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

How much gains from 1.8 or 1.85 on my H/C Car???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-02-2005, 04:20 AM
  #1  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
AsianIce25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default How much gains from 1.8 or 1.85 on my H/C Car???

I have a 2001 Z28 with a buncha bolt ons (listed below) and a set of patriot ls6 heads and a 224 and i only put down 351.5rwhp @6300 and 323.3 @500rpms. This was on Wheel 2 Wheels mustang dyno using a 3750 race weight and 13.90 hp @ 50mph if it matters. and so i think these numbers are really low. most say around 8-15% loss (low-high losses) on a mustang dyno compared to a dyno jet, so that puts me here with these mods.

Patriot ls6 2.02/1.60 59cc chamber heads
lunati cam(224/224 .560/.560 112lsa)
MTI lid
K&N
SLP 85mm Maf
160* thermo
ls6 intake
edelbrock long tubes
true duals
msd wires
ngk tr6's
7.425" one piece PR's
dyno tune @ W2W
and whatevers in the sig...

351.5/.92=.......382.1 Dynojet rwhp
351.5/.9=........390.6 Dynojet rwhp
351.5/.85= ......413.5 Dynojet rwhp

So anyway, even with this in mind, i still dont like my number. How much do you think i would gain from harland sharp 1.8 rocker, slp 1.85 rockers, crane 1.7 variables, and crane 1.8 variables.

the cam is a lunati 224/224 .560/.560 112lsa. According to my calcs, the 1.8 ratio should put my cam's lift around .593/.593 and the 1.85 ratios should be around .6094/.6094. the 1.85's will probably give me too much valve lift, cause im not going to fly cut anything, but maybe theyre ok? The 1.8 ratio arms should be fine and clear the pistons though right?

I talked to the tuners and they think the heads could definetely use a bigger cam cause of the flat torque curve, i was thinking the same, but i just put this cam in 2 weeks ago and dont want to do it again. What do you guys think. I would like to hit 400+ eventually and i dont care if its on a mustang or dynojet. I think these heads could use more duration, but are really lacking on the lift side with my cam, so .593/.593 and the faster ramp rates should help a lot. MRR23 gor 16.7 rwhp on his 1.8 cranes on a stock cam, so i think 20 should definetely be attainable for me with the heads and cam. let me know.

Scott
This cam isnt using too aggressive lobes, mild compared to XER grinds, but do you think 20 rwhp on the dyno above is possible? Or do you guys think i should just get a bigger cam and screw the rockers?
Attached Thumbnails How much gains from 1.8 or 1.85 on my H/C Car???-small-224-224-dyno.jpg  
Old 05-02-2005, 06:37 AM
  #2  
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

I recently switched from a set of SLP 1.85's to a set of Crane 1.80 Quick-Lift rockers and, even though my max valve lift decreased slightly because of the lower rocker arm ratio, I gained 10 rwhp and 8 rwhp with the Cranes vs the SLP's.

BTW, the Cranes are actually 1.82 so your new valve lift numbers would be .599/.599. I don't think you'd have any problems with valve to piston head clearance at that valve lift height.

As far as the power increase question is concerned, you should certainly see a solid 10-15 rwhp from the swap. I think 20 rwhp is possible, but there are no guarantees you'd see that much.
Old 05-02-2005, 07:37 AM
  #3  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
AsianIce25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

thanks trooper, i think youre prob right. mrr23 has gained 16rwhp on the stock cam, so it stands to reason that with me having more mods and the 1.8 rockers would increase the lift more on my cam, id prob gain more power from the swap. i guess im stuck between getting a new cam or just doing the 1.8 rockers.
Old 05-02-2005, 07:43 AM
  #4  
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

Well, whether you get a new cam or not, changing to a set of real roller rockers (even if you stay with the stock 1.70 ratio) is a good idea that will gain you more power, especially if you go with Cranes and their "Quick-Lift" design.

