Not a Truck but Still a Problem
02-25-2021, 01:21 PM
#11
They are your heads and TSP only CNC'd them? I don't understand why you are mad at them.
Your heads look like you were running too rich. Those heads will drop the seats because too much fuel will hit the seat, cool off and drop.
I'm not sure about how you set the lifter preload. When mine were done the guy used a dial gauge and my preload was .59 which resulted in using shorty pushrods than stock. Too long will bind the lifter and might be part of the problem you're having.
Tim
Your heads look like you were running too rich. Those heads will drop the seats because too much fuel will hit the seat, cool off and drop.
I'm not sure about how you set the lifter preload. When mine were done the guy used a dial gauge and my preload was .59 which resulted in using shorty pushrods than stock. Too long will bind the lifter and might be part of the problem you're having.
Tim
02-25-2021, 02:59 PM
#12
TECH Fanatic
I feel ya on thier technical support. When I installed the 218/226 with 32% over fuel lob on my L86. They insisted I needed the comp cams lash cap for the fuel guide follower (I believe thats what it's called) for the HPFP. "Luckly" I only failed two HPFP and didn't have someting break and fall into to the engine.
I found a thread on the corvette forum about how you have to measure for the lash cap on the HPFP and TSP is wrong in thier measurements for the fuel lobe lash cap. I needed a LS7 lash cap even though I called atleast 3 times to confirm I had the right comp cams lash cap. 25,000 miles later the LS7 cap is still doing good.
I found a thread on the corvette forum about how you have to measure for the lash cap on the HPFP and TSP is wrong in thier measurements for the fuel lobe lash cap. I needed a LS7 lash cap even though I called atleast 3 times to confirm I had the right comp cams lash cap. 25,000 miles later the LS7 cap is still doing good.
02-25-2021, 09:06 PM
#14
They are your heads and TSP only CNC'd them? I don't understand why you are mad at them.
Your heads look like you were running too rich. Those heads will drop the seats because too much fuel will hit the seat, cool off and drop.
I'm not sure about how you set the lifter preload. When mine were done the guy used a dial gauge and my preload was .59 which resulted in using shorty pushrods than stock. Too long will bind the lifter and might be part of the problem you're having.
Tim
Your heads look like you were running too rich. Those heads will drop the seats because too much fuel will hit the seat, cool off and drop.
I'm not sure about how you set the lifter preload. When mine were done the guy used a dial gauge and my preload was .59 which resulted in using shorty pushrods than stock. Too long will bind the lifter and might be part of the problem you're having.
Tim
If TSP truly tests their products, shouldn't they have found the supposed factory defect through their testing? I tried to ask TSP what they do when they do their whole PRC package and I never got an answer. Why isn't any other vendor offering this disclaimer? It seems kind of like a conflict on interest to me, I know for a fact that it wasn't there when I bought my stuff and no one from TSP told me about it. They claim is a problem in stock applications, but I don't buy that, I think its because they use extremely aggressive cams so they can advertise being the fastest. It's ok, I'm just going to not buy there stuff anymore.
Last edited by jclark10; 02-25-2021 at 09:17 PM.
02-25-2021, 09:10 PM
#15
I feel ya on thier technical support. When I installed the 218/226 with 32% over fuel lob on my L86. They insisted I needed the comp cams lash cap for the fuel guide follower (I believe thats what it's called) for the HPFP. "Luckly" I only failed two HPFP and didn't have someting break and fall into to the engine.
I found a thread on the corvette forum about how you have to measure for the lash cap on the HPFP and TSP is wrong in thier measurements for the fuel lobe lash cap. I needed a LS7 lash cap even though I called atleast 3 times to confirm I had the right comp cams lash cap. 25,000 miles later the LS7 cap is still doing good.
I found a thread on the corvette forum about how you have to measure for the lash cap on the HPFP and TSP is wrong in thier measurements for the fuel lobe lash cap. I needed a LS7 lash cap even though I called atleast 3 times to confirm I had the right comp cams lash cap. 25,000 miles later the LS7 cap is still doing good.
02-26-2021, 07:20 AM
#16
TECH Fanatic
It is the same pump but their can be a different stroke I beleive it was in the same part number on the HPFP. The LS7 lash cap is .20 thousands thinner. I believe it gave me .02 of tolerance on my HPFP but it's been a few years since I worked out the numbers.
This is a good read for anybody doing a cam swap on a LT with a bigger fuel lobe. I posted on there how I did my measurement wrong the first time. I have the same screen name.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...learances.html
This is a good read for anybody doing a cam swap on a LT with a bigger fuel lobe. I posted on there how I did my measurement wrong the first time. I have the same screen name.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...learances.html
02-26-2021, 07:26 AM
#17
I know I can't blame anyone and can't be mad at anyone but myself, I am frustrated though. I was running 1.08 EQ ratio, the same as the LT1 535 Hot Cam GMPP crate motor that comes from GMPP with that tune. However I was running 100% E85, so if your fuel theory is correct, that it sounds highly plausible given the extra latent heat capacity of E85. However this was on a LT, they are direct injected, I don't believe liquid fuel hits the intake valve? I believe this is why DI is beneficial because your intake charge heat gets absorbed into evaporating the fuel, with port the heat goes into the intake valve into the coolant and your charge stays hot.
If TSP truly tests their products, shouldn't they have found the supposed factory defect through their testing? I tried to ask TSP what they do when they do their whole PRC package and I never got an answer. Why isn't any other vendor offering this disclaimer? It seems kind of like a conflict on interest to me, I know for a fact that it wasn't there when I bought my stuff and no one from TSP told me about it. They claim is a problem in stock applications, but I don't buy that, I think its because they use extremely aggressive cams so they can advertise being the fastest. It's ok, I'm just going to not buy there stuff anymore.
If TSP truly tests their products, shouldn't they have found the supposed factory defect through their testing? I tried to ask TSP what they do when they do their whole PRC package and I never got an answer. Why isn't any other vendor offering this disclaimer? It seems kind of like a conflict on interest to me, I know for a fact that it wasn't there when I bought my stuff and no one from TSP told me about it. They claim is a problem in stock applications, but I don't buy that, I think its because they use extremely aggressive cams so they can advertise being the fastest. It's ok, I'm just going to not buy there stuff anymore.
Tim
02-26-2021, 01:28 PM
#18
I understand your frustration but if they were not their heads, why would they go thru them and do anything more than what you asked them to do? I am far from an LS expert but looking at your heads I see a tune issue and via your description of the valve lash I see an install issue and you used 1.8 ratio rockers? That probably compounded things. 10 to 20K miles of getting beat on is not that bad. Respectfully, now you know what not to do. Rebuild the heads and get the cam geometry correct.
Tim
Tim
02-28-2021, 10:43 AM
#19
The soot in the heads and the plug tells me there there might be a tuning issue. Heads look like the tune is fat, plugs look a little lean or maybe you changed heat ranges.
Tim
Tim
