What's the biggest valve combo for 8V heads

[bakes]

I have done the 44m valve thing just wondering whats the biggest valve combo seen or done on our 8v heads?:D valve specs please pics don't hurt. let keep the Bull to a minimum and real!

[GLHNSLHT2]

even the 44mm valves get so close to the wall that the shrouding starts to come into play. I've heard of some actually getting more flow out of a +1mm setup than a big valve head.

[bakes]

even the 44mm valves get so close to the wall that the shrouding starts to come into play. I've heard of some actually getting more flow out of a +1mm setup than a big valve head.

was that with deshouding ? all mods welcome to push the limits:thumb:

[tvanlant]

You can't go much larger than the 44 & 36.8 because the seats are about to touch each other (and sometimes do interlock depending on the seats being used).

[bakes]

Ok but what about going from a 8mm to a 6mm stem and longer length ?

[BadAssPerformance]

You can't go much larger than the 44 & 36.8 because the seats are about to touch each other (and sometimes do interlock depending on the seats being used).

Yep, thats the IMSA 'big valve' sizes and they work well :thumb:

Larger? IIR, Forward Motion E3 head has interlocking seats and 44mm/38mm valves.

[Warren Stramer]

I have done the 44m valve thing just wondering whats the biggest valve combo seen or done on our 8v heads?:D valve specs please pics don't hurt. let keep the Bull to a minimum and real!

Ok no bull then, Over the winter I spent alot of time on the flow bench developing my first "big valve" head. My benchmark head i've been comparing it to is my +1mm G head I ran 10.6s with. I've done back to back flow tests mainly on intake side and I can say the +1mm head has better low lift cfm up to about .475 valve opening than the 44mm intake.
After .475 lift the big valve head takes off and flows considerably more up too .700 lift which is the most lift I tested at.

My big valve 44mm intake flows the same at .600 lift with or without the valve installed in the guide/port. At high lifts the port becomes the controlling factor as if the valve is not in the picture.

Up to .433 lift the valve/ seat area is controlling flow, and is the curtain area-to-valve area convergence point with the throat area I have.

The +1mm head with a 1.637 diam. intake has a 1.473 throat, and a cutain area-to-valve area convergence at .409 lift.

So if you are using any of the currently available cams, and a +1mm valve you would probably have the most flow area under the curve with the +1mm intake.

Big valve heads can I think be the ultimate setup IF some other tricks are done along with the big valves. I hope to find out.

[BadAssPerformance]

Very interesting Warren :) So, how far does a valve actually open with an S60 cam on hydraulic lifters?

[Warren Stramer]

Very interesting Warren :) So, how far does a valve actually open with an S60 cam on hydraulic lifters?

That is a good question, I bet it is not near .499
I guess my point is this........If you run a cam that only lifts the valve to say .430 lift (like the factory rollers) then there is NO use worrying about cyl. head flow numbers beyond that lift cause the port NEVER sees it!

[BadAssPerformance]

That is a good question, I bet it is not near .499
I guess my point is this........If you run a cam that only lifts the valve to say .430 lift (like the factory rollers) then there is NO use worrying about cyl. head flow numbers beyond that lift cause the port NEVER sees it!

Hmm.. I might have to measure one ;)

And that is a very good point :thumb: I wish a flowbench could measure at 20psi tho ;)

[Warren Stramer]

Hmm.. I might have to measure one ;)

And that is a very good point :thumb: I wish a flowbench could measure at 20psi tho ;)

I don't see how it can be measured, what the lift is in a running engine depends on a lot of variables........oil psi,oil temp,rpm,lifter type,lifter wear,lifter/bore clearance, spring pressure, ect. How do you propose to measure actual running valve lift with a hydralic?

[BadAssPerformance]

LOL, I was thinking non-running... :o running.. would need a really really fast dial indicator? ;)

[Warren Stramer]

Ya that would be a trick!, way back when I was messin with a FM 505 cam I checked the differance in net valve opening between a filled hyd. lifter and a adjustable lifter set at zero lash.
The retainer to stem seal clearance was only about .040 with either lifter, in a running engine the hydralic collapses some unkown amount from the pressure of the spring. they give up some lift, and the stiffer the spring, the more they yield.

[BadAssPerformance]

Hmmm, even at 80psi oil pressure, if they could be gauranteed to be pressurized.

[Warren Stramer]

Like I said JT, I dont know for sure too many variables. I've always wondered.................ok I just had a idea, an obvious way to measure the actual running lift, the valve stem should leave a wear mark above the guide, I will measure and get back.

