Valve spring retainers

I believe Crane and Isky both had aluminum and or titanium retainers available in the sixty's. If available could we not run oem type springs and since full roller rockers are now available then useing FSPPs new head which flows so well a high lifts. A cam with reasonally short duration but high lift, .550' overall made for rpm hp and torque curve of 2000 to 5000 or even 5500 with a redline of 6200 or shouldn't be out of the question. I brought up oem springs ( I don't know if they'd bind or not)because with all the other pieces being so light, redline should extend and we'd have even less parasitic forces with help of the light springs.

Comments are appreciated

Also does anyone make titanium or aluminum retainers?

Howdy Back ProfKirby:

Comments-
*Parasatic losses due to valve spring tension does not exist. Think about it. Every time a spring is being compressed- energy user, another spring is decompressing- energy maker. So it all comes out even. There is extra heat, wear and stress as a result of added spring pressure and range. The higher the lift and pressure, the greater the heat, wear, and stress on parts.

If I were investing in a new FSPP head and full roller rockers, I would not use stock OEM valve spring.

*Lighter weight valve train components do require less spring tension to control the valves. The lightest weight valve train with only enough spring tension to control the valve action results is the coolest running, least stress and wear on the system.

*Coil bind is a when the spring is compressed to the point that there is no space left between the coils of a valve spring. It becomes solid. Coil bind is a product of lift, coil design and dimensions. Light weight components do not effect coil bind. A spring is designed for a job. If a spring is used in a capacity that it was not designed for, it would need to be carefully checked to ensure that coil bind does not take place.

For example, using a stock OEM valve spring with a valve lift that exceeds .400" lift, coil bind could be a problem. It should be checked for in a trial fit that includes hand rotation of the engine and measuring the space between the coils of the valve spring to verify that there is still space.

*Valve lift is a balancing act too. Valve lift is best matched to the flow characteristics of the head. When flow benching a head, maximum flow is determined at fixed lifts. For example, .250" .300" .350" . 400" and so on. On most heads, flow increases with lift- to a point. If max flow is achieved at .400", and there is no farther gain at .450", then any lift beyond .400" is not adding performance, but is adding stress, heat and wear.

Let me add, that a flow bench is not an engine and other dynamics effect the performance of a cam in an engine. So slightly more lift than max air flow on a bench usually has some merit.

*As lift goes up and cam duration becomes greater, the likelyhood of valve/piston interference goes up. Be sure to check for this in the trial fit.

I am not aware of anyone marketing aluminum or titanium retainers for our engines.

Hope that helps you. Sorry to be so long.

Adios, David

Thanks David,
I would expect an OEM spring to bind, I just have never checked them at that high a lift. I also believe that if you are spending as much money as we would be talking about to build this hypothetical engine we would find the best quality we could. Since the FSPP head's flow topped out at .600 but with very little gain after .500 that a cam with with a short enough duration to give good torque at a reasonable RPM but a relative high lift may get a higher and flatter torque curve. I realize that high acceleration stresses on the valve train would be harmful, especially with flat tappets. That the lightest valve train weight and the least spring tension to handle a maximum of 6500RPM would be best best for longevity and hopefully take advantage of the high flow characteristics of the new head. I'm not talking about a race engine here, but a high performance street engine.
I think we're on the same wavelength.

aluminum retainers = asking for failure unless replaced regularly

Profkirby":10em89yj said:

because with all the other pieces being so light, redline should extend

Click to expand...

What is the reason for wanting more RPM?

Titanium would be my preference also. Longevity is one of the reasons for lightweight components and as light a spring pressure as is posible for the RPM wanted.
Is a redline of 6500 really unrealistic? Why would we not want to be able to safely spin that fast, what would you feel is a realistic number?

Tim

Titanium would be my preference also. I bought a used Racer Brown solid lifter, 266 deg cam, springs and stock adjustable rocker set up. The springs had aluminum retainers supplied with the cam by Racer Brown. I shortened a set of 3/8 chrome Molly FE pushrods a friend gave me. My racer friends said the retainers wouldn't be reliable, but they all had big blocks with stiff springs. I ran 110 lbs seat pressure. I ran these for about 30,000 miles on a DD. Performance started dropping off so I installed a new set of springs and retainers which brought the rev limit back up. This Jahns cast pistons engine was regularly shifted at 6500. What I am saying is on a performance car, springs should be freshened occasionally and at that time replace the retainer and valve seals.

I've been hearing about how people say their engines feel like they're going to come apart at about 5000 with stock cams, springs, etc. On the cam rated to 6500 it seems like that feeling was just raised 1500 rpm.
Wanting more power I put forged pistons in and a cam kit rated to 8000 rpm and now the engine started sounding bad at 7400. NA induction was aided by 3 YF carbs.

