Guys this is a common problem that I have read a bunch of threads about - but I am adding a twist. I know that the 0.561" lift TR 224 cam has agressive opening & closing ramps. But I'm concerned that the valve closing noise might be more related to the push-rod length that came with the kit. I'm thinking the lifter is being forced to operate in an unintended range by too long of a push-rod in conjunction with the extra lift from the cam. The pushrods that came with the kit are 7.400" I believe - cannot remember at this moment. The lifters are unable to properly provide zero lash and are allowing the valve to snap closed. Basically I'm thinking incorrect valve train geometry is the culprit.
Here are my questions: 1- Feedback survey on how many miles guys with TR224 have on their engines? 2- What length pushrods are you guys using? 3 - Has anybody tried shorter (i.e. 7.375,7.350") push rods with the TR 224 or similar lift cam and not had the valve closing tick?
If Angie or Chris from TR could chime in that would be helpful. Thanks guys.

 

I dont think that the problem lies in the pushrods... being that the stock lenght push rod is also 7.40 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> I think that the noise comes from the springs being so damn stif that when they close it closes with more force and that is what is making the noise <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by jtsc23:
<strong> I know that the 0.561" lift TR 224 cam has agressive opening & closing ramps. But I'm concerned that the valve closing noise might be more related to the push-rod length that came with the kit. I'm thinking the lifter is being forced to operate in an unintended range by too long of a push-rod in conjunction with the extra lift from the cam. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Simple answer to your question... No, unless you have changed the deck height of the block or milled the heads.

7.4 is the correct pushrod length for a stock deck height/un-milled head LS1. Valve lash isn't adjusted by pushrod length anyway. Pushrod length is determined by the rocker position that maintains proper valvetrain geometry. Besides that, valve lash isn't adjustable on the LS1, there's just a torque spec for the pedestal. Pushrod length should only be a concern if you milled the heads, or are going to an aftermarket rocker system.

The noise you are hearing is probably normal for a more aggressive cam, but without a sound clip or standing next to the car I wouldn't want to say for sure. Bigger cam, more valvetrain noise, period.

Did you do the install yourself? Did you mic. the new pushrods to make sure they were 7.4? Are you sure that you reinstalled the rockers to the correct torque?

<small>[ April 21, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: 1999_SS_M6 ]</small>

 

You guys both have good points. The 295-D springs are not that much stronger than stock so that's not causing the noise. For the most part a spring with too much preload will only introduce excess friction - unless the force is so strong that it breaks the valve at the bottom keeper groove. The push-rods are the 7.4" stock length chrome moly Comp Cams units. They have 7.4" laser etched right on them so I didn't bother to check. The rockers are torqued correct also. I'm thinking that on the valve train component side of the rocker arm, the stack-up of the stock length push tube when used with the 0.561" lift lobe is pushing the leak down plunger in the lifter down beyond it's intended point of travel and not allowing it to recover to the proper operating height between cam events. This is what I'm really getting at I guess - what's the opinions on that.
Miles on TR set-ups???????

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He informed me that the TR224 lobes actually have a slightly smaller base circle than stock, </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">.... and there we go! The smaller base circle will make the leak down plunger in the lifter body operate higher than it's normal zero lash position. The plunger is therefore not operating in it's intended range. The valves are closing slightly faster as the lifter is not absorbing all the lash. Therefore to get rid of the noise you would need to go with slightly longer push tube that would put the leak down plunger in it's intended position. The difference between car to car noise is attributed to the stack-up height of the valve train components with the new smaller base circle cam installed. Some will have it - some will not. LS1 tech members rule <img border="0" alt="[worship]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_hail.gif" /> Thanks guys!

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by jtsc23:
<strong>
Miles on TR set-ups??????? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">About 6K on the 224 112 LSA here <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Well, I just took a 450 rwhp full bolt-on 2001 Viper GTS in a 1/4 race last weekend <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> Said Viper traps 123 BTW <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

This valvetrain noise is a strange anomaly. A couple of my friends have MUCH bigger cams than I and have less noise <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

 

I spoke with Paul @ Thunder a few weeks ago about getting some Stage II heads. I have the TR224 with the Comp Cams 7.4 PR's. I asked him if I would need to change out the PR's since the heads were milled around .030. He informed me that the TR224 lobes actually have a slightly smaller base circle than stock, so a slightly milled head with a stock gasket and 7.4 PR's would actually bring valve train geometry back closer to stock.

This is 180 degrees out from what is being suggested above.

Any other inputs on this? Maybe I misunderstood what Paul was saying?

<small>[ April 21, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Chris99WS6PWTMET ]</small>

 

Hey man, I'm in JAX too. Check your PMs.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Chris99WS6PWTMET:
<strong> I spoke with Paul @ Thunder a few weeks ago about getting some Stage II heads. I have the TR224 with the Comp Cams 7.4 PR's. I asked him if I would need to change out the PR's since the heads were milled around .030. He informed me that the TR224 lobes actually have a slightly smaller base circle than stock, so a slightly milled head with a stock gasket and 7.4 PR's would actually bring valve train geometry back closer to stock.

This is 180 degrees out from what is being suggested above.

Any other inputs on this? Maybe I misunderstood what Paul was saying? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

 

Running a t/r 224 on a 112. stock pushrods and retainers, 918's. Valvetrain quieter than stock, 382hp at the rear wheels, NO TUNING. Setup by JOE PRINCE and TOM!!!!!!!!!!

 

TR224 112, ISKY 295-D springs, TR pushrods, S2 heads.

All setup by Joe Prince.

No noise what so ever.