Going from a 5.7 tbi to a 5.3 in my truck was a huge improvement. Lifter issues had 5 of them fail. It was just dirty dingo slider mounts and a 4l80e flex plate. It's mostly gm stuff bolts right up to a th400 and saved like 200lbs off the front. Its not a bad swap. You have to see that most ls guys are broke and use stock bottom ends. For me, my step dad built 383 and 350 with vortecs in his 79 truck and now has a 454. He did hill climbing as he got older. He wanted to try an ls because i get twice thebmileage with similar power to a mild 350 with a summit spring kit and a cam that's a 220/224. I want a coyote next since theyre the new hottest engine.
I hate to see you spending money on something that could be demonstrated with a degree wheel, but i do admire your determination and the data you provide.
I think this is the first time I've heard solid and hydraulic roller cams compared this way. This was new to me. I already knew solid and hydraulic cams has different ramps, but had never thought about how it impacts the duration. This made me think of a experiment I think Richard Holdener did on a LS with hydraulic lifters. I think the conclusion was something like that a hydraulic cam don't give the same effective duration trough the whole rev range because of how the hydraulic lifters work.
That .020" duration on the solid cam is .020" 'tappet rise' which assuming a 1.5 rocker equates to .030" lash. If your cam calls for .022" lash then your 'at the valve' duration figures will look larger than that .020" tappet rise duration because .022 ÷ 1.5 = .0146" tappet rise. Then depending on the lobe ramp rate in this area of tappet rise will determine how much actual extra duration you see at the valve Then with a hydro lifter not being a 100% mechanical connection (hence the .006" tappet rise adv duration figure) the actual .050" tappet rise figure reflected at the valve is smaller. Then we throw in valve train deflection😂 I keep meaning to do a solid V hydro cam degree video demonstrating these effects of what you see at the valve V the tappet when attempting to compare cam cards.
Now I agree with this except the deflection is far worse with solid roller because of spring pressure. It looses more than .030 of lift when I have checked. I don’t think you loose near as much with hydraulic roller. Also don’t forget the Ls is 1.7 ratio compared to the 1.6 of sbc so it is gaining faster. The Ls also has a steel rocker compared to aluminum on sbc. There are many variables that play a huge role. The big thing at least from the cam standpoint they are duration different but not as much as most people think.
@@WeingartnerRacing totally agree, the variables are almost infinite in these scenarios. What happens in the running engine is quite different to the cam card. As you know, the engine doesn't care what the lobe does or cam card says, it only cares what the valve tells it via available port flow at any given point. Hence same cam and valvetrain, different port flow = different engine output. Did you check your deflection with light spring(i typically use an inner spring for this instead of a very light checking spring) V full spring? Im sure you aren't just calculating a deflection based off of tappet rise V theoretical lift?
@@WeingartnerRacing re the rocker ratio being faster. Did you map that in crank degrees V valve motion at the valve/retainer? Looking at the 2 cards(cam doctor SR and then written down HR) we have close ish seat duration about 20 degrees more effective dur at .050" on the SR cam taking some lash into account, dont know the .200" spec on the HR, but then more net lift on the SR. Im going to bet that the actual valve action in crank degrees is faster on that SR than the HR even given the 1.6 V 1.7 rocker ratios. What would be interesting is to see a map of valve action in .050" increments V crank degrees and the head flow figures at each valve point for the 2 different cam rocker head combinations. That way we will more closely see what the engine actually sees. This is all such interesting stuff 👍
Lucky I had an early cam doc I checked where the Valve opened .006 which also takes rocker ratio into consideration This is called SAE duration, SAE Net lift, with a 1.5 rocker this is .004 (like Crane) Crower is usually .005, Comp, Lunati, Jones etc .006, Engle .008 Isky varies with series but Mega Cam uses different but assume .009 (open and close may be different) So at the same Advertised Crane are smaller and Isky are actually much bigger (but their lobes allow higher revs {back in the day} I do not have up to date data on other than Jones designs, like Comp .904 HL Hydraulics (the are not inverse flank designs)
AS far as cam profiles go the GM Indy project spent $$$ mostly on the initial opening/ closing and the over the nose. The over the nose optimizations gave more rpm at less spring pressure, raising the rpm of valve float Then the could increase the area after>over the nose< on the close side Work done for GM by Mike and Rick Jones I think dad Chuck was gone by then but the computer programs he started were redone. At the time no one else came close, still no one else is grinding inverse radius with a small wheel which also makes a big difference
I like running hyd roller cams with solids lashed at .004/.006. Seems the best of both worlds. Milder ramps and super responsive with hyd roller spring pressures. Lash sounds about like a sewing machine.
