High dollar composite lifters

[dwg86]

I don't want to discourage anyone from having a roller cam built fro the 4.0, just giving some alternatives...$650.00 for a cam and more $$ for the roller lifters. Thats a lot of money for what started out to be "budget strokers". Check out these lifters http://www.4secondsflat.com/Composite%20lifters.htm
Like I said just offering info...

[gremlinsteve]

those aint cheap. shuebeck made them for years. he retired now and the company went down. looks like fbo picked em up..thats a good thing.

and 650 for a roller is just the cost for one. if there was a demand, then the cost would go down alot.

steve

[SilverXJ]

Sent them an email asking if they had anything for a 4.0L. The $700+ is also for a lot of 16, not 12, so maybe it would be less. If these lifters can give me piece of mind not having worry about the cam failing, it would be worth the cost.

[Flash]

some tall claims,
never heard of these composite lifters,
and body know of any body that has used them

[gremlinsteve]

been around for years. they do work. and when changing cams, you need not change lifters.
they had a version, or shuebeck did, that was contoured like a roller. the roller lifter has some advantages. these rollers have more of an advantage the larger the wheel is right. these shuebeck lifter that where contoured had what was equivalent to a 1 inch diameter wheel.

if fbo has these lifters, they should also have the contoured ones.

i have run them myself.



steve

[Flash]

Sound like these lifters are in a past tenth, for you, Why are you not using them now!!!

Do they shorten the life of a cam?............becouse there so tough?

Flash

[SilverXJ]

This is the email I recieved from 4secondsflat.com

For your application I would try and get 130-150 seat pressure and over the nose is not important.

Stock is about 85 if I remember right?

$540 a set of 12.

We'll need 2-3 weeks to get them built

[Alex22]

I don't see how they can claim to eliminate valve float, because it has almost nothing to do with the lifter its self. The only effect a lifter can have on valve float is when you switch from a hydraulic to a solid lifter (the limit on hyd is 6400rpm). Valve float is primarily a result of the cam profile and spring pressures and rates. If a cam has a very aggressive ramp then without enough spring pressure it will throw the lifter off of the cam and it will crash into the back side of the lobe. Another cause of valve float is the valve spring. For those who remember physics class and specifically the part on harmonics, every spring will have a harmonic frequency. When a spring reaches that frequency in a running engine it can do some strange stuff. I suggest you do a video search for high speed footage of valve float. The spring will actually come away from the head and rotate around causing all types of havoc!

Back to the topic of the thread. I haven't seen any of these lifters being used in any of the performance engines we build, but I will ask about them at work tomorrow. It looks like complete overkill for a jeep inline 6 engine to me. I'm planing on using either a standard lifter with a gouge in the lifter bore to allow more oil to flow or the Crower Cam savers.

~Alex

[Flash]

Isn't the composite lifter a Lot lighter..........will take a lot more to make it float

I'm just ASSuMEing here..................


Flash

[Alex22]

Isn't the composite lifter a Lot lighter..........will take a lot more to make it float

I'm just ASSuMEing here..................


Flash

I forgot the weight factor , that reminds me. There was a stock rebuild of a BBChevy not too long ago that was having valve float issues earlier than the last time it was dyno'd. The cause was that the new lifters were about 30 grams heavier than the old ones. It had hydraulic roller lifters and they are the heaviest you can get.


~Alex

[SilverXJ]

The reason these lifters eliminate valve float is because you can run HIGHER spring pressures on the cam with out damage. The lifters are gentle on the cam.

[gremlinsteve]

there are more things done to these lifters than the material tho.
they old man shuebeck used to shim the puck inside the lifter to limit the travel. in essence turing it into what you wuold consider a "solid" lifter yet still maintain some of the hyd feature.

easy way is saying it kept the lifter from pumping up at rpm too much..

on my application at the time, there was no other lifter choice. we ran these with success on a 346 cid motor hitting 9.60's at 135 mph all day long. that was a n/a motor at a race weight with driver of 3400#.

before the lifter we where unable to rpm the motor where it should have been. after, we gained 600 rpm.

at a 85 seat pressure, i would say that would need to be no more than 130. with more you run the risk of wiping a lobe. with zddp or not.

open pressure means little to me. i do like to see the number but the seat pressure is where it is at.

what is the stock seat height on this head we use? sometimes mopar uses a bastard height and its tough picking springs.

i dont have that old 346 any more. sold all that off...moved on..to a gremlin now running a hemi
steve

[Alex22]

I asked about these at work today. It looks like these are a variant of the original Joe Schubeck lifters which were made entirely out of ceramic, which became hard to find because the DOD and contractors were buying up all they could get their hands on. These new ones look like they are either coated or have an insert pressed into them and I don't think we have used them in any of our engines.

The shop and others we know have used the original ceramic lifters in engines before, and they are tough. They won't ware out, but they will wear the cam out. Apearantly there were some problems with quality control at Joe's and some bad ones made it into engines. When those lifters go they shatter into lots and lots of very hard and very sharp pieces, he said that the engine that lost one lifter looked like someone had taken a chainsaw to everything inside that poor engine. They would be complete overkill for a jeep lower rpm (under 6400) inline 6 engine, I'm just going to make a standard set of lifters into cam savers.

~Alex

[SilverXJ]

there are more things done to these lifters than the material tho.
they old man shuebeck used to shim the puck inside the lifter to limit the travel. in essence turing it into what you wuold consider a "solid" lifter yet still maintain some of the hyd feature.

easy way is saying it kept the lifter from pumping up at rpm too much..

Sounds like Comp Cam's anti-pump lifters

open pressure means little to me. i do like to see the number but the seat pressure is where it is at.

Why does seat pressure means so much more than open pressure? Is it because that is where the cam spends most of its life?

what is the stock seat height on this head we use? sometimes mopar uses a bastard height and its tough picking springs.

1.64"

[SilverXJ]

The shop and others we know have used the original ceramic lifters in engines before, and they are tough. They won't ware out, but they will wear the cam out. Apearantly there were some problems with quality control at Joe's and some bad ones made it into engines. When those lifters go they shatter into lots and lots of very hard and very sharp pieces, he said that the engine that lost one lifter looked like someone had taken a chainsaw to everything inside that poor engine. They would be complete overkill for a jeep lower rpm (under 6400) inline 6 engine, I'm just going to make a standard set of lifters into cam savers.

~Alex

I too heard that Joe had a few bad batches. As far as them breaking I have read that if the valve does happen to float they can be damaged and shatter.