Profkirby":2s5eyc92 said:

Is a redline of 6500 really unrealistic? Why would we not want to be able to safely spin that fast, what would you feel is a realistic number?

Click to expand...

I think 6500 can be a realistic number, but the ability to rev more costs more. It is a RPM range a street driven car would seldom see, though. You would also need to make sure the rest of the package (cam, head flow, etc.) can support the RPM. No sense in revving that high if the airflow isn't there, but if it is then all reasonable mods will need to be made to the bottom end to keep it alive at those speeds. (forces increase at the square of the RPM).

In summary: I see no reason to rev that high unless the engine will actually be able to make power at that speed.

Drag-200StangI ran these for about 30,000 miles on a DD. Performance started dropping off...) When an engine is subjected to racing conditions, valve springs, retainers, etc. become maintenance items. I expect alloy (aluminum) retainers would need to be changed on a regular basis even if the car is not raced but only used for the sake of making the valve train as light as posible.
In retrospect, alloy is likely not practical in an engine that is predomanently driven on the street per Linc's 200"s suggestion.

Let's find some titanium out there! If memory serves (and it doesn't serve too well nowadays), Crane's titanium retainers had a larger OD and the spring seats had to be opened up to fit the larger diameter springs. Obviously the springs and retainers were designed for a different application. Perhaps if someone could find what that was.

Linc, I agree that 6500 would seldom be seen on the street. My daily driver (Mitsu. Lancer Ralliart) has a 6500 redline and seldom sees 5000, well maybe more than seldom but I like the cushion it gives me though power does also drop off after 5500.

my original idea about a usable 6500 RPM redline was based on the proposition that we would be using the new FSPP alloy head which looks like it will breath very well at 6500 and above. I also agree that the botton end needs to be capable of handling the stress. The Schjeldahl brothers report on page 40 of their book that all conrods to 1973 were forged, and from 82 up also. I would be inclined to believe (though I could not say for sure) that those rods after being magnafluxed, resized, shotpeened and sides fully polished and then balanced along with fully balancing the entire reciprocating system and a good damper the bottom end should handle 7000 to 7500 safely. Many have been twisted to more than that I suspect, then again those could be in pieces. My first question was hypothetical of course.

Tim

Profkirby":4pcef1ai said:

The Schjeldahl brothers report on page 40 of their book that all conrods to 1973 were forged, and from 82 up also.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm....the rods I pulled from my 82 engine are clearly cast, not forged.

I also recently disassembled an '82 200 ('82 Merc Capri) and the rods are indeed cast. Maybe a mid-year chage? Don't know,but this 200 is definitely an '82. I have lots of early forged rods and will use them in future builds.

Terry

Howdy all:

Linc & Terry- Please note that with FoMoCo words like "Always" and "Never" are at best risky. Consider that the 1982 200 engines were the end of its cooperate life. I'm guessing that FoMoCo was in a "Use up" and "empty all the bins" mode, so "yes", it is very likely that forged and cast rods ended up in the '82 model year engines. The best bet, if you are looking for forged pieces to build a performance bottom end, is to look to '73 and before.

Trying to date Ford changes has been more than a little challenging. As always, with FoMoCo, the best bet, to be sure of what you have, is to look.

ProfKirby- When reving to the past five grand range as you've proposed, another realm that would need attention is the stock oil system. Stock it pumps so efficiently at normal rpm ranges that when rpms go up it becomes efficient to the point of disaster- by pumpng the pan dry and not allowing oil to return to the pan as quickly as it is being pumped out. So add a larger capacity, baffled oil pan and pick up to the modified bottom and consider ways to help gravity get the oil back down to the panmore quickly.

Adios, David

CZLN6":2ayx1x75 said:

Please note that with FoMoCo words like "Always" and "Never" are at best risky. I'm guessing that FoMoCo was in a "Use up" and "empty all the bins" mode

Click to expand...

Affirmative on that. My '93 Ranger Splash has a 8.8" rear end in it, and it was originally a 4 cyl. Truck (now 5.0). I have had people tell me up one side and down the other that all 4-cyl rangers had a 7.5" rear, no exception. I guess there are always exceptions!

CZLN6":2ayx1x75 said:

by pumpng the pan dry and not allowing oil to return to the pan as quickly as it is being pumped out.

Click to expand...

I thought these engines had a hard time getting enough oil up top?

Howdy back:

Linc wrote- "I thought these engines had a hard time getting enough oil up top?"

The problems with getting oil to the rockers is more relating to sludge build up in the inside of the rocker shaft and in the rocker oil holes. The long path is also a problem. Oil must pass up the back driver's side headbolt, transfer through a groove in the head and gasket over to the rocker arm stauncheon and up to the rocker shaft, then down the shaft to the front of the engine. Oil then travels down the push rods, over the lifters and cam to the crankcase by gravity flow. If you've ever cleaned up a rocker assembly you know sludge and his buddy crud.

