TEA TrickFlow Heads with MS4?? :)
#21
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Unless the valvetrain had problems with deflection or float, or the head stalled, I don't see why more lift shouldn't produce more power. It is not only more maximum lift, it is more duration at virtually all lifts. Do your heads flow better at .300" than .400"? If not, that getting to .4" earlier should make it work better. Additionally, the mroe aggressive cam should allow equal area under the curve with lower duration off the seat. That should allow more compression.
In any case, hydraulic roller lifts are generally pretty lame, closer to solid flat tappet lifts. If a solid roller was being used, the LSK would be considered a very mild camshaft.
In any case, hydraulic roller lifts are generally pretty lame, closer to solid flat tappet lifts. If a solid roller was being used, the LSK would be considered a very mild camshaft.
#23
FormerVendor
iTrader: (13)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
Unless the valvetrain had problems with deflection or float, or the head stalled, I don't see why more lift shouldn't produce more power. It is not only more maximum lift, it is more duration at virtually all lifts. Do your heads flow better at .300" than .400"? If not, that getting to .4" earlier should make it work better. Additionally, the mroe aggressive cam should allow equal area under the curve with lower duration off the seat. That should allow more compression.
In any case, hydraulic roller lifts are generally pretty lame, closer to solid flat tappet lifts. If a solid roller was being used, the LSK would be considered a very mild camshaft.
In any case, hydraulic roller lifts are generally pretty lame, closer to solid flat tappet lifts. If a solid roller was being used, the LSK would be considered a very mild camshaft.
#24
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Brian, you put a lot in that one large paragraph...let me see if I can break it out a bit.
Most computer software doesn't deal with the valve train issues. I haven't heard anyone say there was a 'compression' problem with LS1 lifters. Is there? Otherwise, with sufficiently light components, adequately stiff pushrods and rockers, and stiff enough springs, valve float or valvetrain deflection should be the problem. The actual lift in an LSK is really not that great...at least by solid tappet standards. Even the XFI used for rather mundane configurations has more lift than the XE-Rs.
The more aggressive ramp allows you to use a shorter seat duration. Yes, if you add a more aggressive ramp to an otherwise adequately cammed combination, you will be adding effective overlap, late IVC, and early EVO without benefit. However, if you took advantage of the more aggressive cam (as Patrick's oft quoted example does) to reduce duration, you gain in all areas with no loss in flow.
The cam is not about total lift. It is about lift everywhere. And there a LSK beats and an XFI which beats an XE-R. And an XE (solid) Street Roller beats all of them by a sigficant amount.
As far as when 'is there too much lift' goes, all the EMC engines were in the .750-.850 range to produce power from 2500-6500. Building an endurance engine, where part life span is an issue including springs and valves, then it might be less. However, I believe .670-.750 would be the range, all greater than an LSK.
I would be very surprised if an LSK with 4° less duration was not more powerful with any of your heads than an XER version, probably with a broader power curve, better drivablity, and not significantly different valvetrain component life.
Most computer software doesn't deal with the valve train issues. I haven't heard anyone say there was a 'compression' problem with LS1 lifters. Is there? Otherwise, with sufficiently light components, adequately stiff pushrods and rockers, and stiff enough springs, valve float or valvetrain deflection should be the problem. The actual lift in an LSK is really not that great...at least by solid tappet standards. Even the XFI used for rather mundane configurations has more lift than the XE-Rs.
The more aggressive ramp allows you to use a shorter seat duration. Yes, if you add a more aggressive ramp to an otherwise adequately cammed combination, you will be adding effective overlap, late IVC, and early EVO without benefit. However, if you took advantage of the more aggressive cam (as Patrick's oft quoted example does) to reduce duration, you gain in all areas with no loss in flow.
The cam is not about total lift. It is about lift everywhere. And there a LSK beats and an XFI which beats an XE-R. And an XE (solid) Street Roller beats all of them by a sigficant amount.
As far as when 'is there too much lift' goes, all the EMC engines were in the .750-.850 range to produce power from 2500-6500. Building an endurance engine, where part life span is an issue including springs and valves, then it might be less. However, I believe .670-.750 would be the range, all greater than an LSK.
