I have a 549 cubic inch dodge running Indy 572-13 cnc385 heads, 15/1 compression on injected methanol. Intake valve lift is gross .868, .020 lash, and i checked deflection with race springs and see .030 loss of lift in running state. The motor made 982 hp at 7600 rpm.
My question is, with a head limited combo like this, what gains could be expected going from a 2.30 stainless valve to a Titanium valve, as well as possibly changing seat angles for further gains. I am guessing i could still retain the stainless exhaust since rpm will be kept below 7800 rpm max. Do i have to have different seats put in for the change?

This is way above my pay grade. but .030" of deflection seems like an awful lot, and would be far greater at peak rpm I would suspect?

I dont think you'll see an improvement from the valves alone. Perhaps there is some power left on the table due to the valve job that could be addressed.

With your relatively low RPM ceiling, the weight savings of Ti wont gain you much unless you are willing to chance running lighter spring pressures and even then its debateable.

The Ti valves would need beryllium copper seats.

Ti valve tulips are often thicker as well, so you may see a small decrease in chamber volume.

The .030 deflection is what Brett has always told me to expect.

The titanium intake valve will be easier on the valve train in a combination like that. 0.030" deflection isn't that uncommon in a set up like that. Others can be worse. There is a reason that all the high RPM stuff has one piece rocker bars with multiple anchor points, 1/2"+ diameter pushrods etc.

Who is doing the updates to the heads for you Greg?

Wow, say if RA is 1,5 ratio, that would mean the 10" PR would have to deflect off axis say .25"? I'll do the math later, or the rocker arm would have to deflect .030" effectively across the fulcrum?
Or some combination. I can't imagine the cam deflects much.
Again, amazing.

Could be rocker shaft, depends on what rocker setup he is running.

I'd bet there's another tenth in Ti valves, even at your speed. You can run a good valvetrain on steel seats with CRN treated valves. I wouldn't run any steeper than a 52* seat to avoid 'sticking' the valves. Somewhere around 2015 on March 4th a wiseman once said:
(1) Can you turn a steel 2.300 to 8000rpn, Sure you can BUT, Your missing about 60hp, beating the hell out of your valve train, beating the hell out of your seats and knocking down your springs 5 times faster. Just because you can do it doesn't mean its mechanically sound " getting away with it" does not make it the proper way to do it.

(2) If you operate your engine over 7500rpm use Ti valves or kill 30hp. Thats the rule. Violate it with any excuse you chose to use but that's what our testing has proven.

We have done this test so many times with so many cams I lost count. (cams listed in our cam list on our web site) so here it is.

If you routinely operate your engine ABOVE 7500rpm use Titanium valves. If you operate your engine to 7000-7500rpm then you can use steel valves BUT, Ti valve will still make more power in this range. Titanium valves are worth anywhere from 30hp above 7000rpm. I see it in 90% of other engines as well I just wanted to clarify that all the testing here is done with our cams. There is always someone who claims they dont use Ti valves and run just FINE to 8000rpm. FINE compared to to what? Titanium valves control the valve train which triples your spring and component life if you operate to 8000rpm.

My rule is this. If you operate above 7500rpm, Ti valve are mandatory!

With all that said...run what you have, you've already built it. It'll run below the 8.50 cert once it's all dialed in so cap the rpm and gear it lower if you have to.

I can say from experience with a B1 engine I picked up 3 tenths going from Koffel supplied 2.300 stainless intake to a special ordered 2.300 ti intake only. Stainless exhaust still. Now we changed the radius and back angle of the valve also but never flow tested it. That engine shifted at 7500 and went through around 7800. Intake valves were the only change. Obviously the valve train was not happy.

I would think the heavier the steel valve the more the difference. A 2.05"with a 7mm stem won't see a big a benefit as a 2.40" with a 11/32" stem. Also in the equation would be cam design, spring and retainer weight, rocker and pushrod stifness. The better the valve follows the lobe with these items, the less gain there will be. I've had good succes to 7200 with T&D 1.7 paired rockers, Trend 7/16" x .165"tapered pushrods, Pac Ti retainers & their 1124 spring using Ferra 2.25" x 11/32" steel valve. The cam profile is pretty smooth. Comp RX 1718 int lobe, XCX1862 exh lobe. Zero failures. Springs last at least 300 passes (Hardcore has tested them)
Doug

Only one way to know for sure what they’re worth in your combo.

I can tell you this, the seats that come in the heads, a steep seat angle, and uncoated Ti valves with high spring loads………leads to a seriously degraded seating surface on the valve in a rather small number of runs.
Basically ruined the valves beyond salvaging.

So, I’d say come up with a plan that isn’t that combo.

You need to consider as Dwane pointed out the seat material in an Indy head and the valves you choose to use. As for power you should find some replacing the valves and also likely more in a good valvejob in the new seats, if using an uncoated valve, IMO change the seats either way. Is the cost worth it? Thats a question only you can answer. Titianium valves come at a cost in money for sure but these days time can be an issue as well.

Greg,

I have a few sets of CrN coated 2.29 valves that could be long enough. A few sets have been used in -13 heads without issue.

Could be, but that IMO would be the highest of the hanging fruit.

I have not chosen a shop, although there are two good race shops within ten miles of my house, both of which i have done business with. At this point i am gathering info.
I suspect the best my car will run will be about 8.40, so upgrading to a 7.50 cert would add enough weight to push me back to 8.50, so it only makes sense to bring the shift points down some and shoot for 8.50 till next fall. I won't do anything to the heads till i can re dyno it. And i may also up the cubic inch to match the converter, which stalls 6200 now at 549 cubes. I have a crank and rods ready to go to 580 inchs. I figure i may make a wholesale move if i mess with it, and put in 4.30 gears that i have on the shelf as well . I could shift at 7200 with the added cubes and gears, and never go above about 7400 rpm .

I run the Jesel 1.7 rocker system with individual shafted pairs. On the thought of what causes the .030 deflection, virtually every component contributes. Starting with the mounting bars, 5/16 mini shaft hold down bolts , to the 5/8 rocker shafts, then the bearings in the rockers, then the rockers themselves. Start adding up the .000+ movement of each little piece, then add .003+ cam flex (documented!) Compression in the pushrods and lifters, and it ends up where it is. All this was hard to wrap my head around till i was playing with my rod bolt stretch gauge one day, and realized i could steetch a rod bolt by lightly torquing it with my finger tips! It actually stretched .0002 with out much force at all .

Thanks everybody for the input. Just as in the past , all the help i have gotten hear will certainly help me make the best choice! Jeramiah, I will keep those valves in mind. How long are they?

5.54x 2.296 or 2.298 coated with a 45 seat. .250 to top of Square groove...non-steel tip(needs cap)

Another consideration is Ti valves have a limited life span when compared to steel (SS/Inconel) counter parts, same is true for Ti retainers as well. Obviously RPM and spring pressures dependant.

Thank you sir!