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

Anyone running Brian Tooley SLR lifters?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:16 AM
  #41  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (9)
 
King Nothing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 4,764
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ckpitt55
I'm not interested in paying the 500 dollar premium associated with that, which I mentioned in the OP. If the SLR's are truly better than LS7's, lets hear about it. I don't understand why I'm being challenged for trying to bring some information to light here.
i agree with you and since i'll be building an engine for my car i'd like to go with a lifter that will give me piece of mind. who here has actually run these lifters and can say they are better than LS7 lifters?
Old 03-12-2013, 08:11 AM
  #42  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (5)
 
96lt4c4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ckpitt55
I'm not interested in paying the 500 dollar premium associated with that, which I mentioned in the OP. If the SLR's are truly better than LS7's, lets hear about it. I don't understand why I'm being challenged for trying to bring some information to light here.
Not trying to challenge you all, I agree with you 100%. As far as my cam, Brain is having it ground for me. 242/250 .621/.595 113+4. Running a Fast 102/102 on a 402. Should have no problem pulling to 7000 RPM.

Last edited by 96lt4c4; 03-12-2013 at 08:44 AM.
Old 03-12-2013, 08:20 AM
  #43  
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
ckpitt55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 96lt4c4
Not trying to challenge you all, I agree with you 100%. As for as my cam, Brain is having it ground for me. 242/250 .621/.595 113+4. Running a Fast 102/102 on a 402. Should have no problem pulling to 7000 RPM.
That sounds like its going to run. Out of curiosity did you discuss lifters for your setup with Brian at all?
Old 03-12-2013, 08:43 AM
  #44  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (5)
 
96lt4c4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ckpitt55
That sounds like its going to run. Out of curiosity did you discuss lifters for your setup with Brian at all?
I mentioned to him that I had a new set of LS7's but thats about it. I may be giving him a call to talk about them some more. This thread has got me all paranoid over the LS7's again.
Old 03-12-2013, 08:50 AM
  #45  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 96lt4c4
I mentioned to him that I had a new set of LS7's but thats about it. I may be giving him a call to talk about them some more. This thread has got me all paranoid over the LS7's again.
I sure as hell wouldnt use ls7s.
Old 03-12-2013, 09:07 AM
  #46  
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
ckpitt55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

there's a good chance they would work flawlessly, but there's also a decent chance they would **** themselves (especially when pushed). both cases have been well documented. considering the money involved in a performance engine build, a few extra bucks towards something that is shown to mitigate some of that risk will make me sleep better at night. if the SLR's will do that while saving me $300, then I'd say it's a win.
Old 03-12-2013, 09:14 AM
  #47  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (5)
 
96lt4c4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Tainted
I sure as hell wouldnt use ls7s.

LOL....just got off the phone with Brian, his response is coming. I thought the same thing until about 5 minutes ago. I am more than likely running my LS7's. There is a lot more to the story as to why the LS7 lifters fail. It’s all about valve train control….
Old 03-12-2013, 09:29 AM
  #48  
FormerVendor
iTrader: (13)
 
Brian Tooley Racing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 1,943
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ckpitt55
-We still don't know what the proper preload is
-What materials they're made from
-How effective all the tolerance matched internals are at controlling valve motion
-How fast they can be reliably spun
-How they stand up to aggressive cam profiles
Sorry for the delay, let me see if I can address your questions.

The lifter plunger height is the same as stock, and the plunger travel distance is about the same as stock. Which means in theory they can run the same preload as a stock lifter. However there are pro's and con's to running little preload or a lot of preload. Generally more preload will make less noise, however at high rpm's if the lifter may "pump up" due to valve loft, then it may not bleed down fast enough to seat the valves. At low engine speeds a stock lifter plunger can bleed down too fast and lose lift, which can also cause a tick.

Most guys are using .025"-.075" of preload on these lifters, and so far all have said the lifters eliminated the random tick they had with LS7 lifters. The plunger diameter in these lifters are a good bit larger than stock GM lifters, so I would imagine they gain hydraulic support from the increased plunger area which would also reduce bleed down rates.

In the spintron testing that I was involved in using stock lifters we saw .100"-.150" loss of lift from cycle to cycle at low rpm's, like idle speed. At low speeds the amount of time that the lifter is pushing against spring pressure is at it's greatest, and oil pressure is at it's least. This is what causes the lifters to bleed down.

At high RPM we saw upwards of .100" loft with the old Gold springs on a .600" lift cam. In theory if the lifter pumped up and then didn't bleed down fast enough it would hold the valve open and top end power would be lost.

You can see that having the valve train under control is as important as anything to do with the lifter. If you have too much lift, too much ramp speed, and too little spring pressure, the system will be out of control and damage will occur long term. It's interesting that in this scenario the spring could be at fault for not controlling the valve train, yet the lifter ultimately takes the beating and fails, then the lifter gets the blame. When lofting occurs not only does the lifter take a beating but the cam core does as well. So you have guys running crazy fast lobes like the LSK with springs like the old Gold springs and their cam core and lifters are failing. When the fault really rests on the cam design and spring pressure.

The next problem with lobes that are way too fast is, once you've increased the spring pressure enough to control them, you have too much open pressure to run with stock rockers and now the valve tips are taking a beating.

I've used LS7 lifters up to .670" lift and up to 7500 rpm, so to say a lifter has a RPM limit, really isn't correct. If the valve is light, and the cam ramp speed is low, then the valve train will stay stable. If the valve train stays stable then the lifter is able to do it's job without issues.

