Skip to main content
English French German Italian Spanish

Valve seat recession

Forums

Further to Mike Pemberton's article in RH this month about cylinder head work on a single, he mentioned a measurement to take in order to check for correct valve seat depth, namely from the tip of the valve stem to the face of the head, where the valve guide protrudes, which he illustrated with a photograph. Does anyone know what this measurement should be for the early 650SS head?

Permalink

I shall keep bumping this one, as surely someone must know? Alternatively, are there other measureable criteria which dictates when valve seat recession is unacceptable? My manuals give all sorts of technical data, measurements etc, including mention of replacing valve seats when they are too worn, or have been ground too much, but no measurements to back it up. Thanks in advance.....

Ian

Permalink

Previously ian_cordes wrote:

I shall keep bumping this one, as surely someone must know? Alternatively, are there other measureable criteria which dictates when valve seat recession is unacceptable? My manuals give all sorts of technical data, measurements etc, including mention of replacing valve seats when they are too worn, or have been ground too much, but no measurements to back it up. Thanks in advance.....

Ian

Valve seats are made so they can be cut , and then lapped in , but you can tell if there is too much pocketing on the seat, but 3/32second is about it for the max on valve seat cutting , then its time for new seats, yours anna j

Attachments Picture%20540.jpg picture-529-jpg
Permalink

Anna. Thanks for the reply. What is the datum point from which you measure, and to where? My issue is one I raised in another thread I have running, regarding the length of pushrods supplied by Andover Norton, which appear to be about .070" too long. When I fit them, I can get no valve clearance on the exhaust valves, and not much on the inlets. I can get clearance if I use RGM steel pushrods, which are about .040" shorter than Andovers, although still longer than the published lengths of the original Norton rods. I don't want to use the steel ones, as they are too heavy. Andover say they have never had a problem with their rods, and anyway, the dimensions which Norton published back in the 1960's are wrong.... of course, I should have realised....

Your service tolerance of 3/32"; or .094"; if added to a pushrod additional length of .070" is a massive difference from original manufactured specification. Therefore, I need to know whether my valve seats are getting to the edge of tolerance, or whether the problem is just the pushrods, before I remove the ends of the rods, which I am having difficulty in doing, in order to shorten them.

I have attached a picture, although not as clear as yours.

Thanks. Ian

Attachments p1292984-jpg
Permalink

Previously ian_cordes wrote:

Anna. Thanks for the reply. What is the datum point from which you measure, and to where? My issue is one I raised in another thread I have running, regarding the length of pushrods supplied by Andover Norton, which appear to be about .070" too long. When I fit them, I can get no valve clearance on the exhaust valves, and not much on the inlets. I can get clearance if I use RGM steel pushrods, which are about .040" shorter than Andovers, although still longer than the published lengths of the original Norton rods. I don't want to use the steel ones, as they are too heavy. Andover say they have never had a problem with their rods, and anyway, the dimensions which Norton published back in the 1960's are wrong.... of course, I should have realised....

Your service tolerance of 3/32"; or .094"; if added to a pushrod additional length of .070" is a massive difference from original manufactured specification. Therefore, I need to know whether my valve seats are getting to the edge of tolerance, or whether the problem is just the pushrods, before I remove the ends of the rods, which I am having difficulty in doing, in order to shorten them.

I have attached a picture, although not as clear as yours.

Thanks. Ian

Well Ian if you look at my photo and then compeare it with your photo , I think the exhaust valve is sank in more on you photo, so this meen you need new seat fitting you may as do the lot and start a fresh, as you may as been burnt as scolded , see SEP engineering , for this one , Yours Anna J

Permalink

I have now checked the length of the valves as they protrude through the head, as Mike P. did with the ES2, and the n/s inlet is 42.6mm, o/s inlet 42.1mm, n/s exhaust 42.6mm, and o/s exhaust 42.4mm, so 0.5mm, or .020", covers them all. Likwise the valves are all within .010" of each other in length. Attached is a photo of the inserts with valves removed.They appear different, as the profile of the outer edge of the inlet valve inserts are rounded, protruding slightly into the head, whilst the exhaust insert is chamfered. However, the cut seats appear to be at similar depth, as witnessed by the measurements of the valves through the cylinder head. The valve heads are proud of the combustion chamber, so they don't appear to me to be recessed. Does anyone have a good head and valves sitting on the bench which you could measure?

Attachments p1302994-jpg
Permalink

I would say that there is still plenty of life in your valve seats yet. I do have a NOS Dominator cylinder head somewhere in the shed and I'lltry to take a photo ofthe valve seats.Yours have a long way to go before you think aboutnew seats.

Permalink

Gordon. Thank you for your reassurance! That is my belief, but with no data to take measurements, I was feeling a bit stuck. The problem I have, therefore, has to be the over-long Andover Norton pushrods. I will attempt to put the ball back in their court next week. I will take similar measurements of my 750 Commando head today, by way of comparison. The valves are 0.10" longer than the SS ones, but it may give some comparison. Meanwhile, the bike remains dismantled on the bench....

Ian

Permalink

Many years ago the club produced a small booklet Roadholder size) which contained lots of tech stuff (much from Hudson) including a list of pushrod sizes. I still will have it , Looking--------------. If the valves are the wrong length the rockers will not work across the tips correctly and you can see this. PS, before 15871 eng inlet 8.210,ex 7.366, after 125871 inlet 8.110 ex 7.266. Assembled lengths.. Bare lengths also listed if req. Hudson info is what I would trust.

Permalink

Yes, those are the measurements which Phil Hannam also posted up in an earlier thread, on a chart of pushrod lengths; no doubt the same one you have.

Andover say they manufacture to original 1964 drawings, which state :-

inlet 8.284"-8.248"; exhaust 7.440"-7.404"; in each case showing a .036" manufacturing tolerance.

The lengths of the rods they supplied me with are:-

inlet 8.263"; exhaust 7.429", which are pretty much in the middle of their stated tolerance, yet 0.053" and 0.063" longer than Hudson's measurements, and even more, when compared with Norton's published figures in their Publication P106/P, workshop manual from the period; see attached.

Whatever; these pushrods will not allow any valve clearance, whilst the shorter, but much heavier, RGM ones will.

Andover, despite acknowledging that they are puzzled by the discrepancy in figures between the 2 lots of data, which they will look into, maintain that I am wrong, they are right, and they will not shorten the rods for me, but will give me a refund. They further said that I am being unreasonable, and should not consider that I am right.

Charming....

Attachments norton-publication-p106-p-data-jpg
Permalink

If the valve protrusion and pushrod lengths are correct in normal operation you should see hardly any travel of the adjuster tip across the top of the valve . There was an article in Roadholder about this. In the end it was necessary to reduce the valve length to achieve correct action and fit a lash cap to provide a hard work surface.

Permalink

I think I read somewhere that all Norton twins post 62ish had hard seats, I have had no problems running modern phoo in my twins and I never put anything in the fuel ?

Permalink

Previously tony_harris wrote:

I think I read somewhere that all Norton twins post 62ish had hard seats, I have had no problems running modern phoo in my twins and I never put anything in the fuel ? I think you will find that ALL alluminium heads from the 1950's on have seats (Brimol) that will withstand reasonable use as long as mixture is not overweak and good quality valves used .We should not be complacent though as who knows whats coming next.

Permalink

One thing to watch out for is if you fit austenitic stainless valves, they pick up on cast iron valve guides, wrecking them. You either have to fit bronze guides or have the valve stems nitrided and then polished.

 


Norton Owners Club Website by 2Toucans