best aftermarket valve springs

seeker1056 said:
I am curious??

IS the cast iron, spring steel, titanium etc that we use in our diesels patently different than that used in a high performance gasser engine

I mean I am readin many places on the various diesel forums about component failures at rediculously low rpms, spring pressures, etc etc

So our cams - with a muchroom lifter no less, are failing at anything more than 200lbs over the nose when a gasser cast iron cam can withstand almost 400 lbs and using a standard lifter? Mushroom lifters being a superior load carrier

Titanium retainers are failing from fatigue because of extended use? whereas again the gassers get years

Pushrods - flexing and breaking under less than 200lbs over the nose pressure?

what gives?
thanx
Click to expand...

On the 24 valve and common rail, we get a combined load from 2 each, exhaust and intake valves. So, 110 on the seat is now 220, 270 open is now 540, this divided by the rocker ratio will give actual load. These are billet roller cam loads, being applied to the flat tappet camshaft. Sure the tappet diameter is huge and the lobes are wide. The chilled iron core is also pretty hard and somewhat wear resistant. We have been looking at a means to force oil the tappet faces and lobe contact surfaces, to increase wear resistance.
 
an external oil manifold and squirters would be relativley easy - no too unlike what we used to do with amc and Ford motors or like they do in nascar even today

Run a line from the top of the oil filter housing, and then drill n tap six holes in the side of the block right at the cam lifter interface

I bet I could do the whole thing in about three hours and $100 worth of fittings and lines, including the Ebay procurred nascar oil squirters

On a race/pulling motor this would be peanuts in cost at the time of the build

One might have to shim up the oil pressure spring in the pump slightly to accommodate the extra flow
 
Last edited:
Thats a great idea i still have the oilers that came from my sb2 setup. Just think I was goin to trash them things.
 
I never said h2 was a stock 12v regrind, it is actually a new 12v marine cam that has been reground to your specs. If you manufacture these new for f1 why is the oem 12v part number ground off the end.The profile is adequate as are your spring pressures...... for a mildly modified truck. Problem is there are a lot of trucks out there that are more than mildly modified. For these trucks you have to have more seat pressure to control the valvetrain that is a fact. As far as attacking titanium be a man and just attack greg openly. And feel free to openly just say Hamilton instead of those other guys with the heavy springs just so there is no confusion.

As far as oiling we are working on a high ratio rocker that feeds oil to the pushrod to provide constant oiling to the cam and tappets.
 
I higher ration rocker would be great me and a friend were discusing using rockers from a high end gasser engine to get the desired ration since none are on the market yet for a cummins. if this pans out complete roller rockers in several different ratios would be obtainable.
 
texashighways said:
I never said h2 was a stock 12v regrind, it is actually a new 12v marine cam that has been reground to your specs. If you manufacture these new for f1 why is the oem 12v part number ground off the end.The profile is adequate as are your spring pressures...... for a mildly modified truck. Problem is there are a lot of trucks out there that are more than mildly modified. For these trucks you have to have more seat pressure to control the valvetrain that is a fact. As far as attacking titanium be a man and just attack greg openly. And feel free to openly just say Hamilton instead of those other guys with the heavy springs just so there is no confusion.

As far as oiling we are working on a high ratio rocker that feeds oil to the pushrod to provide constant oiling to the cam and tappets.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the thread where I posted the blank, unground cams. The cam blanks are manufactured in the same factory as many Cummins cams are. The factory runs me custom orders. I used to leave the Cummins part number on the cam heel until one of my dealers thought it might be better to remove it, so we started.

Again, you are wrong on what spring pressures are needed. Take a look at Tims dyno runs from last night. Those graphs are using no "smoothing" and the truck sees 100 PSI of boost. The valve train is completely under control. It made 970 HP on Diesel only. There are lots of examples, but we already knew they would be fine from testing.

Some additional examples would be Richard Browns 03 truck that made 1289 HP, Lloyd Mills truck that made 1280 HP, several trucks that make over 800 and approaching 900 HP on Diesel only. They ALL have Pro/sport springs and the valvetrains are healthy.
 
I must have missed something,...

Soup Nazi said:
I guess you missed the thread where I posted the blank, unground cams. The cam blanks are manufactured in the same factory as many Cummins cams are. The factory runs me custom orders. I used to leave the Cummins part number on the cam heel until one of my dealers thought it might be better to remove it, so we started.

Again, you are wrong on what spring pressures are needed. Take a look at Tims dyno runs from last night. Those graphs are using no "smoothing" and the truck sees 100 PSI of boost. The valve train is completely under control. It made 970 HP on Diesel only. There are lots of examples, but we already knew they would be fine from testing.

Some additional examples would be Richard Browns 03 truck that made 1289 HP, Lloyd Mills truck that made 1280 HP, several trucks that make over 800 and approaching 900 HP on Diesel only. They ALL have Pro/sport springs and the valvetrains are healthy.
Click to expand...

Pro/sport springs? Is that different from your Sportsman springs? How so?
 
they are factory ration but if these gasser versions work then they will be alot cheaper than 1200 bucks. and all they might require is slight machinin of the rocker shaft
 
WICKEDDIESEL said:
At that seat pressure (mid 90's), blow open ocurrs at roughly 78 psi. 110 psi seat pressure will go just shy of 100 psi boost. This has been verified by using a calibrated pressure gauge and an additional gauge to verify accuracy. We use a plate to cover the heater grid and use compressed air to fill the plenum. Achieved maximum pressure was as noted above. I agree, that there is a point of balance between rpm, boost and accellerated cam wear. We have been running 110 on the seat for over a year with NO signs of wear. No soot in the intake plenum, to indicate reversion or mixed cycles. We don't run valve seals on the exhaust side, due to oil coking at the top of the guide, keeping oil from properly lubing the valve guides. The side effects are a little more soot in the oil, and a little oil smoke at start up. The positive effect is virtually unlimited guide life and higher drive pressures before blow open can ocurr. We offset the additional crancase pressure with a puke tank, and cover the soot with a 2 micron bypass filter. Some longevity tricks for the modded 5.9
Click to expand...

I hate to have to agree with Don~ but the belief that spring pressures have to be soo high to hold the valve shut is incorrect. The boost pressure numbers mentioned here to blow the valves open are true, but misleading when considered in the actual enviroment of the engine. 110psi seat will according to your testing will hold probably 200psi in the motor. It has not been considered that there is an equal or generally greater pressure on the piston side of the valve due to engine back pressure from the turbocharger/s. If you have 100psi of boost, back pressure will almost always be 100psi if not 110-120 is more typical. If you do your test while applying 100 in the intake and have 120 on the piston side I think you will find it won't blow open. Therefore boost pressure can nearly be negated in your calculations of necessary spring pressure. RPM's, valvetrain mass, and ramp rates are the most critical factors in determining the correct spring rates. This is just my opinion.
 
HOLY CRAP...Did I just read that?

Just kidding Guys, This has been a great read!
Chris
 
KTA-Cummins said:
I hate to have to agree with Don~ but the belief that spring pressures have to be soo high to hold the valve shut is incorrect. The boost pressure numbers mentioned here to blow the valves open are true, but misleading when considered in the actual enviroment of the engine. 110psi seat will according to your testing will hold probably 200psi in the motor. It has not been considered that there is an equal or generally greater pressure on the piston side of the valve due to engine back pressure from the turbocharger/s. If you have 100psi of boost, back pressure will almost always be 100psi if not 110-120 is more typical. If you do your test while applying 100 in the intake and have 120 on the piston side I think you will find it won't blow open. Therefore boost pressure can nearly be negated in your calculations of necessary spring pressure. RPM's, valvetrain mass, and ramp rates are the most critical factors in determining the correct spring rates. This is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not to say you are wrong in your theory,but wouldn't both valves be closed on the compression stroke taking back-pressure out of the equazion?
 
KTA-Cummins said:
I hate to have to agree with Don~ but the belief that spring pressures have to be soo high to hold the valve shut is incorrect. The boost pressure numbers mentioned here to blow the valves open are true, but misleading when considered in the actual enviroment of the engine. 110psi seat will according to your testing will hold probably 200psi in the motor. It has not been considered that there is an equal or generally greater pressure on the piston side of the valve due to engine back pressure from the turbocharger/s. If you have 100psi of boost, back pressure will almost always be 100psi if not 110-120 is more typical. If you do your test while applying 100 in the intake and have 120 on the piston side I think you will find it won't blow open. Therefore boost pressure can nearly be negated in your calculations of necessary spring pressure. RPM's, valvetrain mass, and ramp rates are the most critical factors in determining the correct spring rates. This is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

If you guys want pictures i'll show you what happens when someone thinks they need really high spring pressures for high boost and RPM that they never achieved, the result was a "pull in two" tiny 24V spring that left the valve embedded into the piston.

Jim
 
Jim Fulmer said:
Bingo!

If you guys want pictures i'll show you what happens when someone thinks they need really high spring pressures for high boost and RPM that they never achieved, the result was a "pull in two" tiny 24V spring that left the valve embedded into the piston.

Jim
Click to expand...

Been there and done that....... Hmmmm, seems like you and I have had this discussion Jim.
 
So how many R's can the stock valve train take before valves start to float?