I can promise there is more deflection with solid roller spring pressures than with the squish of the hydraulic roller lifter. Usually you lose 0.030 or more.
Afaik the L5P duramax uses 0.842 solid roller lifters that have a lifter tray. I dont know if it is directly interchangable with a factory hydraulic Ls lifter but everything looks like it should work. Hydraulic cams are great for manufacturers because of tolerance stack. They can build millions of engines with exactly the same parts and all of the manufacturing tolerances are accounted for by the plunger.
There was a short half page article about the factory corvette race car that ran factory oem LS7 lifters that had a ceramic check ball. The were the original ones before all them were the same lifter. These were not the same ls7 lifter we have today because all of them are now ls7 lifters. Well the race engine reported to be running at 8500/8700 rpm’s with no valve float issues running a hydraulic roller cam. I think this was around 2006-2007.
A solid roller of that caliber will have a way more aggressive ramp, meaning the valve will have high lift longer which will make the difference in this case. Another thing I noticed was the sturdy dart block instead of the stock flimsy block
Another difference is that the LS has a much greater base circle which allows more accerleration at the same side thrust also the area under the curve is greater, more area at the same SAE duration, with SBC we bored the worn lifter bores to MOPAR .904 which allows a greater roller wheel which also helps
you cant transfer .020" lash to the lifter unless you divide it by the rocker ratio Just as lobe lift and valve lift is deferent so is lash at the valve tip compared to the pushrod side from the ratio on the other side of the fulcrum is deffeernt
@@bigbearvenom6145 not only closing the lash up quicker but .020 at valve is not .020 at the pushrod /lifter. when you pull the feeler gauge out of the valve, the pushrod side will not open up .020 when the valve side closes up that .020 that the feeler gauge was taking up unles you have a 1 to 1 ratio rocker. the lifter side of the rocker allways travels less than the valve side . So when you close the lash at the valve the pushrod cup doesnt move the same amount in its lesser arch so the clearance will be diffeent. General rule is a solid cam needs 10 degrees extra to match a hydrualic at .050. They use that number because that about where comparable airflow starts happening
Pretty cool that you did a comparison i still don't understand these ls comments guy saying this and that it's like they keep saying stuff and don't have proof or whatever
This is the secret of ordering a cam when going from and hydraulic to a solid setup. To get close, you have to go a couple sizes bigger to get to the same essential size. Whether they are a flat tappet or a roller, this applies. Pay attention warriors of the board. You might learn something, lol.
When you get a cam made by Comp, you can have them blueprint it and they give you the report. Adolce checking i think is what they call it. its worth it, along with the polishing services they offer.
Hey Eric, go check out the Yella Terra Rockers from Australia your exchange rate is pretty good for you guys YT 6682 in M10 or 7/16 Unc Pedistal mount good for 900lb open. $1444 AUD and shipping wouldn't be that much. Good to see you got a solid roller for that LS thats very close profile 👍 For interest the way i do advertised for a solid is lash devided by rocker ratio ie 0.014/1.6=0.00875 so duration at 0.009 odd seat to seat timing. Though im not Batman either😊 Good onya mate👍
The ls has a bigger cam core, I think that helps with the valve float issues. Which I don’t think the cam your discussing is no where near an issue, it’s when you get into the bigger stuff that the bigger core helps out. Good stuff though.
