.800 to .900 lift for a 100% street car....anyone doing it with success?
06-05-2007, 10:59 PM
#61
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RyanJ
I've been on this site since about day 2, Quicken constantly brings up "pie-in-the-sky"-type stuff and tries to justify it...then never does a thing (hence the same ARE 436 he's had for years). That said, I don't care about the post, I can skip it if I want, my question is...why are you (Quicken) wanting a certain amount of lift? Did you just come up with some arbitrary number so you could say you had .900 lift one day? That's why this post is annoying.
No offense Q, I'm sure you are a nice guy, but your posts ARE annoying. You and I have gone though this before.
No offense Q, I'm sure you are a nice guy, but your posts ARE annoying. You and I have gone though this before.
To your question. I don't want to build another 427 with LS7 heads and an LS7 intake. Why bother, its nothing new and its not a good set-up in my opinion. I want to have an engine built that is not out there yet, at least for a street car. So I read things here, I talk to friends that are total motorheads, I see what other people are doing in the drag race world with engines and I just think why not try to bring some of the high power producing equipment and parts into the street environment. In other words, "try to keep this industry moving forward." When I was looking into a engine back in 2000, I asked these same types of crazy questions and I got the same flak. I also heard from LPE, MTI, Morgan Motorsports and others.....that there is no way in hell I can have a 500 RWHP engine and be nice and "streetable" in any way. Well, Agostino said they could. It didn't do 500, but it was damn close, like within 12 RWHP. 50 more RWHP than everyone else said they could do and stay streetable. And that engine is still in my car today, running PERFECTLY. And its just as streetable as a factory stock car, it just shakes slightly and sounds very mean. It has over 80,000 miles on it too.
In a year I'm sure someone will figure out how to make an .800 lift set-up stay together in street car use. It will happen, who knows when, period. I want to do it now. Well now, period.
I thought since the CV heads flow near 430cfm, why not use them over a 390-ish flowing LS7 head. And from what I've learned that extra ~40 cfm is really not where the magic is in the CV heads, therefore it will literally stomp the LS7 to death in comparison. And....why use LS7 heads when the LS7 intake kills them.
I'm using a sheet metal intake so I can actually use the cfm of the heads. I don't know much about engine building, but I do know building a big stroker engine with anything less than a sheet metal intake and kick *** heads, kind of makes it a waste to build anything more than say a 416ci. If you're not feeding all the cubes, why have them. Well, I am doing a 454ci (rather large) and I don't want a single cubic inch to ever miss a meal. I want them all fat, dumb and happy.
Thats why I'm looking into all of this. Make sense????? Maybe because I operate $50 million aircraft and use the most expensive and sophisticated electronics and equipment on the planet, and engines that produce 50,000+ lbs. of thrust, maybe I just expect too much from cars.
And no, I don't want to someday be able to go to a car gathering and say, "I've got .900 lift fellers." Not my style. But, I am going up in our company jet tomorrow for a fun flight with my other pilot and a friend. Sea level to 10,000 ft. in 1 minute, its a great feeling. Anyone in Orlando, look for an all black Learjet flying right over downtown Orlando, about 5pm tomorrow, that be me! Hey, tooting my own horn is pretty cool. Later.
.
06-05-2007, 11:01 PM
#62
TECH Resident
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jpr5690
ALSO **** LIKE THAT MAKES ME NEVER WANT TO BUY FROM THUNDER IF THATS THE ATTIUDE THEIR EMPLOYEES HAVE...
06-05-2007, 11:03 PM
#63
TECH Resident
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by austin21
before mr. *** clown comes back with all of his nonsense and bans you for not knowing this i believe it is .585 on a 116 lsa but just to make sure i would ask someone else or just do a search you should be able to find it somewhere...and imo i think pat needs some cranberry juice 
06-05-2007, 11:47 PM
#64
SSU Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Q. I still don't see the point of ".900 lift", but I absolutely would like to see stuff like canted valve heads on the street with a new-design sheet-metal intake. Like Cary said, you don't need some spring-killer cam to do that. Cams are cams IMO, you won't me moving much "forward" because you shove in some monster with triple springs ya know? The ERL stuff, the ET heads, etc....that is moving this industry forward. What I'd do is pick some heads (ET Canted Valve if you want) and build it around them. Make 100% efficient use of those heads and make it for the street. That would be fun for me.
06-05-2007, 11:59 PM
#65
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RyanJ
Good post Q. I still don't see the point of ".900 lift",
I think I'd still like to use it. We'll see soon enough.
