ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

You shouldn't use ls6 springs on the gt2-3....it was like 578 lift.

Felix C

Actually you can. The lobes are soft. It is the ramp rate that kills springs. I believe even LPE provides LS6/now LS2 springs with them. Will they did.
Yep I just pulled the cam card. still there:
Recommended valve springs: GM LS9 or LS6/LS2 valve springs (90 lbs seat/290 lbs open) 1.7:1 rocker applications

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

It has nothing to do with lobes and everything to do with lift. The max lift on an ls6 spring is .570. why on Earth would you run a spring that has a lower max lift than the cam it's being controlled with???

SarGntoperez

Yea my friend told me with the cheatr cam i would need good dual valve springs and that i would need to check them every 15k or so

Felix C

LPE's own cam card indicates it is fine. I copy pasted the line above. Here is the entire document. https://www.lingenfelter.com/PDFdown...L210085297.pdf

SarGntoperez

it should work fine but I'll use pac1218

MuhThugga

It has everything to do with the lobe's profile.

big hammer

big hammer

big hammer

Felix C

Yeah. I asked the same question here years ago. I was told it is the ramp rate. Which is why the old TR 220/220 .550 cam could not use LS6/2 springs because it was quite aggressive(based on the Comp XER lobe IIRC) and the GT2-3 could despite a peakier lobe.

big hammer

SarGntoperez

If it's not a big difference in peak power I'll be ok with it, plus it'll idle lil better than hawks cheatr cam

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

and vendors don't make any mistakes ever???? Its black and white that the lift is greater than the max spring. I could care less who said what in their documentation. Anyone who would run a cam with higher lift than the springs are rated for is asking for trouble.

SarGntoperez

Will the gt2-3cam tqke advantage if i use the fast92 or stick with my ls6 intake? I'll be using a set of prc stage 1 ls6 heads

00pooterSS

iTrader: (40)

Some lobe designs that have came out have a more aggressive ramp rate and get the valve off the seat quickly and up into the meat of the lift faster and the valve spends more time at higher lift is the idea.

It's cool tech and is harder on the springs since it shoots the valve off the seat.

Kip from cam motion explained it some and I found another thread on a quick google search, i'm sure you could find as good or better info if you look around. I just quickly grabbed these.

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...sk-and-xe.html

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...m-lobes-2.html

Felix C

LPE provided LS6 then LS2 looks like LS9 springs now with their cam kits. The former two for years. No issues reported here or elsewhere.

LPE's GT2-3 cam and spring kit are like the "Old Reliable combo" and they issued GM springs with it.

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

I am not arguing anything about lobe design. It doesnt matter if the lobe takes forever and a day to get to peak lift or its a square lobe (Im exaggerating obviously). Peak is peak and when you choose to run a spring that must control a cam with a lobe lift greater than the spring is rated for, you are going outside the spring manufacturer's specification, which is asking for trouble. If 99.9% of people have no issues great, but being that 0.1% person really sucks if a spring lets go, especially since its a single not a dual.

00pooterSS

iTrader: (40)

I know you're only talking about lift, but ramp rate DOES matter.

tech@WS6store

iTrader: (2)

Spending alot of extra money in parts to try to make 400rwhp with a very small cam seems pretty pointless esp when cams are nearly all the same price.
Youre all over the place on this cam issue. Why?