.600 with 220 duration, is this too much lift?
.600 with 220 duration, is this too much lift? My set up right now is 220/224 .583/.583 114 with cranes 1.89 gold rocker arms. We ran into an issue in the upper rpm's and cant necessarily attribute the dip in power at 6k to the rocker arms, but I do know of several other's with the same issue, in the same RPM's, with the same set up.
So I was thinking of going back to stock rocker arms, and then I figured I would go with SLP's 1.85 rocker arms as instead of dropping the lift to .551 with the 1.7's they would actually increase the lift to right about .600/.600
Im concerned with ramp rates, as the cam is only a 220/224. I am using Patriot's dual gold springs. And will be using stock length hardened pushrods.
Im hoping I will eliminate the harmonics issue here, but dont want to create another problem with the valvetrain with the aggressive ramp rate. Opinion's please!
So I was thinking of going back to stock rocker arms, and then I figured I would go with SLP's 1.85 rocker arms as instead of dropping the lift to .551 with the 1.7's they would actually increase the lift to right about .600/.600
Im concerned with ramp rates, as the cam is only a 220/224. I am using Patriot's dual gold springs. And will be using stock length hardened pushrods.
Im hoping I will eliminate the harmonics issue here, but dont want to create another problem with the valvetrain with the aggressive ramp rate. Opinion's please!
TECH Addict
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,907
Likes: 1
From: Bergen County, NJ
Is that a Crane cam and if so haven't they solved the issue with a spring swap? How do you figure the SLPs will help - just guessing that a different rocker will give different harmonics? I would call Crane - they can advise you best.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Importdestroyer
.... I do know of several other's with the same issue, in the same RPM's, with the same set up...
Good point, yes crane has just finished a set of springs designed to eliminate this all too common issue with their rocker arms. At this point Im not sure if I want to throw down another $300 for springs in hopes that it would alleviate the harmonics issue, when I know a sure fire fix is to go back to the stock rockers.
I DONT know of anyone having issues with patriot dual gold springs, .580-.60# lift cams, and stock rocker arms. I DO know of 4 different people all having/had identical issues with the crane rocker arms.
Question is, will changing to SLP's 1.85 rocker arms solve the issue, without creating another with the cam Im running. Again 220/224 .600/.600, I havent heard of anyone running this much lift with that kind of duration.
Would I be better off throwing the stock 1.7's back on and reducing the lift to .551/.551?
I DONT know of anyone having issues with patriot dual gold springs, .580-.60# lift cams, and stock rocker arms. I DO know of 4 different people all having/had identical issues with the crane rocker arms.
Question is, will changing to SLP's 1.85 rocker arms solve the issue, without creating another with the cam Im running. Again 220/224 .600/.600, I havent heard of anyone running this much lift with that kind of duration.
Would I be better off throwing the stock 1.7's back on and reducing the lift to .551/.551?
Originally Posted by SideStep
YES, several have had issues with other than factory rockers... 90% go back to the factory rockers and solve their problems... Just bolt them (the factory ones) then dyno again... I am betting that will be the end of your problems...
I dont know if its an appropriate comparison, but a stock LS7 cam is 210/230 .591 .591 120 LSA, with 1.8 rocker arms. GM managed .591 with 210 duration, so maybe Ill be ok with .600 lift and 220.
Trending Topics
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Importdestroyer
At the sacrifice of power, what kind of power difference are we talking between .551 and .600? I know for sure it will get rid of the dip in power at 6k.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Originally Posted by SideStep
Man.... if you want .600 lift get a cam that has that much lift with 1.7 rockers ( I know, easy for me to say.....) Assuming you could ever get the longer rockers to work, there is going to be a difference in the power output for like cams separated by .050 lift... Why not just bolt the factory ones on and pull a dyno run... you may not be that far off, considering all the crap the longer rockers are causing you....
Id just like to change rocker arms, and get rid of that dip. I am considering SLP's 1.85 rocker as I would be able to keep lift near .600. So the question remains, is .600 too much lift for a 220 cam, and has anyone ran into any valvetrain issues such as valve float or whatever with SLP's rocker arms and .600 lift.