[BadAssPerformance]

Thats a great idea! :thumb:

[boost geek]

My big valve 44mm intake flows the same at .600 lift with or without the valve installed in the guide/port. At high lifts the port becomes the controlling factor as if the valve is not in the picture.

Big valve heads can I think be the ultimate setup IF some other tricks are done along with the big valves. I hope to find out.

Now, if you were to use a 655 head with big valves and an intake to match or excede the head...

[Warren Stramer]

My hunch was correct, Just measured actual valve travel from obvious wear pattern....... .475 lift S3 was lifting the valves a grand total of .428 inches with hydralic lifters!

Here is my solution........................

[BadAssPerformance]

Doh!

Nice solution! :clap:

[turbovanman²]

Ok no bull then, Over the winter I spent alot of time on the flow bench developing my first "big valve" head. My benchmark head i've been comparing it to is my +1mm G head I ran 10.6s with. I've done back to back flow tests mainly on intake side and I can say the +1mm head has better low lift cfm up to about .475 valve opening than the 44mm intake.
After .475 lift the big valve head takes off and flows considerably more up too .700 lift which is the most lift I tested at.

My big valve 44mm intake flows the same at .600 lift with or without the valve installed in the guide/port. At high lifts the port becomes the controlling factor as if the valve is not in the picture.

Up to .433 lift the valve/ seat area is controlling flow, and is the curtain area-to-valve area convergence point with the throat area I have.

The +1mm head with a 1.637 diam. intake has a 1.473 throat, and a cutain area-to-valve area convergence at .409 lift.

So if you are using any of the currently available cams, and a +1mm valve you would probably have the most flow are under the curve with the +1mm intake.

Big valve heads can I think be the ultimate setup IF some other tricks are done along with the big valves. I hope to find out.

No disrespect but a flow bench doesn't really measure under boost so are you sure there is no power to be had switching to a larger valve with matching port even though on a flow bench, its doesn't show it?

[Warren Stramer]

No disrespect but a flow bench doesn't really measure under boost so are you sure there is no power to be had switching to a larger valve with matching port even though on a flow bench, its doesn't show it?

No disrespect at all Simon, and point taken. I dont know the answer to big valve flow under boost, I'm just saying what I see on the bench is a "big valve" flows better than a +1mm only at higher lifts, and it is because of the shrouding problem that has been mentioned earlier.
So the obvious solution would be to open the valve to where the port flows the best.

[BadAssPerformance]

Sounds like dyno or track time is needed to prove that for sure then :nod: but as Warren pointed out, if a big cam cannot work properly, then there are other things to work on too.

[Warren Stramer]

Sounds like dyno or track time is needed to prove that for sure then :nod: but as Warren pointed out, if a big cam cannot work properly, then there are other things to work on too.

Ok, I can't keep a secret, I've been working on a 8000RPM 8valve head package. Hope to be track testing this spring. My goal is to have a nine sec. Laser XE.
Got a ton of work to do yet but making progress, waiting for my custom cam to be ground.
I will post pics when complete.

[Ondonti]

Warren, did you try a stock bore and then a +50 bore?
I would be interested to see those results as that would give more info on shrouding.

I just dont think TD blocks in big HP cars should be bored very much unless you want to fill the block (which i would not) or your have some very trick sleeves up your sleeves.

[BadAssPerformance]

Ok, I can't keep a secret, I've been working on a 8000RPM 8valve head package. Hope to be track testing this spring. My goal is to have a nine sec. Laser XE.
Got a ton of work to do yet but making progress, waiting for my custom cam to be ground.
I will post pics when complete.

Awesome! :thumb:

[Warren Stramer]

Warren, did you try a stock bore and then a +50 bore?
I would be interested to see those results as that would give more info on shrouding.

I just dont think TD blocks in big HP cars should be bored very much unless you want to fill the block (which i would not) or your have some very trick sleeves up your sleeves.

I flowed on a stock bore diam. adapter, and a + .040 adapter. I ended up notching the top of the block. I had thought about moving the head about .040 toward the cam sprocket end of the block deck, but that would create problems with piston valve pocket locations.
I do have other things up my sleeve but I really don't want to talk about them yet.

[turbovanman²]

Ok, I can't keep a secret, I've been working on a 8000RPM 8valve head package. Hope to be track testing this spring. My goal is to have a nine sec. Laser XE.
Got a ton of work to do yet but making progress, waiting for my custom cam to be ground.
I will post pics when complete.

Pretty cool, :partywoot:

[omni_840]

Awesome! :thumb:


Pretty cool, :partywoot:

+1 to both of these statements:amen:

[zin]

Lots of interesting and innovative things going on here! I'm very happy to see this.

