It means what's stated, that it's .300 taller than the typical lifter.
It looks like a Morel lifter by the photo. You can Never get a lifter that's too good or that has more rpm capability than what's needed.


Btw that web address will be taken down...there not a vendor of ls1Sales.com

 

Just what I said it's a Morel lifter.

 

Guys i got two camshaft recommendations for a LLSR.

249/261 .675 .657 113LSA +4
250/258 .657 .657 114LSA +4

Which one would you prefer for my combo and why?

 

Nearly the same. Major Difference is the intensity of the intake lobe. That being said the first one would be more aggressive and make a little more power.

 

Selecting your cam by committee can leave you with less than desirable results. When you've been discussing your situation for months with cam designers who know your goals, it's best to trust their judgement.

 

I agree Patrick.
I have no reason to doubt.

 

Good poast OP

 

7/16 baseball bats ftw

 

Another update.
I finally went up and saw my tuner today to speak about my vehicle.
I also took it for a test drive.
Firstly let's discuss the combination.
After a lengthy discussion I finally have the answers I have been looking for.
The issue with the combination is the roller rockers with the higher ratio.
This is what is causing the instability.
So I have two options.
Either replace the rockers with the ultra lite pros, and go back to the standard ratio as well as change over the springs and utilise a PAC 1207X spring kit instead.
This will fix it and engine will also make more power due to the increased stability.
2nd option is to go for a LLSR and some new lifters to suit and the current valvetrain will work well with it.
Both options will cost the same so it's a no brainer to go the solid roller and this is what I am doing.

When I test drove the vehicle I was surprised how well it runs.
That 242/257 113 LSA +3 camshaft drives just as smoothly as my old camshaft even though it has double the overlap. No bucking or surging whatsoever. A testament to his tuning ability.
That wide split camshaft pulls real well from 2000rpm+ too. I was expecting torque loss in that rpm range and it didn't happen. (which is great)
Also the mid range torque with the mid length runner fast was strong.
Probably stronger than the long runner fast compared to before which took me by surprise so I'm glad I changed the runners over. I cannot feel any losses at all.
I did notice though that the stall converter is a little looser now compared to before.
It still drives nice but it;s definitely changed.
I did not get a chance to put the foot down because the fuel tank was low and I couldn't get out to a decent back road to do a proper test.
The half throttle runs gave me a good indication though.
I'm really keen to see the difference how a solid roller will feel at part throttle response in the mid range.
So now everyone, before you I have two camshaft choices to pick from and I would to know which one to choose

Camshaft 1: 250/258 .657 .657 114 LSA +4
Camshaft 2: 252/262 .675 .657 113 LSA +4

Personally I am thinking the first one.

 

Have Patrick do the honors. Its be the best $50 you ever spent.

 

Where's the Num-Skull who said new heads for a valve train issue.

Please Read the Diagnosis.

 

Kudos for being able to detect a valvetrain issue without any visible sign of one on the graph. Takes a lot of knowledge and skill.

 

It is the smoothest instability i have ever seen in a graph myself. Maybe the smoothing function was set to infinity

 

Low lash solids pull forever but seems your car is doing better than a dyno number shows. I originally hoped my 427 would do 600rwhp through an automatic. Reality is 553 but will fry the drag radials from 70mph roll in 2nd.

Dyno is a tool,dont be to caught up on the final number.

This dyno is to show low lash stability with same rockers and springs you currently have.
Your cam choices both bigger than mine too.
Mine is 246/262@.050. .689/.672 112+4. Pull ended at 7600 still going up.

 

Let me rephrase smart ***.
Valve-train harmonics issue.

 

That's a very smooth curve.
I hope mine ends up being the same.
Camshafts specs are indeed similar.
I have a little more intake duration and a bit less exhaust duration.
The split on cam one is less to ensure I have a stronger mid range torque curve.
I am told too much exhaust split kills low and mid range torque.
It will still hit 7500rpm with an IVC of 52 and EVO of 64.
I'm still having trouble deciding which one to go for.

 

https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-te...s-in-distress/

Consider before tearing it apart and spending $$$$ to find root cause????

 

I thought there was eventually a graph posted showing a clear drop in power and stability at higher rpms?

 

So how did you and your tuner determine it is a "valvetrain harmonics issue"?

How does that explain why you're only making about 385ft-lbs of torque at about 4300RPM or why you're only able to muster a peak torque of about 400ft'lbs of at 5000RPM?

Do the two of you really think you're experiencing "valvetrain harmonics" at such low RPM?

 

Torque is way up now.
I saw the latest graph today.
I should've taken a photo of it.
It's the rockers and camshaft combination.
This is the only reason we are seeing a lower power figure.
Which is why I said, if I change the rockers and springs and keep current camshaft, engine will make more power and torque.
If i go for a solid roller the current valve-train will work well with it.
Pat G told me the same thing too.