Quote:
Originally Posted by dataway
It would be very interesting to see. I mean the chamfer is pronounced enough that it appears to be a "feature" and I use that word sarcastically 
In my head (not the best way to do things) I have a hard time seeing how a chamfer would cause big problems. On most used lifters I've removed the wear pattern often doesn't even intersect with the edge of the lifter. And wouldn't the lobe/lifter contact pressure be very slight at that point in lobe rotation?
Does the sharp edge of a lifter face ever contact the lobe under high pressure?
I can "see in my head" the point at which a lifter face contacts the flat'ish portion on the side of a lobe and then starts to transition to the ramp of the lobe but hard to imagine the edge of the lifter face ever seeing any appreciable force .... now carry it to the extreme, a lifter face the size of a pencil eraser ... yes the edge would see a lot of force, but wouldn't the contact of a lifter face edge on the lobe depend greatly on lifter diameter and lobe profile? IE ... a mushroom lifter the edge would never contact the lobe, a ridiculously small OD lifter the edge would contact the lobe a LOT.
I mean look at heavily worn lifters ... it's the center that dishes from wear ... not the edges.
So perhaps with the OEM lobe profile, and the lifter diameter in use circa 1968 that chamfer is not an issue? |
pics of 1970 OEM 400 / 067 cam lifter