Another_User

I was looking at some info on lifters (independant from what Rhodes says) and they seem like a sound investment for a big cam...is anybody running these in an LS1 that can comment?

2c5s

iTrader: (11)

[QUOTE=V8er]Excellent point. Thier website image does little to impress and doesn't give me a feel of an OEM-type supplier.

I would say it's weak at best.

topfuelman

iTrader: (6)

They work fine for my set-up. Running the Rhoads lifters in a 382 with great results. No knock retard or tuning issues and she idles like stock with an albeit mild for a 382 - 231/237 .595/.598 cam. Changin out the cam for something more appropriate this season though. Honestly didn't notice any additional noise over the cold startup noise with the forged pistons.

RevGTO

iTrader: (12)

They are commonly used in traditional Pontiac engines; until now I've never heard of them for LS1's. I would say a consensus opinion for traditonal Pontiacs would be: they work as advertised. Some guys can't stand the noise, it doesn't bother other guys. My guess is that the same factors will apply to LS1 roller type use.

2c5s

iTrader: (11)

Killing bottom end TQ on a Pontiac goes against the basic design of the engine. It certainly aint a top end engine.

LSWannabe

TTT, did anyone read the article in hot rod about these lifters?

jyeager

So what is it about these lifters that kills bottom end TQ? Perhaps you misunderstood their function. They actually increase bottom end TQ by removing some of the cam's overlap at lower RPMs.
I have them in my '70 GTO and they enable me to have 14" of vacuum at 700rpm idle with a cam designed for max power above 4K rpm. The power band is very flat (partly because of the engine's properties). It hasn't been dyno'd yet but I'm expecting 500lb/ft of TQ from 1800-5000rpm. Without the Rhodes lifters I'd have to settle for a little more of a peak in the power band.

I know nothing about these lifters in a Gen III though.

cowboysfan

I read the article in Hot Rod Mag. very intersting. in short. it's if you want to keep vacuum press. for engine to run efficiently. will cause a big cam to sound almost normal. imo, thats defeating the purpose of a big cam.

fuerzaws6

jyeager

Well, a lot of guys want their car to be stealth. If it idles stock, yet has a bigger cam then a lot of us would be happy with that. As the RPMs rise, the lifters don't have time to bleed down, so they are not taming the cam over 3K rpms, just under that.
It will serve to increase fuel economy, idle vacuum, driveability...And you can even fine-tune the effect by varying the oil viscosity.

jyeager

Is there any chance this Hot Rod article is available somewhere online? I'd like to read it.

gollum

iTrader: (1)

According to TPIS and Hot Rod mag a cam needs to provide at least 14.5 inches of vacuum at idle for reliable computer operation. The stock LS1 cam provides a stout 22 inches of vacuum. The larger cam tested (236/241, .602/.568, 113lsa) provided a very weak 10 inches of vacuum, causing a shitty running car on the stock tune. When using the big 236 cam with the Rhoads lifters vacuum at idle increased to a healthier 15 inches providing better drivability and more low end torque. TAP TAP TAP

dug

iTrader: (10)

Itd be interesting to see what its like with a trex cam.

cowboysfan

ttt
since we last replied here has anybody used them or know someone using them? the article in HOT ROD mag was very imformative.


fuerzaws6

Y2K2LS1

RL-1728X
1 Set - Chevy, GMC & Truck (Buick, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Pontiac)
1998-03 4.8L, 5.3L, 5.7L, 6.0L Gen III
2001-03 5.7L Corvette
$ 239.00


It doesn't say anything about only exhaust valves on their site. It is the whole set. I like the idea behind them.

Rokko

iTrader: (2)

If this is true about the staggered lifters on the 01's and 02's, I now know why my engine sounds like a friggin sewing machine. I hate it.