Bad cam ls3. Why
10-30-2017 | 04:45 PM
#21
The springs were PRC I believe. Part of their kit.
They tested:
136lb @ 1.800 installed height
432lb @ 1.125 .660 Max
My cam was .629 lift
So, a little light on seat pressure
The bottom end looks good. Rod bearing are perfect and mains had a few groves, but nothing to worry about. A few metal flakes in the pan but the filter was full and looked like metallic paint. Time to shop for some forged rods and pistons. Oh, and a smaller SC pulley
They tested:
136lb @ 1.800 installed height
432lb @ 1.125 .660 Max
My cam was .629 lift
So, a little light on seat pressure
The bottom end looks good. Rod bearing are perfect and mains had a few groves, but nothing to worry about. A few metal flakes in the pan but the filter was full and looked like metallic paint. Time to shop for some forged rods and pistons. Oh, and a smaller SC pulley
10-30-2017 | 10:45 PM
#22
but, if they check out, process of elimination i guess.
10-31-2017 | 09:05 AM
#23
Ok...... I checked them with a load cell thats calibrated yearly, so I'm pretty sure my measurements are more accurate than most machine shops.
10-31-2017 | 11:03 AM
#24
Staging Lane
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 53
Likes: 9
The cam is oiled first then down to mains. Thats likely why.
Also the stock barbell allows ALOT of larger particles by as well as the stock in pan bypass and filter bypass. Thats why youd plug them with the Saccity kit we have and use the better barbell to decrease foreign particle size/bypass anyway.
Also the stock barbell allows ALOT of larger particles by as well as the stock in pan bypass and filter bypass. Thats why youd plug them with the Saccity kit we have and use the better barbell to decrease foreign particle size/bypass anyway.
10-31-2017 | 05:44 PM
#26
i just find that highly surprising.