ticking noise, scuffed valve spring retainers

Yes, rotation is normal.
After giving some time for thought I remember seeing training videos many moons ago of internal combustion engines, in automotive and aviation training, where high speed photography was used to watch the normal operation of the valvetrain and rotation of the retainers was normal on a "good" engine.

another theory

I started the car and peaked through the oil fill hole at the rocker pivot shaft and although it was very hard to see, it looked like it definitely could be bottoming on the closed position. I marked the area I'm talking about in the above picture. It looked like it could be rocking all the way over to where its range of motion stops (during the resting state where the valve is closed). If that is the case, that would explain the varying degrees of this issue between valves, possibly the noise, and the reason it's hard to find. IIRC, the rocker in the picture is holding that valve open so it's not what it looks like, closed.

This would make sense if my valve seats are worn enough to move the stem up a hair and position everything higher, thus making the rocker swing farther than normal.

Again, this is just another theory but so far, It makes the most sense to me. I'm no expert on the nature of heads and parts so maybe someone can offer thoughts on this.

turtleman wrote:

another theory

I started the car and peaked through the oil fill hole at the rocker pivot shaft and although it was very hard to see, it looked like it definitely could be bottoming on the closed position. I marked the area I'm talking about in the above picture. It looked like it could be rocking all the way over to where its range of motion stops (during the resting state where the valve is closed). If that is the case, that would explain the varying degrees of this issue between valves, possibly the noise, and the reason it's hard to find. IIRC, the rocker in the picture is holding that valve open so it's not what it looks like, closed.

This would make sense if my valve seats are worn enough to move the stem up a hair and position everything higher, thus making the rocker swing farther than normal.

Again, this is just another theory but so far, It makes the most sense to me. I'm no expert on the nature of heads and parts so maybe someone can offer thoughts on this.

I think your theory is as good as it gets.
The bottom line is to confirm the theory you have to remove the heads, explain to the machinist in detail what's happening, have him record all measurements before performing any work then record measurements after performing a modified valve job. With allowable tolerances, from the manufacturer, he can bring everything in to the tolerance measurement best suited to solve the problem safely with modified retainers being used.

Which springs do you have and what year is your motor/heads?

His engine is 1997

valvetrain.


: xp cam, compcams OE lifters, zzp clearanced retainers, HD retainer locks, 105lb springs

I am watching this thread as I have a noise in my engine that seems similar.

In looking through my build up picks, the springs don't look as big, the LS retainers Turtle got from INTENSE being that much smaller would easily clear the rocker.

I'm wondering where the springs came from/brand used and the retainers. I've seen enough inconsistencies from ZZP to wonder if these are maybe an oddball size or something. I've seen ZZP and Intense retainers and never noticed them being bigger than each other because the springs are only one size.

I have a set of CC 105's from before they moved operations to Mexico that I can measure at the top if you'd like to double check the sizing.

Bill,
I'd be interested in those measurements as well.
I recently installed ZZP modified 1.9:1 Rockers (used) with new comp cams 105# springs and tried to use ZZP modified retainers.
After installing the springs, retainers and modified rockers for one cylinder and rotating crank to next cylinder i noticed the rocker arms hitting the retainers. So I removed the modified retainers and installed stock retainers and that solved the clearance issue.
The only thing I can think of doing is modifying the modified retainers by precision surface grinding enough material to prevent them from hitting the rocker arms.

I have searched and cannot find it, but I remember about 3-4 years ago, after the INTENSE Gen III Rocker episode, ZZP dropped the ball and sold some defective CompCams retainers. They were somehow throwing metal shavings all over the valvetrain. Zooomer said he corrected the problem, but it is interesting how it's so similar to what's happening here.

Something is definately off here. I've never seen stock rockers touch retainers.
Not TDC Racing, ZZP or Intense.

BillBoost37 wrote:

Something is definitely off here. I've never seen stock rockers touch retainers.
Not TDC Racing, ZZP or Intense.

When you say "stock" rockers do you mean the 1.9:1 modified stock rockers.

The retainers I got from Intense measure 23.7mm or .933" on the outer diameter. I can't measure mine on the car right now. I do not recall the 105 springs being much different size than the OEMs off the car. The retainers were also about the same overall diameter, just held the spring up a little higher, obviously. It looks like the springs span right up to the edge of the zzp retainers so I really don't think these smaller ones would even cover the whole spring, you know what I mean?

Would putting these YT RR on with the existing retainers eliminate this clearance problem or make it worse or not matter at all?

I think if you do like I did, put one set on a cylinder and rotate crank and look carefully at the clearance, then that would be the best way to determine if the 1.6 RR will work with modified retainers.

1.9 Modded or 1.6 stock.. the front end of the rocker and how it sits on the valve is the same. The only difference on the modded stockers is the hole for the pushrod is moved closer to the pivot point which will push the rocker open further.

Sorry guys..I was in the garage last night and totally forget to geth the measurements. Someone call me about 5pm tonight and remind me will ya?

I emailed intense to ask about the retainers and

"These are the same retainers we have been using for years with zero issues. They are LS style designed for LS style beehive springs which are what the 3800 uses as well.



