Team Chevelle banner

BBC Titanium Valves?

21K views 47 replies 15 participants last post by  Busted Knuckles 
#1 ·
Hi,

I was wondering if anyone is running titanium valves in their street/strip big blocks? I'm making some changes to my 540 and started thinking about titanium valves. They are lighter weight (maybe 40%) than steel and are very strong. Just wondering what the downside might be for a street/strip application outside of the cost? I really like running a solid roller cam, but the springs pressures that often accompany these cams causes concerns for the valvetrain longevity. I've recently sent my Red Zone roller lifters back to Isky to have them converted to the EZ-X roller. I'm already running titanium retainers. I know that there are concerns around galling when using titanium. As I understand it, titanium has great properties for strength but not so much for wear. David Reher wrote a pretty good article on the benefits of using Ti valves, and even went as far as to say that he wouldn't hesitate to run them on a streeet engine. What I find curious/puzzling, is that when you look at Manley's table listing for applications where they recommend a Ti valve, you don't see anything for street/strip applications. Manley seems to favor Ti valves for applications where the RPM peak is over 8,000 and/or for high endurance marine stuff. I'm running a 2.3" intake and 1.9" exhaust. I just checked the springs on my engine using my LSM spring pressure tester. The springs were intalled with 300lbs on the seat. The engine has seen dyno time and some street miles. All of the exhaust springs were 295/300lbs. The intakes were at around 280-285lbs. It seems obvious that the added weight of the intake valve is causing the spring to work harder/fatigue faster.

Thoughts?
Good idea, bad idea?
Intake and exhaust or just intake?
Special valve guides required?
Tip hardening?

Any feedback is appreciated.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Thanks for the reply, Chris. Do you think it's a wise investment or a waste of money for what I'm trying to do? I guess I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, too. I want a maximum effort street/strip engine, but I also want to be able to drive it where ever and however I want without worrying about a lifter or a spring failing. I understand that failures can and do happen, I'm looking for ways to minimize the the opportunity for failures. Who are the best manufacturers for Ti valves? Some of the companies I've been looking at are Manley, Ferrea and Liberty. I looked at Rev valves as I've had good luck with them in the past, but they don't appear to make a Ti valve.

P.S. Most people wouldn't spend $700 on an oil pan, either. That's just how I roll :D
 
#8 ·
I don't usually resurrect old threads, but I just found this one to be interesting enough to revisit. I'm wondering if anyone here has opted for titanium valves in their BBC street/strip type engines in the past five years since Ken started this thread, and what information and/or experience they might have to offer concerning the questions that were raised here by Ken in the first few posts.

I'd also like to welcome anyone to chime in who might be able to offer some additional answers to Ken's questions, since he asked the same ones that I myself have had concerning titanium valves. Yes, the cost can be somewhat prohibitive, but IMO, that isn't necessarily a game changer in itself considering the costs of some of the other things we pay for such as BBC cylinder heads, after market blocks, etc., etc.
 
#9 ·
I don't really see any benefit to a setup like that. Big block lifters are in pairs. So both intake and exhaust have to be sent for rebuild. You would still have a decent spring pressure on the exhaust side. And street solid roller setups normally are in the low 200's on spring pressure and are still failing lifters. If you are going to spend the money then lighten up all 16 valves and try to reduce the spring pressure on all sides.
 
#11 ·
Will coatings add to longevity? Haven't heard from Ken in a long time hope he's well....
 
#12 ·
Haven't heard from Ken in a long time hope he's well....
Neither have I. :(
Last we talked he'd been doing a lot of traveling for Cisco. I lost his numbers a couple cell phones ago.
Been a long time since we've hung out and I knew the whole family. Even bought a car from his Dad.
He hasn't even been on TC in 6 months...
 
#14 ·
Tough to know who's advice to take on things like this. One cam company says that the weight of steel valves really DOES matter when using radical/intense lobe profiles. Another builder says that what material the valve seats are doesn't matter with titanium valves, while one other builder says that it DOES matter what material the valve seats are. :confused:

But I still welcome everyone to keep the info flowing. Thanks.
 
#15 ·
Back in my machinist days, I recall there being some discussion about valve guides when using Titanium valves. It was said that titanium would saw through certain metals when they were used with those valves.

Only thing is, I don't remember which combination was said to be taboo.
 
#21 · (Edited)
When I decided to resurrect this old thread, I was hoping to get replies from some fellow board members who have actually had cylinder heads built with titanium valves for both street and strip use. But perhaps this is not to be so. My thinking was that if there are some cars from the factory with titanium valves, then why not in street/strip applications?

I also was looking for pro builders' viewpoints on this topic, and I'm glad to see that four of our experienced builders here have taken the time to chime in. Thank you gentlemen. I understand Scott's statement that there's usually more thorough and time consuming R&D and engineering devoted to OE applications than there is with most aftermarket. Point well taken Scott.

I believe that for the most part, higher RPM capability is what's associated with the use and need for titanium valves due to their weight saving properties. The thought of wanting to inquire about titanium valves for a BBC street/strip engine I have arose out of a conversation that I had with Mark from Bullet cam company.