Love the video. Why are ls guys saying anything, as they have 20-40 year of advancement in technology. Run a 11.5° gen 1 sbc and see what happens. Hope you can test 11.5, 13 heads 1 day. I think you doing 18°. Good videos always.
Eric, sorry this is off topic, but you mentioned your S10. What IATs are you seeing in the manifold and at what boost level? Do you have a video detailing that? Extremely curious. Thanks.
The biggest difference I see is the larger cam core size in the LS. I can't tell you how many times I've run into the "Limits of the cam core size" in standard SBC and BBC especially!! There's a reason we bore the cam tunnel in the BBC block for larger core cams and raise the cam location in the SBC.....and it has a lot more to do with the overall SIZE of the lobes than the core of the cam. Hint: The larger the lobes can get, the less "hydraulic intensity" is required in the lobe profile. The less "jerk" is in the valvetrain, etc.... Simply put, the LS "SHOULD" be substantially better in the valvetrain department. How much that pays off in the way of HP is yet to be seen.....but we all know it definitely pays off in durability and longevity. I will also add that we are still in the infancy stage of lobe development for the LS compared to the nearly 7 decades of development the SBC has had.
Writing a proper comment to add to Eric's explanation and requirements is impossible due to TH-cam's awful ad coding which breaks the comment after 3 or 4 ads.
I bet the bigger hyd roller in the Ls kills more torque than it’s worth, and the manifold may hold it back up top, personally I would have just put a 229 hyd roller in the sbc, the lobe profile on the sr probably give the small block a quicker valve opening,
Does the LS really need a bigger camshaft with better flowing heads, better valve angle and higher rocker ratio? I don't think so. Yes we will find out!
It depends on which head was used but on this one it was 2.08ls vs 2.10 sbc. I have used 2.165 valves on the Ls and on those heads it made less. All the same exhaust size 1.60.
Wow, in general I like your Contnet, but that is some serious gaslighting... You technically do not lie, but what if we have a more exact look at the cams: - the solid cam has almost 0,05" of lift more (accounted for lash) - the solid roller has at 0,,1" of lift (being almost 0,08" of Lift accounted for lash) a duration of 226/236, and the hydraluic has 229/244 Judging from the durations at 0.05" and 0.15" I think the actual duration od the solid cam at 0.05" is around 240/250. - combine these with the faster ramp and therefore even more duration differnce at higher lifts AND the noticeably higher Lift, and I get to the conclusion, that the solid roller should perform more like a Hydraulic roller cam with 245/255 duration and .7" of Lift
I don’t agree with your lift statement. Because you lose far more lift with solid roller springs than hydraulic roller spring setups. I have done a video on that. So .685 minus .022 is .663 then take away .030 from deflection and you are much closer. Still more but much closer. On the duration you are correct which is good because i tested a 243 hydraulic roller cam on the Ls you are going to love those results. As far as aggressiveness of the lobe that depends on the lobe. I have a cam doctor for a 260 duration hydraulic cam I will show on Saturday it’s close to the solid roller.
@@WeingartnerRacing from what I have witnessed, if that 243 cam had a bigger exhaust split, a different lsa, and maybe more lift it would've made more power everywhere compared to Texas speed cam. I would love to see a similar cam tested with those things to compare.
You know all this cost a lot of money you don't just tell someone test this out when he is giving you results for free. If you think is that easy and your able to afford you go buy it and test it. Eric ain't rich he is just giving you free results he put time and money into his dyno sections
Do the LS fans know the LS uses the same lifters as the mid 80’s and up roller cam blocks for the small block? Same lifters. Some of us know how to adjust valves for the sbc. 😂😂🤣🤣
@@chriswise1232the ones I am referring to were the ones that do not exist anymore. The ceramic check ball, and ones that the race engines used that were said to go 8700 rpm’s. Part numbers change. And many long searches I can’t find the originals as mentioned above. As of a few years ago all the lifters became “LS7” lifters. There is no specific gm production ls7 lifter. Somewhere along the way the lifter you get in the high performance model are the same you get in the base 4.8. And yet still everyone claims ls7 lifters are the upgrade. When the ls7 lifters are literally the production lifters everyone gets now.
