which is better? what difference would it make? are aluminum weaker?

 

i would think that aluminum would be weaker but some titanium retainers wear out quite fast. do yourself a favor and do some research on what your motor will need to run safely and properly. good luck!

 

neither. go 300M. 300M is stronger that Ti and will not wear out.

 

snap fit ti

 

What is 300m and how makes it?

 

i wouldnt say ti retainers wear out fast...mine have been fine for years

 

300M is a variation of 4340 steel. It's double vacuum degassed to be extra pure and thus have less chance for inclusions to occur within the finished material.

 

Aluminum has serious fatigue issues, so I think it is only used for drag racing, like aluminum connecting rods. It does have a good strength to weight ratio, and it has a lower modulus so it will absorb load spikes better than steel (like pinging or nitromethane).

 

What about Crower's Ti-17 titanium retainers? Their site claims 8-10 rockwell points increase in hardness vs 6AL4V. Or BuddyClub's nitrate coated Ti retainers? Any improvement in wear characteristics over the other Ti retainters?

who makes a 300m retainer? did a quick search and got natta.

 

alot of people make the 300M. I think Evolution makes some and i know Crower has 4130. 4130 and 300M can be up to 65+ rockwell

 

Ive peen running Portflow Ti retainers for 3 yrs, no sign of wear.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">300M is a variation of 4340 steel. It's double vacuum degassed to be extra pure and thus have less chance for inclusions to occur within the finished material.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Inclusions of what? I think some one goofed on re-writing the paragraph he got in his Google search.

 

Inclusions of non-metallic material that from a strength perspective is a starting point for cranks since it represents a "break" in what should be a uniform matrix of ferrite.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Inclusions of non-metallic material that from a strength perspective is a starting point for cranks since it represents a "break" in what should be a uniform matrix of ferrite.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What the hell? If you take out that "non-metallic material" you change the properties of the material. In other words, if you take the carbon (non-metallic material) out of steel you don't have steel at all. You have iron.

It is the INCLUSION of this non-metallic material thats turns iron in to steel.

I looked the words "inclusions" up in the dictionary: Geology. A solid, liquid, or gaseous foreign body enclosed in a mineral or rock.

I see that you were trying to expand your vocabulary but you used it in the wrong context. Maybe you should substitute the word "impurities" in. Not trying to argue anything, I was just confused by your sentence. But I get it now.

 

The analysis for presence of inclusions in steel is extremely important in areas such as fasters, highly loaded parts under cyclial stress (ie retainer, springs), and of all things steel cord for tires.

There are million dollar equipment that use energy Dispersive X-ray microanalysis to find inclusions for quality testing steel used in critical applications.

 

Well steel is basically a solid solution of iron and carbon. When the concentration of carbon exceeds the solubility level it preciptates out into strips or nodules of graphite. This is what makes grey cast iron alot weaker than steel. So cast iron has a bunch of inclusions but the inclusion would not be classified as an impuirity.

 

I did not make up the term "inclusions" as I used it. I am not trying to sound like a high school flunky sports caster who over supplements his vocab with a webster's dictionary and thesaurus.

Here are some links I found on Google re steel and inclusions

http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/afs/afs2/form.html
http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art122.htm
http://www.diva-portal.org/kth...d=307

 

It behooves us all that as a group of people who are interested in IC engines, a contraption that consists of 95% metal, that one should possess a basic rudimentary understanding of metals and the factors that make them strong or weaker, the composition of them and the processes in which they are made and tested.

So please educate yourself before taking a strong position and removing all doubt that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Rocket, its okay man. Don't take this too serious.

Back to the topic. I would never use a 300M valvespring. As it is a ultra-high tensile strength steel is is especially sensitive to small defects. I wouldn't trust an autoparts manufacture to make it perfect enough when airplane parts manufactures have had trouble with it.

But if you do use it, you better make damn sure it is shot peened. But even then it is not ideal for friction surfaces or constant compression/decompression without some sort of surface treatment to keep it from forming stress features on the surface.

 

Very coo!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

So please educate yourself before taking a strong position and removing all doubt that you don't know what you are talking about. </TD></TR></TABLE>

For ***** sake. Stop being a cry baby man. I was confused by why the hell you used "inclusions" in your original sentence without stating inclusions of what. We already straightened that out.

Next point, none of us are ******* metullagists here. So if you are going to help people talk to them in a language they can understand. Using industry terms doesn't tell any one anything, though you probally only do it to make yourself sound smart.

A good mentor will talk to his pupils so they understand what is being said. Talking above them does neither the teacher, nor the student any good.

 

for 300M

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JohnShiwota &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> for 300M </TD></TR></TABLE>

Ehh, how about no.

Why don't you ask McDonnell-Douglas how great 300M is. I said it once and I'll say it again. If parts machined for aerospace applications fail due to problems with the material I really doubt an automotive manufacture is going to get it right.

 

i know alot of people that machine it with no problems. maybe if the part is not designed properly or is used in the wrong app it will fail but for retainers there is alot of people using it and it works great.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JohnShiwota &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i know alot of people that machine it with no problems. maybe if the part is not designed properly or is used in the wrong app it will fail but for retainers there is alot of people using it and it works great.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Who makes 300m retainers, and who are "alot of people" using them?