Checked out the heads today
#81
I would like to see it running again too. We only have 6 1/2 months until the track re-opens! Hopefully the snow holds off for a while longer.
Guess it's going to have a few cubes more displacement when it's back together.
Simply going with taller springs means accepting that the additional lift is good - not sure if that is the case?? The lift spec'd on the build sheet appears to be the same as stock LS7.
Guess it's going to have a few cubes more displacement when it's back together.
Simply going with taller springs means accepting that the additional lift is good - not sure if that is the case?? The lift spec'd on the build sheet appears to be the same as stock LS7.
#87
If there was any micro mushrooming I would say it has to be at the lock groove area as the valve tips seem to go in easy.
Something else interesting............I had a cam spec'd for these heads and it came back with the same actual lift numbers I ended up with and maybe 10* more on the durations. The heads that were supposed to be on the motor(large port, 2.20 intakes) don't see any more gain in flow from .600 to .650 lift so the 595/.600 probably would have been just right for them - and they would have flowed 30CFM more at the lower lift.
Something else interesting............I had a cam spec'd for these heads and it came back with the same actual lift numbers I ended up with and maybe 10* more on the durations. The heads that were supposed to be on the motor(large port, 2.20 intakes) don't see any more gain in flow from .600 to .650 lift so the 595/.600 probably would have been just right for them - and they would have flowed 30CFM more at the lower lift.
#89
I would think that a setup that achieves the best flow at the lowest lift would be preferable from a durability standpoint.
#90
Started a little valve spring discussion over on Tech. Sounds like I should bump up the pressures somewhat. https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...osted-lsx.html