I would imagine that you could get an idea as to whether or not boost will bring a lazy port/valve combo to life by running the bench at a higher depression, after all that's pretty much all boost is, a higher depression that a n/a engine can achieve. Temp is one variable that could skew the results, but it still might be worth playing with high depressions to see if anything interesting happens...

Mike

[Directconnection]

No disrespect at all Simon, and point taken. I dont know the answer to big valve flow under boost, I'm just saying what I see on the bench is a "big valve" flows better than a +1mm only at higher lifts, and it is because of the shrouding problem that has been mentioned earlier.
So the obvious solution would be to open the valve to where the port flows the best.

Playing with different choke or throat diameters in the bigger valve head would probably change things quite a lot. (ie: making them not so big)

I often thought about making adjustable solid lifters.... I'm glad someone is stepping up to the plate.

I suggested this to Stephane years ago during a phone conversation with him (I made/donated a set of adjustable T-III cam gears that are on the car now... patting self on back part of the post:)) 9,000+ rpms... I asked him what he thought was happening to the cam's profile at those high rpms due to the lifters, and we both agreed on a solid lifter cam (something he was going to look into)

[Directconnection]

I would imagine that you could get an idea as to whether or not boost will bring a lazy port/valve combo to life by running the bench at a higher depression, after all that's pretty much all boost is, a higher depression that a n/a engine can achieve. Temp is one variable that could skew the results, but it still might be worth playing with high depressions to see if anything interesting happens...

Mike

I agree, yet also disagree (on the latter). On my exhaust manifold/header flowtests I did a few years ago, I ran them all on my bench at 10" and recorded the #s. Then, flowtested them on an SF-300 at 28" and then at 40" (max depression) and saw a slight difference (gain). I was expecting a BIG difference in flow.

Also, the depression isn't "boost" it's more like how much the airflow is "drawing"

For example (Warren will make fun of me for this) I was flowtesting a set of stock Harley Twin Cam 88 heads. I wanted to check the leakage % and doing this, you do it with both valves closed and slowly bring up the flowcontrol to 10" (on mine) and record the flow (if any) as it will tell you if there's any leaks. Now, you are supposed to do this on the lowest cfm range... I wigged out and had it on cfm range #3 and made BOOST causing my pretty clear composite headstand to blow out it's epoxied seams. SHAT!

I'm now making a headstand for Harleys (will interchangeable bore sleeves) out of aluminum and tig welded. 1/2 done right now...

edit: I stand corrected.... maybe if you were to flow at 300" it might make boost?

[bakes]

MP used to sell mechanical lash ajusters
P4349445 mechainical lash adjuster
P4529413 stud and nut service kit

would love to find a set

[Warren Stramer]

For example (Warren will make fun of me for this) I was flowtesting a set of stock Harley Twin Cam 88 heads. I wanted to check the leakage % and doing this, you do it with both valves closed and slowly bring up the flowcontrol to 10" (on mine) and record the flow (if any) as it will tell you if there's any leaks. Now, you are supposed to do this on the lowest cfm range... I wigged out and had it on cfm range #3 and made BOOST causing my pretty clear composite headstand to blow out it's epoxied seams. SHAT!

Steve its good to know I'm not the only one blowing stuff up in the shop.


Smaller throat makes the air turn even more at the seat, screws up discharge coefficiency. I'm going to try 50 degree seats and I'm having a cam ground with 302 duration and .600 lift IF my cam guy can squeeze that onto a billet.

I don't get too wrapped up in flow numbers which is why I have never posted any. I'm more interested in getting the port size/cross sec.,shape and air speed right for the valve diameter I happen to be using. and of course the all important valve seat angles. And then I check the flow and probe the ports with a velocity probe.
And just because it looks good on the bench doesn't guaranty it will make big power at the track. we will see.

[johnl]

:confused: You guys make me feel dumb:hail::thumb:

I mean, dynamic lift read from witness marks on a stem! Brilliant!

And, stepping the head over a scosh to de-shroud!

And, that flow bench talk - over my head.:hail::confused:

I'm takin lessons here.

[bakes]

Steve its good to know I'm not the only one blowing stuff up in the shop.


Smaller throat makes the air turn even more at the seat, screws up discharge co efficiency. I'm going to try 50 degree seats and I'm having a cam ground with 302 duration and .600 lift IF my cam guy can squeeze that onto a billet.