.
06-06-2007, 12:36 AM
#67
I think this Q deffinatly pushes the limits very hard, but without people doing this we would still all have 4XX RWHP cars. People with the $ and ***** to push the limits is what raises the bar for everyone and keeps the aftermarket and the hobby going.
I feel this thread is 100% legit.
P.S. The search is down AGAIN.
I feel this thread is 100% legit.
P.S. The search is down AGAIN.
06-06-2007, 12:59 AM
#68
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about we ban the mod 
just playing there!!!!!
interesting thread, never would of thought about running that much lift!!!! but as fast as the market grows, it will only take a few years in my opinion before we near those numbers...nothings impossible now a days.
just playing there!!!!!interesting thread, never would of thought about running that much lift!!!! but as fast as the market grows, it will only take a few years in my opinion before we near those numbers...nothings impossible now a days.
06-06-2007, 03:19 AM
#70
TECH Senior Member
Guys for all the times mods do help others, for all the free advice, good advice and anything in between, don't you think we deserve to let loose on a bolt once in a while?
Please keep in mind that although we are gearheads, we are still partly humans so we do have moments of uncontroled pressure reliefs, similar to valve float if you like.
All is well,
Please keep in mind that although we are gearheads, we are still partly humans so we do have moments of uncontroled pressure reliefs, similar to valve float if you like.
All is well,
06-06-2007, 03:24 AM
#71
FormerVendor
.800-.900 lift is just too much for any normal rocker to even handle without side loading the valvestems etc. with any of the regular length rockers people are using. Also trying to acheive this much lift in a normal smaller street duration (220-240 @ .050) would result in some extreme valve velocities and a much reduced rpm ceiling and lifespan.
Like Cary said the mid-lift is incredible on his canted valve heads so a smaller cam can be run and you don't need .900 lift for them to shine. Also don't forget a 450+ inch engine with a big stroke can use more cylinder head than a 350 inch motor of course so I think the heads would work great as well on a really big street or race engine. Some of Cary's other heads might be much more cost effective as well as the other vendors but still the CV heads are awsome nonetheless!
Like Cary said the mid-lift is incredible on his canted valve heads so a smaller cam can be run and you don't need .900 lift for them to shine. Also don't forget a 450+ inch engine with a big stroke can use more cylinder head than a 350 inch motor of course so I think the heads would work great as well on a really big street or race engine. Some of Cary's other heads might be much more cost effective as well as the other vendors but still the CV heads are awsome nonetheless!
06-06-2007, 03:29 AM
#72
FormerVendor
FWIW also Patrick G has always been a totally friendly and proffessional member and moderator on LS1Tech so there must be more to this story than I know with him and Quickin. I have had guys call me and waste my time so much on weird deals you know they won't ever really do but it's just part of the game. Still .800+ lift is just priobably too much to run on a daily driven street car even though you could make it work for short durations.
06-06-2007, 07:32 AM
#73
Wow this was a loaded thread!!
I understand where quicken was coming from. He read the flow numbers from the CV heads and thought that he needed that much lift to take full advantage of them. And in fact, he does. However, even at much lower lift points(between 650-700) the heads still kick ***.
I am like Quicken, I can't stand to leave a single HP on the table. When I made my decision to go with my combo, there was only 1 out there that was finished. Now there are several. I stick with my decision, even though it is not as rare as it was when I started. As long as it does what I want I will be happy.
Best of luck to you, I know you will have a super stout combo.
I understand where quicken was coming from. He read the flow numbers from the CV heads and thought that he needed that much lift to take full advantage of them. And in fact, he does. However, even at much lower lift points(between 650-700) the heads still kick ***.
I am like Quicken, I can't stand to leave a single HP on the table. When I made my decision to go with my combo, there was only 1 out there that was finished. Now there are several. I stick with my decision, even though it is not as rare as it was when I started. As long as it does what I want I will be happy.
Best of luck to you, I know you will have a super stout combo.
06-06-2007, 07:56 AM
#74
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quickin here is my advice...
1) Your builder looks like he knows what he is doing and builds nice hardware. I'd listen to him
2) With FI it is generally well accepted you can go a little softer on the lift/ramp rate versus an all out NA application and still make ridiculous power. Boost itself puts a lot of strain on the valvetrain and requires stiffer springs right off the bat. Anything you can do to simplify and REDUCE the points of failure on a street driven FI application the better.