Personally, I'd go ahead and get the roller rockers. It's only a half hour's work to swap them in and if you then decide you aren't happy with them, you've got a ready market to sell them.
Old 05-02-2005, 08:04 AM
  #5  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
 
leeluther252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kingwood, tx
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

You can swap the rockers and hope you see 400+ or you can actually swap and cam and see 400+.. its up to you though
Old 05-02-2005, 08:21 AM
  #6  
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 leeluther252
You can swap the rockers and hope you see 400+ or you can actually swap and cam and see 400+.. its up to you though
Interesting comment seeing as he's already making over 400 rwhp.

If he didn't make 400 rwhp on a Dynojet just as his car sits now, it would be within a few hp of it. Either way, the Crane rockers would put him over the top.

I'd agree that he should do a cam swap if he didn't already have a decent cam, but he does in his 224/224.

Last edited by XTrooper; 05-02-2005 at 08:31 AM.
Old 05-02-2005, 08:40 AM
  #7  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
AsianIce25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by XTrooper
Interesting comment seeing as he's already making over 400 rwhp.

If he didn't make 400 rwhp on a Dynojet just as his car sits now, it would be within a few hp of it. Either way, the Crane rockers would put him over the top.

I'd agree that he should do a cam swap if he didn't already have a decent cam, but he does in his 224/224.
well, i agree with both of you. im waiting to hear back from vinci...i dont know if those 1.8 ratio lifter will work without flycutting, and im not doing that. the 1.7's look good, but i dont think it would be worth it right now, id get more from a new cam. i guess id get more from the new cam anyway, but if i could just use the 1.8s with my cam, it would be easier and id get the lift, maybe too much again. i guess i should just say screw it, take the 224 cam i have out, even though there isnt even 500 miles on it, sell it, and get some big cam.

what do you guys think about my combo with the following cams? and how much will i gain over my 224? i want another 50rwhp. whats it gonna take?

vinci 052......236/246 .600/.600 113lsa
vinci 050......236/240 .600/.600 112lsa
vinci 051......232/240 .600/.600 110lsa
tsp 233/239
Old 05-02-2005, 09:40 AM
  #8  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
lilbuddy1587's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by AsianIce25
what do you guys think about my combo with the following cams? and how much will i gain over my 224? i want another 50rwhp. whats it gonna take?
Dude, it has nothing to do with ur combo, SOMETHING IS MESSED UP. Either in your tune, or something with the heads. Patriot heads arent exactly the "cream of the crop" They're known for faults and what not. Look into problems b4 u create more for yourself and end up spending more money! JESUS CHRIST! People wouldnt tell you these things unless they were trying to help.

Edit- and you cant always expect top notch numbers half assing it as well. Get rid of ur 85mm maf while ur at it, it usually makes things harder to tune and stay correct
Old 05-02-2005, 09:42 AM
  #9  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
 
leeluther252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kingwood, tx
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by XTrooper
Interesting comment seeing as he's already making over 400 rwhp.

If he didn't make 400 rwhp on a Dynojet just as his car sits now, it would be within a few hp of it. Either way, the Crane rockers would put him over the top.

I'd agree that he should do a cam swap if he didn't already have a decent cam, but he does in his 224/224.
he didnt make over 400hp... he made 351.. unless im missing something.. that is why he has been posting. I've gone through alot of trouble and money trying to get power with this head combo and its gonna take a bigger cam. Get what ever cam you want, but i know the tsp 233/239 will clear and make great power.
Old 05-02-2005, 11:33 AM
  #10  
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 leeluther252
he didnt make over 400hp... he made 351.. unless im missing something.. that is why he has been posting. I've gone through alot of trouble and money trying to get power with this head combo and its gonna take a bigger cam. Get what ever cam you want, but i know the tsp 233/239 will clear and make great power.
You are missing something. He made that 351 rwhp on a Mustang dyno which generates lower numbers than a Dynojet. Did you read his first post? In any case, on a Dynojet which is what 99% of us use, he would have made 400 +/- rwhp.

Further, I don't think anything is "messed up." Before I made that assumption, I'd have the car redynoed on a Dynojet so we're talking apples vs apples. If you make 413 rwhp or thereabouts, there's room for improvement, but it wouldn't indicate that there was necessarily anything "wrong" either.

