vettenuts

iTrader: (4)

The LS7 is running higher ratio rockers yet the spring loads are not exorbinant. Does anyone know what the weight of the valves are or has anyone measured them?

Ferocity02

iTrader: (60)

I've yet to see somone put down $1000+ for the set of Ti valves.

vettenuts

iTrader: (4)

That wasn't my question, I am simply trying to get the weights since the valve spring seat pressure is so low.

DavidNJ

I have, frequently. If you are running an 8000+rpm circle track motor, it is the only way to go. Literally. Without Ti you can't get the revs, or the ramp on the cam, limit flex in the valvetrain, or make th valve springs last. Heck, at $1000 they're cheap.

Actually, IMHO too much money is spent on cranks and bottom-end stuff here where there is really never a report of a rod or crank breaking, and little on the valvetrain where the revs are like adding displacement.

Greg Fell

iTrader: (9)

I got the GM valves both intake (ti)/exhaust (note exhaust are sodium filled hollow stem stainless), springs, locators, retainers, and keys for $1200

Greg Fell

iTrader: (9)

I got the GM valves both intake (ti)/exhaust (note exhaust are sodium filled hollow stem stainless), springs, locators, retainers, and keys for $1200. Also need lash caps, which are ~$90.

They are due to ship out today, and I will weigh them asap.

Miles in Florida

I'm surprised to hear you are using the valve springs, because usually GM springs aren't sufficient seat pressure or max lift for an aftermarket cam. Of course, the stock LS7 cam is a lot bigger than most stock cams are. What cam are you using?

vettenuts

iTrader: (4)

That's why I wanted to find out the weight of the valves, the spring seat pressure is 101# per another post here. With 1.8 rockers, they had to get the weight out somewhere.

DavidNJ

Just for the record, the Boss 302 had 2.21 intakes in '69 and 2.19s in '70 (I had a '70, purchased new in '71). They were steel.

The Ti was necessary to get a 2.2 valve to do 7000rpm and have the valvetrain and springs last for a production car duty cycle (never opened for 150k miles).

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

I don't really understand what the rocker ratio has to do with it. With a production cam, the ramp rates will be very soft. That along with titanium/sodium filled valves, there is no need for heavy pressures.

Greg Fell

iTrader: (9)

I am not using GM springs

vettenuts

iTrader: (4)

The lift is at or over 0.600 and the 1.8's will accelerate the valve faster so you either have to go up in pressure (which transmits more load to the lifter) or you need to lighten the valve to that the acceleration levels will keep up with the cam lobe. 7K is pretty high RPM, so GM obviously lightened up the valves. I think it would be interesting to compare these weights to those of the LS6 valves and the stock LS1/LS2 valves.

Miles in Florida

Pardon my ignorance, but didn't you say a couple posts up that you bought them?

Greg Fell

iTrader: (9)

I said I bought springs, never said GM springs.

Miles in Florida

Ah, that makes more sense. Somehow I read your post, and thought you bought everything from GM, not just the valves.

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

The lift on the LS7 cam is .591". The higher ratio will accelarate the valve a little faster, but since they new they were going to be using the higher ratio rockers, maybe the took that into consideration when designing the cam. They could have slowed the ramp rate of the cam to account for it. The Titanium intake valves should be at or below the weight of the LS-6 sodium intake valve, and the exaust valves are supposedlly the same sodium filled stainless valves as the LS-6, maybe a tad bigger.

Osh

76 grams on intake valve (2.200), 71 grams on exhaust (1.600)

vettenuts

iTrader: (4)

WOW, those are really light