Dynamometer Results & Comparisons Dyno Records | Dyno Discussion | Dyno Wars

Dyno #'s for Crane Gold Race Rocker Arms

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-18-2005, 01:38 AM
  #1  
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
 
Schwindj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Houston/Lubbock
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Dyno #'s for Crane Gold Race Rocker Arms

Has anyone installed Crane Cams LS1 Gold Race Rocker Arms w/ quick lift technology? Their webiste says that they are good for 20 horsepower, I just wanted some outside verification. Thanks
Old 04-18-2005, 02:09 AM
  #2  
jrp
SN95 Director
iTrader: (16)
 
jrp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Valencia, Ca
Posts: 10,755
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

Default

search VHP or mr223.
Old 04-18-2005, 04:56 AM
  #3  
11 Second Club
 
XTrooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NE PA
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Schwindj
Has anyone installed Crane Cams LS1 Gold Race Rocker Arms w/ quick lift technology? Their webiste says that they are good for 20 horsepower, I just wanted some outside verification. Thanks
I recently swapped in a set of the Crane "Quick Lift" 1.80 roller rockers replacing the SLP 1.85 rockers I'd been using. Even though I lost a little on my max valve lift by going with the slightly lower rocker arm ratio (1.80 vs 1.85), I still gained 10 rwhp and 8 rwtq with the Cranes.

With the above in mind, if you replaced a set of the stock 1.70 rockers (actually 1.69) with a set of the Crane 1.70 rockers (actually 1.72), I think you could reasonably expect to see a gain of 15-20 rwhp.
Old 04-18-2005, 11:37 AM
  #4  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
vettenuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Little Rhody
Posts: 8,092
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts

Default

Wondering if the Crane 1.7's would also require a spring change?
Old 04-18-2005, 10:16 PM
  #5  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
1BadMoFo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Jackson MI
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

any thoughts on piston to valve clearance, when using in combinatioin with MTI's Stage 2E heads and their G1 cam?
Old 04-18-2005, 10:25 PM
  #6  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
 
JimMueller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Casselberry FL
Posts: 3,964
Received 52 Likes on 43 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by XTrooper
With the above in mind, if you replaced a set of the stock 1.70 rockers (actually 1.69) with a set of the Crane 1.70 rockers (actually 1.72), I think you could reasonably expect to see a gain of 15-20 rwhp.
So what if you switched from stock to the 1.8[9]'s?
Old 04-19-2005, 07:22 AM
  #7  
11 Second Club
 
XTrooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NE PA
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JimMueller
So what if you switched from stock to the 1.8[9]'s?
Well, the added valve lift of the 1.80 rockers will certainly give you bigger gains over what you'd get with the 1.70's, but I wouldn't want to guess what the difference might be. Personally, if you can safely use the 1.80's, I'd use them as they don't cost any more than the 1.70's.
Old 04-20-2005, 05:09 PM
  #8  
Banned
iTrader: (45)
 
lsx24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Nice numbers
Old 04-20-2005, 05:32 PM
  #9  
Staging Lane
 
ls1mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Those are unique gains. I'd be interested to see if lobe profile has an effect on the top end numbers, and where the numbers are effected, since there are no results other than one or two, however positive so far. Are there any independent graphs?
Old 04-20-2005, 08:33 PM
  #10  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
 
mrr23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

well, i don't work for vinci or crane. so i guess i'm independant?? here's the dyno from the wife's car when swapping from stock rockers to vinci/crane 1.8 accelerated lift rockers on stock cam. also added the vinci/crane dual springs at the same time.
dyno 9 before
dyno 11 500 miles
dyno 14 10 months later
Old 04-23-2005, 06:49 PM
  #11  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
 
