Author Topic: light weight lifters. (Read 5058 times)

kowalski · « **on:** May 23, 2007, 12:54:06 PM »

ok, so i searched, found the few threads on light weight lifters, but nothing was ever concluded about the VW lifters, or the m50 lifters.

So, who is actually using a light weight lifter, or who 100% knows what lifter will fit. This thread only needs 100% facts, no speculation to save everyone from reading 4 pages that conclude nothing.

Thanks guys,
Mike

gearheadE30 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 23, 2007, 04:45:52 PM »

I know this doesn't answer your question, but what is the benefit of lightweight lifters?

I have read about a few people with or planning to get M50 lifters. It was on bf.c IIRC.

kowalski · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2007, 06:24:07 PM »

Quote from: gearheadE30;26436

I know this doesn't answer your question, but what is the benefit of lightweight lifters?

I have read about a few people with or planning to get M50 lifters. It was on bf.c IIRC.

well there is a few.

1. Less reciprocating mass means that you have less mass to push around which means more power at the crank & wheels.

2. Less reciprocating mass means that you have less stress on parts because there isn't as much mass pulling at it when its time to change directions. Less mass means less stress means a longer lasting engine.

3. the engine becomes more capable of reving higher. lighter lifters means they can move around faster, again less mass moving around. velocity = mass x speed.

in simple english, with your arm extended lift 10 pounds, then lift 5. you can do 5 a lot faster, a lot more times, and a lot easier.

D. Clay · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2007, 08:42:54 PM »

Actually the lifters aren't even reciprocating. They are coming to a complete stop and changing direction 180*. When the cam moves them to wide open, the lifter and valve want to keep going. The valve spring provides resistance and force that stops them and then forces them to close. With less weight, there is less tendency for the valve to "float" and better control over the opening and closing. Also there is an increased rev limit and you can use more radical cam profiles.

kowalski · « **Reply #4 on:** May 23, 2007, 08:57:24 PM »

Quote from: D. Clay;26458

Actually the lifters aren't even reciprocating. They are coming to a complete stop and changing direction 180*. When the cam moves them to wide open, the lifter and valve want to keep going. The valve spring provides resistance and force that stops them and then forces them to close. With less weight, there is less tendency for the valve to "float" and better control over the opening and closing. Also there is an increased rev limit and you can use more radical cam profiles.

yes, but i was giving a general description for saving mass inside the engine. I suppose i should have been more clear.

And back on topic because i would really like to know the answer to this once and for all.

Wise Old Dog · « **Reply #5 on:** May 24, 2007, 08:07:05 AM »

My son is also looking at using the lightweight VW lifters. But we have not heard the 100% answer yet. Big difference in price also. VW lifter is $5 cheaper.

2002maniac · « **Reply #6 on:** May 24, 2007, 11:35:29 PM »

http://www.m42club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1729&highlight=lifter

Dino has had his motor built and running for several weeks now with these lifters. I drove it. It's fun

kowalski · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2007, 05:15:06 AM »

thanks man.

dino245 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2007, 05:15:34 PM »

Well
I have over 1k miles on the new engine and all is well.
I used the VW lifters with the part number starting with 050 not 039 as well as titanium retainers with stronger valve springs. And M44/M50 valves.All this to support the custom custom ground Web cams.

The bottom end was fitted with a stock crank, M44 rods rebushed, JE forged pistons 87mm large. Total seal rings and all balanced with the aluminum flywheel.

I did a little porting on the head, nothing crazy and last but not least I installed a Haltech E8 system running the mustang injectors and using a Ferrari F430 Mass Air Flow sensor as the load sensing device. I chose not to use a MAP sensor because it cant produce a good signal over 3/4 throttle and the MAF will and it calculates reversion in the airsteam.

Needless to say the car is very fun to drive. I am still adjusting the fuel mixture by logging varios perameters while driving then reviewing them and adjusting the map. This process takes time but it is cheap compared to tunning on a dyno. The igniton map is borrowed from a Toyota 4AGE base map that was on the Haltech software.

My next step is the Hayabusa throttle bodies and Honda S2000 injectors with a custom adapter and custom airbox and aluminum velocity stacks.

I will post some pictures when I can get around to it.

kowalski · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2007, 06:28:34 PM »

why can't the MAP produce a good signal over 3/4 throttle? I was planning to go MAP with ITB's...?
what kind of valve springs did you use, and where did you get your retainers from?

fabe · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2007, 02:54:21 AM »

Quote from: kowalski;26588

why can't the MAP produce a good signal over 3/4 throttle? I was planning to go MAP with ITB's...?
what kind of valve springs did you use, and where did you get your retainers from?

I'm curious too on this... at 3/4 throttle I think the AFM barndoor is also fully opened. So why can't the signals from the MAP sensor be transposed to match the AFM signals??? Which MAP sensor are u planning to use?

tim_s · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2007, 05:28:03 AM »

the 3/4 throttle thing is clearly not true, not sure what is being referred to there?
slight variations in MAP resolution above 90Kpa do have quite an impact on fuelling, which might be what is meant.
fwiw when i was first learning to map i preferred using MAF; in time I came to prefer MAP. MAP + ITBs can be a pita though.

kowalski · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2007, 06:43:16 AM »

Quote from: tim_s;26682

the 3/4 throttle thing is clearly not true, not sure what is being referred to there?
slight variations in MAP resolution above 90Kpa do have quite an impact on fuelling, which might be what is meant.
fwiw when i was first learning to map i preferred using MAF; in time I came to prefer MAP. MAP + ITBs can be a pita though.

why is this? From what i read on the honda forums everyone seems to be having a relatively easy time with it using a map...

gearheadE30 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2007, 10:20:11 AM »

what exactly is the difference between a MAP and MAF?

Jtuner · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2007, 11:14:17 AM »

Quote from: gearheadE30;26690

what exactly is the difference between a MAP and MAF?

MAP is a Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor,, It measures the amount of pressure in the intake manifold and outputs a 5v sensor signal depending on pressure,,
MAF is a Mass Air Flow sensor,, it measures the temperature of the air coming in the intake, and puts out a signal depending on temperature..
It's a lot more complicated than that, but I just woke up and can't think straight... memorial day + beer = hangover