I don't get too wrapped up in flow numbers which is why I have never posted any. I'm more interested in getting the port size/cross sec.,shape and air speed right for the valve diameter I happen to be using. and of course the all important valve seat angles. And then I check the flow and probe the ports with a velocity probe.
And just because it looks good on the bench doesn't guaranty it will make big power at the track. we will see.

Are you going to run longer valve stem and a smaller base circle or stock length valves with a stock base circle cam?

[Warren Stramer]

Are you going to run longer valve stem and a smaller base circle or stock length valves with a stock base circle cam?

At this point i will just say Stock length valves (G head) It is very hard to get enough retainer to guide clearance, but with the right combination of parts and machining I can now run a cam of up to .620 lift if I wanted to.

[WLKivett]

oooh, sounds like a larger base circle may be in the works. yes no maybe?

[Aries_Turbo]

those lash adjusters look great. one question though. i thought that it was supposed to crack the lifter bore when running solid ones that just drop into the hole. i assume that your way of distributing the force over more of the lifter bore/top of the hole reduces this risk?

Brian

[Warren Stramer]

those lash adjusters look great. one question though. i thought that it was supposed to crack the lifter bore when running solid ones that just drop into the hole. i assume that your way of distributing the force over more of the lifter bore/top of the hole reduces this risk?

Brian

I had heard of the cracking problem with solid lash adjuster too, but could not find anyone to confirm the urban legend. I talked to Ed Peters about it and he could not confirm that they crack. I know the old Direct Connection solids pressed in and were all steel so I decided to try 6061T6 aluminum plugs I machined with a .001 press fit, hoping they grow at the same rate as the lifter bore.
I machined the lock/shoulder nuts from some titanium shaft I had laying around. The aluminum plugs bottom out in the lifter bores and then get milled off, drilled and threaded in the mill so that everything stays square and plum.
The load is shared by the lock nut shoulder and the plug thru the bottom of the lifter bore.
They also oil up thu the alu. plug, the adjuster shafts are gun drilled.

like this...................

[turbovanman²]

^^^^^^^^^^WOW, :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

[Aries_Turbo]

those are super sweet. :)

Brian

[8valves]

Very nice Warren. Now if only they were offset, too! As Reeves... :)

[Warren Stramer]

Very nice Warren. Now if only they were offset, too! As Reeves... :)

I thought about doing that but nixed the idea for a couple of reasons.

[bakes]

Warren curious how are the stud ends lubed splash or the hollow /pressure feed from the lifter oil gallery?

[Warren Stramer]

Warren curious how are the stud ends lubed splash or the hollow /pressure feed form the lifter oil gallery?

They are pressure fed through the lifter oil gallery.

[Directconnection]

The head I did for the circle track 2.2 at our shop has the MP press in solid lifters. Been in there for quite a few years now and no cracks at all. I was talking with the owner today and he told me he ran 260 degree water temps as he went off the track, and messed up his air deflector. Won the race, but cracked the triangular coolant passages. We welded it back up, but the lifter bores were a-ok.

[Juggy]

I had heard of the cracking problem with solid lash adjuster too, but could not find anyone to confirm the urban legend. I talked to Ed Peters about it and he could not confirm that they crack. I know the old Direct Connection solids pressed in and were all steel so I decided to try 6061T6 aluminum plugs I machined with a .001 press fit, hoping they grow at the same rate as the lifter bore.
I machined the lock/shoulder nuts from some titanium shaft I had laying around. The aluminum plugs bottom out in the lifter bores and then get milled off, drilled and threaded in the mill so that everything stays square and plum.
The load is shared by the lock nut shoulder and the plug thru the bottom of the lifter bore.
They also oil up thu the alu. plug, the adjuster shafts are gun drilled.

like this...................

thats awesome!!!!

i also couldnt help but giggle about the Ti comment....

just happened to have some lying around :lol:

make me a set too please :D

[Warren Stramer]

The head I did for the circle track 2.2 at our shop has the MP press in solid lifters. Been in there for quite a few years now and no cracks at all. I was talking with the owner today and he told me he ran 260 degree water temps as he went off the track, and messed up his air deflector. Won the race, but cracked the triangular coolant passages. We welded it back up, but the lifter bores were a-ok.

That is good news Steve, I'm REALLY tired of cracked heads.

[Warren Stramer]

thats awesome!!!!

i also couldnt help but giggle about the Ti comment....

just happened to have some lying around :lol:

make me a set too please :D

I had a guy who works in a manufacturing plant machining surgical implant hardware give me a bunch of Ti shaft cut-offs, and boxes of aluminum billet. So I really did have it laying around.
I must test these first before I would build any more.

