Timing Sets.

[IsaacHayes]

Your Cloyes looks like my OEM did at 180k or whenever I changed it.
I'll try to remember to get a pic of the cloyes sprockets. Yours looks torn up. My OEM sprockets looked barely broken in...

Man, we need billet hardened sprockets and roller chains for cammed stuff! lol

[CNCguy]

They are finally in process.

[onefastV6]

They are finally in process.

Hell yeah, any idea on a time frame?

[CNCguy]

Don't want to hijack Jon's thread so I updated my thread about them.

http://60degreev6.com/forum/f96/some-new-60v6-products-t41730

[3400-95-Modified]

This is how it usually ends up, back in 06 I go buy a Milzy cam and then before the motor is even in, ben starts poping out custom grinds for cheaper... I go and get a stock chain an cryotreat it and now you pop out a roller timing set

I know the double rollers are 35% stronger, but how much stronger is the single roller over the stock chain? have you tested that at all? Maybe end of next year I may want to buy one.

[CNCguy]

The following information is based on my conversations with chain manufacturers/distributors.

In regards to tensile strength, stock timing chains are stronger than roller chains due to their construction. It would be a waste of money to do a tensile strength test of the chains as the longevity of a roller chain comes from the pivot design where the hardened link pin is pivoting inside a smooth hardened tube instead of layers of short holes that were stamped in a die.

Everyone, including myself, always refers to it as chain stretch but the links aren't stretching. Instead, the pivots are wearing out like a door hinge on an old car. A worn chain will sag like that door when you hold it out sideways.

The double roller has two rows of smaller links which gives it more tensile strength but, more importantly, has longer pins that provide a larger wear surface. Double roller pins are about 50% longer but smaller in diameter. Some of the extra wear area is negated due to the reduction in pin diameter.

The only way to accurately test chains would be to run them on an engine as simulating the harmonics of an IC engine would be near impossible.

[3400-95-Modified]

Ok, well if my Cryo treatment helped in at all, then that should extend the life of the chain. I guess we will see.

We obviously know what happens with a Cloyes chain on these large cams.... And the Cloyes timing gears on a UDP application.

[3400-95-Modified]

Got my new set back, and I should be installing at least that much tonight... I doubt I'll get the whole thing back together. BUT I will definately get a vid of how tight the new setup is in comparison to what I took off.

[mfuller]

Looking forward to your results.

[3400-95-Modified]

Well, new set is in. Its still loose, but I'm positive thats with in spec.. since um its all new GM parts. Once dampener is installed there isn't much play anymore.

Anyone else verify this movement is normal?

[3400-95-Modified]

This is my old comparison between a 05 set with 15k on it on LS6 springs and a milzy cam, vs 4k miles on a stock setup.

One with hulk hand is the stretched setup.


This is the replacement one I put on... Which actually got pulled for the Cloyes set before it went together for sure. And we all know how that worked out.

[geldartb]

i do remember my new GM set i put on this motor was like your first video. tight on one side and very little slack on the backside.
this was a few weeks ago when i put it back together

[3400-95-Modified]

Ok, so it was like the video of my new GM set... The second two I posted are ones from before... so really those two with the holey cam gear can be ignored they were for reference only.

[geldartb]

yep same as your video with the new gm set

[60dgrzbelow0]

The following information is based on my conversations with chain manufacturers/distributors.

In regards to tensile strength, stock timing chains are stronger than roller chains due to their construction. It would be a waste of money to do a tensile strength test of the chains as the longevity of a roller chain comes from the pivot design where the hardened link pin is pivoting inside a smooth hardened tube instead of layers of short holes that were stamped in a die.

Everyone, including myself, always refers to it as chain stretch but the links aren't stretching. Instead, the pivots are wearing out like a door hinge on an old car. A worn chain will sag like that door when you hold it out sideways.

The double roller has two rows of smaller links which gives it more tensile strength but, more importantly, has longer pins that provide a larger wear surface. Double roller pins are about 50% longer but smaller in diameter. Some of the extra wear area is negated due to the reduction in pin diameter.

The only way to accurately test chains would be to run them on an engine as simulating the harmonics of an IC engine would be near impossible.

CNCGuy is right. But its actually the barrels of steel AROUND those slender fixed pins in the matched side plates almost like rivets that do all of the rolling, whereas the vertically stacked plates of steel in the wedge design chains can never do that...they simply grab at each tooth face and brutally drag them around with enormous contact friction at every possibly point in between. The reason Cloyes calls their roller chains "true rollers" is because the pin barrels are doing exactly that... rolling endlessly around those fixed plate pins and thereby reducing friction by one hell of a lot! They are designed and behave exactly like the barrel segments in a bicycle chain. Without this feature...you couldn't ride a bike around a city block without the chain seizing up if it had an un-lubricated wedge design for a chain!

The newly installed Cloyes TR-TS one on my current build is so close and so tight right now that you could not slip a playing card between the inner chain side and the rubber-coated chain guide if you tried! So if the latest TS you installed in the engine is ALSO loose like the others... then the only other explanations I can think of that would cause this to happen is either you've had the lower block and cam bores machined (align bored) and perhaps this reduced the distance between the camshaft and the crankshaft afterward if not done exactly right. (CNCGuy & John - Forced Firebird... is this possible?) Its either that...or...in this one, last outrageous possibility ...is that your main bearings at the front of the block have worn down to the point where it allows the crankshaft to have enough play to make the chain loose. Have you had any such dramatic machining done to this engine?

I just looked at your second video (I had some trouble with the link) ... Your newest TS looks very nominal...not more than a .25" deflection... Much better than the one in your original video...