What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

This is question for 4x4 high !

4X4HIGH said:
The cam lobe is not flat across the surface of the lobe just as the lifter isn't perfectly flat either. They both have a very small crown to them to make the lifter rotate on the cam so it doesn't wear in only one position. With the lifter being able to rotate on the lobe is why the lifter will wear evenly (relatively speaking) across the lifter body making it shorter.
Click to expand...

The cam lobe shouldn't have a crown, it should be slightly sloped. The distributor gear trys to push the cam forward, and the slope of the came lobes make the lifters push back. At least that's what I remember from reading about flat tappet cams. The lifter is round, and they lobe is supposed to spin it in its bore, I agree that neither of them are flat.

Martin
 
82355 said:
The cam lobe shouldn't have a crown, it should be slightly sloped. The distributor gear trys to push the cam forward, and the slope of the came lobes make the lifters push back. At least that's what I remember from reading about flat tappet cams. The lifter is round, and they lobe is supposed to spin it in its bore, I agree that neither of them are flat.

Martin
Click to expand...

All i've got to say is you shoud look just above my avatar. :deal:

Also the distributor gear keeps the cam from trying to walk forward not the other way around.
 
4X4HIGH said:
All i've got to say is you shoud look just above my avatar. :deal:

Also the distributor gear keeps the cam from trying to walk forward not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I see it, I still maintain that a cam lobe is tapered across it surface, not crowned. The taper causes the tappet to spin.

Martin
 
So I walked out in the garage and dug the spare distributor out of the race car parts. That turns clockwise.
05-07-09_2029.jpg


That means the gear pushes forward. The flat tappet cam is tapered, and keeps the cam from walking out the front of the engine (and spins the crowned lifters). Why do you think there is no thrust plate. Then when Chevrolet went to roller cams in 1987 (roller cams are flat, they want the roller to contact as much of the lobe as possible) they added a thrust plate to hold the cam in the block. The same as if you put a retrofit roller cam into a non roller block, you have to use a cam button.

Martin
 
Stock oil pump, i also think that the fact that the rotators on the intake valves , which were on the old heads had something to do with the wear on the cam lobes and the lifters ???... ive been told you only have rotators on the exhaust valves not on the intake valves ????
 
454 blazer said:
Stock oil pump, the fact that the rotators were on the intake valves had everything to do with the wear on the cam lobes and the lifters . You should only have rotators on the exhaust valves not on the intake valves
Click to expand...


There fixed it for you .:D
I can't believe with higher rate aftermarket springs & the rotators on the intake valves ,you ran it for a year & only wiped out one lobe :confused:
 
Got a new cam in now WITH THE ROTATORS ONLY ON YHE EXHAUST VALVES THIS TIME!!! Ha ha ha you learn by your mistakes .So must have been really dragging and robbing some power aswell yeah !!
 
Might want to drop the pan also... could have some metal in there.

Make SURE you get a good oil filter also... mobil 1 or napa gold are 2 of the best you can get.
 
Fabrimacator21 said:
Might want to drop the pan also... could have some metal in there.

Make SURE you get a good oil filter also... mobil 1 or napa gold are 2 of the best you can get.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I would say the flat lobe is more of a oiling lifter problem than rotater problem. They weren't putting anymore load on the lifter and unless they went to pieces they weren't the problem. Use a high zinc oil and possible some eos this time. Like I said before GMs hard face lifters would have prevented this. The lifter ate the cam not the otherway round. Oh and the lobes are tappered.
 
Fabrimacator21 said:
Might want to drop the pan also... could have some metal in there.

Make SURE you get a good oil filter also... mobil 1 or napa gold are 2 of the best you can get.
Click to expand...

Purolator Pure 1s are a very good filter. Not the regular filter the Pure Ones.

The mobil 1 is a crappy filter and the napa gold is an ok filter. The Pure one has more plates, tighter material to fliter out smaller particals as well.

You can read it from the pro.

http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilters/reference.html#purolator
 
cuervo said:
Purolator Pure 1s are a very good filter. Not the regular filter the Pure Ones.

The mobil 1 is a crappy filter and the napa gold is an ok filter. The Pure one has more plates, tighter material to fliter out smaller particals as well.

You can read it from the pro.

http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilters/reference.html#purolator
Click to expand...

I guess I needed to specify.

"ExxonMobil does offer a very high-quality oil filter that can be used with any motor oil, but it is an especially appropriate companion to Mobil 1. With a 99.2 percent efficiency rating (under SAE J1858 Multi-Pass Efficiency Test)"

The review on the mobil 1 filter:

"This filter is made by Champion Labs and uses a synthetic fiber element that can filter out very small particles. It is rated by the manufacturer at just under the Purolator Pure One as far as filtering capability, but is still very much above conventional paper filters. It also has a very strong construction to withstand high pressure spikes during start-up. Given the choice between the Purolator Pure One and the Mobil 1 filters, I would choose the Mobil 1 because of the restriction concerns of the Pure One. However, as with all Mobil 1 products, expect to pay 2 - 3 times as much for this filter. I have seen this filter sold at AutoZone and K-mart."

The pure one:

This is an interesting filter design made by Purolator. Most of the construction of the Pure One is the same as the Purolator Premium Plus. The big difference is the filter element itself. It has a dense paper/fiber filter element that can filter very small particles. The result of this is cleaner oil exiting the element, but more oil restriction. Purolator addressed this by adding more filter material (more and deeper pleats). After seeing one of these filters cut open, I am apprehensive about this filter. It seems to have so many pleats that it is almost a solid chunk of filter element. It seems like it would end up restricting the flow, more than anything. Purolator has plenty of data on the filtration abilities of this filter and I don't doubt it, but they have no flow data. Even so, I don't see any major problems with this filter. It also sports a silicone anti-drainback valve and a PTFE treated nitrile rubber gasket.

The guy doing the study in the link said he'd go with the mobil 1 filter because of oil restriction problems with the purolator... either way they are both very good.

Amsoil makes a good filter also.
 
cuervo said:
Purolator Pure 1s are a very good filter. Not the regular filter the Pure Ones.

The mobil 1 is a crappy filter and the napa gold is an ok filter. The Pure one has more plates, tighter material to fliter out smaller particals as well.

You can read it from the pro.

http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilters/reference.html#purolator
Click to expand...

Well he needs to find whatever is available in Bahrain, I don't think they have NAPA there:rolleyes:
But They do have good stuff so he just needs to find the best there is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom