Comp LSK Lobes
Staging Lane
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Patrick G
That statement is absolutely FALSE. The LSK lobes were designed by Comp to have more high rpm stability than XE or XE-R lobes.
XE-R lobes are 49 degrees from .006" to .050". That's fast.
LSK lobes are 50 degrees from .006" to .050. Not quite as fast.
Where the LSK lobes shine is the arc they form from .050" to peak lift. According to Comp, the LSK lobes better follow the natural arc of the cam. See, fast ramps and low lift (like an XE-R lobe) make the lifter want to "loft" off of the cam lobe. By adding more lift into the lobe design, Comp feels they can get more stable rpm ability.
My new Thunder Racing TRak Cam uses the 231 LSK lobe on the intake and it revs to the freakin' moon. I need to raise my rev limiter ASAP because the 6800 rpm redline feels like 6000. It would go 7500 no problem. For rev assurance, I'm running Comp 921 springs, but I could have shimmed my duals that came with my AFR 205s and been fine.
XE-R lobes are 49 degrees from .006" to .050". That's fast.
LSK lobes are 50 degrees from .006" to .050. Not quite as fast.
Where the LSK lobes shine is the arc they form from .050" to peak lift. According to Comp, the LSK lobes better follow the natural arc of the cam. See, fast ramps and low lift (like an XE-R lobe) make the lifter want to "loft" off of the cam lobe. By adding more lift into the lobe design, Comp feels they can get more stable rpm ability.
My new Thunder Racing TRak Cam uses the 231 LSK lobe on the intake and it revs to the freakin' moon. I need to raise my rev limiter ASAP because the 6800 rpm redline feels like 6000. It would go 7500 no problem. For rev assurance, I'm running Comp 921 springs, but I could have shimmed my duals that came with my AFR 205s and been fine.
XE-R 273 (224@.050") (147@.200") .581 lift 1.7 rocker
LSK 223 (223@.050") (149@.200") .636 lift 1.7 rocker
compare bro
its right here in front of you
To be it look much more aggressive
Staging Lane
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Patrick G
That statement is absolutely FALSE. The LSK lobes were designed by Comp to have more high rpm stability than XE or XE-R lobes.
XE-R lobes are 49 degrees from .006" to .050". That's fast.
LSK lobes are 50 degrees from .006" to .050. Not quite as fast.
Where the LSK lobes shine is the arc they form from .050" to peak lift. According to Comp, the LSK lobes better follow the natural arc of the cam. See, fast ramps and low lift (like an XE-R lobe) make the lifter want to "loft" off of the cam lobe. By adding more lift into the lobe design, Comp feels they can get more stable rpm ability.
My new Thunder Racing TRak Cam uses the 231 LSK lobe on the intake and it revs to the freakin' moon. I need to raise my rev limiter ASAP because the 6800 rpm redline feels like 6000. It would go 7500 no problem. For rev assurance, I'm running Comp 921 springs, but I could have shimmed my duals that came with my AFR 205s and been fine.
XE-R lobes are 49 degrees from .006" to .050". That's fast.
LSK lobes are 50 degrees from .006" to .050. Not quite as fast.
Where the LSK lobes shine is the arc they form from .050" to peak lift. According to Comp, the LSK lobes better follow the natural arc of the cam. See, fast ramps and low lift (like an XE-R lobe) make the lifter want to "loft" off of the cam lobe. By adding more lift into the lobe design, Comp feels they can get more stable rpm ability.
My new Thunder Racing TRak Cam uses the 231 LSK lobe on the intake and it revs to the freakin' moon. I need to raise my rev limiter ASAP because the 6800 rpm redline feels like 6000. It would go 7500 no problem. For rev assurance, I'm running Comp 921 springs, but I could have shimmed my duals that came with my AFR 205s and been fine.
XE-R 273 (224@.050") (147@.200") .581 lift 1.7 rocker
LSK 223 (223@.050") (149@.200") .636 lift 1.7 rocker
compare bro
its right here in front of you
To me it look much more aggressive
Staging Lane
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Patrick G
That statement is absolutely FALSE. The LSK lobes were designed by Comp to have more high rpm stability than XE or XE-R lobes.
XE-R lobes are 49 degrees from .006" to .050". That's fast.
LSK lobes are 50 degrees from .006" to .050. Not quite as fast.
Where the LSK lobes shine is the arc they form from .050" to peak lift. According to Comp, the LSK lobes better follow the natural arc of the cam. See, fast ramps and low lift (like an XE-R lobe) make the lifter want to "loft" off of the cam lobe. By adding more lift into the lobe design, Comp feels they can get more stable rpm ability.
My new Thunder Racing TRak Cam uses the 231 LSK lobe on the intake and it revs to the freakin' moon. I need to raise my rev limiter ASAP because the 6800 rpm redline feels like 6000. It would go 7500 no problem. For rev assurance, I'm running Comp 921 springs, but I could have shimmed my duals that came with my AFR 205s and been fine.
XE-R lobes are 49 degrees from .006" to .050". That's fast.
LSK lobes are 50 degrees from .006" to .050. Not quite as fast.
Where the LSK lobes shine is the arc they form from .050" to peak lift. According to Comp, the LSK lobes better follow the natural arc of the cam. See, fast ramps and low lift (like an XE-R lobe) make the lifter want to "loft" off of the cam lobe. By adding more lift into the lobe design, Comp feels they can get more stable rpm ability.
My new Thunder Racing TRak Cam uses the 231 LSK lobe on the intake and it revs to the freakin' moon. I need to raise my rev limiter ASAP because the 6800 rpm redline feels like 6000. It would go 7500 no problem. For rev assurance, I'm running Comp 921 springs, but I could have shimmed my duals that came with my AFR 205s and been fine.
XE-R 273 (224@.050") (147@.200") .581 lift 1.7 rocker
LSK 273 (223@.050") (149@.200") .636 lift 1.7 rocker
compare bro
its right here in front of you
To me it look much more aggressive
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 881
Likes: 1
They list the cam for 1.75, 1.8, and 1.85 rockers???
It would seem that making all that work within the restrictions of hydraulic lifters would be problematic. Patrick has SS valves...however they are smaller diameter than many. And his cam is smaller than some.
Does anybody think it is even possible to run these with 1.8 rockers? Could you get enough spring or a light enough valvetrain?
It would seem that making all that work within the restrictions of hydraulic lifters would be problematic. Patrick has SS valves...however they are smaller diameter than many. And his cam is smaller than some.
Does anybody think it is even possible to run these with 1.8 rockers? Could you get enough spring or a light enough valvetrain?
