Howard 98215s were recommended and I like the price so I'll probably go with those and some valve seals. Maybe 98213?

So tfs or isky guideplates is all I need to figure out

 

^^^^^^. But since you have chosen a path most would not I can offer some suggestions that may help in preventing engine damage

If you read post #2 the author said he had issues with PR to guide plate contact causing wear so you really need to pay attention to the geometry as you are pushing the limits in terms of RR to retainer contact or PR alignment causing wear on either the guide plate or PR (likely guide plate). You may wind up with metal flake oil

So using the Howard spring and 1:7 RR mock up one cyl and rotate engine by hand and carefully look for any contact and if the PR is "rubbing" the base of the PR slot in guide plate. Remember these are "guide" plates not metal to metal pressure points. Also carefully look at the damper spring to see if it clips the valve stem seal with that valve fully opened.

My $.02 is a two piece guide plate like the ISKYS will provide more individual alignment of the PR per valve not only L-R but some front/back (although you still may need to machine the slot deeper for PR)

Now about the coil bind...the Howard spring specs are for a installed height of 1.800". Your stock heads allow anywhere between 1.710-1.750 (some heads are different so you need to get a valve spring mic tool and measure WTF yours are). This means the spring will be installed "short" so open & seat pressure will be higher than what the advertised specs are. This in itself may not be a issue with a stock cam lift but is certainly a factor in doing the "math". Also the springs have a damper in them. with the shorter installed height and 1:7 RR the damper "may" now contact the valve stem seal (read post 2 again). If so you could pull the damper from the spring but its purpose is to manage harmonics at certain RPM

So what I am offering, based on your decisions, is you really need to pay attention to your valve train geometry, what your installed height really is, PR alignment, RR to retainer contact. Just because somebody else did it, their motor (heads) will be slightly different than yours (both stock) so you need to be diligent in measuring your set up

Things like +.050 retainers will help increase spring height if that is necessary for your set up to work

IDK what the HP difference would be between (everything else being the same) 1:6 vs 1:7 RR. 5 HP at the crank??. Nothing you would notice other than a dyno pull (if there is much difference at all vs normal variance between any 2 dyno pulls)

On the 7/16 Scorpians, and any other brand RR, you would need to trim the stock VC baffles so do that before you start the motor

IMHO for more "plug & play" install and longevity running a 1:6 RR with guide plates will be a better choice in the long run. This is likely not the last mod on the motor and if you do ever decide to go cam or power adder you are already set on the RR dept...but we have already noted that and as you said its your car & your $

good luck

 

I went through 2 sets of Howards 98215 springs in 26k miles. On a stock cam lobes you should be fine with those springs for a long time with 1.6:1 rockers. With 1.7:1 rockers the valve speed rates increase too (you're adding 0.050" lift and no duration). You also have to remember the ratio increases load on the lifter and cam. If you set up the Howard's springs to stock height on the LT1, you SHOULD be at 1.75" installed. That's a seat pressure of 141lbs, that translates to 241lbs on the lifter. It may not be an issue, but that's approaching high spring pressures. But that's close to the same spring pressure that I was running on my set up; your valve rates are almost as fast as mine with those 1.7:1 rockers.

There are many reasons guys keep telling you not to run the 1.7:1 rockers. Those are stock ratios on the LSx (and the cams are ground for them too), and have you seen the trunion failure rate of the LSx? Pretty crazy. And those are on rocker arms that have some trick geometry going on (1.54:1 on the seat, 1.69:1 open), meaning higher seat pressure doesn't hurt (or help for that matter) as much against the lifters and cam.

 

Good info. I'm going to add to this.

Harland Sharp SA1002 (good luck finding any I ordered mine direct from Harland Sharp through a Machine shop in Minnesota), fit under the stock valve cover without issue; S1002 are NSA versions of the SA1002 and are very common. I'm not sure how the guide plates will effect the clearance of the Rockers to the Valve covers though. I have taken my SA1002 to 6800 many times. My only issue has been broken spring dampers (12 out of 32) and one of those led to a broken valve spring.

Coil bind will not be an issue with a stock cam on 1.7:1 RR even at an installed height of 1.710" His max lift at the valve will be just under .515". That should leave him with .095" coil bind clearance. But, if he's getting an installed height like I am (1.710), watch out. That's 189 on the seat and 410 open pressures. That's high for big cam guys. And he will be replacing springs every 10K miles. No matter what brand he runs.

