MTI vs. TR for spring durability?
03-14-2003, 11:16 AM
#1
MTI vs. TR for spring durability? I think I've read nearly every post in this section going back over two months, and one thing that seems to be coming out is that the characteristics of the popular MTI and TR cams are similar, but the TR cams seem to be harder on springs and have more valve train noise. Maybe it's due to ramp rates? Am I correct in drawing this conclusion?
03-14-2003, 01:54 PM
#2
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Macomb, MI
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? That is the conclusion I came too also, probably from reading the same posts as you. This is because the TR Cams have faster ramp rates.
<small>[ March 14, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: HOSS99 ]</small>
<small>[ March 14, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: HOSS99 ]</small>
03-14-2003, 02:10 PM
#3
I can shift faster than you.
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? MTI uses Comp XE-R lobes for most of their LS1 cams. The ramps rates on the XE-R lobes are nearly identical in ramp speed to what Thunder uses. The big thing in TR's favor is that their lobes do not have as much lift as the XE-R lobes do (TR224/.563; XE-R 224/.581; TR230/.575, XE-R 230/.591). If anything, the XE-R lobes will be harder on the valvesprings due to this. However, we are talking minor differences here and the bottom line is the are really just too close to draw any conclusions one way or the other.
Jason
<small>[ March 14, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Jason99T/A ]</small>
Jason
<small>[ March 14, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Jason99T/A ]</small>
03-14-2003, 02:22 PM
#4
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hartsdale, NY
Posts: 4,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? i'm also considering the TR reverse split 114...
I also purchased the TR (Lunati) double REV springs that have considerably more pressure than CC 918 springs...
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life?
I also purchased the TR (Lunati) double REV springs that have considerably more pressure than CC 918 springs...
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life?
03-14-2003, 02:24 PM
#5
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hartsdale, NY
Posts: 4,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? i'm also considering the TR reverse split 114...
I also purchased the TR (Lunati) double REV springs that have considerably more pressure than CC 918 springs...
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life or does the noise level increase?
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct?
I also purchased the TR (Lunati) double REV springs that have considerably more pressure than CC 918 springs...
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life or does the noise level increase?
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct?
03-14-2003, 03:27 PM
#6
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jason99T/A:
<strong> MTI uses Comp XE-R lobes for most of their LS1 cams. The ramps rates on the XE-R lobes are nearly identical in ramp speed to what Thunder uses. The big thing in TR's favor is that their lobes do not have as much lift as the XE-R lobes do (TR224/.563; XE-R 224/.581; TR230/.575, XE-R 230/.591). If anything, the XE-R lobes will be harder on the valvesprings due to this. However, we are talking minor differences here and the bottom line is the are really just too close to draw any conclusions one way or the other.
Jason </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jason, that was kind of what I was afraid of, one is as hard on springs as the other. I'm trying to decide between the MTI C1 and the TR224 114. I like the specs of the TR224 better, but I had the impression it would be much harder on valve springs than the C1. Do you know if the MTI C1 has XE-R lobes? And if so, I wonder if it could be ordered without the XE-R lobes as a custom grind?
<strong> MTI uses Comp XE-R lobes for most of their LS1 cams. The ramps rates on the XE-R lobes are nearly identical in ramp speed to what Thunder uses. The big thing in TR's favor is that their lobes do not have as much lift as the XE-R lobes do (TR224/.563; XE-R 224/.581; TR230/.575, XE-R 230/.591). If anything, the XE-R lobes will be harder on the valvesprings due to this. However, we are talking minor differences here and the bottom line is the are really just too close to draw any conclusions one way or the other.
Jason </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jason, that was kind of what I was afraid of, one is as hard on springs as the other. I'm trying to decide between the MTI C1 and the TR224 114. I like the specs of the TR224 better, but I had the impression it would be much harder on valve springs than the C1. Do you know if the MTI C1 has XE-R lobes? And if so, I wonder if it could be ordered without the XE-R lobes as a custom grind?
Trending Topics
03-14-2003, 04:38 PM
#8
TECH Senior Member
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? "...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life or does the noise level increase?
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct?"
Noise? I don't know but I doubt there would be a real noticable difference.
Spring life? Yes.
Power output? Well, in theory, yes, but in practice the losses are very small. Springs do a pretty efficient job of returning the force they're given. It robs power when being compressed but it returns most of it when it extends. Other losses would be from friction but with a roller tipped lifter this is minimal.
Sure, there will be a little more wear on parts with stiffer springs but it's not really a huge issue. Those roller tips on the lifters save the cam completely and make life much easier on the lifters as well. Now stock roller rockers have been known to fail even in stock engines but usually they do quite well even in big cam setups.
When in doubt, go stiffer. Valve float ain't nothin' to fool with.
<small>[ March 14, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Colonel ]</small>
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct?"
Noise? I don't know but I doubt there would be a real noticable difference.
Spring life? Yes.
Power output? Well, in theory, yes, but in practice the losses are very small. Springs do a pretty efficient job of returning the force they're given. It robs power when being compressed but it returns most of it when it extends. Other losses would be from friction but with a roller tipped lifter this is minimal.
Sure, there will be a little more wear on parts with stiffer springs but it's not really a huge issue. Those roller tips on the lifters save the cam completely and make life much easier on the lifters as well. Now stock roller rockers have been known to fail even in stock engines but usually they do quite well even in big cam setups.
When in doubt, go stiffer. Valve float ain't nothin' to fool with.
<small>[ March 14, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Colonel ]</small>
03-14-2003, 06:40 PM
#9
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by robertbartsch:
<strong>
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life or does the noise level increase?
