This will take you to the main site where there is history, technical information and other information on these cars.
This takes you back to the main page of the forums.
This is the control panel to change your password, information and preferences on this message board.
Click here if your lost your password or need to register on this message board. You must be a registered user to post. Registration is free.
Search this board for information you need.
Click here to buy cool Squarebirds mechandise.
Click here to support Squarebirds.org. For $20 annually receive 20mBytes webspace, a Squarebirds e-mail address and member's icon on the message board.
  #31  
Old 12-02-2016, 12:25 PM
Deanj Deanj is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Nov 26 2015
Posts: 408
Deanj is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks Dave and Chris! I would hate very much to be wrong and risk needless damage to my engine. You're saying engine failure is happening now that didn't happen before and this co-insides with lower ZDDP levels. Since there isn't any published testing and we rely on history (i.e. experience), how wrong can we be for going the extra yard of protection? I know roller cams were made not because of the lack of ZDDP, but because they can withstand radical profiles. I know flat tappet cams couldn't endure the performance profiles of the roller cams probably with or without ZDDP. Roller cams are hardened just to withstand their inherent operation characteristics not to mention stiffer valve springs. What in today's oil protects these cams? Interesting that ZDDP levels in the 1950's weren't as high as the 70s and 80s.

Last edited by Deanj : 12-02-2016 at 03:42 PM. Reason: Upon further review
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-02-2016, 04:42 PM
Yadkin Yadkin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 11 2012
Posts: 1,910
Yadkin is on a distinguished road
Default

Roller cams are used in all modern engines because of the lack of zinc in the oil. The pressure between the lifter and cam is the same, but the rolling action doesn't require that type of lubricant.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-02-2016, 07:03 PM
c4clewis's Avatar
c4clewis c4clewis is offline
Tinkerer
 
Join Date: Aug 18 2010
Posts: 103
c4clewis is on a distinguished road
Default

Dean, this isn't about 'whose brand of oil is best'...

True, but if you read further on this "lawsuit", it is people who bought the cheapest thing on the shelf and didn't read the labels. The "Dollar" oil specifically says not to use on modern engines. People saw that it only cost a dollar, didn't read the label, and poured it into their new Honda. It destroyed the engine.

Bad on the Dollar store for putting it right next to the name-brand oil that it also carries (at the name brand price), but the people got what they paid for. They just failed to read.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-02-2016, 09:30 PM
simplyconnected's Avatar
simplyconnected simplyconnected is offline
Slow Typist
 
Join Date: May 26 2009
Posts: 7,230
simplyconnected is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadkin View Post
Roller cams are used in all modern engines because of the lack of zinc in the oil. The pressure between the lifter and cam is the same, but the rolling action doesn't require that type of lubricant.
I totally agree and I'll go one further...

Today's engines are much smaller! I was dumbfounded to learn my cousin's Caddy had a SIX-cylinder engine. 4.6L Romeo engines are all under 300 cubic inches and they all had roller cams. They went into T-bird, Mustang, Lincoln, Mercury and a host of other applications after the 5.0 was terminated. I worked there. The valves were small (by comparison) and the springs were 'single', even in the 4-valve Cobra and Mark engines.

Roller cams use either roller lifters or roller followers (for overhead cam). Both use needle bearings that need no ZDDP. A single roller follower for a 2000 4.6L engine costs $15/ea. at rock auto. There are 32 in a 4-valve engine totaling $480.

Did I say this was an expensive move for the auto industry? You betcha! We assembled 1,000 engines per day. You figure the math for roller followers and injectors. BTW, injectors came into the plant on pallets with a Guard who sealed the crib shut before he left. Ford used to WELD the radio crib shut every weekend the plant was down. Come Monday morning, the cutting torch was brought out to open the crib. - Dave
__________________
My latest project:
CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee Iacocca
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-03-2016, 12:27 PM
Deanj Deanj is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Nov 26 2015
Posts: 408
Deanj is on a distinguished road
Default

Okay, I'm with your arguments, but weren't roller cams introduced before the big zinc-phosphorus reduction? Their radical profiles are a big reason why today's engines have more output. And weren't the levels of these elements in engine oils about the same in the 1950's? Modern engines last longer from computerized control, materials, and low lifetime RPMs. My 1971 Z28 was dead at 60K miles from a 4.10 rear end (and maybe a few too many gear wined outs). No amount of ZDDP would have saved it-and it had plenty in the day.