I would be very surprised if an LSK with 4° less duration was not more powerful with any of your heads than an XER version, probably with a broader power curve, better drivablity, and not significantly different valvetrain component life.
#25
FormerVendor
iTrader: (13)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
Brian, you put a lot in that one large paragraph...let me see if I can break it out a bit.
Most computer software doesn't deal with the valve train issues. I haven't heard anyone say there was a 'compression' problem with LS1 lifters. Is there? Otherwise, with sufficiently light components, adequately stiff pushrods and rockers, and stiff enough springs, valve float or valvetrain deflection should be the problem. The actual lift in an LSK is really not that great...at least by solid tappet standards. Even the XFI used for rather mundane configurations has more lift than the XE-Rs.
The more aggressive ramp allows you to use a shorter seat duration. Yes, if you add a more aggressive ramp to an otherwise adequately cammed combination, you will be adding effective overlap, late IVC, and early EVO without benefit. However, if you took advantage of the more aggressive cam (as Patrick's oft quoted example does) to reduce duration, you gain in all areas with no loss in flow.
The cam is not about total lift. It is about lift everywhere. And there a LSK beats and an XFI which beats an XE-R. And an XE (solid) Street Roller beats all of them by a sigficant amount.
As far as when 'is there too much lift' goes, all the EMC engines were in the .750-.850 range to produce power from 2500-6500. Building an endurance engine, where part life span is an issue including springs and valves, then it might be less. However, I believe .670-.750 would be the range, all greater than an LSK.
I would be very surprised if an LSK with 4° less duration was not more powerful with any of your heads than an XER version, probably with a broader power curve, better drivablity, and not significantly different valvetrain component life.
Most computer software doesn't deal with the valve train issues. I haven't heard anyone say there was a 'compression' problem with LS1 lifters. Is there? Otherwise, with sufficiently light components, adequately stiff pushrods and rockers, and stiff enough springs, valve float or valvetrain deflection should be the problem. The actual lift in an LSK is really not that great...at least by solid tappet standards. Even the XFI used for rather mundane configurations has more lift than the XE-Rs.
The more aggressive ramp allows you to use a shorter seat duration. Yes, if you add a more aggressive ramp to an otherwise adequately cammed combination, you will be adding effective overlap, late IVC, and early EVO without benefit. However, if you took advantage of the more aggressive cam (as Patrick's oft quoted example does) to reduce duration, you gain in all areas with no loss in flow.
The cam is not about total lift. It is about lift everywhere. And there a LSK beats and an XFI which beats an XE-R. And an XE (solid) Street Roller beats all of them by a sigficant amount.
As far as when 'is there too much lift' goes, all the EMC engines were in the .750-.850 range to produce power from 2500-6500. Building an endurance engine, where part life span is an issue including springs and valves, then it might be less. However, I believe .670-.750 would be the range, all greater than an LSK.
I would be very surprised if an LSK with 4° less duration was not more powerful with any of your heads than an XER version, probably with a broader power curve, better drivablity, and not significantly different valvetrain component life.
Any hyd roller over .600" lift is flirting with disaster, anything approaching .650" is insane. If hyd roller lifters didn't compress, then all of these guys who RACE hyd roller lifters wouldn't be "bottom lashing" the lifters.
EMC engines run solid rollers correct? I have customers with solid rollers of over 1.000" lift, and the cars haul, one runs 157.7 mph ON MOTOR, and it's a small block. As I stated before, this applies to HYD ROLLER engines. I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt, as you increase ramp speed and lift in HYD ROLLER applications you don't always get rewarded with more power everywhere, it is often less. I know you are on a quest for knowledge, as I have been for the last 20 years, and I think you are an intelligent guy, but you believe what you believe, and everything to the contray you don't, but hey, I was the same way.
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
#26
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There was a thread in another section that went into a long discussion of lifter compression. However, there are people running LSKs with the lightweight LS valves and springs. Whether it is differences in valvetrain mass, spring dynamics, or lifter design, people are successfully running the LSKs. Maybe lower viscocity synthetic oils play a role.
However, isn't the rest an argument for solid rollers in a 500hp 347s?
However, isn't the rest an argument for solid rollers in a 500hp 347s?