[Shadow]

Some very slick stuff going on here, 09 should be a very interesting year for TD developement and parts testing! :eyebrows:

[4 l-bodies]

Steve its good to know I'm not the only one blowing stuff up in the shop.


Smaller throat makes the air turn even more at the seat, screws up discharge coefficiency. I'm going to try 50 degree seats and I'm having a cam ground with 302 duration and .600 lift IF my cam guy can squeeze that onto a billet.

I don't get too wrapped up in flow numbers which is why I have never posted any. I'm more interested in getting the port size/cross sec.,shape and air speed right for the valve diameter I happen to be using. and of course the all important valve seat angles. And then I check the flow and probe the ports with a velocity probe.
And just because it looks good on the bench doesn't guaranty it will make big power at the track. we will see.

Warren,
I played with different seat angles a few years ago. With what I have read and saw on the flow bench going the other way with seat angles saw some low lift improvement. Circle track guys commonly use 30-35 degree seats on short tracks where lower RPM performance coming out of corners is desired. Seem to remember small gains until about .375-.400 lift using a 35 degree seat. After that the 45 degree seat took over.

I see that your running almost the same exact % of valve od to throat that I have found works best for me. Factory is close to that too on some castings. What a coincidence that that works.:p I always laughed when I saw the MP BV seats they sell. The throat was smaller than a stock valve seat!

I remember having this conversation with Aaron Miller and we both found that increasing port volume on the intake side lowered the flow bench #'s but the cars picked up on the track. I have benched a BV 287 bathtub head that flowed decent around 195 @.500 that worked great on the car. Although it was about 15 CFM lower than I though it could/should be. Port volume was plenty big at 101 CC! Maybe not big for a 655 head, but big for a 287. The head worked good enough to break the webbing of an early block at the thrust bearing. As they say, you don't win any races on the flowbench.
Todd

[Warren Stramer]

Warren,
I played with different seat angles a few years ago. With what I have read and saw on the flow bench going the other way with seat angles saw some low lift improvement. Circle track guys commonly use 30-35 degree seats on short tracks where lower RPM performance coming out of corners is desired. Seem to remember small gains until about .375-.400 lift using a 35 degree seat. After that the 45 degree seat took over.

I see that your running almost the same exact % of valve od to throat that I have found works best for me. Factory is close to that too on some castings. What a coincidence that that works.:p I always laughed when I saw the MP BV seats they sell. The throat was smaller than a stock valve seat!

I remember having this conversation with Aaron Miller and we both found that increasing port volume on the intake side lowered the flow bench #'s but the cars picked up on the track. I have benched a BV 287 bathtub head that flowed decent around 195 @.500 that worked great on the car. Although it was about 15 CFM lower than I though it could/should be. Port volume was plenty big at 101 CC! Maybe not big for a 655 head, but big for a 287. The head worked good enough to break the webbing of an early block at the thrust bearing. As they say, you don't win any races on the flowbench.
Todd

I'm going to try the 50 deg. seats on a junk head first, I'm only interested in what it does at higher lifts (.450-.615) On this head I'm building. I'm not too concerend about low lift flow. The cam I'm having made has very high, early, opening lobe accelaration, and with the cam blanks I found I think we can get close to .600 lift, we will see.
I have only once cc'd an intake port as it doesnt really tell me much about a port accept how much liquid it holds. I'm only interested in shape and cross section, example....a sphere that held say 200cc's volume with an 1'' opening on each end would make a lousy port. I know ccing can give you a general idea of the size of the port but that is about it.
I would much rather know the local and average port air speeds so I can make a calculated guess as to when sonic choke will occur.
I think maybe the reason your car accelerated better with the lager port even though it suffered a little on the flow bench is because the larger cross sec. port had an air speed (more favorably) below sonic choke.
I've just started using velocity probes and it is quite interesting what you find.

[glhs875]

I'm going to try the 50 deg. seats on a junk head first, I'm only interested in what it does at higher lifts (.450-.615) On this head I'm building. I'm not too concerend about low lift flow. The cam I'm having made has very high, early, opening lobe accelaration, and with the cam blanks I found I think we can get close to .600 lift, we will see.
I have only once cc'd an intake port as it doesnt really tell me much about a port accept how much liquid it holds. I'm only interested in shape and cross section, example....a sphere that held say 200cc's volume with an 1'' opening on each end would make a lousy port. I know ccing can give you a general idea of the size of the port but that is about it.
I would much rather know the local and average port air speeds so I can make a calculated guess as to when sonic choke will occur.
I think maybe the reason your car accelerated better with the lager port even though it suffered a little on the flow bench is because the larger cross sec. port had an air speed (more favorably) below sonic choke.
I've just started using velocity probes and it is quite interesting what you find.



