5.3 head work and cam

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

05-16-2010 | 02:02 PM

#21

Y@ BoY p@Ul

Thread Starter

Staging Lane

Joined: Jan 2010

Posts: 58

Likes: 0

From: Alabama

So more less wut yaw are sayin is run the pac 1218's rather than the ls6 springs? Not to many ppl around here where i live do this kinda stuff so thats why im having to ask yaw wuts best to use.

Reply Like

05-16-2010 | 07:11 PM

#22

budhayes3

PT's Slowest Truck

iTrader: (19)

Joined: Apr 2004

Posts: 17,863

Likes: 2

From: Hackensack, NJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y@ BoY p@Ul

So more less wut yaw are sayin is run the pac 1218's rather than the ls6 springs? Not to many ppl around here where i live do this kinda stuff so thats why im having to ask yaw wuts best to use.

Depends on which cam you choose...if going with the Comp 212/218, low or high lift, the LS6 springs will be fine, but for the TR220 that was recommended, I'd run the 1218's if it were me. You'd probably be fine with LS6 springs, but should definitely be fine with 1218's, which are comparable (read: same thing minus the Comp breakage problems) to the Comp 918's that Thunder Racing recommends with that cam.

Reply Like

05-17-2010 | 01:36 AM

#23

Z'06

On The Tree

Joined: Nov 2009

Posts: 146

Likes: 0

From: Houston, TX

Quote:

Originally Posted by budhayes3

I think you meant ramp rate...the TR cams need more seat pressure than the LS6 springs have...can't remember the open seat pressures, but the LS6 springs have a closed seat pressure of 90# as opposed to 130# for the PAC 1218's.

Doh! You are correct that that's what I meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by budhayes3

The PAC 1218's and Comp 918's actually have the same exact specs, except that the Comp's are known to break and the PAC's seem to have a great track record so far. It's my understanding that PAC used to make the springs for Comp, but Comp changed suppliers...probably getting a better deal on the junk their selling now.

Yep. Best to stick with the original source!

Reply Like