Personally if you are planning on running 15-20#s boost or more in your setup I wouldn't even go close to .600 lift if you want to drive it for a year without tearing into it. In fact I'd look at a soft lobe in the mid .500s if you are looking for durability and staying hyd cam.
1) Your builder looks like he knows what he is doing and builds nice hardware. I'd listen to him
2) With FI it is generally well accepted you can go a little softer on the lift/ramp rate versus an all out NA application and still make ridiculous power. Boost itself puts a lot of strain on the valvetrain and requires stiffer springs right off the bat. Anything you can do to simplify and REDUCE the points of failure on a street driven FI application the better.
Personally if you are planning on running 15-20#s boost or more in your setup I wouldn't even go close to .600 lift if you want to drive it for a year without tearing into it. In fact I'd look at a soft lobe in the mid .500s if you are looking for durability and staying hyd cam.
06-06-2007, 08:00 AM
#75
Originally Posted by CHRISPY
Quickin here is my advice...
1) Your builder looks like he knows what he is doing and builds nice hardware. I'd listen to him
2) With FI it is generally well accepted you can go a little softer on the lift/ramp rate versus an all out NA application and still make ridiculous power. Boost itself puts a lot of strain on the valvetrain and requires stiffer springs right off the bat. Anything you can do to simplify and REDUCE the points of failure on a street driven FI application the better.
Personally if you are planning on running 15-20#s boost or more in your setup I wouldn't even go close to .600 lift if you want to drive it for a year without tearing into it. In fact I'd look at a soft lobe in the mid .500s if you are looking for durability and staying hyd cam.
1) Your builder looks like he knows what he is doing and builds nice hardware. I'd listen to him
2) With FI it is generally well accepted you can go a little softer on the lift/ramp rate versus an all out NA application and still make ridiculous power. Boost itself puts a lot of strain on the valvetrain and requires stiffer springs right off the bat. Anything you can do to simplify and REDUCE the points of failure on a street driven FI application the better.
Personally if you are planning on running 15-20#s boost or more in your setup I wouldn't even go close to .600 lift if you want to drive it for a year without tearing into it. In fact I'd look at a soft lobe in the mid .500s if you are looking for durability and staying hyd cam.
06-06-2007, 08:03 AM
#76
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stang's Bane
The build he is asking about is a N/A build with a shot. Not the FI one. He is building 2
Nevermind my last post then...(Unless you decide to go FI or course)
06-06-2007, 09:32 AM
#77
Yeah...I don't know what the problem is here. If my engine builder was concerned about whether or not to go with that much lift, the first thing I'd do is turn to the internet for advice. I'd then print out all of the posts and show it to said engine builder. And say "Here. Now make it so. The internetz don't lie." And then I would sleep easy knowing that the internet would never lead me astray. Yes. That is what I would do.
06-06-2007, 10:43 AM
#78
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Look to anyone who honestly believes that .800-.900 lift cams are going to become commonplace anytime soon, you my friend are SADLY mistaken. I think this worldview comes from having been around only the LSx based motors, and having cut your teeth on the technology explosion that has been inherient in this marketplace.
There are plenty of .800 and .900 lift lobes in the cam catalogs right now. Its not like someone just woke up and said "Hey the LSx is here, time to finally make a big cam." Understand this, to actuate a valvespring like that for any period of time in the space constraints we have to work with is going to really take a heck of a spring, and a heck of a valve train.
The bottom line is that if you are stupid enough, you can drive anything on the street for X period of time until it blows sky high. To give an example, we had a motor out of a B/SM motor car in our shop that my buddy decided to run in his car. It was a 353" SBC with Buick heads, sheetmetal intake, blah blah, blah... The cam tunnel had been opened up to accept a BBC sized cam core as the lobes on the cam were too big to clear the stock SBC cam tunnel. The cam worked out to be around .850 lift for that style block the only thing else we could do was to change the ramp rate slightly, and move the valve events slightly. You couldn't get any more lift on that cam.
So, was it at all streetable. NO, not even close. It also required constant care and feeding of the valvetrain components.
Lets do some simple math. Lets say you want to drive 20K miles on a motor in your 100% "streetcar".Im going to say the average RPM over that time is 2500 RPM (that is averaging in street driving , high rpm blasts, idling, etc...). So, that means that each valve actuates 625 times per minute on average. Thats ~37500 times per hour. 20K miles is roughly about 500 hours on the motor. So, that is approximately 18,750,000 cycles on the valvespring.