Any of the cams you have listed would make a good deal more power than your current one, but a 50 rwhp increase is a lot to ask from any cam.

The bottom line is that your current numbers are worthless for basing any kind of comparison or making any assumptions regarding them. They are what they are; Mustang dyno numbers from a single session. Do it right, get your car redynoed on a Dynojet, and go from there.

Last edited by XTrooper; 05-02-2005 at 11:43 AM.
Old 05-02-2005, 11:54 AM
  #11  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
AsianIce25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by XTrooper
You are missing something. He made that 351 rwhp on a Mustang dyno which generates lower numbers than a Dynojet. Did you read his first post? In any case, on a Dynojet which is what 99% of us use, he would have made 400 +/- rwhp.

Further, I don't think anything is "messed up." Before I made that assumption, I'd have the car redynoed on a Dynojet so we're talking apples vs apples. If you make 413 rwhp or thereabouts, there's room for improvement, but it wouldn't indicate that there was necessarily anything "wrong" either.

Any of the cams you have listed would make a good deal more power than your current one, but a 50 rwhp increase is a lot to ask from any cam.

The bottom line is that your current numbers are worthless for basing any kind of comparison or making any assumptions regarding them. They are what they are; Mustang dyno numbers from a single session. Do it right, get your car redynoed on a Dynojet, and go from there.
I agree. im going to livernois motorsports open house this weekend and im gonna make sure i get on the dynojet. I want to see what this things putting down...but even if i am making 400 on the dynojet, i think i still want more. haha.
Old 05-02-2005, 11:57 AM
  #12  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
 
leeluther252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kingwood, tx
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

lmao ... do you think the mustang dyno is eating 50rwhp on his car? Everytime I dyno, i use the mustang and the dynojet. I have yet to see more than a 15 hp difference
Old 05-02-2005, 12:04 PM
  #13  
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 leeluther252
lmao ... do you think the mustang dyno is eating 50rwhp on his car? Everytime I dyno, i use the mustang and the dynojet. I have yet to see more than a 15 hp difference
Well, your car is “special” then because every case I’ve seen showed a solid 10% or more difference. Do a search and you'll find that your experience is "unique."

Again, whatever the case may regarding Mustang vs Dynojet, the only real answer is to get the thing dynoed on a Dynojet and then none of us will have to guess what his real comparison numbers are.
Old 05-05-2005, 04:05 AM
  #14  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
AsianIce25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by XTrooper
Well, your car is “special” then because every case I’ve seen showed a solid 10% or more difference. Do a search and you'll find that your experience is "unique."

Again, whatever the case may regarding Mustang vs Dynojet, the only real answer is to get the thing dynoed on a Dynojet and then none of us will have to guess what his real comparison numbers are.
so no one answered my question...will the crane 1.8's even work on my cam. on vincis website it says all the cams with .551 lift will clear stock pistons with the 1.8 rockers. so, assuming these have a final ration of 1.82:1, then the .551 cam will be at ~.590" lift. with my .560 cam, the lift will be approximately .600". will a .600 lift with the 224 cam and 2.02 int valves clear the pistons? will my springs be ok? patriot golds. im waiting for vinci or mark to chime in here.
Old 05-05-2005, 04:19 AM
  #15  
TECH Senior Member
 
PREDATOR-Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 14,620
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 16 Posts

Default

The difference between 1.8 and Crane 1.79's is that Cranes will achieve that lift by starting at 1.79 > @ .200/.300 lfts it decreases that lift to 1.72 at .600 then going back to 1.79 at closing. The range of lifts that benefit are in the mid lift ranges and not throughout the range.
This gives you more power in the useable range and maintains proper arcking geometry on the valve tip.
Others just apply a constant 1.8 ratio at all lifts and this creates some problems with cams over .550 lifts. (geometry)

Yes the Cranes will work with your cam and your heads.