 

I plan to read all of that tonight but the two key things I wanted to say is that the 98215 and 98213 are drop in springs using all the factory parts, so they install at stock height. The 98213 are slightly weaker then the 215s so they may be a better option to keep pressure down on lifters?

Also I have composit valve covers, the same as lt4 engines so I may luck out and clear rockers?

Definitely thanks for revisiting that ******.

 

Btw, Lloyd Elliot had said the 98215s are drop in. You remove the damper spring to clear the valve seal. The 98213s are just a slight weaker version of that.

I read an old post where ed Wright did some dyno time on 1.7 vs 1.6 and noted 3hp, to small of a variance to care. Later he states his car he tested it on was a stock exhaust manifold car. With long tubes lt1 xjs noted a 10hp gain, with around a tenth to a tenth and a half off et. So I figure if I'm spending the money, and not sure what the future really holds, why not just go with the 1.7 and see.

 

OP

Ed Wright knows his stuff and like I said about "maybe" 5 hp gain he dyno 3...3 or 5 is nothing and given the other issues you WILL have running 1:7...most of us are struggling on the "why" let alone it just is not worth it. IDK WTF xjs is and what testing he did back to back between 1:6 & 1:7 RR. Running different times on another day at the track is meaningless

your composite VC will be fine clearing the RR

The Crane Gold "narrow body" and the Harland Sharp 3/8" RR clear stock VC...I don't believe 7/16" size does though. In any event that is not a issue for you

 

5hp and all you have to do is swap springs 3 or 4 times as often as usual????!! (or every 3rd oil change LMFAO) Sounds like a reasonable compromise!

 

Ive been PM'ing a lot of people about this. Lt1 xjs is a member on here. Not to put words in his mouth or throw him under the bus but he claims the reason Ed Wright only saw 3hp was because of the stock manifolds. Which in my own words....If you put a lt4 hotcam in a car with stock manifolds you will get X horsepower, If you put a lt4 hotcam in a car with long tube headers you will get X horsepower (generally a higher number). So my understanding is that the engine can get more air In/out/through the engine with the long tube headers, and there for can take advantage of the higher lift the 1.7's are offering. If anyone wants to argue that logic, feel free. I just want to repeat that Ed wrights test car had stock manifolds, not long tubes. 10Hp is a tenth as we know, that might not be the most significant number to you guys but it says something to me when im already spending the money for rockers. He had the track times to back it up and said the runs were made in similar weather, guy isnt out to prove anything either so I doubt he would lie haha.

Also some of these guys had zero problems. After all we are talking about an extra .030 of lift, not a HUGE number. The 1.7 rocker trunion failure on Ls1 engines are unknown to me, I think that depends on the part(s), since lt1 guys have had 1.6 rocker trunion failures..correct?

Heres where I stand, the guys who run the 1.7's on a lt1 are happy with them. Lt1 xjs told me "I've ran them about 6 years with the stock cam." Thats a direct quote. Now if he has to change the springs every 3000 miles he left that part out haha. Im just going with what Im told, sorry if I sound defensive just trying to get all the info out there that I can and as far as I can see its not the worst idea in the world to run 1.7's.

btw, if you had the choice to run at the track and put up a 12.75 vs a 12.85 which would you rather do? Im sure ill get alot of "12.85's with a reliable engine" but these guys running 1.7's havent had problems on a stock cam.

 

OP

I am sure you will find people running 1:7 who feel they have no issues. F-body said he did and then had issues. The other guy said he had his cam ground to accommodate the 1:7 so yeah people have done it. Mr xjs has not posted on this thread so IDK but your PM with him says he is cool with them

Your understanding of a dyno Ed did vs someone else doing long tube headers with them also and claiming x hp increase as a result on different drag day results. I would argue his HP increase was 95% due to the headers, not 1:7's over 1:6's

You have asked for opinions yet already made up your mind. The majority of people who have modified a LT1 chose 1:6 period but you are looking for any scrap of info that supports your decision to use 1:7. Go for it, good luck

 

I still think that the 1.7s with a stock cam are really a good mod. Yes I had to take some off the guideplate slots. Others have had to do the same thing. My stock length pushrods are the correct length. I may have gotten lucky in that area. But the one thing that I have to emphasize is that I have no wiggle room. If my pushrods were just a little too long I'd have been SOL, because if I move the rocker down on the stud any it hits the hex portion. Maybe the isky guideplates are a little thinner and would have been a better choice, maybe because of the variances in stock heads my bosses are a little taller, who knows. One thing I can say, If you do go this route, triple check everything!

