Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Re: [GMCnet] oil again
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119457] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 15:15  |
Gary Casey
Messages: 448
Registered: September 2009
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm far from being an expert in ZDDP, but all this talk about flat tappets
leaves me confused. Many, many new automotive engines use flat tappets. Are
they designed with far lower contact stress? I doubt it, as the tips of the
lobes on a direct-acting overhead cam are very sharp. Do they use different
materials? Different lubrication setup? And what about the compression rings?
They have a similar boundary-lubrication "situation" at top center. From the
worry that is going around I take it that all flat-tappet pushrod engines need
the ZDDP additive. That would be a lot of engines worldwide.
Gary Casey
jknezek wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 12:40
> Joe Mondello addressed this over the weekend at Eastern States, as he did last
>year and I suspect a few other places. He strongly believes that any engine with
>flat tappets needs a zddp additive when using modern oils.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119466 is a reply to message #119457] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 15:53  |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Gary Casey wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 16:15 |
Many, many new automotive engines use flat tappets. Are
they designed with far lower contact stress?
|
I don't think one of the Big 3 has made a flat tappet OEM production engine in almost 20 years. I thought GM phased out flat tappet small blocks in '86 and while a few model years hung on for a while by the early 90s there was no more production model flat tappets. I could be wrong.
Clearly we build up a lot of engines and rebuild a lot of flat tappet engines every year, but I don't think there are a lot of new production automotive engines using flat tappets.
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119467 is a reply to message #119466] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 17:04 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| jknezek wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 14:53 |
| Gary Casey wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 16:15 |
Many, many new automotive engines use flat tappets. Are
they designed with far lower contact stress?
|
I don't think one of the Big 3 has made a flat tappet OEM production engine in almost 20 years. I thought GM phased out flat tappet small blocks in '86 and while a few model years hung on for a while by the early 90s there was no more production model flat tappets. I could be wrong.
Clearly we build up a lot of engines and rebuild a lot of flat tappet engines every year, but I don't think there are a lot of new production automotive engines using flat tappets.
|
I think that's about right since the roll out was all over the place. I think Ford was in the same ballpark.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119469 is a reply to message #119467] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 17:07 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Aren't roller tappets and cams available
to retrofit older flat tappet engines?
That would seem to be a good solution to
many ills, including a better torque curve
for the old Olds engines. I sort of doubt
that the guys building Olds engines for
dragboats are using flat tappet cams.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
----------------------------------------
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> From: NEXT2POOL@AOL.COM
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:04:30 -0500
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] oil again
>
>
>
> jknezek wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 14:53
> > Gary Casey wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 16:15
> > > Many, many new automotive engines use flat tappets. Are
> > > they designed with far lower contact stress?
> >
> >
> > I don't think one of the Big 3 has made a flat tappet OEM production engine in almost 20 years. I thought GM phased out flat tappet small blocks in '86 and while a few model years hung on for a while by the early 90s there was no more production model flat tappets. I could be wrong.
> >
> > Clearly we build up a lot of engines and rebuild a lot of flat tappet engines every year, but I don't think there are a lot of new production automotive engines using flat tappets.
>
>
>
> I think that's about right since the roll out was all over the place. I think Ford was in the same ballpark.
> --
> Bob de Kruyff
> 78 Eleganza
> Chandler, AZ
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119471 is a reply to message #119469] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 17:22 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
""Aren't roller tappets and cams available
to retrofit older flat tappet engines?
That would seem to be a good solution to
many ills, including a better torque curve
for the old Olds engines. I sort of doubt
that the guys building Olds engines for
dragboats are using flat tappet cams.
""
I'm pretty sure Jim Bounds builds (or has them built) that way and I think some have retrofiited their own as well.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119472 is a reply to message #119469] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 17:23 |
jknezek
Messages: 1057
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| k2gkk wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 18:07 |
Aren't roller tappets and cams available
to retrofit older flat tappet engines?
