Aasco TI retainers compatibility
 

Hi guys.

Can somebody tell me with absolute certainty if the Aasco TI retainers, for 9mm valve stem, can be used with stock valve springs?

Cheers
Eskild


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

perhaps call Aasco directly. They can better inform you of their product than anyone on here could.
I've talked with them in the past and have always received great support and knowledge from them.

Thanks for the tip.
Have tried to reach them throgh email( I live in Norway) but still no answer. I relly need to know fast because I am about to change the valve springs the next coupe of days.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Called Aasco now.
They confirmed that the TI retainers can be used with stock valve springs :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Make sure to get the bases too or you will not be able to set the proper installed spring height or its real close with out any shims? Or you can thin down the originals for more adjustment

If you know a good machinist - like cgarr - you can have the stock bases machined so the spring base is at only one height. Remove the step inside.

So you are saying that the stock bases are to thick to work with stock springs and Aasco TI retainers WITHOUT having them machined thinner?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From what I remember I could only get 33 to 34mm installed height using the stock bases.

The Stock bases only have to be machined to accomodate a slightly larger inner spring the top retainer is the same step as stock, this is only when using the Aasco spring.

regards

Thanks racing97.

This is what I thought also.


Cheers

Eskild


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My bad - I was thinking of the base cup machining needed for the AASCO spring. I din't think using TI retainers with stock springs was too common, but no reason it shouldn't work.

Assuming the geometry for the keeper is the same, the outer flange on a used TI retainer from my parts bin is ~0.091" thick, the inner step ~0.137", and the total (as measured) 0.231", pretty close to adding the two. These aren't machinist accuracy measurements, but do show the difference.

The stock flange measured 0.067, 0.127, overall at 0.200 vs adding at 0.196.

Anyway, this would account for the base part above the shims needing to be thinner for stock springs for stock installed height. I only used the TI parts with AASCO springs, which needed the step removed in the base cup.

Litle bro - you probably know this, but I’ve heard that it’s not recommended to use ti retainers for engines that aren’t disasssembled on a regular basis (a la race motors), due to potentially accelerated wear for ti parts.

Ti retainers are coated it was the early ti material that notched technology sometimes out paces the
previous info that gets passed down.

regards

Whenever you change something on an engine, there needs to be a reason. If you are doing only because its sound good, I can think of a lot of other things to add to your engine to give you that feeling without adding risk.

Removing weight is always a good thing but you need to balance out the risk. Lowering valve train weight is done to allow for lighter spring numbers and to allow for higher RPM's to be achieved. If your engine will never see higher revs and or will not make power up there, you are adding un necessary risk. If you need to lower the weights involved, then you access the risks involved and make a good engineered decision.

Many aftermarket cam shaft designs induce huge harmonics into the valve train where more spring force is required to dampen such forces, going against the reason to lighten up the retainer weight.

Certainly the stock retainers are suspect as many have failed, so choose your course wisely. For a street engine I would not choose to go this way. I would chose a Tool steel retainer where weight is lowered without the risk involved with a Titanium retainer.

There is nothing wrong with the mentioned brand, but understand what and why you are making such a change.