In a cam as big as your are talking about you will need a fairly robust spring, and its fatigue life won't be all that great. Not nearly enough to make anywhere close to that many cycles. Its not uncommon to see a spring stat to loose pressure very quickly after being put into service in such an extreme application.
Lets say you run a set of springs for an entire season ona big cam (if they even make it that long) , and you make 200 or so passes (quite a few passes). If you look at the toal ammount of cycles on a spring, you are probably looking at an average of 30 seconds of runtime over the average of 200 passes (that includes warm up, and driving down the return road, etc... That is about 100 minutes of runtime over a season.
I'd say the average RPM would be 4000 RPM when you avergage in all the idling time. So, 4000 RPM is 1000 valve events per minute. Over 100 minutes is about 100,000 valve spring cycles....
Keep in mind that the enemy of springs is heat and fatigue. .800-.900 is a LOT of fatigue....
To run lift like that is going to require a spring like this one.
PSI # 1248 Triple 1.660"- od 1.195"-id .870"-middle .630"-inner 375 lbs - closed@2.100" 1045 lbs open @1.200" 744lb/inch spring rate .900" - max lift 1.130"- coil bind
First off, you aren't going to run that witha hyd. roller. Secondly, to run it with a solid roller again is going to require COSTLY valvetrain components. Thrid, you might as well have quick releases on your valve covers as every time you drive your car you are going to have to pull the valve covers and check the springs to check for weak springs. And, if you want to keep them alive, after you are done, then you'll need to loosen the rockers if the car is going to sit up for any period of time....
The long and the short of it is you can do what you want, but it isn't feasible or what I'd consider to be cost effective. If someone is dumb enough to do it, then there is a builder smart enough to accept your money to do whatever it is you tell them you want to do.
Many of the lobes folks are running are not what I'd even run in a 100% street car to begin with. I'd look more in the marine lobes which are designed to run for extended periods and be very spring friendly. But, folk on here feel it is an acpetable tradeoff to use what I would consider somewhat un-friendly cams to get those few extra HP.
There are plenty of .800 and .900 lift lobes in the cam catalogs right now. Its not like someone just woke up and said "Hey the LSx is here, time to finally make a big cam." Understand this, to actuate a valvespring like that for any period of time in the space constraints we have to work with is going to really take a heck of a spring, and a heck of a valve train.
The bottom line is that if you are stupid enough, you can drive anything on the street for X period of time until it blows sky high. To give an example, we had a motor out of a B/SM motor car in our shop that my buddy decided to run in his car. It was a 353" SBC with Buick heads, sheetmetal intake, blah blah, blah... The cam tunnel had been opened up to accept a BBC sized cam core as the lobes on the cam were too big to clear the stock SBC cam tunnel. The cam worked out to be around .850 lift for that style block the only thing else we could do was to change the ramp rate slightly, and move the valve events slightly. You couldn't get any more lift on that cam.
So, was it at all streetable. NO, not even close. It also required constant care and feeding of the valvetrain components.
Lets do some simple math. Lets say you want to drive 20K miles on a motor in your 100% "streetcar".Im going to say the average RPM over that time is 2500 RPM (that is averaging in street driving , high rpm blasts, idling, etc...). So, that means that each valve actuates 625 times per minute on average. Thats ~37500 times per hour. 20K miles is roughly about 500 hours on the motor. So, that is approximately 18,750,000 cycles on the valvespring.
In a cam as big as your are talking about you will need a fairly robust spring, and its fatigue life won't be all that great. Not nearly enough to make anywhere close to that many cycles. Its not uncommon to see a spring stat to loose pressure very quickly after being put into service in such an extreme application.
Lets say you run a set of springs for an entire season ona big cam (if they even make it that long) , and you make 200 or so passes (quite a few passes). If you look at the toal ammount of cycles on a spring, you are probably looking at an average of 30 seconds of runtime over the average of 200 passes (that includes warm up, and driving down the return road, etc... That is about 100 minutes of runtime over a season.
I'd say the average RPM would be 4000 RPM when you avergage in all the idling time. So, 4000 RPM is 1000 valve events per minute. Over 100 minutes is about 100,000 valve spring cycles....
Keep in mind that the enemy of springs is heat and fatigue. .800-.900 is a LOT of fatigue....
To run lift like that is going to require a spring like this one.