That would seem to be a good solution to
many ills, including a better torque curve
for the old Olds engines. I sort of doubt
that the guys building Olds engines for
dragboats are using flat tappet cams.
|
It is available through Mondelo, I know that. He didn't make a big deal out of it, but it's in his price book and he says he prefers doing roller cam engines these days. I asked him after his seminar and he says he does the flat tappets for people looking to keep cost down and those who want EXACT restorations. Anyone else he recommends the roller cams. I'm not sure what the cost difference would be since his price book is piecemeal to the extreme but if you've got the money, he's got the motor...
Thanks,
Jeremy Knezek
1976 Glenbrook
Birmingham, AL
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119475 is a reply to message #119457] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 18:06 |
fred v
Messages: 999
Registered: April 2006
Location: pensacola, fl.
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Gary Casey wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 15:15 |
I'm far from being an expert in ZDDP, but all this talk about flat tappets
leaves me confused. Many, many new automotive engines use flat tappets. Are
they designed with far lower contact stress? I doubt it, as the tips of the
lobes on a direct-acting overhead cam are very sharp. Do they use different
materials? Different lubrication setup? And what about the compression rings?
They have a similar boundary-lubrication "situation" at top center. From the
worry that is going around I take it that all flat-tappet pushrod engines need
the ZDDP additive. That would be a lot of engines worldwide.
Gary Casey
jknezek wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 12:40
> Joe Mondello addressed this over the weekend at Eastern States, as he did last
>year and I suspect a few other places. He strongly believes that any engine with
>flat tappets needs a zddp additive when using modern oils.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
when all this started it was said that the manufacturers were making cams and lifters from hardened steel rather than iron. that did the fix for new production.
Fred V
'77 Royale RB 455
P'cola, Fl
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119480 is a reply to message #119469] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 18:47 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mac, it is what most engine builders do for an upgrade when they replace OEM
timing chain sets with "true roller" duplex chains. For the full meal deal,
if there is even a suspicion that there is any credence to the zddp claims,
and impirical evidence that most, if not all, automobile manufacturers have
gone to roller tappet cams, and in some cases rocker arms, when it clearly
is more expensive to do so. I installed my first roller tappet camshaft in a
327 CSB destroked with a 283 crank to 301 cu in about 1961 or 2. It was an
Isky 505 super Leguerra with a rev kit that installed in the intake valley.
It also had Isky roller rockers and screw in studs. At that time we were
running that engine in a "C" gasser which was a 39 chev coupe with set back
engine, HD Borg Warner 4 speed, a Parham quick change rear end, straight
front axle, the whole deal. We routinely ran that engine to 9000 rpm before
shifting. After a year of running that cam, I checked the lobes with
precision instruments and could find no wear. I have installed a couple of
dozen similar set ups in various engines since then and have only had
trouble with one cam/lifter combination and it was a Crane. I could not
determine what caused that failure, but it was a race engine also & stuff
happens to them. GM small block engines starting with the 1967 model year
when equipped with long slot rockers that had 1.67 - 1 ratio wore flat
tappet cams out fairly regularly. There was a silent recall on that set up
to replace any that failed when the customer complained about loss of
compression and or funky idle caused by worn cam lobes. The real problem was
the friction loading exceeded the strength of the materials involved. Cast
iron, flame hardened cams ain't the best material for that application but
they are cheap. Blame the bean counters again. It was less expensive for GM
to replace the relative few that the customers complained about than it was
to improve the cam to prevent it from happening. Aftermarket rebuilders are
normally not hampered by cost accountants if the customer is willing. Roller
setups are really the best solution when all is considered, excepting cost
of original iron cams.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 GMC Royale 403
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:07 PM, D C *Mac* Macdonald <k2gkk@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Aren't roller tappets and cams available
> to retrofit older flat tappet engines?
> That would seem to be a good solution to
> many ills, including a better torque curve
> for the old Olds engines. I sort of doubt
> that the guys building Olds engines for
> dragboats are using flat tappet cams.