My issues now are strictly because I am no longer on the stock cam.
seriously thinking of going with 1.6s now.

 

I was looking for opinions on what springs to run, but yes I had my mind made up about wanting to go with 1.7s, pretty sure I mentioned that in the first post. If it came off as me wanting opinions on 1.6 vs 1.7 I didn't mean that. I was looking for parts opinions, basically what I need to make the 1.7s work, then a lot people said to use 1.6 because of that whole public forum freedom of speech thing.

I can't really believe you'd argue my metaphor, but I did welcome it. Maybe I'm misreading what you said, but if you think someone only gained 7 hp on a long tube install that's a little nuts.

Also it cold be a fluke on xjs's dyno. He had long tubes and 1.6s, dynod 299. He switched to 1.7s and went back and hit 309. Track data as well he went from 12.9x to 12.8x. Perhaps the dyno lied, perhaps the weather conditions and track prep had something to do with it. He saw a gain, definitely not a loss and has been running fine for 6 years.

Also fbody Brian didn't have issues with the stock cam, and the person who had a cam ground for 1.7s seems to be doing fine.

Maybe I do look for that little ray of sunshine, That's one thing I've never been told haha.

How about I be your guinea pig? When my engine has catastrophic failure due to 1.7s, or I'm changing springs out next oil change, you can say "I told you to run 1.6s".

 

It's not that it's not possible, it is. But 1.6 RR makes life a lot easier. With 1.7 RR, everything has to be spot on.

 

Yup I run the Scorpions with AFR guideplates but I will say I only got the 1.7's to beef up my Hot Cam when I had it.. I was too cheap to buy new rockers for my new cam so I got the cam built around the rockers.. It was much cheaper that way lol..

 

Well now, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I see a lot of info twisted and incorrect. I have run the 1.7's for several years and have had no issues. I'm still running the original 26918 beehives I put on 12 or 13 years ago when I installed 1.6"s. Yes they need replaced and I have a new set. I documented the 10 rwhp gain and shared it for those who were interested. For me it was a great mod for the stock cam. By the way, I have a short tube header that I made as there is no room for a long tube.
Now as far as I know the stock hardware sets the spring on the stock aluminum head at 1.780" not 1.710-".1.750" The recommended Howards 98215 spring is on a lot of LT1 heads. The 1.800" set up is a reference point to show the capability of the spring and has 120# seat pressure at that height. Setting them at 1.780" gives it 135# on the seat according to LE. On the stock cam those springs should outlast the motor.The Isky guide plates may work but I have no experience with them. The Trickflow 23*guide plate is recommended by them and many have been used on the LT1. However, using them with the 1.7 rocker requires some clearance, making the groove deeper which isn't that big of a deal.

 

I can tell you right now, my Howard's 98215s set up on stock (unmachined) spring bases and retainers/locks came in at 1.725". Just because stock says 1.780" doesn't mean that's where they are at. Commonly they measure 1.74-1.75" and occasionally they come in much lower, like mine at 1.725. That's with the Howard's springs and stock everything else set up by LE.

Throw in those spring pressures with the valve speed and added pressure on the lifters and seeing it last only 10k miles (as is my experience at those spring pressures and valve speeds) and you see the concern. This is why I said to measure and make sure they are not that low on installed height. Because some do come in that low, and can cause some long term issues. Not that his will.

The beehives have different harmonics and allow lower spring pressures with the same amount of control as standard springs. You're also not likely to be at one of those low install heights.

Again, not saying it doesn't work. But everything has to be perfect. Those Howard's springs have a high spring rate (430lb/in) according to Howard's catalog, that makes it even more imperitive that the install height is just right and closer to the higher side (1.780). If he sets those up at 1.750" he'll have a seat pressure of 152lbs, open pressure will be 372lbs. With 1.7:1 RR that puts 633lbs of force on the lifter! Things to consider.

I think the beehives would be a better option with the 1.7 RR, like you ran. Its a proven combo.

 

I have to disagree with your post, There may be a + or - .015" variance but the normal set up is 1.780" on the aluminum lt1/lt4 heads. You said your heads have the stock hardware when in fact they don't. In your own thread from a couple days ago you say your spring cup is very thick, thus making your installed height 1.725". The Howards 98215 is rated for .640" lift when set up @ 1.800". The 1.725" cuts the max lift down to .565. With your .565" lift cam it's no wonder the springs don't last in your application. They should work well set up correctly with the 1.7's and the stock cam.