Sincerely,

Todd"


I gave my measurements and stuff too. I guess I'll try them out, that is if I can find a spring compressor tool that will work on them since the one I used before is too wide for these retainers. I suppose it could just push the exposed part of the spring around the retainer just as well anyway.

That was the same response i got from ZZP when I emailed them about the problem of the modified retainers hitting their modified rockers.
They offered no solution, only that they have sold over 500 set's with no problems.

Yes, that is a pretty popular line which is why I hate emailing these vendors with concerns. I'm pretty well aware of how many sets of retainers are sold and I highly doubt I was the first person to have an if about this. Retainers are not fun to do twice. Purchase number 501 here wants a simple check to see if this is not a defect batch and maybe a quick reassurance that this smaller design is better somehow. The question that was never addressed at all as to why are these are ~.5" smaller than the stock ones and the compcams ones, which seem to just be big enough already.

end rant

I pick up the phone in that case. Todd's X 108 BTW.

My questions would go around if modded/LS retainers are the same size as stockers, with the exception that they give more clearnance. I'm pretty sure that's the case here. Which is why I looked a lot in my PB account at my springs/vs stock rocker size. I'm fairly confident that they should be.

Which would make me think the ZZP ones are wrong. To me..that wouldn't be a suprise. A suprise would be if you recived the right number of the wrong item.

The remainder of the email from ZZP was a stern warning not to use the stock retainers on the 105 springs because they will compress the springs an additional .080" and cause premature failure of the timing chain and tensioner.
In my case the overall diameter appeared to be the same, yet they hit the rocker arms. I didn't do any accurate measurements at the time because i wanted to finish the job and not be without a vehicle until all this could be sorted out.
I guess I need to remove at least one stock retainer and do precise measuring and compare to the modified ones.
I have so far been ignoring that warning, but it is still in back of my mind.

Basically you're saying that the measurement I took off the Intense retainers I just got are more like a what a stock LS_ retainer is. All these LS style retainers are expected to be these little tiny things and apparently zzp puts out ones that are intentionally made bigger and look more like the stock L67 retainers... summarily right?

If that's true, I'll put these in and I won't worry about it.

It makes sense but It's hard to accept if I've never seen anyone else with this problem of scuffing the edges of the retainers before.

BillBoost37 wrote:

My questions would go around if modded/LS retainers are the same size as stockers, with the exception that they give more clearnance. I'm pretty sure that's the case here. Which is why I looked a lot in my PB account at my springs/vs stock rocker size. I'm fairly confident that they should be.
Which would make me think the ZZP ones are wrong.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. Don't quite understand what you're saying.
PB account?
Could you rephrase for us dummy's.

PB = photobucket

He's saying are the retainers that the vendors sell (all meant for use on LS-style springs) normally supposed to be a different diameter than stock 3800 retainers

turtleman wrote:

The retainers I got from Intense measure 23.7mm or .933" on the outer diameter. I can't measure mine on the car right now. I do not recall the 105 springs being much different size than the OEMs off the car. The retainers were also about the same overall diameter, just held the spring up a little higher, obviously. It looks like the springs span right up to the edge of the zzp retainers so I really don't think these smaller ones would even cover the whole spring, you know what I mean?

Would putting these YT RR on with the existing retainers eliminate this clearance problem or make it worse or not matter at all?

The retainers I got from ZZP, that i did not end up installing, measure approximately
1.027" O.D. and cover the top of the OEM springs that I removed. The O.D. of the top coil on the OEM spring at it's widest point is approx. 1.020".
The issue that needs to be compared would be the thickness of the OEM retainer compared to the modified retainer (dimension needed would be from the area on the bottom of the retainer that contact's the spring to the highest point on the retainer, which is near the the center of the retainer). Need to see if one sits higher on the spring than the other.
And need to measure overall height of the springs, although once the springs are compressed and installed there shouldn't be any major difference in spring height.

Actually what I meant to say...apparently poorly. Was if the LS retainer is smaller than the ZZP retainer I'm surprised. I believed all three, stock, LS and Modded should be the same diameter.

When we swap out springs, we go to the LS springs. The retainers are also LS retainers. Although ZZP has theirs machined from 3800 retainers.

My pb account is
ID: Billboost37
PSD: Boosted

check out the "misc buildup" subalbum for my pics on recent heads... also check out "heads and rockers" Those are the current ehads with 130# springs and the titanium LS retainers.

If someone with a stock LS retainer could measure the O.D. and just as important is the thickness, then we can compare apples to apples.
The thickness measurement that's needed is what i suggested above,
(dimension needed would be from the area on the bottom of the retainer that contact's the spring to the highest point on the retainer, which is near the the center of the retainer)
If that makes sense.
I'll try measuring the ZZP ones I have as accurately as I can and post the results here.

zzp modified retainer (off the car) and the new intense one



Ok, the left one above is the intense retainer installed on my CC105 spring



You really cant see but there seems to be plently of clearance between the RR and the new retainer for sure. I don't love the way that retainer doesnt cover up the top pf the spring but it seems to work.

thoughts??