Cam Motion Low Lash Solid Roller and FRH ported heads finished

[1sick_eg]

Originally Posted by Burt

now that you've got it up and running with the new cam, how does it drive? I know taking valve lash into account will effectively lower those specs a little, but even so, that's a gnarly cam. I figure there will be at least some driveability compromises, just curious as to how much

I'll know tomorrow. I haven't had a chance to drive it yet. Valve lash is set at 0 lash, so it should be around .007 once it's warm. I don't expect it to be any worse than my previous cam. It certainly starts and idles better cold with this cam.

[Burt]

Wow, low lash indeed. I can't wait to get some driving impressions. A cam is on my to-do list, along with some other engine work, and while that's all a bit down the road, your build has me thinking I could go a bit more radical than I was originally planning.

[10aSSee D]

What's the advantage of a solid lift cam?

[1sick_eg]

Burt, I don't know if you're ever near Clarksburg WV, but I head out that way for work on occasion if you're ever in the area. Let me know if you are and you can take a look at the car.

10aSSee, better valve control, more power, and with these low lash setups, they're quieter than the hydraulic cams. Much quieter. The videos online don't do them justice as to how quiet they actually are.

[Burt]

I'm not normally in Clarksburg, but I'm not that far away. I'm busy the next couple weekends, but I wouldn't be opposed to running up there at some point. Definitely not many quality builds like this one in the area.

[Russell James]

I'm going to contact Kip at Cam Motion soon and ask about a low lash solid roller for a road race car.

1sick eg,

Which Lifters and Rockers are you using in your set up? 8mm std rocker bolts, or were your heads modded for 10 mm?

I'm torn between a hyd vs low lash solid. I need to find out more on which is easier on the valve train for sustained high RPM road racing. I have a 416 stroker LS3 with ported LS3 heads and a Comp Cam hyd roller cam now. We are only revving to 6400 because it has pretty heavy valves, and just to keep the maintenance low. But I want to look into a low lash solid set up if it is pretty easy on the valve train.

I've gotten mixed advise from different sources. Some say (that build the COPO motors) to stick with hydraulic and the Johnson lifters the COPO motors use. And some say go to a low lash solid for more power/throttle response.

I just want to make sure a low lash solid is still easy on the valvetrain for sustained RPM racing.

My current cam is 231/247 dur and 617/624 lift 113 LSA 109 IC 10.7 CR

I've bent valves a few times on slight over revs. So we definately need to improve valvetrain part weights, and stability on the next engine freshening. Lighter valves, keepers, better lifters/rockers... and possibly this low lash solid route with similar specs and tq range. Just better.

[1sick_eg]

I setup this valve train specifically for a street car/road course car. I wanted to add a dry sump, but that will have to come later on. For now I'll have fun pulling < 1.3g. I would say you couldn't go wrong with Johnson lifters or a low lash setup. I was torn between the two just as you are, and I decided that despite popular opinion, that I would go with the low lash setup. I think the problem is when people think solid roller, they're thinking .020-.030 lash, which would certainly put the lifters and cam through a lot of stress.

These low lash setups are set at 0-.001 cold. That's around .007-.008 warm on an aluminum block/head. We will certainly see how well it holds up under sustained high rpm abuse and driving it on the street. I will say that I am much more comfortable with this setup than I was the hydraulic setup I had previously. I have complete confidence in this setup, especially with the history Kip has with these low lash solids.

What valves are you currently running? I would certainly be running a hollow stem intake valve on any hydraulic setup. It's seems absurd to me that people run a big, heavy stainless intake valve on a hydraulic setup.

[1sick_eg]

As far as the lifters and the rockers, I'm running the Jesel sportsmans with the standard 8mm stands. Lifters are Morel 4737 drop in lifters with new trays.

[Russell James]

Originally Posted by 1sick_eg

I setup this valve train specifically for a street car/road course car. I wanted to add a dry sump, but that will have to come later on. For now I'll have fun pulling < 1.3g. I would say you couldn't go wrong with Johnson lifters or a low lash setup. I was torn between the two just as you are, and I decided that despite popular opinion, that I would go with the low lash setup. I think the problem is when people think solid roller, they're thinking .020-.030 lash, which would certainly put the lifters and cam through a lot of stress.

These low lash setups are set at 0-.001 cold. That's around .007-.008 warm on an aluminum block/head. We will certainly see how well it holds up under sustained high rpm abuse and driving it on the street. I will say that I am much more comfortable with this setup than I was the hydraulic setup I had previously. I have complete confidence in this setup, especially with the history Kip has with these low lash solids.

