ARTY99z

I was just wondering if they would work since the 220 cam has about the same lift as the 02 Z06. Thanks

Paul F

iTrader: (2)

Even though the lift numbers are close the ramp rate of the TR220 cam is much faster then the LS6 cam. The LS6 springs do not have enough seat pressure or open pressure to control valve float on the more aggressive cams. I'd recommend going with the Comp 26918 springs.

Jason 98 TA

iTrader: (4)

I have a set of 918s & a TR 220 for sale in the For sale section <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Jason

Ireland31

Paul, what about running the 220/220 cam with a set of stock 2002 LS6 heads with the light weight valves, would you still recommend the 918's, or could I get away with the 2002 LS6 springs?

Thanks

Zeta

Ireland31, have you gotten an answer to your question?

If not it would be cool if someone would answer you.

I know the 2002 z06 springs have less seat pressure than the 918, but if you are not reving over 6200 with the much lighter valves. Do you really need the 918 spring?

I am guessing not.

Zeta

I did some reasearch and the open [.551] pressure of an 2002 z06 spring is 295 pounds, 90 closed.

http://www.c5registry.com/2k2z06/page4.htm

The 918 is 130 closed and 313 at .600.

http://www.compcams.com/information...26915_26918.pdf

The seat pressure is different by 40 pounds. If you leave your rev limiter at stock, then I have serious doubts the 02 LS6 springs are a bad choice.

Since there is not a huge difference in open seat pressure, then for stock rev limit I do not see a problem with the 02 z06 spring.

BAKNBLK

I was wondering the same thing. I'm considering a TR 220/220