VHP new “ACCELERATED LIFT” rocker arm geometry has opened the door to a new area of valve train development and cam lobe design that is producing impressive results. The “ACCELERATED LIFT” geometry is not magic; it is simply a new design of the rocker arm body that locates the pushrod seat low in the body with respect to the center of rotation about the shaft. Because the pushrod seat area travels in an arc as the lifter/pushrod moves upward during the lift event, the pushrod seat moves slightly away from the center of rotation around the shaft. This movement of the seat through its operating arc causes the effective rocker arm ratio to decrease. The end effect is this: a 1.6 ratio “ACCELERATED LIFT” rocker arm actually starts opening the valve at a ratio of 1.7. As the valve opens, the rocker ratio decreases to the 1.6 advertised ratio (this occurs at about .250” - .300” valve lift) and then maintains the 1.6 ratio through the rest of the lift cycle until it starts back on the seat. It goes back on the seat at a 1.7 ratio. This new geometry provides increased airflow earlier in the lift cycle and maintains it longer into the closing event. More flow equals more power! There are additional benefits. The “ACCELERATED LIFT” design applied to computer managed engines means that short seat-to-seat timing can be maintained to provide high vacuum at idle and low speed, but duration at .100”, .200” etc. is equal to camshafts having .050 durations 8 to 10 degrees bigger. This means great power increases and ease of tuning the engine management system. “ACCELERATED LIFT” geometry is the future for pushrod engines and VHP has it for you today!
VHP has also designed new camshaft lobes to maximize the advantage of these rockers. The new “ACCELERATED LIFT” lobes are being used in all of our new racing profiles, as well as our new LS1 family of cams for GM cars and trucks. Performance enthusiasts have known for over 25 years that the best lobe design to maximize “area under the lift curve” is the “inverted flank roller lobe:” However, the “inverted flank design” creates several manufacturing headaches which cause the price of these designs to be quite high. VHP'S new “ACCELERATED LIFT” Rocker body design and new complementary “ACCELERATED LIFT” cam lobe designs have produced a valve lift profile that exceeds the power potential of the “inverted flank” designs. These new profiles are available on all of the latest LS1 cams, including the “Truck Power” cams and many of the new racing cams. Most of our future pushrod camshaft designs will incorporate the “ACCELERATED LIFT” technology.

Last edited by PREDATOR-Z; 05-05-2005 at 04:25 AM.
Old 05-05-2005, 04:48 AM
  #16  
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 AsianIce25
so no one answered my question...will the crane 1.8's even work on my cam. on vincis website it says all the cams with .551 lift will clear stock pistons with the 1.8 rockers. so, assuming these have a final ration of 1.82:1, then the .551 cam will be at ~.590" lift. with my .560 cam, the lift will be approximately .600". will a .600 lift with the 224 cam and 2.02 int valves clear the pistons? will my springs be ok? patriot golds. im waiting for vinci or mark to chime in here.
I thought your question was "How much gains from 1.8 or 1.85 on my H/C Car???," the title you gave this thread? That question was asked and answered. Regarding this new question, you said "im waiting to hear back from vinci..." so why would you expect an answer here? The fact is, this is the first time you've asked whether the Crane 1.80 rockers will work with your cam in this thread.

Will they work? I'm confident there'd be no problem with valve-to-piston head clearance with the .599/.599 valve lift you'd get with the Crane 1.80 (1.82) rocker arms.

The Patriot springs can certainly handle that much valve lift. The only problem you "may" run into is valvetrain harmonics. In my setup, the Crane rockers and PRC Gold springs did not get along well together and I had to swap out the PRC's for a set of Crane dual springs. I've seen this happen with Comp roller rockers also where they got a power dip at high rpm till they swapped in a set of Comp springs. It seems that some component combinations create harmonics and valvetrain instability (valve float).

Last edited by XTrooper; 05-05-2005 at 04:53 AM.
Old 05-05-2005, 04:54 AM
  #17  
TECH Senior Member
 
PREDATOR-Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 14,620
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 16 Posts

Default

Just to clarify Crane/VINCI are 1.79 and 1.89 ratios. not 1.82 or 1.85 or else.
Old 05-05-2005, 05:09 AM
  #18  
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 PREDATOR-Z
Just to clarify Crane/VINCI are 1.79 and 1.89 ratios. not 1.82 or 1.85 or else.
Just to clarify, the information above is wrong.