These problems were largely solved with quality detergent oil, the tapered head bolts that appeared after '75, and with larger 1/8" holes on both sides of the rocker arms. Early rockers (pre '70) have a 3/32" hole on the valve side.

At lower rpms, this is a very good system. As rpms go up oil is pumped up faster then gravity can flow it back down. At the rpm levels Profkirby is talking, accomodations must be made to keep a supply of oil to the pump.

Adios, David

Question for you David. The Yella Terra full roller rockers don't oil through rockers but through the pushrods via the lifters ala small block Chevys and others. Would this system keep more oil to the bottom end and is there a way to put restricter plug in like we've had to do on other engines?

Thanks, Tim

Howdy Back Tim:

That's a good question. I don't know. I've had no experience with them and don't know the details of pressured oil routing. Maybe WSA111 (Bill) or Addo (Adam) will be along with an answer.

The best solution will be to get oil back to the bottom as quickly as it is being pumped up. Restrictors may create problems at lower rpms, where we live most of the time. I have heard of builders detailing the floor of the rocker galley with a grinder to smooth and direct oil to the pushrod side to hasten gravity flow back down to the crankcase. This may be a non-issue with the new Alloy heads. I also know of a Chevy six builder who painted the rocker floor with a product called "Glyptol". His rationale was to seal the rough sand cast surface and to give a slick surface for the oil to flow freely.

Under any circumstances, given your proposed rpm range, I'd still expect to see a larger capacity oil pan, with baffling and a crank scraper.

AzCoupe's topic under "HP & torque" has covered some similiar issues, concerns and ideas relating to practical and usable.

Adios, David

I agree with everything that's been said in these posts but I'd like to add some thoughts.

CZLN6":36lkm5qo said:

As rpms go up oil is pumped up faster then gravity can flow it back down. At the rpm levels Profkirby is talking, accomodations must be made to keep a supply of oil to the pump.

Click to expand...

This may apply to boosted engines more than NA engines. It seems blow by aggravates the drain back issue. Some oil may even be blown up. I'm sure on a very tight engine this may not be an issue.

But I noticed when Inliner posted some of the Argentine race engines it appears they used the fuel pump opening for the crank case ventilation, drawing air/oil down the push rod openings instead of up out the valve cover.

On my new engine I thought of the early '60s crank case ventilation where the crank was ventilated from a cavity behind the timing chain. I think that the spinning chain and sprockets acted as an oil seperator but in '68 and up blocks that system was deleted.

On my drag race engine I had to put a catch can on the valve cover. It would puke out a fair amount of oil. Does 10's doesn't seem to be having much of a problem but I'm sure the 1 1/2" taller deck helps. The higher rpm that I run my 200 may also contribute.

I'm going to try a deeper oil pan, the Argentine down draft crank case ventilation and a regular 250 sized oil pump on my 200 rather than the high volume FE oil pump georotors.

Profkirby, I was writing this while you were posting. Some of this may apply to your question.

I would suppose that high pressure in the crankcase would exasperate the problem of oil return. While out of the scope of a street engine I have seen cases of belt driven vacuum pumps to apply as much negative pressure to the crankcase as posible. Too much pressure not only soaks up HP it contaminates the combustion chamber during intake stroke both through valve guides and rings. Seals and gaskets won't be too happy either. In many pictues I've seen of nicely built engines the crankcase ventilation system has been shortchanged. In the years goneby we had a breather cap and ventilation tube going out the bottom after being baffled be a screen or similar contraption. With the oil that was run then some folks engines would build up lots of sludge and plug these systems up. Just like today, Joe average doesn't change oil often enough especially if they experience a lot of stop and go or short trip driving. Uncle Sam wasn't too happy with the pollutants expelled to the atmosphere so engineers were required to design the "positive crankcase ventalation valve" and have the engine vacuum up the blowby and burn it. Later they took the breather cap and sealed it from the atmosphere also and put a hose from there to the air cleaner and put the filter in it so that gasses in that end of the system would be burned upon startup.
Sorry about that blathering. It's just that I seen people virtually plug up the engine. Nowadays without the down draft vent tube crankcase gases have to come out the valve cover usually through a PCV valve and air has to go back in through another opening like a breath through oil filler cap or such. For racing I like the idea of fabricating a breather from the fuel pump opening. It would probably be easy to rig a catch can from there also.

Boy are we off the subject of retainers. I'm sorry about that.

Thanks, tim

Some people do restrict the pushrod oil channels in roller rocker applications. A pipecleaner was the usual favourite.

I'm an opponent of sealing the cast surfaces - for the reason of believing it impedes heat transfer to the oil.

Regards, Adam.