What valves are you currently running? I would certainly be running a hollow stem or titanium intake valve on any hydraulic setup. It's seems absurd to me that people run a big, heavy stainless intake valve on a hydraulic setup.

I didn't build my 416, bought it used from a road race team. It has some really nice pieces like bullet proof forged rotating assembly, 4 stage ARE dry sump... but they cheaped out on the valve train. Has the cheaper comp cams limited travel lifters (that has had the retainers come out), Manley valves that I think are solid. I bought it for a good price knowing I would need to change some valve train stuff. And for now, just keeping it under 6400 rpm.

But over the next few weeks, going to pull the heads and do the valve train right with lighter and better parts. Comp told me if there is any valve float, the push rods will bounce and knock the retainers out of the lifters. So, definately going with lighter valves, retainers, better pushrods, and need to decide between Johnson or Morel lifters... solid or hyd cam. And if staying hyd, a better lifter like the Johnson or Morel, possibly a link bar style. Surprisingly the COPO motors still use the bucket drop in style. Must be a proven combo. When I talked to a COPO engineer at a trade show... he told be they tried several lifter set ups... and the combo they liked the best that survived extensive dyno testing was a Johnson drop in hydaulic. A few other hyd brands were coming apart with severe abuse.

I love the tq curve of my current cam. Pulls like a freight train. But definately needs better reliability and I want to pull it to about 6800-6900. The power is definately there to 6900 I just can't trust it now not to bend valves until I get some better parts in there.
The crazy thing is, when they bent some valves last time, they just rebuilt it with the same cheap lifters and valves. So I knew I'd be redoing it the way I want it. The power with my current cam is perfect, and to be reliable up to 6900 would be really nice.

[1sick_eg]

Originally Posted by Russell James

I didn't build my 416, bought it used from a road race team. It has some really nice pieces like bullet proof forged rotating assembly, 4 stage ARE dry sump... but they cheaped out on the valve train. Has the cheaper comp cams limited travel lifters (that has had the retainers come out), Manley valves that I think are solid. I bought it for a good price knowing I would need to change some valve train stuff. And for now, just keeping it under 6400 rpm.

But over the next few weeks, going to pull the heads and do the valve train right with lighter and better parts. Comp told me if there is any valve float, the push rods will bounce and knock the retainers out of the lifters. So, definately going with lighter valves, retainers, better pushrods, and need to decide between Johnson or Morel lifters... solid or hyd cam.

I love the tq curve of my current cam. Pulls like a freight train. But definately needs better reliability and I want to pull it to about 6800-6900.

Well you certainly have a nice shortblock anyway. I would certainly look for a lighter intake valve. I think the low lash solid will make you happy, but it can be hard for people to make the transition. I hope to make a believer out of many people that are stuck on hydraulic setups. I certainly won't bad mouth a proper hydraulic setup either. Johnson lifters are fantastic. They're the only lifter I would recommend on a hydraulic cam.

[WHAMMO]

Very build and it sounds sick!! Waiting for the results!!! Subscribed..

[Todd in Vancouver]

Originally Posted by 1989GTA

I honestly wish I had known about the "low lash" solid roller before I bought my latest camshaft. I think I would have gone that route. I wonder if they make one for the SBC for another car I own?

Here is my SBC for my Pro-Tour '67 Camaro SS. Its a 350 with a solid roller cam and this video shows it peaking at 473hp at 6,700 and the dyno shut off. I ran out of dyno time but it should be a 500+ hp engine around 7,500rpm. Ive also converted it to a Stealth Ram MPI fuel injection since this video was done.


http://youtu.be/loqPahjRelk


.

[1sick_eg]

Originally Posted by WHAMMO

Very build and it sounds sick!! Waiting for the results!!! Subscribed..

Thanks whammo. Hopefully will have some here shortly

[1sick_eg]

Originally Posted by Todd in Vancouver

Here is my SBC for my Pro-Tour '67 Camaro SS. Its a 350 with a solid roller cam and this video shows it peaking at 473hp at 6,700 and the dyno shut off. I ran out of dyno time but it should be a 500+ hp engine around 7,500rpm. Ive also converted it to a Stealth Ram MPI fuel injection since this video was done.


http://youtu.be/loqPahjRelk


.

Awesome