New build stroked/sleeved 427 ls3/7 combo DYNO NUMBERS ARE IN!!! CHECK LAST PAGE
09-26-2015, 01:21 PM
#61
On The Tree
Thread Starter
the facts and data just dont support your claim, and any additional power made by a sr is minimal and in my opinion not worth having to adjust things all the time...
09-26-2015, 01:22 PM
#62
On The Tree
Thread Starter
09-26-2015, 04:43 PM
#63
solid rollers dont make that much more power than modern hydraulic rollers.... this was proven by several companies including gm high tech as well as the shop whos building my motor... gained only 15 hp by switching from hydraulic to solid.... in one test in the first article the hydraulic made pretty much the same power as the solid in their 440
http://www.lsxtv.com/tech-stories/en...f7bc05556a75f4
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/090...ft-comparison/
http://www.lsxtv.com/tech-stories/en...f7bc05556a75f4
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/090...ft-comparison/
Lol do you realize that a solid can with the same advertised specs is actually smaller??
So a smaller solid cam makes the power of a big hydraulic roller.
You proved the point.
The only reason not to do solid is
#1 can't afford the parts
#2 aren't mechanically inclined enough to adjust the valve lash yourself.
09-26-2015, 05:06 PM
#64
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Lol do you realize that a solid can with the same advertised specs is actually smaller??
So a smaller solid cam makes the power of a big hydraulic roller.
You proved the point.
The only reason not to do solid is
#1 can't afford the parts
#2 aren't mechanically inclined enough to adjust the valve lash yourself.
So a smaller solid cam makes the power of a big hydraulic roller.
You proved the point.
The only reason not to do solid is
#1 can't afford the parts
#2 aren't mechanically inclined enough to adjust the valve lash yourself.
I can clearly afford the parts, lol having a solid roller that makes 10-20 more horsepower(if that) than a hydraulic roller is not woth it.. in case you or anyone else missed the pictures in the first post, this motor set up will not be hurting for power so why do i need to chase 20 horsepower with a solid roller when i have a direct ported intake jettted for 300 and a motor built to handle up to a 400 shot? any "power" im not making with a solid roller can be easily attained through my nitrous and compression 14.5:1, not to mention brodix heads that flow 400 cfm at 700, i could put a stock intake on and make power with this motor
BRODIX BR7 STS 273 HEAD:
STS BR 7 273
• Flows Over 415 cfm
• 2.250 / 1.614 Valve Sizes
• 50° Valve Job (Intake)
• 45° Valve Job (Exhaust)
• 273 cc Intake Port
• Uses Standard LS7 Components
• 12° Valve Angle
09-26-2015, 05:11 PM
#65
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Lol do you realize that a solid can with the same advertised specs is actually smaller??
So a smaller solid cam makes the power of a big hydraulic roller.
You proved the point.
The only reason not to do solid is
#1 can't afford the parts
#2 aren't mechanically inclined enough to adjust the valve lash yourself.
So a smaller solid cam makes the power of a big hydraulic roller.
You proved the point.
The only reason not to do solid is
#1 can't afford the parts
#2 aren't mechanically inclined enough to adjust the valve lash yourself.
and the cams in that lsxtv article were very very similar and the solid made basically the same power as the hydraulic no matter how you try to flip it
09-26-2015, 05:46 PM
#66
There are years (and hundreds of track and dyno) of RESULTS that say that say solids not only make more top end power than hydraulics, but also make more power throughout the power curve.
BUT, if you choose to make your valvetrain choices based on one, singular dyno test....well, that's no skin off my nose
.Best of luck!
KW
09-26-2015, 05:59 PM
#67
On The Tree
Thread Starter
I'll only say this: You're looking at one test.
There are years (and hundreds of track and dyno) of RESULTS that say that say solids not only make more top end power than hydraulics, but also make more power throughout the power curve.
BUT, if you choose to make your valvetrain choices based on one, singular dyno test....well, that's no skin off my nose .
Best of luck!
KW
There are years (and hundreds of track and dyno) of RESULTS that say that say solids not only make more top end power than hydraulics, but also make more power throughout the power curve.
BUT, if you choose to make your valvetrain choices based on one, singular dyno test....well, that's no skin off my nose
.Best of luck!