02SOMWS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wallkill ,NY
Posts: 2,638
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by mrr23
well, i don't work for vinci or crane. so i guess i'm independant?? here's the dyno from the wife's car when swapping from stock rockers to vinci/crane 1.8 accelerated lift rockers on stock cam. also added the vinci/crane dual springs at the same time.
dyno 9 before
dyno 11 500 miles
dyno 14 10 months later
I'm running stock rockers with a split duration cam .(lift is 581/588) I have double valve springs already. Is my lift gonna be to high with the crane rockers? I've been thinking about the jessel set up but the crane is looking like the cheaper way togo so there's more money for other things
Old 04-24-2005, 05:14 PM
  #12  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
 
mrr23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

you'll be at .622/.629 with the 1.8 accelerated lift rockers. you need to check the max lift for your springs.
Old 04-25-2005, 09:31 AM
  #13  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
 
02SOMWS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wallkill ,NY
Posts: 2,638
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

springs are not an issue, but I think it might be too much. maybe I should just go with the 1.7 I don't see many cams running as high of a lift for what I would be at with the 1.8
Old 05-02-2005, 05:02 PM
  #14  
Staging Lane
 
ls1mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 02SOMWS6
I'm running stock rockers with a split duration cam .(lift is 581/588) I have double valve springs already. Is my lift gonna be to high with the crane rockers? I've been thinking about the jessel set up but the crane is looking like the cheaper way togo so there's more money for other things
You are dangerously close to too steep lift with 1.8s. I would run 1.7s with that cam 581 lift is already quite bit on a hydraulic valvetrain.
Old 05-09-2005, 10:46 PM
  #15  
Super Hulk Smash
iTrader: (7)
 
JakeFusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pace, FL
Posts: 11,255
Received 137 Likes on 114 Posts

Default

.581/.588 sounds like 224/228 XE-R? If it's XE-R, I wouldn't touch a 1.8 rocker, because the ramp rate is insane on that lobe. That = bad combination.
Old 05-09-2005, 10:54 PM
  #16  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
 
mrr23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by JakeFusion
.581/.588 sounds like 224/228 XE-R? If it's XE-R, I wouldn't touch a 1.8 rocker, because the ramp rate is insane on that lobe. That = bad combination.

why's that?? we've been discussing this very same theory here: https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...ghlight=rocker

is it because of piston to valve clearance issue? valve springs recommended for that cam not be able to withstand the increased speed of the valve now?
Old 05-10-2005, 02:50 AM
  #17  
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (2)
 
AsianIce25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

one of the guys at vinci is running the 049 cam with .600/.600 lift witht he 1.8 accell rcokers, so his max lift is ~.643/.643. this is a head cam stroker car, but the cam is one of cranes accellerated lift models, but i hear this is a less agressive lobe compared to an xer lobe. the motor/pistons will clear the lift, but the pretty aggressive cam works with the 1.8 (1.82max) rockers...
Old 05-11-2005, 07:30 PM
  #18  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
 
02SOMWS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wallkill ,NY
Posts: 2,638
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by JakeFusion
.581/.588 sounds like 224/228 XE-R? If it's XE-R, I wouldn't touch a 1.8 rocker, because the ramp rate is insane on that lobe. That = bad combination.
I'm going with the 1.7
Old 05-16-2005, 01:49 AM
  #19  
Banned
iTrader: (45)
 
lsx24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ls1mojo
You are dangerously close to too steep lift with 1.8s. I would run 1.7s with that cam 581 lift is already quite bit on a hydraulic valvetrain.
You are apparently missing the point and on your own little tangent. These rockers were designed to accelerate the valve faster than stock, that's why they are ground breaking.

Only time will tell, ok, the fact of whether a spring can hold onto that themselves is another issue all together. The fact remains, the original numbers would be increased because the extra rate increases the aggressiveness of the lobe thereby increasing the apparent size of the cam because of these rockers.
Old 05-16-2005, 05:17 AM
  #20  
11 Second Club
 
XTrooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NE PA
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JakeFusion
.581/.588 sounds like 224/228 XE-R? If it's XE-R, I wouldn't touch a 1.8 rocker, because the ramp rate is insane on that lobe. That = bad combination.
This myth is parroted "urban legend" BS. There are a number of guys running XE-R cams in combination with Crane "Quick-Lift" rockers and to good effect.


Quick Reply: Dyno #'s for Crane Gold Race Rocker Arms



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 PM.