Originally Posted by MNR-0
Crane 1.8RRs here on a comp 212-220 cam 0.590/0.600 total lift and comp 918 springs. Love it - no dip.
Did you ever have a dip in power initially?
Sounds like valve float to me. Even though you are only running 210 duration, with 1.89 rr you are amplifying the ramp in the lobe. If it's an X-ER lobe the acceleration must be sick.
Originally Posted by ArKay99
Sounds like valve float to me. Even though you are only running 210 duration, with 1.89 rr you are amplifying the ramp in the lobe. If it's an X-ER lobe the acceleration must be sick.
And Id like to know if anyone is having any other valvetrain issues with SLP's 1.85 rocker. I think the problem with my valvetrain set up is indeed Crane's rocker arm, something to do with the geometry possibly, the vague method to attain lifter preload, or the additional weight of them. I am basing this assumption off of the fact that I know of 5 different people with this same set up with the same dip in power at the same spot.
Vinci claims its the springs, well I dont know of any other PP Head owners having similar if any valvetrain issues with the supplied dual gold springs and high lift cams with stock rocker arms up to 6500-6800 rpm.
Originally Posted by gun5l1ng3r
I also think that the ramp rate might be a little too steep, even if you do have strong springs. Try the stock rockers and see what it dynos...
Originally Posted by Importdestroyer
Question is, will changing to SLP's 1.85 rocker arms solve the issue, without creating another with the cam Im running. Again 220/224 .600/.600, I havent heard of anyone running this much lift with that kind of duration.
Launching!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
From: longview, tx
I don't see the big lift with the short duration as a problem. Ramp rate is how the lobes are ground, not the rocker ratio, correct? Your cam won't care what rockers you run. Your springs must certainly be up to the task of closing the valves properly. I think the SLPs may only aggravate the issue but then again what do I know. It would indeed be an interesting experiment with the SLPs and you can always sell your used parts here. LOL
Originally Posted by mrr23
xtrooper did the opposite and got rid of his power dip and gained power. went from SLP 1.85 to the 1.8 accelerated lift rockers. search for his post. he also swapped to the crane springs. don't remember what he had before.
Im over it, these arms and the cam are for sale. After reassurance from Roger that the solution to his defective product is to pay more $$ to VHP and Crane for a set of springs that may or may not work, I am moving on to do the valvetrain the right way, with the stock rocker arms, needle bearings and all.
be careful with that 'defective product' saying. btw. xtrooper went from comp 918 to the crane springs. shimmed those and got rid of the dip. it's just a matter of finding out what's causing it and fixing that. i got rid of mine with tuning. he got rid of his with shimming the springs. both of us using the vinci/crane springs. and mine aren't shimmed.
like i said over on ls1.com. if you haven't sold the stuff in 30 days, i'll purchase them for my car.
like i said over on ls1.com. if you haven't sold the stuff in 30 days, i'll purchase them for my car.
this subject keeps coming up. what i keep asking is what makes this 'dip' go away if you use the exact same ramp that occurs at the valve?
cam #1 220/224 .589/.589 LSA 114 w/1.7 rockers X-ER lobes
cam #2 vinci 066 220/224 .551/.551 LSA 114 w/1.8 rockers that bring total lift to .589/.589
both cams having the exact same valve events at the valve.
spring control? both have the exact same valve movements.
rocker weight? the vinci/crane rockers (if i remember correctly) are 5 grams heavier than stock rockers over the valve. is the 5 grams actually contributing to it? if so, then why isn't this 'dip' more consistent?
cam #1 220/224 .589/.589 LSA 114 w/1.7 rockers X-ER lobes
cam #2 vinci 066 220/224 .551/.551 LSA 114 w/1.8 rockers that bring total lift to .589/.589
both cams having the exact same valve events at the valve.
spring control? both have the exact same valve movements.
rocker weight? the vinci/crane rockers (if i remember correctly) are 5 grams heavier than stock rockers over the valve. is the 5 grams actually contributing to it? if so, then why isn't this 'dip' more consistent?