KW
its not just one test, i explained how the shop car we had made only 12 more horsepower on the big end on a solid roller then the same hydraulic, this was on a motor very similar to mine. a 440 rhs sleeved block... only difference was it was it had a 4.125 crank instead of my 4 inch crank and it has less compression then my motor. i will try to load the graph but the gain was 12 hp on top and the solid actually lost everywhere else.
once again im not quite sure why you or anyone else feels the need to tell me to go chase "more power" which is a very loose term when im on a big nitrous system.... the logic is not there, why spend more money and have more of a headache to deal with small gains of a sr when i can go hydraulic... i know for a fact a sr is not going to make 100 more hp/tq than a similar hydraulic. "more power" as i just stated is a very loose term... not to brag or sound like a jerk but with everything i have in my motor parts wise im really not worried... this is a high compression stroker not a 6.0 with a heads and cam package desperate for horsepower... any [power i feel im not making with a solid can be made right back by nitrous
just my opinion
09-26-2015, 06:06 PM
#68
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Coast of San Mateo County Between Pacifica & HMB
Posts: 1,815
Received 215 Likes
on
128 Posts
Your Engine Build will perform great and make great power.
That said however both examples listed do not support your
Contention that SR do not significantly out perform HR.
In the first example any 440" LSX Build would make at least
100 more HP then the that old school engine which had weak heads,
A carb at least 100 CFM To small, and was having valve control
Problems @ 6200 RPM with the HR and peaked 6200 RPM with
The solid.
The second example a 402" with AFR 205s (for a serious track build
AFR 225s in the day or 230s today would be more beneficial) while
Clearly excellent heads were to small to demonstrate the
Capabilities of the SR along with an Intake manifold designed for a
6500 RPM Peak vs your Intake 7000-7500 RPM peak.
This engine still made 24 more Peak HP. AFR 230s or MMS 235s
With a more RPM friendly intake would show 35+ HP at least.
SpeedTiger did a very thorough comparison Pre and post with Dyno
And track results that clearly showed the benefits of a LLSR vs
HR on a moderate 370" build 30+ HP and .25 and 3 MPH in the 1/4
On a NA 9.90 Car. Also a LS3 Vette made ~550RWHP in stock
Short block with a medium sized LLSR.
The new LLSR from CAM MOTION use less spring pressure and need
Much less periodic lash adjustment.
That said however both examples listed do not support your
Contention that SR do not significantly out perform HR.
In the first example any 440" LSX Build would make at least
100 more HP then the that old school engine which had weak heads,
A carb at least 100 CFM To small, and was having valve control
Problems @ 6200 RPM with the HR and peaked 6200 RPM with
The solid.
The second example a 402" with AFR 205s (for a serious track build
AFR 225s in the day or 230s today would be more beneficial) while
Clearly excellent heads were to small to demonstrate the
Capabilities of the SR along with an Intake manifold designed for a
6500 RPM Peak vs your Intake 7000-7500 RPM peak.
This engine still made 24 more Peak HP. AFR 230s or MMS 235s
With a more RPM friendly intake would show 35+ HP at least.
SpeedTiger did a very thorough comparison Pre and post with Dyno
And track results that clearly showed the benefits of a LLSR vs
HR on a moderate 370" build 30+ HP and .25 and 3 MPH in the 1/4
On a NA 9.90 Car. Also a LS3 Vette made ~550RWHP in stock
Short block with a medium sized LLSR.
The new LLSR from CAM MOTION use less spring pressure and need
Much less periodic lash adjustment.
09-26-2015, 06:17 PM
#69
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Your Engine Build will perform great and make great power.
That said however both examples listed do not support your
Contention that SR do not significantly out perform HR.
In the first example any 440" LSX Build would make at least
100 more HP then the that old school engine which had weak heads,
A carb at least 100 CFM To small, and was having valve control
Problems @ 6200 RPM with the HR and peaked 6200 RPM with
The solid.
The second example a 402" with AFR 205s (for a serious track build
AFR 225s in the day or 230s today would be more beneficial) while
Clearly excellent heads were to small to demonstrate the
Capabilities of the SR along with an Intake manifold designed for a
6500 RPM Peak vs your Intake 7000-7500 RPM peak.
This engine still made 24 more Peak HP. AFR 230s or MMS 235s
With a more RPM friendly intake would show 35+ HP at least.
SpeedTiger did a very thorough comparison Pre and post with Dyno
And track results that clearly showed the benefits of a LLSR vs
HR on a moderate 370" build 30+ HP and .25 and 3 MPH in the 1/4
On a NA 9.90 Car. Also a LS3 Vette made ~550RWHP in stock
Short block with a medium sized LLSR.
The new LLSR from CAM MOTION use less spring pressure and need
Much less periodic lash adjustment.
That said however both examples listed do not support your
Contention that SR do not significantly out perform HR.
In the first example any 440" LSX Build would make at least
100 more HP then the that old school engine which had weak heads,
A carb at least 100 CFM To small, and was having valve control
Problems @ 6200 RPM with the HR and peaked 6200 RPM with
The solid.