PSI # 1248 Triple 1.660"- od 1.195"-id .870"-middle .630"-inner 375 lbs - closed@2.100" 1045 lbs open @1.200" 744lb/inch spring rate .900" - max lift 1.130"- coil bind
First off, you aren't going to run that witha hyd. roller. Secondly, to run it with a solid roller again is going to require COSTLY valvetrain components. Thrid, you might as well have quick releases on your valve covers as every time you drive your car you are going to have to pull the valve covers and check the springs to check for weak springs. And, if you want to keep them alive, after you are done, then you'll need to loosen the rockers if the car is going to sit up for any period of time....
The long and the short of it is you can do what you want, but it isn't feasible or what I'd consider to be cost effective. If someone is dumb enough to do it, then there is a builder smart enough to accept your money to do whatever it is you tell them you want to do.
Many of the lobes folks are running are not what I'd even run in a 100% street car to begin with. I'd look more in the marine lobes which are designed to run for extended periods and be very spring friendly. But, folk on here feel it is an acpetable tradeoff to use what I would consider somewhat un-friendly cams to get those few extra HP.
06-06-2007, 11:05 AM
#79
Originally Posted by J-Rod
Look to anyone who honestly believes that .800-.900 lift cams are going to become commonplace anytime soon, you my friend are SADLY mistaken. I think this worldview comes from having been around only the LSx based motors, and having cut your teeth on the technology explosion that has been inherient in this marketplace.
There are plenty of .800 and .900 lift lobes in the cam catalogs right now. Its not like someone just woke up and said "Hey the LSx is here, time to finally make a big cam." Understand this, to actuate a valvespring like that for any period of time in the space constraints we have to work with is going to really take a heck of a spring, and a heck of a valve train.
The bottom line is that if you are stupid enough, you can drive anything on the street for X period of time until it blows sky high. To give an example, we had a motor out of a B/SM motor car in our shop that my buddy decided to run in his car. It was a 353" SBC with Buick heads, sheetmetal intake, blah blah, blah... The cam tunnel had been opened up to accept a BBC sized cam core as the lobes on the cam were too big to clear the stock SBC cam tunnel. The cam worked out to be around .850 lift for that style block the only thing else we could do was to change the ramp rate slightly, and move the valve events slightly. You couldn't get any more lift on that cam.
So, was it at all streetable. NO, not even close. It also required constant care and feeding of the valvetrain components.
Lets do some simple math. Lets say you want to drive 20K miles on a motor in your 100% "streetcar".Im going to say the average RPM over that time is 2500 RPM (that is averaging in street driving , high rpm blasts, idling, etc...). So, that means that each valve actuates 625 times per minute on average. Thats ~37500 times per hour. 20K miles is roughly about 500 hours on the motor. So, that is approximately 18,750,000 cycles on the valvespring.
In a cam as big as your are talking about you will need a fairly robust spring, and its fatigue life won't be all that great. Not nearly enough to make anywhere close to that many cycles. Its not uncommon to see a spring stat to loose pressure very quickly after being put into service in such an extreme application.
Lets say you run a set of springs for an entire season ona big cam (if they even make it that long) , and you make 200 or so passes (quite a few passes). If you look at the toal ammount of cycles on a spring, you are probably looking at an average of 30 seconds of runtime over the average of 200 passes (that includes warm up, and driving down the return road, etc... That is about 100 minutes of runtime over a season.
I'd say the average RPM would be 4000 RPM when you avergage in all the idling time. So, 4000 RPM is 1000 valve events per minute. Over 100 minutes is about 100,000 valve spring cycles....
Keep in mind that the enemy of springs is heat and fatigue. .800-.900 is a LOT of fatigue....
To run lift like that is going to require a spring like this one.
PSI # 1248 Triple 1.660"- od 1.195"-id .870"-middle .630"-inner 375 lbs - closed@2.100" 1045 lbs open @1.200" 744lb/inch spring rate .900" - max lift 1.130"- coil bind
First off, you aren't going to run that witha hyd. roller. Secondly, to run it with a solid roller again is going to require COSTLY valvetrain components. Thrid, you might as well have quick releases on your valve covers as every time you drive your car you are going to have to pull the valve covers and check the springs to check for weak springs. And, if you want to keep them alive, after you are done, then you'll need to loosen the rockers if the car is going to sit up for any period of time....
The long and the short of it is you can do what you want, but it isn't feasible or what I'd consider to be cost effective. If someone is dumb enough to do it, then there is a builder smart enough to accept your money to do whatever it is you tell them you want to do.