Mark was kind enough to telephone me when I made an email request concerning the possibilities of using some of the most radical solid roller cam profiles that his company has to offer in the 270@.050 dur range, which also have lobe lifts of .480" to .580" with dur@.200 figures between 196 to 200 and MI numbers of 28, 29, & 30. These are mainly high torque lobes which are asymetrical tight lash designs, which have closing ramps which are slower than their very quick opening ramps are, and with a recommended lash setting of .008"

Mark told me flat out that I would not be able to use any of the five lobe profiles of theirs which I inquired about for my street/strip BBC 632cid engine, because with the massive 2.30" steel intake valves, the intensity of those lobe profiles would cause the valve train to destroy itself in short order, due to the weight of steel valves that are that big.

I fully appreciated and accepted his input and guidance on that. However, during his explanation to me on this, he stated that the lobes I was inquiring about were better suited for SBC engines, because of the lighter weight of the smaller valves that those engines use. I guess I just found it hard to accept that a SBC engine can actually be used with more intense and more radical camshaft lobes than a big inch BBC engine can be, simply due to the valve mass. And that is why I began this inquiry about the possibilities of the use of Titanium valves, since 2.300" titanium valves, weigh less than SBC steel valves do.

So my inquiry here in this thread wasn't concerning a high reving BBC engine, but rather a BBC engine with big displacement, low reving, but one that might possibly be used with very radical/intense high torque solid roller cam lobe profiles. The goal being to have as much torque and power below 6,500 RPM in a big inch pump gas engine being naturally aspirated. That is the reason for the relatively short duration and big lift of the lobe profiles offered by Bullet Cams which I inquired about. But in light of what has been stated here, perhaps this was merely a pipe dream of mine. I do appreciate everyone's input. Sorry for the lengthy post, but since Scott asked a question concerning what the application would be, I wanted to fully explain what I had in mind, and I didn't want anyone to misunderstand this unconventional application I had in mind.
 
#22 ·
...BTW, what surprised me about Mark at Bullet telling me that I cannot use any of the five cam profile master#'s I asked him about simply because of the weight of the 2.3" diameter intake valves in my engine, is that two of the lobe masters, although aggressive, were merely a .454" lobe lift, and a .430" lobe lift, with a 194dur@.200 and a 300@.020.

Quick off the seat, yes, but with .771" and .730" total lift at the valve with a 1.7 rocker ratio, I didn't expect to hear someone tell me that "those are meant for SBC, not for BBC with steel valves because the latter has too much valve weight". :confused:
 
#26 ·
I don't know what the intensity of my cam is. It is 307/321 @.020, 275/287 @.050, .450/.435 at the lobe, .788/.762 at the valve with 2.35 steel intake valves. It goes over 7500 rpm.
Ray, one of the indicators of how steep the opening side of a cam profile is, and how quick it will take the valves off of the seats is the "MI" (Major Intensity) of a cam lobe profile is the degree difference between the .020 and the .050 figures. So your cam has a "M.I." of 32 degrees on the intake lobe, and 34 degrees on the exhaust lobe. That is fairly intense, but cam lobes that I've been looking at are in the 28-30 MI neighborhood. I'm no expert in this. In fact, I am just learning about this stuff recently, and part of my learning has a lot to do with going over the late Harold Brookshire's (AKA "UDHarold") old posts on here. :yes:

Another indication of how steep the opening ramps of a cam lobe also is the dur@.200" which is usually not listed on the cam card, but is listed on some cam manufacture's websites, and in their catalogs.

A 632CID engine needs a 2.400" intake valve to feed it at 6200 rpm. Conventional heads can't not go this large. When max out of intake valve size and want the engine to make power above that the lobe area explodes and powerband becomes very narrow. Think NHRA Stocker.
Chris, I followed what you were saying until you included the term "the Lobe area explodes" :confused: You lost me right there. I understand what the "area under the curve" term means, but I'm not sure that I am really getting what you meant about the lobe area "exploding". Sorry Chris, but I guess I'm just a novice at this stuff. :(

SBC has 1.5 rockers. That makes a huge difference on valve acceleration.
Excellent point Scott! :thumbsup::thumbsup: I was completely overlooking that. I guess some of this still surprises me though.
 
#24 ·
A 632CID engine needs a 2.400" intake valve to feed it at 6200 rpm. Conventional heads can't not go this large. When max out of intake valve size and want the engine to make power above that the lobe area explodes and powerband becomes very narrow. Think NHRA Stocker.
 
#29 ·
#27 ·
The reason that some of this surprises me, is that the Late Harold Brookshire stated that he used MI's of 28, 29, & 30 on just about ALL of his cam lobes for drag racing, (even for BBC engines) without any durability issues, because he also used Asymetrical lobes which had slower ramps on the closing side, (just like the Bullet cam lobe profiles I've inquired about do) and he specifically told me that he never had any issues making the opening ramps that steep, as long as he used the easier closing ramps. His claim to me was that it's the fast closings that will beat up the valves and their seats, not the steep/quick opening ramps. I really miss Harold, and I thoroughly believe that the man knew his stuff when it comes to designing camshafts (which he did for 37 years).
__________________
 
#41 ·
If things have not changed Curtis's conventional head has the intake valve moved(IIRC) .070, and needed a piston to fit. It did help the low lift flow numbers.
 
#42 ·
Hmmm..very interesting point there Mike. In the past, I had considered BMF heads too, but because they could not grantee to me over the phone that my standard type Mahle flat top pistons could be used with their heads, and that the only claim it makes on their website was that their heads can be used with "most" conventional pistons, then I ruled their heads out.

I don't really care to touch the bottom end. The only reason I would is to go with .927" lifters and a 55mm cam. But I don't think that's in the budget right now.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top