 

Thanks for chiming in xjs. Didn't know you were running custom shorties but it makes sense. Apologize if if I skewed anything! Was trying my best not to put words in your mouth lol.

I'm really looking at the 98213s now. Not because they are cheaper but because they have just a little less pressure.

Also curious if the afr guideplates needed any grinding to work with the 1.7s? Or if your set up is different and you didn't run into that issue?

 

That very thick locator is .100". Which is .065 more than stock (so I stand corrected on my previous comment, although see my edit below), that puts my stock spec at 1.79" with the taller spring retainers that were also installed (also mentioned in the other thread). Go measure yours. ACTUAL installed height of stock LT1 valve springs is NOT 1.780". That may be spec. But it's not actual. Actual is commonly 1.74-1.75 and some as low as 1.71. This isn't ignorance or some fluke. This is well documented all over the internet forums and by LT1 builders like LE.

What you're basically saying is NOT to check the installed height because you're right. Sounds kind of ridiculous.

Edit: I happen to have all my stock heads, valves, spring retainers, locators, springs, locks, etc. I just set them back up. I measured actual at 1.755". The valves on my LE2 heads are +.050" which is where I got the extra height on my installed heads with stock everything; correct for that and those measure in at 1.740" actual (the spring retainers on the Howard's springs I had installed were stock spec, and those are taller than the Lunati retainers in the Lunati kit). The stock spring locators are very thin stamped steel. The damper on the Howard's springs will damage them, so I can see why removal is necessary (but arguably not recommended).

My Howard's Springs were set up correctly by Lloyd Elliot. I do agree that if set up correctly those springs should work for a while for him. But they have to be set up correctly and what's "correctly" is the question and what's being deliberated. The margin or error for the 1.7 RR is minuscule with those springs. I will say that I'm revving to 6800 vs stock of 5850, that plays a big factor in spring life for sure. But when you compare valve spring speed rates of valve lift vs duration, the stock duration plus .515 lift is very close to my duration and additional lift. That plays a factor too. With 1.7 he can run less spring pressure and have the same control over the lifters and pushrods, but not the valve. Like I stated earlier, the beehives may be a better option for him. They have lower spring rates and better valve train control with less seat pressure and they don't have dampers (those effect harmonics and ultimately service life on standard springs that come with them). Combine all that with the 1.7 RR and you should get the results you got. Isn't that what the OP is looking for?

 

"a lot" of people, including me, were expressing their views on using 1:6 vs the 1:7

you have chosen 1:7 which is not the view most would chose. But like you said its your car & $ so what I and others are saying, including the ones who have done it, is to be very diligent (not saying you would not be) in setting up spring height, PR length, RR geometry

xjs has the 1:7/scorpion set up and feels it works very well for him which is good. His heads, yours, f-bodys and hrcslam should all be the same (stock) but we all know better that there are variances in stock heads affecting installed height as hrcslam has documented in his case.

You said Ed Wright noted a 3 hp gain in one car doing a 1:6 the a 1:7 dyno. I would take that 411 to the bank. If someone else said they saw 10 hp gain, well I would take his 10 and Eds 3 and make an average of 6 potential HP increase at best.....but YMMV :-)

Given F-body and xjs had to do some relief on his guide plates, not really a big deal, this emphasizes the need to be very careful in making sure all your geometry is spot on plus with whatever spring you go with at whatever installed height "your" heads provide with your spring choice does not wind up with a spring rate that results in a higher seat & open pressure that does in the end prematurely wear the valve train parts associated (lifters, RR, springs)

and all of this for maybe 3-10 hp gain...lets say 6hp

Nothing wrong with wanting to get every HP so go for it but just be diligent in your install and use a valve spring height tool as well as a PR length check tool and on guide plates make sure the alignment of RR tip L-R is dead nuts centered so you don't "side load" that valve stem. This is where a adjustable guide plate shines as many using guide plates on LT1 heads have problems getting the RR to line up dead nuts center L-R on both valves of any cyl with a single piece guide plate. Again all part of setting up the valve train which is different on each car when it gets to the fine points of geometry using aftermarket parts

Bee Hive springs may work better as they are smaller top (retainer) in size vs a standard spring. This may give more retainer to RR clearance. Maybe going with 915 vs 918 since they will install lower than 1.800 on stock heads so the seat & open pressure will be more installed shorter and the 915's may be the better choice under those circumstances.

Good luck with the swap