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

355 LE Dyno tune this Friday...Guess my numbers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 03:29 PM
  #241  
wrd1972's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,405
From: Kantuckee Yo'
Patriot golds will be installed at 1.775". 144# seat and 354# open. Max lift is .650".

Another interseting fact to consider on the PAC 1218's. My current install height again is 1.775". Max lift is rated at .600". I am exceeding MAX lift by ~.032" that with these springs now.

How does that factor in to the decision to try the 1218's again?

Last edited by wrd1972; Apr 3, 2008 at 03:39 PM.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 03:38 PM
  #242  
ulakovic22's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,872
From: Lantana, TX
What are the 1218's at 1.75?
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 03:52 PM
  #243  
wrd1972's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,405
From: Kantuckee Yo'
Originally Posted by ulakovic22
What are the 1218's at 1.75?
146# seat and 336# open. MAX lift exceeded.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 03:59 PM
  #244  
ulakovic22's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,872
From: Lantana, TX
Ok, looked up the springs and coil bind is 1.14 as advertised. If that's the case then why did the other guy say he changed his installed height to 1.75 and ran the car, but still with valve float? Has anyone actually taken the springs and put them in a vice to see when they reach solid state?

Last edited by ulakovic22; Apr 3, 2008 at 04:05 PM.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 04:07 PM
  #245  
wrd1972's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,405
From: Kantuckee Yo'
Originally Posted by ulakovic22
Ok, looked up the springs and coil bind is 1.14 as advertised. If that's the case then why did the other guy say he changed his installed height to 1.75 and ran the car, but still with valve float? Has anyone actually taken the springs and put them in a vice to see when they reach solid state?
I hear crickets.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 04:17 PM
  #246  
ulakovic22's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,872
From: Lantana, TX
Originally Posted by black96z28
Well I reinstalled mine from a 1.80 install height to the recommended 1.75 install height and I still have the same problems, there is an issue with the possibility of my pushrods being to long, but the geoemtry looks fine, so we shall see what happens with Bill's car and mine with this issue......I just hope its the springs.......
Based on advertised coil bind and the assumption that lift on this cam is .632 I don't see how this car would run with them installed at 1.75. With a generally accepted .060 clearance to coil bind that's .082 past and the spring should break. Even with a 1.78 installed that's still .052 past bind and shouldn't run either.

This is why I leave it to the professionals to figure this stuff out
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 04:47 PM
  #247  
89385formula's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,114
From: New York
Originally Posted by wrd1972
Again my feelings are that the Pac 1218's are on the thresh hold, they work with some and not others depending on components used and proper set up. The only mistake I made was having them at 1.775" install height which is the way they came from LE but at that the they had Comp 918's installed. The 918's busted in 20 miles do to springs defects. I then installed the PAC 1218's that LE provided and Voila the install height was 1.775" once again. I cant say for sure if I had float or not when they were rather new.

AINT NO WAY IN HELL I AM TRYING COMP 918'S AGAIN.

I am still deciding between the Patriot Golds and the extremes. I am leaning toward the Golds hoping they would be strong enough over the 1218's to do the job without producing un-needed pressure. I dont mind monitoring them or even replacing them every few years. I talked to Patriot and they said either would be fine and far supperoir to the beehives.

I also talked to several other well respected folk that suggested the same springs.

I am also leaning toward going to 1.5 ratio roller rockers to bring the lift down to the 570's to slow the valve train down and reduce the beating.
I suggested the 1518's because they have additional nitride processing for increased durability with high lift applications. They have the same specs as the 1218. The Patriot Extreme springs have more seat pressure, and open pressure by 25-30lbs if I remember correctly. The only thing the Patriot springs are superior in is price and spring pressure. My advice is still talk to Bret or Lloyd, they make this setup work daily. You may open a whole new can of worms with an even heavier valvetrain with the duals.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 04:53 PM
  #248  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
Originally Posted by git_sum
1.5 rocker arms are for pussies, keep the 1.6's in there.
damn, guess I'm a ***** then
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 06:06 PM
  #249  
marshall93z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,639
From: Mooresville, NC
Originally Posted by ulakovic22
My worry is that with switching to a conventional spring that the increased pressure will be offset by the increased weight you are adding to the valvetrain system.
Definitely food for thought!
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 06:12 PM
  #250  
wrd1972's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,405
From: Kantuckee Yo'
Originally Posted by marshall93z
Definitely food for thought!
Well we have tapped every angle to every valve related topic in this thread but this one, so here goes.

I cant see the weight of the spring being as much a concern as a moving object like the lifter, push rod, rocker and valve. The spring does not really reciprocate in the same manner as those components. I would even tend to think that springs factor little into the equation in terms of weight. The acceleration and decel forces seem to be to me much different. The whole inertia law seems different.

Maybe I am wrong.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 06:18 PM
  #251  
marshall93z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,639
From: Mooresville, NC
Just maybe.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 06:29 PM
  #252  
wrd1972's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,405
From: Kantuckee Yo'
Originally Posted by marshall93z
Just maybe.
Hey I tried.
So a spring and the lifter share the same laws of inertia? One is NOT less affected by these laws thn the other to some extent?
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 06:33 PM
  #253  
speed_demon24's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,245
From: Ocala, Florida
Why aren't you going with the xtremes over the golds?
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 06:50 PM
  #254  
wrd1972's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,405
From: Kantuckee Yo'
Originally Posted by speed_demon24
Why aren't you going with the xtremes over the golds?
The golds are a good bit stronger than the beehives. I want to avoid overdoing things any more than at all possible even if it costs another set. Things are overdone enough right now.

Again I can see the float in the Datamaster logs and I can check #1 cylinder's spring pressures and have the car back together in 20 minutes. If I have to check the 3-4 times a year so be it to ensure things hold up.

If the my beehives were simply just slightly under par for my combonation of components then the golds should provide the valve control I need. Thats the plan right now. The Comp 921 KIT I got for free, I might make $600.00. These spring swaps are costing me nothing but my time.
Old Apr 3, 2008 | 07:05 PM
  #255  
1redTA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 144
From: mobile al
re

damn speed demon If I knew your cam was going to be such a problem.... Any way it pulls to 6800 on my car.... NO tune, stock 24lb fuel system. The plugs look a little lean, but the car pulls hard. The motor has approx 400 miles as of yet I will keep a close look out on the behavior fo the motor now. Art

Last edited by 1redTA; Apr 3, 2008 at 07:06 PM. Reason: pulls hard



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 AM.