mixtape

**Please note that this thread is regarding an iron head LT1 and not the aluminum head**

Hey all,

I have a Crane 227 cam sitting in a box next to Crane Gold SA (self aligning) 1.6 roller rockers. I plan on putting these onto a '94 iron head LT1 (out of an Impala SS). Though I'm stuck on what valve springs to use.

I was thinking about picking up the Crane Valve Spring & Retainer Kit (10309-1) since stock springs won't work with my new setup. This kit includes the 99845-16 springs. According to the Crane 227 installation instructions, they suggest the 10309-1 kit on iron heads.

I was about to order the Crane kit until I was told on the Impala forum that I'd be much safer to run Comp 26918-16 springs with Comp retainers (787-16), instead of the Crane 99845-16 springs. I was told the the Crane springs may not be best suited for the substantial lift of the 227 cam. However, Crane themselves suggest the 99845-16 springs with this cam .

So between the 99845-16 springs and the 26918-16 springs, which do you guys think is best for my setup? They're both less than a $10 difference so it really comes down to which springs will work best for an iron headed LT1 with a Crane 227 cam and 1.6RRs.

Please keep in mind that the exhaust lift on this cam is rather high, which is what makes picking springs difficult.

Thanks in advance . and here's a Summit screenshot comparing the two:

96lt1m6

iTrader: (31)

I voted for the 918s but I am now wondering if the seat is wide enough to have those springs installed w/o machining... Not positive bro

gatorhead

iTrader: (4)

So these weren't an option because?????

BALLSS

10309 kit, plug & play for iron head and installed height.

you posted this ? on impala forum.

with pressed in studs and 1:6 the exhaust lift gets close and some have experienced the exhaust RR stud pulling but MANY run the 227 and have no issues with 1:6

back when the 227 was one of the few cams avail for the LT1 many split RR using 1:5 on exhaust side.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

Crane will spec springs based on the 1.5 rocker ratio they intended when the cam was designed, you go and change rocker ratio and that can likely impact proper spring choice.

If you are going to order that cam from Summit then you would be a whole lot better off to consider a custom grind with more modern lobes, more carefully matched components and less cost. On Summit that cam is $421.95, it is a nice cam, but I would not pay that for a decade and a half old design.
For less than that you can do better.

mixtape

Thanks man, and that's a good point. I know that the Crane kit is made for the iron heads, but I wasn't sure about the 26918-16's. I'm actually leaning towards the Crane springs for simplicity, and for the fact that Crane suggests them.

That's a good point also. The specs might be tailored towards a 1.5 ratio, which may make things ever more complex . Do you think the 10309-1 kit will be able to compensate 1.6RRs?

By the way, I decided to go with the 227 cam because I feel in love with the reviews. When I saw the words "torque monster" I knew I found my cam . Little did I know, at the time, that running it with iron heads, with press in studs, would be pushing the limit.

I made a thread in the "Engine Performance" section of impalassforum.com. I figured a second opinion could never hurt, so I came here as well. If I had a bigger budget, I would probably run 1.6 intake and 1.5 exhaust. However, I may run the 1.6 on both sides for now. I'm most likely swapping to ported aluminum heads next summer, so if I can get a year out of this iron head setup, I'd be happy .

This was my main option until I was suggested otherwise. The 10309-1 kit is definitely an option, but I didn't want to take the Comp Beehives off the table just yet.

gatorhead

iTrader: (4)

There is a more modern cam that was pretty much Comp's answer to the 227. It is the CC 465. That thing is a pure stump puller. If it were mine to do, I would go to the 465 and the 918's.

Just an aside, you could thread the iron heads for threaded studs......

mixtape

Do you happen to know the full part number, or have a link for the 465 cam you mentioned? I'm curious how it stacks up to the 227. I read nothing but great things about the Crane 227 cam so I'm curious to read up on it. I did a quick search for "comp cam 465" but there's a few models apparently containing those numbers.

As for screw in studs, I was hoping to avoid having to take the heads off to get machined. I figured it would probably just be cheaper to swap the (already screw in) aluminum heads instead. However, while I save up for ported aluminum heads, I'm was hoping to run the press in stock iron heads for at least a year as they are. I'm unfortunately building this on a pretty small budget.

gatorhead

iTrader: (4)

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/CCA-07-465-8/

If you go to comps website they have a dyno sim on there so you can polay around with it and see. This cam will put you in the back of your seat and keep you there from redlight to redlight without a doubt. I have nothing bad to say about the 227. It held the fastest cam only record at one time. I do have knowledge and experience with this cam and as I said it is a stump pulling torque monster!

mixtape

Wow, that really is a nice cam. You mentioned it in another thread as "Comp's answer to Crane's 227 cam." Lol if only I knew about it a week earlier . Thankfully I didn't pay over $400 for my 227, but I definitely spent much more than $288.95.

Have you had experience with both of these cams? The differences seem so minor, that I'm wondering how they differ in drivability. It looks like the Comp cam has just a slightly higher power band, but I'm wondering if it'll have slightly lower power/torque numbers since the intake/exhaust is smaller on the 465.

gatorhead

iTrader: (4)

Well what you aren't paying attention to is the lift. The 465 has much more, the ramps are really aggresive and it starts making power much earlier and flatlines the torque all the way to the end, but you start seeing it very early on.
The pro's far outweigh the cons in these scenarios. This isn't a high rpm, huge horsepower cam. It is a OMG WTF was that holeshot, drive me anywhere everyday and hey I am also friends with the bottom end and stock heads kinda cam. The springs have to be changed no matter what, but as you can see the lift is pretty big.
I think that at the big end of the track the 227 would begin to reel the 465 in. I believe that the 465 would holeshot the 227 and have a few lengths at the 1/8th.
Based on that, from red light to red light and in anything heavy and looking for a fun street cam I would choose the 465. Once again I cannot hate on the 227 it has had a reputation for a long time. Baby cams are where its at on the street!

Puck

iTrader: (17)

Its hard to beat the 465 for a pure daily driver street cam. Both are great cams, and you can't argue with the 227s stellar history.

One question though...are your iron heads ported already? I know you said you don't want to pull the heads right now, but you can get used aluminum LT1 heads for dirt cheap, around 200 bucks. It may be worth freshening up a set of those with some cheap valve stem seals and a 10308 spring kit instead of worrying about tapping your heads for thread in studs or risking problems with the small press-in ones. That way, you have a higher potential platform to build on in the future if you want to get them ported later on (plus they take a lot of weight off the front end too).

Thinking out loud though, the 227 on 1.7rrs w/ 918's sounds like it would be an interesting combo for a street car...

BALLSS

the 465 cam (XFI grind) specs are with 1:6 RR...227 specs are 1:5 RR

with the 465 you WILL need bee hive valve springs

I run the 466 in a my 383