The Crane Quick-Lift roller rocker arms (Vinci uses them, they don't make them) are marketed in two final ratios, 1.70 and 1.80 (which are actually 1.72 and 1.82).

The 1.78 and 1.89 figures are not the standard ratios at max valve lift, but are the starting and ending ratios. These rocker arms have a variable ratio and that's what the "Quick-Lift" technology is all about. Quoting Crane, "By relocating the pushrod seat down and in, Crane engineers have created a “variable ratio” rocker arm that begins with a ratio of about 1.78:1 and converges to a standard 1.7:1 ratio as the valve reaches a lift point of .250-.300”."

You can read more about these roller rockers and how they work by following the link below. Note that only two rocker arm ratios are offered, Part 144750A-16 = 1.7:1 and Part 144759A-16 = 1.8:1.

http://www.cranecams.com/?show=newProduct&id=12

Last edited by XTrooper; 05-05-2005 at 05:19 AM.
Old 05-05-2005, 05:32 AM
  #19  
TECH Senior Member
 
PREDATOR-Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 14,620
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 16 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by CRANE
By relocating the pushrod seat down and in, Crane engineers have created a “variable ratio” rocker arm that begins with a ratio of about 1.78:1 and converges to a standard 1.7:1 ratio as the valve reaches a lift point of .250-.300”.
I was talking about max ratio not final ratio at .600
And I know VINCI do not manufacture them, but they helped design them {R&D}

Go two post above your last one and the variable tech was explained.

Since they're VARIABLE you cannot say that a XXX lift cam @ 1.7:1 ratio will be YYY lift @ 1.8:1. this assumption and calc is wrong.
They will have a max lift at 1.79:1 ratio > decreasing exponentialy (depending on ramp rate)till ~.200/.300 @ 1.72:1 till .600 > increasing exponentialy (depending on ramp rate) back to 1.79:1 on closing.

So to clear it for the poster PTV clearance reaches critical -10* BTDC- close to max lifts; and not in the ranges that this rocker increases lifts; UNLIKE linear 1.8 ratios that increase lifts ACROSS all the lift ranges.

Last edited by PREDATOR-Z; 05-05-2005 at 05:43 AM.
Old 05-05-2005, 05:46 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 PREDATOR-Z
I was talking about max ratio not final ratio at .600
And I know VINCI do not manufacture them, but they helped design them {R&D}

Go two post above your last one and the variable tech was explained.

Since they're VARIABLE you cannot say that a XXX lift cam @ 1.7:1 ratio will be YYY lift @ 1.8:1. this assumption and calc is wrong.
That's fine except that in the present discussion it's the final/standard ratio that's important, not the starting/ending ratio as the originator of the thread is concerned with valve-to-piston clearance, something the 1.78 rato has nothing to do with. Further, you stated that the Crane ratio is "not 1.82" when, in fact, it is.

Your statement above regarding calculations is absolutely incorrect. The fact is, you CAN say with certainty what the max valve lift is going to be because the standard ratio is NOT variable. That 1.7:1 or 1.8:1 final ratio is a constant and never changes. The variation occurs below ~.300" of valve lift. Period! The standard ratio does not change nor can it.

This really isn't all that hard to understand. In the case of the 1.7:1 ratio rocker arms, when the valve leaves its seat the ratio is 1.78. When the valve reaches .200"-.300" of lift, the ratio drops to its standard ratio of 1.70 (this NEVER changes). From ~.300" of lift, to its maximum lift and back down to ~.300", the ratio is maintained at 1.70. Below .300" of valve lift, the ratio again increases to 1.78 until the valve is seated.

Last edited by XTrooper; 05-05-2005 at 06:00 AM.


Quick Reply: How much gains from 1.8 or 1.85 on my H/C Car???



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.