I know what Eric is talking when he does send stuff it does come out blurry for us android users. That's all. Now why I don't know I guess apple and android hate each other
@WeingartnerRacing looked into it. Apple shares between devices but the pictures never leave their servers, unless sent to another platform. That is why they come out like this. FB messenger would be an easy workaround.
Lol. No more iphones for me, thanks. They can't even text a pic properly. Videos... haha. Sorry Apple, not buying into your shit anymore. Once bitten. Eric, stick with Engines. You get those, better than all of us, or we wouldn't be here.
I think you have it reversed. If an apple sends a pic to me crystal clear and android it is blurry. I know it’s apple screwing with android. I have had an android and my biggest complaint was it wouldn’t save all me text. After two weeks it would auto delete them. You can’t operate a business that way. Apple keeps them forever.
@@WeingartnerRacing Not sure what was going on there, but Apple does not follow tech standards, they make up their own, even when standards exist. Google's Android follows established protocol standards. My texts don't disappear ever so again, I'm not sure what went on for you. My wife has always used an iphone and we have to use a different texting app, Signal, Whatsapp, etc. because of the Apple texting weirdness. I'm a computer/software guy. I see this constantly.
Android does, however, allow vendors (Samsung, etc) to 'customize' the user interface on Android, so maybe it was a vendor's customization that caused your experience. I have always used Google's phones so I get pure Android. No BS that way.
Going from a 5.7 tbi to a 5.3 in my truck was a huge improvement. Lifter issues had 5 of them fail. It was just dirty dingo slider mounts and a 4l80e flex plate. It's mostly gm stuff bolts right up to a th400 and saved like 200lbs off the front. Its not a bad swap. You have to see that most ls guys are broke and use stock bottom ends. For me, my step dad built 383 and 350 with vortecs in his 79 truck and now has a 454. He did hill climbing as he got older. He wanted to try an ls because i get twice thebmileage with similar power to a mild 350 with a summit spring kit and a cam that's a 220/224. I want a coyote next since theyre the new hottest engine.
I hate to see you spending money on something that could be demonstrated with a degree wheel, but i do admire your determination and the data you provide.
Try the SBC cam specs in the 408 LS for a comparison. If the SBC is solid roller then use a solid roller in the LS.
I mentioned this in the video. I have two identical cams just need rockers.
Bring on more technical videos such as this!
Watched it without diversions last night VERY WELL DONE ERIC
Thank you for these SBC vs LS videos, I have only ever built SBC stuff, so these comparisons are refreshing.
I think this is the first time I've heard solid and hydraulic roller cams compared this way.
This was new to me.
I already knew solid and hydraulic cams has different ramps, but had never thought about how it impacts the duration.
This made me think of a experiment I think Richard Holdener did on a LS with hydraulic lifters. I think the conclusion was something like that a hydraulic cam don't give the same effective duration trough the whole rev range because of how the hydraulic lifters work.
That .020" duration on the solid cam is .020" 'tappet rise' which assuming a 1.5 rocker equates to .030" lash.
If your cam calls for .022" lash then your 'at the valve' duration figures will look larger than that .020" tappet rise duration because .022 ÷ 1.5 = .0146" tappet rise. Then depending on the lobe ramp rate in this area of tappet rise will determine how much actual extra duration you see at the valve
Then with a hydro lifter not being a 100% mechanical connection (hence the .006" tappet rise adv duration figure) the actual .050" tappet rise figure reflected at the valve is smaller.
Then we throw in valve train deflection😂
I keep meaning to do a solid V hydro cam degree video demonstrating these effects of what you see at the valve V the tappet when attempting to compare cam cards.