Many of the lobes folks are running are not what I'd even run in a 100% street car to begin with. I'd look more in the marine lobes which are designed to run for extended periods and be very spring friendly. But, folk on here feel it is an acpetable tradeoff to use what I would consider somewhat un-friendly cams to get those few extra HP.
There are plenty of .800 and .900 lift lobes in the cam catalogs right now. Its not like someone just woke up and said "Hey the LSx is here, time to finally make a big cam." Understand this, to actuate a valvespring like that for any period of time in the space constraints we have to work with is going to really take a heck of a spring, and a heck of a valve train.
The bottom line is that if you are stupid enough, you can drive anything on the street for X period of time until it blows sky high. To give an example, we had a motor out of a B/SM motor car in our shop that my buddy decided to run in his car. It was a 353" SBC with Buick heads, sheetmetal intake, blah blah, blah... The cam tunnel had been opened up to accept a BBC sized cam core as the lobes on the cam were too big to clear the stock SBC cam tunnel. The cam worked out to be around .850 lift for that style block the only thing else we could do was to change the ramp rate slightly, and move the valve events slightly. You couldn't get any more lift on that cam.
So, was it at all streetable. NO, not even close. It also required constant care and feeding of the valvetrain components.
Lets do some simple math. Lets say you want to drive 20K miles on a motor in your 100% "streetcar".Im going to say the average RPM over that time is 2500 RPM (that is averaging in street driving , high rpm blasts, idling, etc...). So, that means that each valve actuates 625 times per minute on average. Thats ~37500 times per hour. 20K miles is roughly about 500 hours on the motor. So, that is approximately 18,750,000 cycles on the valvespring.
In a cam as big as your are talking about you will need a fairly robust spring, and its fatigue life won't be all that great. Not nearly enough to make anywhere close to that many cycles. Its not uncommon to see a spring stat to loose pressure very quickly after being put into service in such an extreme application.
Lets say you run a set of springs for an entire season ona big cam (if they even make it that long) , and you make 200 or so passes (quite a few passes). If you look at the toal ammount of cycles on a spring, you are probably looking at an average of 30 seconds of runtime over the average of 200 passes (that includes warm up, and driving down the return road, etc... That is about 100 minutes of runtime over a season.
I'd say the average RPM would be 4000 RPM when you avergage in all the idling time. So, 4000 RPM is 1000 valve events per minute. Over 100 minutes is about 100,000 valve spring cycles....
Keep in mind that the enemy of springs is heat and fatigue. .800-.900 is a LOT of fatigue....
To run lift like that is going to require a spring like this one.
PSI # 1248 Triple 1.660"- od 1.195"-id .870"-middle .630"-inner 375 lbs - closed@2.100" 1045 lbs open @1.200" 744lb/inch spring rate .900" - max lift 1.130"- coil bind
First off, you aren't going to run that witha hyd. roller. Secondly, to run it with a solid roller again is going to require COSTLY valvetrain components. Thrid, you might as well have quick releases on your valve covers as every time you drive your car you are going to have to pull the valve covers and check the springs to check for weak springs. And, if you want to keep them alive, after you are done, then you'll need to loosen the rockers if the car is going to sit up for any period of time....
The long and the short of it is you can do what you want, but it isn't feasible or what I'd consider to be cost effective. If someone is dumb enough to do it, then there is a builder smart enough to accept your money to do whatever it is you tell them you want to do.
Many of the lobes folks are running are not what I'd even run in a 100% street car to begin with. I'd look more in the marine lobes which are designed to run for extended periods and be very spring friendly. But, folk on here feel it is an acpetable tradeoff to use what I would consider somewhat un-friendly cams to get those few extra HP.
Great Post.... You might want to consider singling this post out and making it a sticky under the title 800-900 lift
06-06-2007, 11:22 AM
#80
Originally Posted by austin21
before mr. *** clown comes back with all of his nonsense and bans you for not knowing this i believe it is .585 on a 116 lsa but just to make sure i would ask someone else or just do a search you should be able to find it somewhere...and imo i think pat needs some cranberry juice
Stock 98-00 trans am cam
Duration@.050 198.86 intake 209.25 exhaust
Lift .498 intake .497 exhausts
LSA 119.45
Stock 01-02 trans am cam
Duration@.050 196.37 intake 208.72 exhaust
Lift .464 intake .479 exhausts
LSA 115.92
Maybe you should have searched yourself.