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Robert, I just got off the phone with Comp Cams tech support. They said higher spring pressure increases valve train noise but increases spring life. The higher spring presure shouldn't cause too much more wear because the LS1 has roller lifters.
<strong>
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life or does the noise level increase?
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Robert, I just got off the phone with Comp Cams tech support. They said higher spring pressure increases valve train noise but increases spring life. The higher spring presure shouldn't cause too much more wear because the LS1 has roller lifters.
03-14-2003, 07:10 PM
#10
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Houston, TX
Posts: 10,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jason99T/A:
<strong> The C1 uses the XE lobes, while the C2 uses the XE-R lobes. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought that the XE and XE-R were the same, only difference being is the fact that the XE-R was for roller lifters,(hence the "R") and the regular XE was for flat tappet lifters. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />
<strong> The C1 uses the XE lobes, while the C2 uses the XE-R lobes. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought that the XE and XE-R were the same, only difference being is the fact that the XE-R was for roller lifters,(hence the "R") and the regular XE was for flat tappet lifters. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />
03-14-2003, 11:26 PM
#11
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by stang killer:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jason99T/A:
<strong> The C1 uses the XE lobes, while the C2 uses the XE-R lobes. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought that the XE and XE-R were the same, only difference being is the fact that the XE-R was for roller lifters,(hence the "R") and the regular XE was for flat tappet lifters. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Someone posted that fallacy a while back. XE and XE-R are both hydrualic roller profiles for the LS1. The XE-R is a more aggressive ramp profile, about 4 degrees less advertised than a similar XE lobe of identical .050" duration.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jason99T/A:
<strong> The C1 uses the XE lobes, while the C2 uses the XE-R lobes. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought that the XE and XE-R were the same, only difference being is the fact that the XE-R was for roller lifters,(hence the "R") and the regular XE was for flat tappet lifters. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Someone posted that fallacy a while back. XE and XE-R are both hydrualic roller profiles for the LS1. The XE-R is a more aggressive ramp profile, about 4 degrees less advertised than a similar XE lobe of identical .050" duration.
03-15-2003, 11:24 AM
#12
D(irecto)r Pepper
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston Raceway Park...in TEXAS.
Posts: 1,952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? Killer tech here for the newbies. I hope some of them read it and take it to heart.
C1 is on a less agressive XE comp cam lobe.
The C2 is gound on the XE-R lobe. The XE-R lobe is speeper and stays closed just a tik longer.
This gives you a smoother running motor and slightly higher cylinder pressures. Due to less over lap losses. The valves open very fast on the XE and the XE-R lobes open ever faster.
Yes MTI cams in general use the XE and XE-R in my mind because of the extra lift.... and the fact that they are readily available.
The extra lift if the head is designed to make use of it.... is worth extra power.
Has any one had a custom MTI dual spring fail? I have never heard of one...Dang I like them.
Good luck amigos....keep the shiny side up.
C1 is on a less agressive XE comp cam lobe.
The C2 is gound on the XE-R lobe. The XE-R lobe is speeper and stays closed just a tik longer.
This gives you a smoother running motor and slightly higher cylinder pressures. Due to less over lap losses. The valves open very fast on the XE and the XE-R lobes open ever faster.
Yes MTI cams in general use the XE and XE-R in my mind because of the extra lift.... and the fact that they are readily available.
The extra lift if the head is designed to make use of it.... is worth extra power.
Has any one had a custom MTI dual spring fail? I have never heard of one...Dang I like them.
Good luck amigos....keep the shiny side up.
03-15-2003, 01:10 PM
#13
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Effingham, IL
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by robertbartsch:
<strong> i'm also considering the TR reverse split 114...
I also purchased the TR (Lunati) double REV springs that have considerably more pressure than CC 918 springs...
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life or does the noise level increase?
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The C5 is at Speed Inc waiting for a 2002 block, with a built bottom end, Would you guys think it would be a wise idea to up grade the rocker arms, staying stock 1.6"?
The specs are: Speed Inc 224 .563" 112. GTP2 5.7, Comp dual coil 987s Vortex CAI, Stainless Works LTs, Bassani ORP, B&B triflows, stock 3.42s, LS1 edit, no pulley.
Not to hijack this thread but what do you guys think it will dyno, mph at the track?
Cal,
my vote goes for ramp rates.
<strong> i'm also considering the TR reverse split 114...
I also purchased the TR (Lunati) double REV springs that have considerably more pressure than CC 918 springs...
...does a higher spring pressure help to reduce valve noise and prolong spring life or does the noise level increase?
...I also assume higher spring pressures decrease power output and result in high wear rates on the cam, lifters, push rods, rockers, etc. Is this correct? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The C5 is at Speed Inc waiting for a 2002 block, with a built bottom end, Would you guys think it would be a wise idea to up grade the rocker arms, staying stock 1.6"?
The specs are: Speed Inc 224 .563" 112. GTP2 5.7, Comp dual coil 987s Vortex CAI, Stainless Works LTs, Bassani ORP, B&B triflows, stock 3.42s, LS1 edit, no pulley.
Not to hijack this thread but what do you guys think it will dyno, mph at the track?
Cal,
my vote goes for ramp rates.
03-15-2003, 01:20 PM
#14
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Maryland
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MTI vs. TR for spring durability? You said your C5 will be at Speed inc. Since you said C5 I will assume that your Vette is at least a 97 and that would mean an LS1 motor. The LS1 has 1.7 rockers, not 1.6 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Andy
Andy