Now I agree with this except the deflection is far worse with solid roller because of spring pressure. It looses more than .030 of lift when I have checked. I don’t think you loose near as much with hydraulic roller. Also don’t forget the Ls is 1.7 ratio compared to the 1.6 of sbc so it is gaining faster. The Ls also has a steel rocker compared to aluminum on sbc. There are many variables that play a huge role. The big thing at least from the cam standpoint they are duration different but not as much as most people think.
@@WeingartnerRacing totally agree, the variables are almost infinite in these scenarios.
What happens in the running engine is quite different to the cam card. As you know, the engine doesn't care what the lobe does or cam card says, it only cares what the valve tells it via available port flow at any given point. Hence same cam and valvetrain, different port flow = different engine output.
Did you check your deflection with light spring(i typically use an inner spring for this instead of a very light checking spring) V full spring?
Im sure you aren't just calculating a deflection based off of tappet rise V theoretical lift?
@@WeingartnerRacing re the rocker ratio being faster. Did you map that in crank degrees V valve motion at the valve/retainer?
Looking at the 2 cards(cam doctor SR and then written down HR) we have close ish seat duration about 20 degrees more effective dur at .050" on the SR cam taking some lash into account, dont know the .200" spec on the HR, but then more net lift on the SR. Im going to bet that the actual valve action in crank degrees is faster on that SR than the HR even given the 1.6 V 1.7 rocker ratios.
What would be interesting is to see a map of valve action in .050" increments V crank degrees and the head flow figures at each valve point for the 2 different cam rocker head combinations. That way we will more closely see what the engine actually sees. This is all such interesting stuff 👍
Lucky I had an early cam doc I checked where the Valve opened .006 which also takes rocker ratio into consideration
This is called SAE duration, SAE Net lift, with a 1.5 rocker this is .004 (like Crane) Crower is usually .005, Comp, Lunati, Jones etc .006, Engle .008 Isky varies with series but Mega Cam uses different but assume .009 (open and close may be different)
So at the same Advertised Crane are smaller and Isky are actually much bigger (but their lobes allow higher revs {back in the day}
I do not have up to date data on other than Jones designs, like Comp .904 HL Hydraulics (the are not inverse flank designs)
Wow thanks for that Eric! Very informative easy to understand.
AS far as cam profiles go the GM Indy project spent $$$ mostly on the initial opening/ closing and the over the nose.
The over the nose optimizations gave more rpm at less spring pressure, raising the rpm of valve float
Then the could increase the area after>over the nose< on the close side
Work done for GM by Mike and Rick Jones I think dad Chuck was gone by then but the computer programs he started were redone. At the time no one else came close, still no one else is grinding inverse radius with a small wheel which also makes a big difference
I like running hyd roller cams with solids lashed at .004/.006. Seems the best of both worlds. Milder ramps and super responsive with hyd roller spring pressures. Lash sounds about like a sewing machine.
+ the hydr
Lifter sponges some more and loses some lift. Lift makes power period.but that was a good explanation between solid and hydr. Cams.
I can promise there is more deflection with solid roller spring pressures than with the squish of the hydraulic roller lifter. Usually you lose 0.030 or more.
Afaik the L5P duramax uses 0.842 solid roller lifters that have a lifter tray. I dont know if it is directly interchangable with a factory hydraulic Ls lifter but everything looks like it should work.
Hydraulic cams are great for manufacturers because of tolerance stack. They can build millions of engines with exactly the same parts and all of the manufacturing tolerances are accounted for by the plunger.
There was a short half page article about the factory corvette race car that ran factory oem LS7 lifters that had a ceramic check ball. The were the original ones before all them were the same lifter. These were not the same ls7 lifter we have today because all of them are now ls7 lifters.
Well the race engine reported to be running at 8500/8700 rpm’s with no valve float issues running a hydraulic roller cam.
I think this was around 2006-2007.