>
>
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
> ~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
> ~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
> ~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
> ~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
> ~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
> ~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> > From: NEXT2POOL@AOL.COM
> > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:04:30 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [GMCnet] oil again
> >
> >
> >
> > jknezek wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 14:53
> > > Gary Casey wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 16:15
> > > > Many, many new automotive engines use flat tappets. Are
> > > > they designed with far lower contact stress?
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think one of the Big 3 has made a flat tappet OEM production
> engine in almost 20 years. I thought GM phased out flat tappet small blocks
> in '86 and while a few model years hung on for a while by the early 90s
> there was no more production model flat tappets. I could be wrong.
> > >
> > > Clearly we build up a lot of engines and rebuild a lot of flat tappet
> engines every year, but I don't think there are a lot of new production
> automotive engines using flat tappets.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think that's about right since the roll out was all over the place. I
> think Ford was in the same ballpark.
> > --
> > Bob de Kruyff
> > 78 Eleganza
> > Chandler, AZ
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119496 is a reply to message #119466] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 20:43 |
philipswanson
Messages: 282
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't think one of the Big 3 has made a flat tappet OEM production engine in almost 20 years. .[/quote]
This is definitly wrong. Jeep engines used flat tappets through 2006. Last time I checked, they are Chrysler products, part of the Big 3. I have two Jeeps so it is a concern. The newer roller cam version (2007 and up) is highly disliked amongst most of the Jeep crowd. ZDDP is a non issue with me though, since I run High Mileage Mobil 1. If your base oil is good enough, you don't need ZDDP. Only on break in.
Phil Swanson
[Updated on: Mon, 21 March 2011 20:46] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119502 is a reply to message #119457] |
Mon, 21 March 2011 20:56 |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That was exactly my next question as I have a 99 XJ with the 4.0 and I was thinking that was an old school cam. I use ZDDPlus even though it is OBDII. I uses no measureable oil at 145K so I'm not worried about fouling the cat. Cat cheaper than motor and at over 140K it could be ready to set a cat code anyway with straight SM. And yes the SB Chevy as far as I know ended the non roller motors after 1986 as I have an 87 L98 and that was the first of the roller motors. I think the Chrysler 4.0 is more the exception than the rule as it was old cast iron lineage and they were phasing it out in the near future so why retool for roller lifters near the very end of a long successful run. Also during the time of manufacture of the Jeep 4.0 the oil was still SL, not SM or SN.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] oil again [message #119544 is a reply to message #119496] |
Tue, 22 March 2011 06:43 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| philipswanson wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 21:43 |
| Quote: |
I don't think one of the Big 3 has made a flat tappet OEM production engine in almost 20 years. .
|
This is definitly wrong. Jeep engines used flat tappets through 2006. Last time I checked, they are Chrysler products, part of the Big 3. I have two Jeeps so it is a concern. The newer roller cam version (2007 and up) is highly disliked amongst most of the Jeep crowd. ZDDP is a non issue with me though, since I run High Mileage Mobil 1. If your base oil is good enough, you don't need ZDDP. Only on break in.
Phil Swanson
|
Phil is completely accurate about the Jeep 4.0, but the statement is a bit misleading. The 4.0 did not get a roller cam. It was replaced with a "no low end" minivan motor. (Not a very desirable power envelope for a vehicle negotiating a mud bog.) Yes, the homologation (make as much as possible the same) team argued that Horsepower is Horsepower and the transmission will make it all work, but the controllability was lost and it was really tough to manage with the manual transmission version. But, the tooling and the plant in Kenosha were about toast and retooling for an engine of that low volume just could not be justified.
One of the BIG reasons for going to a roller cam is idle quality. This matters a whole in the driving cycle parts of an emissions certification certification. You know the way the timing jumps around in a stock ignition Onan? Same = Same....
If I were still running a 4.0 or 2.5 Jeep motor, I would be concerned about EP capability of the lube oil.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Sep 29 01:24:46 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00783 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
