I stand corrected....Joe is right. The wear would result in increased
measured clearance.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "bluechip" <bluechipracing@snet.net>
To: <sebring@illawarra.hotkey.net.au>; <healeys@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Valve job
> Hi Joe: I believe that wear on the cam lobes or follower surfaces would
> cause reduction in valve clearance, not excessive clearance.
>
> Jim Smith
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sebring@illawarra.hotkey.net.au>
> To: <healeys@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:42 AM
> Subject: Fwd: Re: Valve job
>
>
>> Quoting BJ8Healeys <sbyers@ec.rr.com>:
>>
>>> Hello, Healeyphiles -
>>>
>>> "Seems that two rockers
>>> had
>>> no clearance, either."
>>>
>>
>> Focusing on the condition above 'no clearance' would indicate to me that;
>> either the valve face or valve seat face has worn, burnt or eroded and
>> allowed
>> the top of the stem of the valve to rise relative to the head and thus
>> reduced
>> the clearance OR the valve clearance was incorrectly set prior to the
>> compression test??? or lock nuts did not hold, allowing the adjuster to
>> move
>> reducing the clearance.
>>
>> Wear on the cam face or the mating cam follower's face would more likely
>> cause
>> excessive valve clearance as the mating wear surfaces have reduced in
>> lobe
>> height or follower length.
>>
>> Cam followers are the weak link and care should be taken to inspect them
>> regularly. I am also concerned about reusing followers that have
>> been 'reconditioned' by grinding and therefore removal of some of the
>> hardened
>> surface. I dont know how thick the 'hard face' is, others may know better
>> than
>> I
>>
>> Joe
|