The SLR lifter body is made from a proprietary steel forging. The lifter starts as a solid slug and through multiple steps are formed/forged into what roughly looks like a lifter body.

How well these lifters hold up to aggressive lobe profiles is going to depend more on the pushrod stiffness/rocker mass moment/spring pressure/valve weight setup than anything to do with the lifter itself. If any lifter is lofted off the cam and then crashes back down, it's going to lead a short life.

Last edited by Brian Tooley Racing; 03-12-2013 at 09:35 AM.
Old 03-12-2013, 09:37 AM
  #49  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (24)
 
alexus6798's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks for the response. This helps a lot...
Old 03-12-2013, 09:45 AM
  #50  
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
ckpitt55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Food for thought. Thanks for your response Brian.
Old 03-12-2013, 09:48 AM
  #51  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Brian Tooley
How well these lifters hold up to aggressive lobe profiles is going to depend more on the pushrod stiffness/rocker mass moment/spring pressure/valve weight setup than anything to do with the lifter itself. If any lifter is lofted off the cam and then crashes back down, it's going to lead a short life.

well my valvetrain should be fairly robust.

My intake valves are 94g while my exhaust valves are 110g(?)
Cam lobes are HUC
springs are TSP's .675 duals
.120 wall pushrods
stock rockers with trunion upgrade

i think your lifters would be a good fit for my build. I plan on turning no more than 7k

and with the prelaod since you recommend .025-.075 im thinking .050 right in the middle would be a safe prelaod.

would you agree with that Brian?? ^^
Old 03-12-2013, 09:48 AM
  #52  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (18)
 
zacht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

^^^ yeah awesome response!!! great info!
Old 03-12-2013, 10:31 AM
  #53  
FormerVendor
iTrader: (13)
 
Brian Tooley Racing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 1,943
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Tainted
well my valvetrain should be fairly robust.

My intake valves are 94g while my exhaust valves are 110g(?)
Cam lobes are HUC
springs are TSP's .675 duals
.120 wall pushrods
stock rockers with trunion upgrade

i think your lifters would be a good fit for my build. I plan on turning no more than 7k

and with the prelaod since you recommend .025-.075 im thinking .050 right in the middle would be a safe prelaod.

would you agree with that Brian?? ^^
You're definitely on the right path, especially with the HUC lobes, those are the ones we turn 7500 rpm. Just run good oil with the ZDDP additives and keep an eye on your valve tips and you should be good to go.
Old 03-12-2013, 10:59 AM
  #54  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Brian Tooley
You're definitely on the right path, especially with the HUC lobes, those are the ones we turn 7500 rpm. Just run good oil with the ZDDP additives and keep an eye on your valve tips and you should be good to go.
it took a lot of PM's between you, tony mamo, and pat G to help me pick all the right parts. im hoping this thing runs like an *** raped ape when its finally together.
Old 03-12-2013, 11:36 AM
  #55  
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
ckpitt55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

that preload / bleed down comment got me thinking. suppose you could supply the engine with oil at a constant pressure, regardless of engine speed. your net lift loss at low speed as well as your valve float problems at high speed would be greatly reduced, wouldn't they?
Old 03-12-2013, 11:50 AM
  #56  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (9)
 
King Nothing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 4,764
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ckpitt55
that preload / bleed down comment got me thinking. suppose you could supply the engine with oil at a constant pressure, regardless of engine speed. your net lift loss at low speed as well as your valve float problems at high speed would be greatly reduced, wouldn't they?
how could this be accomplished?
Old 03-12-2013, 11:58 AM
  #57  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by King Nothing
how could this be accomplished?
Electric pump?
Old 03-12-2013, 11:58 AM
  #58  
Super Hulk Smash
iTrader: (7)
 
JakeFusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pace, FL
Posts: 11,255
Received 138 Likes on 115 Posts

Default

Hmm, now I'm wondering if I shouldn't do the LS3 valves in my TEA Stage 2 LS6 heads. I am running an EPS cam with LSG/LXL lobes, 11/32nd Manton Pushrods, stock rockers w/ trunion upgrade, and the heavy Ferrea stainless valves. Shaving the weight of the intake valve down from 107g to 83g might be a good way to help lifters stay alive.
Old 03-12-2013, 12:01 PM
  #59  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JakeFusion™
Hmm, now I'm wondering if I shouldn't do the LS3 valves in my TEA Stage 2 LS6 heads. I am running an EPS cam with LSG/LXL lobes, 11/32nd Manton Pushrods, stock rockers w/ trunion upgrade, and the heavy Ferrea stainless valves. Shaving the weight of the intake valve down from 107g to 83g might be a good way to help lifters stay alive.
The lighter the better period. I opted for the hollow stem valves with my heads and im glad I did.
Old 03-12-2013, 12:05 PM
  #60  
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
 
ckpitt55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tainted
Electric pump?
electric pump or design a lifter with a progressive leak rate to maintain lifter cup position through the range of engine speeds. pump would be much easier to do I'd think, and it would also allow you to pre/post flow oil through the engine prior to start up and after shut-down.

just theoretical though, I think the costs associated with doing this would be even more offensive than the prices of some of the link bar lifters.

Last edited by ckpitt55; 03-12-2013 at 12:18 PM.


Quick Reply: Anyone running Brian Tooley SLR lifters?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.