Warren, your dead on to my way of thinking and what I have realized what works in the real world concerning ports!!! Working within the proper air speed of the ports at the rpm range chosen is what it's all about! Air only likes to move so fast and then power falls off. The CSA of the port is a big determining factor of port speed and at what rpm that port will choke at for a given RPM vs the CID of the engine. I can't wait to see the rev kit that we dissused, developed and then revealed to the public! BTW the solids look great!
I noticed the extra head bolt by the spark plug area on your head as well! Nice!!!

[Warren Stramer]

Warren, your dead on to my way of thinking and what I have realized what works in the real world concerning ports!!! Working within the proper air speed of the ports at the rpm range chosen is what it's all about! Air only likes to move so fast and then power falls off. The CSA of the port is a big determining factor of port speed and at what rpm that port will choke at for a given RPM vs the CID of the engine. I can't wait to see the rev kit that we dissused, developed and then revealed to the public! BTW the solids look great!
I noticed the extra head bolt by the spark plug area on your head as well! Nice!!!

The Brian Putman "rev kit" is my next project, I have all the hardware here now and the drawings finished and just about ready to start. I will post pics when done..........will explain then. The only parts I'm waiting for now are the lash caps I ordered from Crane just before they closed, but I have found some others that will work. Looks like I might have to fab a custom valve cover to clear everything, will see. I will be lucky if I have it going in time for SDAC.

[boost geek]

I noticed the extra head bolt by the spark plug area on your head as well! Nice!!!

C'mon guys, show me a pic!!!

[BadAssPerformance]

... I will be lucky if I have it going in time for SDAC.

You better!!! less internet more work! ;)

[glhs875]

C'mon guys, show me a pic!!!


The picture has already been posted in this thread!

[turbovanman²]

I noticed the extra head bolt by the spark plug area on your head as well! Nice!!!

How does that work and what is the purpose??????

[boost geek]

OK, post 11. You did all 4? Cool!

[glhs875]

How does that work and what is the purpose??????


That's Warrens idea. He needs to answer that question. I do know he hopes it will help to stop the head from flexing/cracking under high cylinder pressures.

[puppet]

Might help reinforce the cylinder walls there too. I know Russ had a chunk break there ... there was another I think.

[Warren Stramer]

How does that work and what is the purpose??????

I added a row of four studs to help hold the head on the deck of the block in front where the head deck is open to the water jacket. the counterbores in the pic just in front of the spark plug hole is where the extra 8mm studs protrude up thru the head and are held down with 10mm OD. six point nuts.

[puppet]

So the studs are bolted in from outside the block. Thought you might have welded that area up.

[Reeves]

I often thought about making adjustable solid lifters.... I'm glad someone is stepping up to the plate.


Glenn Smith with Dominion Auto makes 2.2/2.5 8V solid lifters as well. Also, LRE used to make them, maybe still do?



MP used to sell mechanical lash ajusters
P4349445 mechainical lash adjuster
P4529413 stud and nut service kit

would love to find a set

You have to have your lifter bore machined down .100" at the top for a flat surface. Then the solid lifter presses in. JFYI.


At this point i will just say Stock length valves (G head) It is very hard to get enough retainer to guide clearance, but with the right combination of parts and machining I can now run a cam of up to .620 lift if I wanted to.

Warren,
How did you get around the lifter falling off the valve tip at those lifts? I thought about .550 was just about the limit for the length of the factory roller rocker.

[Warren Stramer]

Glenn Smith with Dominion Auto makes 2.2/2.5 8V solid lifters as well. Also, LRE used to make them, maybe still do?




You have to have your lifter bore machined down .100" at the top for a flat surface. Then the solid lifter presses in. JFYI.



Warren,
How did you get around the lifter falling off the valve tip at those lifts? I thought about .550 was just about the limit for the length of the factory roller rocker.

Who told you that? At .625 lift the roller rocker still completely covers the valve stem, (with my valves)but I am still going to use lash caps just for safety. See pics below, they show the rocker on the intake valve open to .625 off the seat, notice the proximity of the keeper groove to the seal.

[turbovanman²]

Who told you that? At .625 lift the roller rocker still completely covers the valve stem, (with my valves)but I am still going to use lash caps just for safety. See pics below, they show the rocker on the intake valve open to .625 off the seat, notice the proximity of the keeper groove to the seal.