The second example a 402" with AFR 205s (for a serious track build
AFR 225s in the day or 230s today would be more beneficial) while
Clearly excellent heads were to small to demonstrate the
Capabilities of the SR along with an Intake manifold designed for a
6500 RPM Peak vs your Intake 7000-7500 RPM peak.
This engine still made 24 more Peak HP. AFR 230s or MMS 235s
With a more RPM friendly intake would show 35+ HP at least.
SpeedTiger did a very thorough comparison Pre and post with Dyno
And track results that clearly showed the benefits of a LLSR vs
HR on a moderate 370" build 30+ HP and .25 and 3 MPH in the 1/4
On a NA 9.90 Car. Also a LS3 Vette made ~550RWHP in stock
Short block with a medium sized LLSR.
The new LLSR from CAM MOTION use less spring pressure and need
Much less periodic lash adjustment.
i dont doubt that at all, but why should i go sr when i have the direct port nitrous system? the money spent does not justify 30-35 hp imo, dont get me wrong i know sr have there place but i just dont feel like i need the hassle of them low lash or not. as i said from what i have personally seen in shop is that the sr we used made 12 hp on the kind of engine i have., my motor will be on the motor dyno so i will post results... i plan on being at 600 rwhp before the nitrous with my set up.. unless i somehow make like 500 rwhp im ok, and if my power is that low thats when i would consider switching cams if need be
the shop motor made 760 at the crank on a hydraulic and 772 on the sr up top.
09-26-2015, 06:42 PM
#70
As for my....I got three cars that have kicked out 415+ HP to the wheels with hydraulic roller valve trains, so I know they make power. That said; one of those engines, a 398ci LT4, was swapped over to a solid roller setup and produced 40 more HP peak (admittedly at a higher RPM), and resulted in a .6 second improvement in the 1/4 mile for my Impala.
I was simply just pointing out that solid rollers are proven to not only produced more peak power.....but also more power throughout the power band. That's why I went that route with one of my cars.....6 years ago. But my last two engine builds have been hydraulic roller; and I went that route knowing I would be leaving power on the table....
Again.....best of luck!
KW
09-26-2015, 06:49 PM
#71
On The Tree
Thread Starter
I honestly don't care what you do.
As for my....I got three cars that have kicked out 415+ HP to the wheels with hydraulic roller valve trains, so I know they make power. That said; one of those engines, a 398ci LT4, was swapped over to a solid roller setup and produced 40 more HP peak (admittedly at a higher RPM), and resulted in a .6 second improvement in the 1/4 mile for my Impala.
I was simply just pointing out that solid rollers are proven to not only produced more peak power.....but also more power throughout the power band. That's why I went that route with one of my cars.....6 years ago. But my last two engine builds have been hydraulic roller; and I went that route knowing I would be leaving power on the table....
Again.....best of luck!
KW
As for my....I got three cars that have kicked out 415+ HP to the wheels with hydraulic roller valve trains, so I know they make power. That said; one of those engines, a 398ci LT4, was swapped over to a solid roller setup and produced 40 more HP peak (admittedly at a higher RPM), and resulted in a .6 second improvement in the 1/4 mile for my Impala.
I was simply just pointing out that solid rollers are proven to not only produced more peak power.....but also more power throughout the power band. That's why I went that route with one of my cars.....6 years ago. But my last two engine builds have been hydraulic roller; and I went that route knowing I would be leaving power on the table....
Again.....best of luck!
KW
i definitely appreciate the info... and im not against any sr, ive only been saying that 30 hp is not worth the 1500$ in parts(rockers ect) when i can easily attain any lost power with nitrous..... goal is to be at 600 rwhp on the motor before spray.... hopefully i wont have to even worry about changing cams but i will def post results
09-26-2015, 09:09 PM
#73
i dont doubt that at all, but why should i go sr when i have the direct port nitrous system? the money spent does not justify 30-35 hp imo, dont get me wrong i know sr have there place but i just dont feel like i need the hassle of them low lash or not. as i said from what i have personally seen in shop is that the sr we used made 12 hp on the kind of engine i have., my motor will be on the motor dyno so i will post results... i plan on being at 600 rwhp before the nitrous with my set up.. unless i somehow make like 500 rwhp im ok, and if my power is that low thats when i would consider switching cams if need be
the shop motor made 760 at the crank on a hydraulic and 772 on the sr up top.
the shop motor made 760 at the crank on a hydraulic and 772 on the sr up top.
So you admit it is about the money???
09-27-2015, 03:13 AM
#75
On The Tree
Thread Starter
09-27-2015, 03:14 AM
#76
On The Tree
Thread Starter
09-27-2015, 12:39 PM
#79
Building a NA ls motor is a mistake