Generation III Internal Engine 1997-2006 LS1 | LS6
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Cam lift limits

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-22-2005, 01:29 AM
  #1  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
Spinmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 721
Received 60 Likes on 28 Posts

Default 1.8 rockers

What is the highest lift cam anyone ever used? Assuming you have the clearance has anyone run .630+ lift? Any issues with the valvetrain? What springs did you use?
Any issues?

Last edited by Spinmonster; 05-22-2005 at 06:06 PM.
Old 05-22-2005, 03:10 AM
  #2  
Launching!
 
jaredwayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

well ive seen lifts in the high 700's before, granted you would have to run a soild roler setup.427's run a cam 0n the .620-.650 range but you need to run them on a shaft mount rocker, and some nice doubles or triples valvesprings, and dont expect them to last very long.

your setup should be fine, make sure you properly check p-v clearence.
Old 05-22-2005, 06:16 AM
  #3  
TECH Senior Member
 
PREDATOR-Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 14,620
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 16 Posts

Default

I would not run 1.8 rockers on a setup like that. do a search, this has been touch on many times.
You want a bigger cam, just custom design one for 1.7 ratio rockers.
Otherwise just sell what you have and get the right parts.
Old 05-22-2005, 02:17 PM
  #4  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
Spinmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 721
Received 60 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
I would not run 1.8 rockers on a setup like that. do a search, this has been touch on many times.
You want a bigger cam, just custom design one for 1.7 ratio rockers.
Otherwise just sell what you have and get the right parts.

WHY?
So is anyone running .630 lift...with or without 1.8 ratio rockers?

Last edited by Spinmonster; 05-22-2005 at 05:54 PM.
Old 05-22-2005, 02:28 PM
  #5  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (17)
 
SiL3NtXWS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

i'm running a .639 .646 hydraulic roller but it's not in a 346. Using 1.7's
Old 05-22-2005, 02:38 PM
  #6  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
Spinmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 721
Received 60 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by SiL3NtXWS6
i'm running a .639 .646 hydraulic roller but it's not in a 346. Using 1.7's
Big springs no doubt...lol
Old 05-22-2005, 03:24 PM
  #7  
Launching!
 
Blue Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Trois-Rivières (Québec / Canada)
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Spinmonster
WHY?

Yes, I did a search and never read a 'why' from those who are against the different ratio. If I was running 1.7's my question would still be, "Can I run .630 lift on a custom grind cam?"

I haven't selected a cam. Lift is lift. If the lift is too much I can get any custom grind for $350 to get to the accepted limit of lift.

I have the rockers already. I want an adjustable valvetrain and I am running them. I also want the reduced friction benefit of the full roller set-up.

Although this thread wasn't intended as a debate on higher ratio rockers, the question is raised already by PREDATOR-Z so I will run with it. Is there another issue pertaining to running greater ratio rockers please present it. It seems for simplicity people just say run a big cam with 1.7's so there is no need to recalculate lift or valve events.

So is anyone running .630 lift...with or without 1.8 ratio rockers?
The way I understand it, with higher ratio rockers you're not only increasing lift but also the ramp rate aggressiveness. And your cam is already an XE-R design. You will probably run into valve float issues with that combo.
Old 05-22-2005, 05:48 PM
  #8  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
Spinmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 721
Received 60 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Blue Hawk
The way I understand it, with higher ratio rockers you're not only increasing lift but also the ramp rate aggressiveness. And your cam is already an XE-R design. You will probably run into valve float issues with that combo.
This is a good point. The newer versions of the crane rockers do have what they are calling variable rate lift that is designed to increase the ramp rate. These are the older versions. However if that was true (and crane says the older ones do not change ramp rate), the newer ones could be used with an XE lobe.

I guess I had it comming to me. This post is all my fault in that the desire to evaluate the use of the 1.8's is just too tempting rather than to just get an answer to who is running >.630 lift.

I will start a new thread....
Old 05-22-2005, 09:34 PM
  #9  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (9)
 
ChucksZ06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 976
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

There have been discussions( I cannot vouch for their validity) that any more than .333 lift at the cam can creat oiling problems with the lifters. I was wondering if that is why the new z06 has 1.8 rockers to get the .591 lift. I think all the talk about 1.8 rockers on aggresive cams is just that, talk. If you have the right springs who cares if the valve opens quicker...it is not like we have flat tappet cams. I am doing a 403 ls2 now with a .619/.630 with 1.7 rockers.
Old 05-23-2005, 01:15 AM
  #10  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
Spinmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 721
Received 60 Likes on 28 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ChucksZ06
There have been discussions( I cannot vouch for their validity) that any more than .333 lift at the cam can creat oiling problems with the lifters. I was wondering if that is why the new z06 has 1.8 rockers to get the .591 lift. I think all the talk about 1.8 rockers on aggresive cams is just that, talk. If you have the right springs who cares if the valve opens quicker...it is not like we have flat tappet cams. I am doing a 403 ls2 now with a .619/.630 with 1.7 rockers.

Kind of in the ball park of what I was thinking on the cam. What are the other cam specs you were thinking of running? Do you remember where you read about the lifter limitations (.333)?
Old 05-23-2005, 09:42 PM
  #11  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (9)
 
ChucksZ06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 976
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

I read about it on this forum but I do not remember who was talking about it. I was going to use a solid cam with the 403 and one of the reasons I did not is the machine shop guy I use was told by comp cams that they recommend bushing the lifter bores when using high lift solid rollers or the lifter bores wear out quickly. I have to think this has something to do with the length of travel and the high spring pressures with solids. anyway that is why I bagged it and am going with a large hydraulic. I think I can get 550 rwhp with it anyway. I have a solid roller in my 406 sbc and I like it a lot so that was my reason for wanting to go that route.




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.