In that last pic, it looks like the keep or retainer will touch or be very close, :o


Nice job on those extra head bolts, :clap:

[Warren Stramer]

In that last pic, it looks like the keep or retainer will touch or be very close, :o

I can only get .600 lift with the stock vs seals, but without the seal it can go to .650. who uses vs seals in a race engine?

[Aries_Turbo]

cool. i assume you have to machine the pocket deeper to take a spring that can handle that lift?

Brian

[Reeves]

Is the lobe staying on the roller nicely at that lift?

[BadFastGTC]

You're using a factory roller? I've blued the valve stem tip and checked them and the roller begins to run more towards the outside of the stem as opposed to remaining well centered. You can only fudge the spring seat to valve tip numbers so much.....



Who told you that? At .625 lift the roller rocker still completely covers the valve stem, (with my valves)but I am still going to use lash caps just for safety. See pics below, they show the rocker on the intake valve open to .625 off the seat, notice the proximity of the keeper groove to the seal.

[Warren Stramer]

. You can only fudge the spring seat to valve tip numbers so much.....
Agreed, but I was able to fudge everthing just enough.

I will just make one more comment about this, Yes factory roller follower, and Yes EVERYTHING has to be modified or changed to make this high lift possible, even the follower. And It has taken me a LONG time to source and modify all the parts to make it all possible.
Finding the right springs, retainers,locks, seat cups and lash caps took me many hours of phone time and measuring, and most of the parts then had to be remachined to fit but it is all coming together now to where I can say I'm 98% sure it WILL work.
The down side is that if I need replacement parts nothing off the shelf will work without mods so I have made and purchased some spares.
If it becomes necessary I will machine my own roller followers. But I don't think it will be necessary.
When I get it all done and running and sorted out Then I will be more willing to show how to duplicate it if anyone is interested, but first let me test it..........It could all turn out bad!!??
I guess right or wrong I just always have to try something different.

[turbovanman²]

I can only get .600 lift with the stock vs seals, but without the seal it can go to .650. who uses vs seals in a race engine?

Me, :nod:


Agreed, but I was able to fudge everthing just enough.

I will just make one more comment about this, Yes factory roller follower, and Yes EVERYTHING has to be modified or changed to make this high lift possible, even the follower. And It has taken me a LONG time to source and modify all the parts to make it all possible.
Finding the right springs, retainers,locks, seat cups and lash caps took me many hours of phone time and measuring, and most of the parts then had to be remachined to fit but it is all coming together now to where I can say I'm 98% sure it WILL work.
The down side is that if I need replacement parts nothing off the shelf will work without mods so I have made and purchased some spares.
If it becomes necessary I will machine my own roller followers. But I don't think it will be necessary.
When I get it all done and running and sorted out Then I will be more willing to show how to duplicate it if anyone is interested, but first let me test it..........It could all turn out bad!!??
I guess right or wrong I just always have to try something different.

No one's putting you down that I can see. :confused:

What your doing is amazing stuff, :hail:

[Warren Stramer]

Me, :nod:



No one's putting you down that I can see. :confused:

Oh no, I didn't mean to infer that............wish I could get my emoticon feature to work.

[turbovanman²]

Oh no, I didn't mean to infer that............wish I could get my emoticon feature to work.

Ok, lol.

[Shadow]

Trying to explain how something that has Never been done before is supposed to work is always going to be a lesson in frustration on the net, because there will always be ppl who are going to Q the validity rather than embrace the venture. Think about it. If I would have come on here three years ago and said I was going to put down 500whp through a stock turbo roller cam and ported turbo exhaust mani in a non-CB, No one would have been able to pay attention to the detail of How I was going to do it. Ppl get too wrapped up in the "enough ppl have tried, if it were possible, someone would have done it already" theory. Having done it, however, now opens the door to a very easy parlay of info because the doubt has been eliminated! The ears are all open and eagerly awaiting the new found info. I Totally get where Warren is coming from and eagerly await his findings......once he has those findings! Wether any of us realize this or not, the missing piece of the puzzle, is that the last chapter in turbocharging has yet to be written......specially in the case of the 8v Turbododge! :eyebrows:

[BadFastGTC]

You are absolutely right. One can only read the words without any sort of voice infliction. A simple question where one is searching for a direction a person may be heading can be construed incorrectly. All that individual who is asking the question could be trying to do is keep one from making the identical mistakes he may have made trying the same thing. That being said, there are a number of things that can be done to increase the room required to use a roller .600" lift cam, but most people aren't willing to go to those lengths or spend the money to do it. Warren has an advantage in that he once told me , "There isn't a whole lot to do up here". ;) A purpose built racecar can use the valve lift he is looking for provided the cylinder head can support it. Would I do that for my cars, being street/strip cars? No. I know where my heads stall out and never pursued flow at higher lifts because of the camshaft situation at that time. There simply weren't any that worked for me. Once I got some roller blanks, I was able to get some grinds suited for turbo motors. Fortunately, I have a few left to try a larger lobe when I finish the 2.0. The larger valve curtain area under boost could be one hell of a kick in the pants though! Give 'em hell Warren!