The government has mandated CAFE numbers. While there has been a lot of good to come out of this random BS from non-car guys, It's not for me. I will not buy a modern car, especially an upscale car, with a pee-pee engine, no matter what the output. V-8s with high HP and Torque are qualities of upscale cars-in my opinion. That's why I own late model rear drive Challenger and Charger RT's. Throw in a set of winter tires for each of these cars, also.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-03-2016, 08:45 PM
Yadkin Yadkin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 11 2012
Posts: 1,910
Yadkin is on a distinguished road
Default

Modern engines have higher output mainly because of variable valve timing. They can "de-tune" themselves for super smooth idle then instantly transform to a beast when RPMs are increased. Your late model Chysler hemi is still a single cam pushrod motor but VVT allows it to perform much better than the hemi engines of the past.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-03-2016, 11:33 PM
simplyconnected's Avatar
simplyconnected simplyconnected is offline
Slow Typist
 
Join Date: May 26 2009
Posts: 7,230
simplyconnected is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanj View Post
Okay, I'm with your arguments, but weren't roller cams introduced before the big zinc-phosphorus reduction?..
Do you know how one change can affect more changes? This is 'classic' that.

We come from an era of huge engines with massive hp, right? None of them had roller cams from the factory. Factory engines were designed for all-weather daily driver service and none of the cams were wild. Wild (race) and OEM cams used flat tappets. In the 1970's engines ran much leaner and hotter for better fuel efficiency. The OEMs capped-off the idle screws so they could not be adjusted. Consequently, engines would continue running from detonation after the key was out.

In the 1980's gasohol and catalytic converters was the big change. If leaded gas got into your fuel it melted the converter substrate and eventually the exhaust would plug. Then, ZDDP in existing oil was found to harm the substrate as the engine aged and started burning oil. Again, no roller cams.

Engine Engineers found, when ZDDP was removed from the oil, engines were failing far too soon, especially in the cam area where the most metal-to-metal pressure is applied. This is the point at which roller cams were widely used in engine production, to protect driveline warranties.

Cam grinds aren't any more radical today than in the old days. New engines start and idle perfectly (with no 'lope') and without human intervention because EFI controls the fuel while your foot controls the air. Vacuum levels are the same too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanj View Post
...Their radical profiles are a big reason why today's engines have more output. And weren't the levels of these elements in engine oils about the same in the 1950's? Modern engines last longer from computerized control, materials, and low lifetime RPMs. My 1971 Z28 was dead at 60K miles from a 4.10 rear end (and maybe a few too many gear wined outs). No amount of ZDDP would have saved it-and it had plenty in the day...
Remember Jeep 4.0L CARBURIZED engines? They were gas guzzling dogs. When that same engine got EFI, it woke right up and new-found ponies jumped into action using less of the same fuel. It's a six cylinder with a mild factory cam, sometimes used for off-road.

Modern engines are run with input and output data as a controlled system. They run hotter with higher radiator pressure and they use aluminum to transfer heat better. They also use moly rings with hypereutectic alloy pistons (better materials). EFI atomizes high pressure fuel to better control the air-to-fuel for a near perfect 14.7:1 ratio in ALL altitudes. Combine all this with gasohol and you get spark plugs and exhaust systems that last MUCH longer with the best fuel efficiency possible.

Your 1971 was built to run leaded gas, it had cast iron rings, valves that loaded with lead deposits and a carburetor that BLINDLY dribbled low pressure fuel into the air horns. That's a classic engine that hogs gas. ZDDP was for the cam, not the pistons, bearings or rings. - Dave
__________________
My latest project:
CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee Iacocca
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-04-2016, 12:45 PM
Deanj Deanj is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Nov 26 2015
Posts: 408
Deanj is on a distinguished road
Default

Good explanation. I suppose the rest is up to me. You know the only thing that lasted on the Z28 was the cam.

