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

piston to valve clearance in a stock lt1 bottom end

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 10, 2008 | 10:14 PM
  #1  
nickp's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
From: toledo, oh.
piston to valve clearance in a stock lt1 bottom end

my friend just had a set of trickflow heads with a comp 306 cam & 1.6 rocker arms installed on the stock bottom end. he has not tried to start it yet, so i figured i would ask for him, does anyone know if there will be enough piston to valve clearance? i told him he has to be careful not to over rev it. thanks.
Old Dec 10, 2008 | 10:15 PM
  #2  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
should be fine
Old Dec 11, 2008 | 09:34 AM
  #3  
seawolf06's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,034
From: Raleigh, NC
Did he get the heads decked at all? Aren't those 64cc chambers?

He is going to be down on power a good bit I'd think with those on there.
Old Dec 11, 2008 | 04:36 PM
  #4  
nickp's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
From: toledo, oh.
yes, they are 64cc's. no, he did not mill them, he was already concerned with clearance issues. i dont think he'll be down on power at all, considering the flow difference over the stock unported heads and the addition of a fairly large cam. would 10cc larger combustion chambers hurt that bad?
Old Dec 11, 2008 | 05:50 PM
  #5  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
yes, its going to kill it
Old Dec 11, 2008 | 06:01 PM
  #6  
96capricemgr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,800
Low compression, too big a cam are not a good combination, especially when it is a cam well known for it's tendency to surge.

The 306 likes to rev a little beyond what is prudent for a stock shortblock.

All things I would worry about before I worried about PTV clearance.

Only "stock shortblock" LT1 I have heard of needing the pistons cut for valve clearance, was not so stock, I suspect it was decked, the heads milled and the cam was pretty nasty.
Old Dec 11, 2008 | 06:24 PM
  #7  
nickp's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
From: toledo, oh.
okay, i'll let him know he would he'd been much faster with stock unported heads. as long as the valves clear, he'll still be happy. thanks, i'll let you know if it sucks that bad, i'm kinda curious myself.
Old Dec 12, 2008 | 09:38 AM
  #8  
seawolf06's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,034
From: Raleigh, NC
Originally Posted by nickp
okay, i'll let him know he would he'd been much faster with stock unported heads. as long as the valves clear, he'll still be happy. thanks, i'll let you know if it sucks that bad, i'm kinda curious myself.
Yeah, I want to know how it turns out.
Old Dec 12, 2008 | 11:23 AM
  #9  
87bandit's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 660
From: Palm Harbor, FL
that's not a very optimal combo, any flow#'s will be easily negated by +10cc on a 4.00" bore. compression will drop a healthy amount

but yes he will be fine
Old Dec 13, 2008 | 09:49 PM
  #10  
nickp's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
From: toledo, oh.
i rode in his car today. that setup may not be that great in an automatic car, but in a 6 speed with a 4.10 gear its pretty fast. it dont have as much bottom end as a expected, but it hauls *** from about 3000 and pulls very strong to 6500. we'll have to wait till spring untill the track opens to really see though but, i was not disappointed one bit.
Old Dec 13, 2008 | 11:01 PM
  #11  
mdacton's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,970
From: Goochland, Va.
"hauls ***" is great but numbers don't lie....
Guess we will see in the spring
Old Dec 13, 2008 | 11:17 PM
  #12  
bombebomb's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,855
From: Ohio
Originally Posted by nickp
i rode in his car today. that setup may not be that great in an automatic car, but in a 6 speed with a 4.10 gear its pretty fast. it dont have as much bottom end as a expected, but it hauls *** from about 3000 and pulls very strong to 6500. we'll have to wait till spring untill the track opens to really see though but, i was not disappointed one bit.
Yeah, definently need some #'s people said my stock z28 hauled ***. It barely hauled the mailbag.
Old Dec 14, 2008 | 12:03 AM
  #13  
nickp's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
From: toledo, oh.
Originally Posted by mdacton
"hauls ***" is great but numbers don't lie....
Guess we will see in the spring
i think thats the same thing i just said.
Old Dec 14, 2008 | 12:43 AM
  #14  
nickp's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
From: toledo, oh.
Originally Posted by bombebomb
Yeah, definently need some #'s people said my stock z28 hauled ***. It barely hauled the mailbag.
thats great. my car was stock when i bought it too, so i personaly know how fast they arent. thanks for the input though.

the original post was about valve clearance. i appreciate the info telling me it would be fine, thats exactly what i wanted to know. i dont remember asking, or really care what everyones thoughts about the application or outcome are.
Old Dec 14, 2008 | 09:28 AM
  #15  
96capricemgr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,800
I have seen guys who thought they had fast cars run 16s at the track. M6 can add to the illusion due to hard shifts.
Rode in an f-body with a 306ish cam and 4.10s and it felt violent, but on the stip my ZZ4 cam/stall only Caprice was side by side with him.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.