Trying to explain how something that has Never been done before is supposed to work is always going to be a lesson in frustration on the net, because there will always be ppl who are going to Q the validity rather than embrace the venture. Think about it. If I would have come on here three years ago and said I was going to put down 500whp through a stock turbo roller cam and ported turbo exhaust mani in a non-CB, No one would have been able to pay attention to the detail of How I was going to do it. Ppl get too wrapped up in the "enough ppl have tried, if it were possible, someone would have done it already" theory. Having done it, however, now opens the door to a very easy parlay of info because the doubt has been eliminated! The ears are all open and eagerly awaiting the new found info. I Totally get where Warren is coming from and eagerly await his findings......once he has those findings! Wether any of us realize this or not, the missing piece of the puzzle, is that the last chapter in turbocharging has yet to be written......specially in the case of the 8v Turbododge! :eyebrows:

[Shadow]

You are absolutely right. One can only read the words without any sort of voice infliction. A simple question where one is searching for a direction a person may be heading can be construed incorrectly. All that individual who is asking the question could be trying to do is keep one from making the identical mistakes he may have made trying the same thing. That being said, there are a number of things that can be done to increase the room required to use a roller .600" lift cam, but most people aren't willing to go to those lengths or spend the money to do it. Warren has an advantage in that he once told me , "There isn't a whole lot to do up here". ;) A purpose built racecar can use the valve lift he is looking for provided the cylinder head can support it. Would I do that for my cars, being street/strip cars? No. I know where my heads stall out and never pursued flow at higher lifts because of the camshaft situation at that time. There simply weren't any that worked for me. Once I got some roller blanks, I was able to get some grinds suited for turbo motors. Fortunately, I have a few left to try a larger lobe when I finish the 2.0. The larger valve curtain area under boost could be one hell of a kick in the pants though! Give 'em hell Warren!

Nice! I was Really hoping no one would take offence to what I said, I didn't mean it that way and I'm glad you didn't take it that way! I think you hit the nail right on the head, Warren is going to extremes that haven't been gone to before.....because he can! Once he actually gets far enough to prove wether it will work or not, that's when he'll be able to tell us all about it....cause that's when he'll know himself, for sure! :nod:

[turbovanman²]

Trying to explain how something that has Never been done before is supposed to work is always going to be a lesson in frustration on the net, because there will always be ppl who are going to Q the validity rather than embrace the venture. Think about it. If I would have come on here three years ago and said I was going to put down 500whp through a stock turbo roller cam and ported turbo exhaust mani in a non-CB, No one would have been able to pay attention to the detail of How I was going to do it. Ppl get too wrapped up in the "enough ppl have tried, if it were possible, someone would have done it already" theory. Having done it, however, now opens the door to a very easy parlay of info because the doubt has been eliminated! The ears are all open and eagerly awaiting the new found info. I Totally get where Warren is coming from and eagerly await his findings......once he has those findings! Wether any of us realize this or not, the missing piece of the puzzle, is that the last chapter in turbocharging has yet to be written......specially in the case of the 8v Turbododge! :eyebrows:

I don't think anyone is saying negative things about this at all. :confused:

All I've seen is constructive questions, :thumb:

[Shadow]

I don't think anyone is saying negative things about this at all. :confused:

All I've seen is constructive questions, :thumb:

My post had 0 to do with anyone saying anything negative. It was simply a look into the human condition and how difficult something becomes to disscuss when it has yet to be proven. Let's just give Warren some space (and time) to actually bring this thing to fruition before we start asking Q's that can't be properly answered at this time. :)

[zin]

My post had 0 to do with anyone saying anything negative. It was simply a look into the human condition and how difficult something becomes to discuss when it has yet to be proven.

Amen to that brother!!:hail: Just look at the AWD (Omni, etc) thread(s)! Sometimes it's better to just make something happen, THEN have everyone tell you how it can't be done!:D As such, it is very kind of Warren (and everyone else!) to share some of his hard won knowledge before all his chickens have hatched. I always appreciate good info from good people!

Mike