valve springs - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-13-2006, 08:00 PM   #11
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
Valve float is bad, but I'm interference, of course.

Anyway, I've thought of this myself. The easiest way to find weaker springs is to find springs that fit out of an engine with a lower redline. Also I've heard that springs will weaken with use, but I don't know how much so.

Don't racers get customs rates in their crazy titanium springs?
__________________

SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 08:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
CoyoteX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 230
Country: United States
Location: Southern WV
finding weaker springs would not be that hard just get the diameter and other specs and compare them to other springs to find what you are looking for. I don't think it will really gain a lot though because the cam has very little friction so practically all of the energy used to compress the spring will go to pushing the cam lobe forward as the spring expands.

Think of it this way the more friction the more wear so other than from lack of oil how many cams fail before 400k miles. on a sb chevy going to a roller cam only gets you a few hp but the steeper ramp rates that rollers can give is what really gets you some extra power. So maybe if you really want to do something nuts get a set of roller lifters off something and weld onto the stock lifters. Set the cam a bit higher so the new lifters match up and away you go

Really the only thing I see with going to smaller springs is that you will lower the rpm where you get valve float and it might be bad enough that you could hit a piston with a valve at some point due to the valve bouncing. Going to a spring that will lower redline from 6000 to 4000 isn't much difference in pressure really. To get significant reduction in friction it would take a roller cam.
__________________

CoyoteX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 08:17 PM   #13
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 238
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
I agree - I have no idea wher to get "softer" springs.

Would older springs be softer? I've only got 11,000 km on my engine, but I've got another 1.0 from the blue ForkenSwift with about 190,000 km on it. Would its springs be less springy from all those miles?
Less springy ...as in "tired"? Were they overheated or floated (over-revved) in their past life?
However...it really would bother me to know...spring steel has a finite fatigue life. The spring loses tension, then fails (breaks). There is a change in the crystalline structure of the metal...causing embrittlement( some say "work hardening")... this is why race engines get their valve springs changed very often! Springs are cheap; blocks & cranks aren't!
Ted Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 08:21 PM   #14
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_Ryland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,325
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to GasSavers_Ryland
I would say that if you want to make your valve train more efficent, getting titanum valve springs (cryo-tempering might be a good idea, as Ti springs have a shorter life, and in theory it should make them last longer) and titanum valve keepers to reduce the recipricating weight.

how about getting a cam from an xfi? lower valve lift would give you a simaler affect, and more torqe, right?
GasSavers_Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 08:28 PM   #15
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
I've got an XFi cam coming actually. So yeah, maybe spring mods + the cam is a bit much.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 12:37 AM   #16
DRW
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 615
Country: United States
I looked into this a while ago when comparing the motor in my car with newer versions. The spring seat pressure in my car is 66 pounds. The newer version is spec'd for 54 pounds and used a cam with slightly less lift (34.91mm vs 35.49mm) and more duration, which gives a more gradual lift ramp (less likley to float a valve). Both motors have the same redline, the newer motor made more power. Then the EVO came out and it had even lighter spring pressures and made even more power. Obviously there was more to each motor than just the cams and springs, but it shows a general trend.

WRT friction, this may just be semantics, but if there is no wear then there is no friction, but there will be viscous drag in the oil film, and more pressure= more viscous drag.

IMHO lighter springs will reduce power losses in the entire valvetrain (cam lobes, cam journals, timing chain or belt/ timing sprocket).

MetroMPG, your old head might have worn springs in it. It's easy to check, just remove the springs from the head and measure their free length. Hopefully you can find a specification for free length in a shop manual somewhere.

I replaced the valve springs in my Laser last winter after 190,000 miles of use and they were shorter than spec. For example, standard length is 48.31mm, service limit is 47.29, and mine were around 46.2 to 46.5mm. I took my motor up to redline many times with the old springs and the valves didn't hit the pistons, and my motor is an interference design. With new stock springs the motor regained it's power in the high rpms. HTH
__________________
Dave W.
DRW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 12:54 AM   #17
DRW
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 615
Country: United States
Here's that link I was looking for! Page 1 sums it up, tho there's other good stuff in that article as well.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mc...101lab8_96.pdf
__________________
Dave W.
DRW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 01:23 AM   #18
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Country: United States
Softer springs will reduce losses but this of course lowers the RPM which the valves will float.
You will have to match it with a suitable cam grind to keep it below that critical RPM.

Of course now that the valve train is set up for a lower power the intake and exhaust ports will be too big (eg- no need to be able to flow 80hp when your new max will be 40 hp)

Reduce the size of these (epoxies are easiest) in the head (welding and then grinding to correct shape is best) and then construct new manifolds.

Its a lot of work , but possible.
onegammyleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 01:35 AM   #19
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher
Got any favorite brand(s) of epoxy?
I have just used normal epoxy on intake ports but not exhaust ports.
There may be specific fuel proof epoxies , but ime unsure of that.

Depending on its shape an exhaust port could be sleeved.
onegammyleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2006, 05:15 AM   #20
Moderator
 
GasSavers_DaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,209
Country: United States
If anyone is interested, HERE is a link to an article I wrote on basic cam dynamics back in Fall 2003 (WARNING: geek content!).

And if you're REALLY bored, you can read the book I referenced at the end (I enjoyed it).
__________________

GasSavers_DaX is offline   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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
some more familiar driving, LOL Compaq888 General Discussion (Off-Topic) 20 04-07-2009 02:37 PM
LA Alternative Car Show Pix ... cfg83 General Discussion (Off-Topic) 8 10-11-2007 05:08 PM
need help with scan gauge bowtieguy General Maintenance and Repair 4 08-16-2007 05:12 AM
XFi Drivetrain For Sale ... Perkasie, Pa XFi For Sale 17 12-17-2006 05:11 PM
1989 Civic, massive economy drop, question. Gary Palmer General Fuel Topics 8 12-09-2006 09:24 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.