 2015, 03:03:54 AM
Quote from: gabbyduffy on December 23, 2015, 11:40:38 PM
Anybody still running Gaterman Lifters should be Committed.
What?? I read online they were the best !! :hyst:
Installing SS .
Gatermans was just a flavor of the month..lucked out and got 2 good sets according to what other have been running into.
:agree: ...with you N-gin.
I ran two different sets of the early Gaterman lifters...and I had no issues with either set.
Apparently their materials used in the production of them and their quality control spiraled down hill quickly.
It is a shame because I think it is one of the best designed lifters I've ever seen.
For now I'm not taking any chances and I'm sticking with the tried and true S&S lifters.
Ray
We didn't take pictures but will next time, my GMR's still look like new at 14,000 miles on them, no scuffing, rollers smooth and they still take awhile to bleed down as well.