One story regarding cars and cams from the mid 70s and early 80s: I bought a new 1980 4 speed L48 Corvette. It was a slow car much to my chagrin. Sometime in the late 80s I replaced the old pelletized cat with a honeycomb type. Now at least the car ran in 4th gear at 35mph. Then, a miracle occurred at 25K miles in 1995. The camshaft wiped the number one lobe. Actually, the entire cam and lifters were creviced in wear. I think this was part of the GM 305/350 bad cam shaft era. I had done my homework on camshafts and installed a mild performance Erson with a 208/208 duration and higher lift that worked well with a 3.07 rear axle. Presto: Real decent performance and improved gas mileage without sacrificing emissions (I think). You know, cams make a lot of scary noise when breaking in. It's the one car I regretted selling, but then I would never bought the 1960 T-Bird.

You said it. One change leads to another.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-04-2016, 04:27 PM
scumdog's Avatar
scumdog scumdog is offline
Super-Experienced
 
Join Date: May 12 2006
Posts: 1,369
scumdog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanj View Post
I had done my homework on camshafts and installed a mild performance Erson with a 208/208 duration and higher lift that worked well with a 3.07 rear axle. Presto: Real decent performance and improved gas mileage without sacrificing emissions (I think). You know, cams make a lot of scary noise when breaking in.

You said it. One change leads to another.
Similar story here, I took the stock cam out of my '70 429 Ford motor and replaced it with the Isky 270 (as mentioned earlier).
On a road trip the gas mileage in my F100 jumped from 14mpg at best to 16mpg - and even 17mpg if I keep my foot out of it. (Rare!).
I guess the Isky cam is very efficient at open road cruising speeds, not so much driving around town...
__________________
A Thunderbirder from the Land of the Long White Cloud.

Last edited by simplyconnected : 12-04-2016 at 11:04 PM. Reason: just to fix the quote bracket for proper appearance.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-04-2016, 11:19 PM
simplyconnected's Avatar
simplyconnected simplyconnected is offline
Slow Typist
 
Join Date: May 26 2009
Posts: 7,230
simplyconnected is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanj View Post
...Then, a miracle occurred at 25K miles in 1995. The camshaft wiped the number one lobe. Actually, the entire cam and lifters were creviced in wear...

...You know, cams make a lot of scary noise when breaking in...
You raise another good point. If cam heat treat isn't right it will fail. At Ford, we induction harden each individual lobe AS it is being quenched. So, it's unusual that the entire cam goes bad. It can happen though.

Older hydraulic lifters are not supposed to show any wear until well into advanced age, like 100,000 miles. This applies to all cams, mild or wild.

Newer hydraulic roller lifters (and lash adjusters in overhead cam heads) show even less. NO hydraulic lifter should be noisy, especially when new.

Sheet metal valve covers don't muffle valve train noise very well but cast aluminum covers do. Noise comes mostly from rocker arms. - Dave
__________________
My latest project:
CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee Iacocca
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 AM.

Driving, racing or working on cars can be hazardous. The procedures and advice on this website including the message board are opinion only. Squarebirds.org and its webmasters and contributors do not guarantee the correctness of the advice and procedures. The Squarebirds.org and its webmasters assume no liability for any damage, fines, punishment, injury or death resulting from following these procedures or advice. If you do not have the skills or tools to repair your car, please consult a professional. By using this site you agree to hold harmless the Squarebirds.org, its authors and its webmasters from any resulting claim and costs that may occur from using the information found on this site.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Any submissions to this site and any post on this site becomes property of Squarebirds.org . The webmasters reserve the right to edit and modify any submissions to this site. All material on this is site is copyrighted by the Squarebirds.org. Reproduction by any means other than for personal use is strictly prohibited. Permission to use material on this site can be obtained by contacting the webmasters. Copyright 2002-2016 by Squarebirds.org.