LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

1.8 RR's on a stock LT1.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 08:09 PM
  #1  
94_firechicken's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
From: Hollywood, FL
1.8 RR's on a stock LT1.

I tried looking some things up but I couldn't find anything on the topic, only people who where trying 1.8 RRs with cams. I was wondering if the lift would clear with a full flowing exhaust and intake with a stock cam or if it would hi-five the piston. I would also like to know some problems I would have trying to implement 1.8 RRs (besides valve cover clearance, pushrods, plates, and springs). I don't plan on going internal and putting in a cam in my LT1 so I'm trying to find different alternatives.Any tips, or suggestions on making this work could be helpful. I have done my research on 1.6 RR and 1.7 RR and would just like to have all of my options layed out before me before I make my choice.
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 08:57 PM
  #2  
94_camm's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
From: Toms River,NJ
Well in my opinion the 1.8's are way over board for stock block/cam....dont even think ( i ) have heard have ppl having 1.8's..1.6's are perfect!
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 09:09 PM
  #3  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
bad option, don't do 1.7's either
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 09:25 PM
  #4  
94_firechicken's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
From: Hollywood, FL
Any reason why I shouldn't go with 1.7s?
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 09:29 PM
  #5  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
bad geometry, heavy
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 09:46 PM
  #6  
94_camm's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
From: Toms River,NJ
i say just go with the 1.6's and call it a day!
Old Feb 26, 2007 | 09:48 PM
  #7  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
Originally Posted by 94_camm
i say just go with the 1.6's and call it a day!
good call
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 04:52 AM
  #8  
94_firechicken's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
From: Hollywood, FL
Sorry if I'm not totally convinced by your argument. Can anyone else can tell me why I shouldn't go with 1.7 or 1.8 RR?
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 05:27 AM
  #9  
net_coma's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 62
From: Ft. Worth
I saw some pretty good reasons. What about your springs? I did not do the math but something to consider. If springs do need to be replaced then why not consider some 1.6 and a cam?

Maybe install the 1.8 on stock springs and cam and give some 2k mile feed back.
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 05:29 AM
  #10  
Injuneer's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 71,094
From: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
Stock LT1 heads stall above 0.500" gross lift. They may actually flow less at higher lifts.

http://www.malcams.com/legacy/misc/headflow.htm
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 07:34 AM
  #11  
sbs's Avatar
sbs
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,154
From: VA
Originally Posted by 94_firechicken
I tried looking some things up but I couldn't find anything on the topic, only people who where trying 1.8 RRs with cams.
There have been tons of people with 1.7rr on stock cams. Both of the ones I can recall with 1.8rr I think were aftermarket cams.


I was wondering if the lift would clear with a full flowing exhaust and intake with a stock cam or if it would hi-five the piston.
Even with 1.8 the lift/duration with the stock cam is nowhere near where you have to worry about p-v clearance.


I would also like to know some problems I would have trying to implement 1.8 RRs (besides valve cover clearance, pushrods, plates, and springs).
That pretty much covers it.
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 09:11 AM
  #12  
Stoopalini's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 703
From: Austin, TX
Originally Posted by mdacton
bad option, don't do 1.7's either
My 1.7s have been performing great since the install over a year ago. The dyno had me at 285rwhp SAE after the install as well (this was before my headers and tune).

I documented the 1.7 research and install here.

One problem I had was the pushrod bottoming out on the guideplate. I had to open the guideplate up more due to the added angle. One concern I would have on the 1.8s, is if the stock casting is wide enough to accomidate the angle of the pushrod.

Thomas.
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 09:43 AM
  #13  
BUBBA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 3,499
From: PORTLAND, OR, MULTNOMAH
Higher ratio rockers, while providing signifcantly more lift, serve to increase the duration very little---it's basically a poor man's cam. There is no doubt that increasing the lift and duration can provide rewarded increases in power, however, just like a cam, there is a point at which the gains are outweighed by the possible problems, and in some cases one may experience net losses.

If you are not convinced by others reported experience, then the only alternative is to go ahead and do it and let us kow how it works out. There are engines out there with up to 2.0 ratios (I think that ford's come out of the box with 1.6s and the LS are higher also) I would check with a cam guru and ask their opinion based on the profile of a cam that would match the numbers of the stock cam with the lift and duration of adding the 1.8s or 7s. JMHO
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 03:51 PM
  #14  
94_firechicken's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
From: Hollywood, FL
Originally Posted by BUBBA
Higher ratio rockers, while providing signifcantly more lift, serve to increase the duration very little---it's basically a poor man's cam. There is no doubt that increasing the lift and duration can provide rewarded increases in power, however, just like a cam, there is a point at which the gains are outweighed by the possible problems, and in some cases one may experience net losses.
if it's a duration problem couldn't I get a custom cam that keeps the same lift as the stock but gives me a longer duration?

Originally Posted by BUBBA
If you are not convinced by others reported experience, then the only alternative is to go ahead and do it and let us kow how it works out. There are engines out there with up to 2.0 ratios (I think that ford's come out of the box with 1.6s and the LS are higher also) I would check with a cam guru and ask their opinion based on the profile of a cam that would match the numbers of the stock cam with the lift and duration of adding the 1.8s or 7s. JMHO
I haven't seen anyone trying to put 1.8 RR's in a car with a stock cam, so there isn't others with reported experience. The reason I want bigger RR's is because I don't want to go internal with my motor. At this point I want to know if I'll have problems with the cylinder head hitting the valves.

Last edited by 94_firechicken; Feb 27, 2007 at 03:59 PM.
Old Feb 27, 2007 | 03:57 PM
  #15  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
if your going to get a custom grind cam then why even ask about a 1.8 ration rocker?

This is a bad choice in my opinion, for what its worth

I also think a 1.7 is a bad idea....to change the ratio you know where the extra weight goes right? I feel it is just a sloppy way of doing something, just get you some regular rockers and a cam....

If you just want to do it to prove it can be done go for it. If I was you I would do more searching and alot more reading, I have broken lots of stuff and wasted lots of money over the years because I was misinformed or under educated...so do your homework, I'm just trying to help you out



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 AM.