Like my 99' for example, 232K miles, stock head, gasket and bolts. Is 3500 with a load gonna tank the motor? There is a TSB that recommends 3500 rpm for a minute when extensive cold weather idling is present to clean up the gummy valves. But that is no load free idling, or does it matter?
 
Once again I have piles trashed valves that were run on engines with stock springs so the opinion that 110 lbs of seat pressure causes valve failure is nonsense. I have seen people run springs from pdr that were around 200lbs of seat pressure without valve failures so 110 is a breeze. I am looking into running a 24v engine on a spintron with a highspeed camera to get some real data, so people can make the absolute best decisions with real data not opinions. This takes time so this pissing match wil have to wait a bit for any real developements.

My springs were designed by the same people that cater to top NHRA and nascar teams and they got it right the first time. But then again that is just an opinion. stay posted..................
 
Big Blue24 said:
So how many R's can the stock valve train take before valves start to float?

Like my 99' for example, 232K miles, stock head, gasket and bolts. Is 3500 with a load gonna tank the motor? There is a TSB that recommends 3500 rpm for a minute when extensive cold weather idling is present to clean up the gummy valves. But that is no load free idling, or does it matter?
Click to expand...

You should be alright at 3500 but just to be safe I'd stay around 3200 with stock springs.
 
The question for me is where do we get better quality valves.

It is a fact that high spring pressures cause valve failures with most stock type valves. I always assumed they were of 2 piece design, never having closely inspecting them. Or junk as I call them.

And why do such aggressive ramps have to be used on the cams anyway? Are we talking NA or charged engines here? Not that 110 lbs closed is all that high. It's the open pressures and the springs ability to control the valve as it cycles that concerns me. I would always use the lightest spring available that gave me some safety factor in order to limit parasitic drag. As mentioned many times, it is also easier on the rest of the components, especially push rods.

I have seen samples of more than one valve spring spec'd exactly as another brand that in fact, did not work the same. Imagine that.

I am not impressed with equipment built by the racing crowd. Racers build a product to do a specific job for a specific amount of time. And it's usually about how many runs a part will last before change out is required. Don't get mad, it's just the way it works.

So when it comes to selecting springs, I would think a person would want to go with the springs specifically designed for that cam profile and lift. If everyone is using a one size fits all spring, what does that say about the differences in the cams?

I seen Comp bring up .006" lift and .200" lift for referencing flow data. The .006" number I usually use to help me plot the cam ramp vs. the traditional .050" but the gasser solid lifter guys always talk in .006". Truth of the matter is, low lift numbers regarding flow are always the most crucial. Since the head is hindered by design, putting too much faith in speeding up the ramp profile for the sake of low lift numbers is almost counter intuitive. Not calling you out Comp, I am sure you know much more about cam design and theory than I do, it just doesn't make sense to me.

In other words, how much additional flow with more aggressive cam profiles do we see at low lift that necessitates the use of high seat/ high open pressures?

Any? None? Some? I am sure someone has to had a head on a bench running it through a series of tests right? This is not to start a war about cams. I could care less. But the cam design forces the hand of the spring design. If a lobe design is used with no appreciable lift increase (stock or high ratio rockers) and no weight has been added, why is the solution to jack up spring pressures to the moon?

And why is the cylinder pressure game played up when most high HP engines rely on modified intake valve closing events to clip cylinder pressure? You would never purposely build a low CR motor and then try to recover cylinder pressure with the cam.

Dave
 
GRotman said:
Not to say you are wrong in your theory,but wouldn't both valves be closed on the compression stroke taking back-pressure out of the equazion?
Click to expand...

You certainly won't blow the valve open on the compression stroke. Cylinder pressure is 300+psi just at cranking speed and even more running. When intake blow open would occur would be at or near TDC exhaust stroke when cylinder pressure would idealy be the lowest.
 
It would be virtually impossible, to measure the pressure differential on the exhaust or intake valves. Dependent upon boost and drive pressure levels, cycles can become mixed. This tells me that a couple of things could be happening. Drive pressure on the exhaust side is overrunning boost, and forcing exhaust back into the intake tract. Valve overlap at TDC is naturally mixing the cycles, due to the duration of both valves at TDC. Lastly, the valves are being blown off of their seats, in an uncontrolled action causing the cycles to mix. For whatever anomoly is ocurring, a spring change gets rid of the soot in the intake side of the head. Driveability is better and torque is up, with a little better egt's. On these highly modded engines making 80+ psi boost and running high drive pressures, an extreme force of pressure is ever present on the backside of the valve, and determined to find a way in. For the highly modded engine, the factory springs, will not suffice. One thing is for certain, push your engine and you need springs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top