A solid roller of that caliber will have a way more aggressive ramp, meaning the valve will have high lift longer which will make the difference in this case. Another thing I noticed was the sturdy dart block instead of the stock flimsy block
Another difference is that the LS has a much greater base circle which allows more accerleration at the same side thrust also
the area under the curve is greater, more area at the same SAE duration,
with SBC we bored the worn lifter bores to MOPAR .904 which allows a greater roller wheel which also helps
you cant transfer .020" lash to the lifter unless you divide it by the rocker ratio Just as lobe lift and valve lift is deferent so is lash at the valve tip compared to the pushrod side from the ratio on the other side of the fulcrum is deffeernt
@@bigbearvenom6145 not only closing the lash up quicker but .020 at valve is not .020 at the pushrod /lifter. when you pull the feeler gauge out of the valve, the pushrod side will not open up .020 when the valve side closes up that .020 that the feeler gauge was taking up unles you have a 1 to 1 ratio rocker. the lifter side of the rocker allways travels less than the valve side . So when you close the lash at the valve the pushrod cup doesnt move the same amount in its lesser arch so the clearance will be diffeent. General rule is a solid cam needs 10 degrees extra to match a hydrualic at .050. They use that number because that about where comparable airflow starts happening
I have an 86 vette. No roller lifter. It started in 87. What GM used it before that?
I misspoke.
@@WeingartnerRacing all good brother. I was just wondering if maybe Cadillac used them earlier.
I thought even the 307/350 olds had them starting in 1984, the 6.2 diesel in 1982. I think its the same Pn.
Pretty cool that you did a comparison i still don't understand these ls comments guy saying this and that it's like they keep saying stuff and don't have proof or whatever
This is the secret of ordering a cam when going from and hydraulic to a solid setup. To get close, you have to go a couple sizes bigger to get to the same essential size. Whether they are a flat tappet or a roller, this applies. Pay attention warriors of the board. You might learn something, lol.
When you get a cam made by Comp, you can have them blueprint it and they give you the report. Adolce checking i think is what they call it. its worth it, along with the polishing services they offer.
Erson does it for free with every cam.
The LT1`s had a dogbone a spyder and a crab and reverse flow cooling system,
Hey Eric, go check out the Yella Terra Rockers from Australia your exchange rate is pretty good for you guys YT 6682 in M10 or 7/16 Unc Pedistal mount good for 900lb open.
$1444 AUD and shipping wouldn't be that much.
Good to see you got a solid roller for that LS thats very close profile 👍
For interest the way i do advertised for a solid is lash devided by rocker ratio ie 0.014/1.6=0.00875 so duration at 0.009 odd seat to seat timing.
Though im not Batman either😊
Good onya mate👍
The ls has a bigger cam core, I think that helps with the valve float issues. Which I don’t think the cam your discussing is no where near an issue, it’s when you get into the bigger stuff that the bigger core helps out. Good stuff though.
Love the video. Why are ls guys saying anything, as they have 20-40 year of advancement in technology. Run a 11.5° gen 1 sbc and see what happens. Hope you can test 11.5, 13 heads 1 day. I think you doing 18°. Good videos always.
Snap, Crackle, Pop. Thanks again!
Never own an iPhone, gee whiz man.
Eric, sorry this is off topic, but you mentioned your S10. What IATs are you seeing in the manifold and at what boost level?
Do you have a video detailing that? Extremely curious. Thanks.
Any thoughts on lash for aluminum versus iron motors?
I run a solid roller on the street. No issues whatsoever. Every time i check the lash, it is usually correct.
Eric measure your solid roller cam tell me what the duration difference at .050 lift is with the rocker at zero lash and the rocker at .020 lash 😁
The biggest difference I see is the larger cam core size in the LS. I can't tell you how many times I've run into the "Limits of the cam core size" in standard SBC and BBC especially!! There's a reason we bore the cam tunnel in the BBC block for larger core cams and raise the cam location in the SBC.....and it has a lot more to do with the overall SIZE of the lobes than the core of the cam. Hint: The larger the lobes can get, the less "hydraulic intensity" is required in the lobe profile. The less "jerk" is in the valvetrain, etc....
Simply put, the LS "SHOULD" be substantially better in the valvetrain department. How much that pays off in the way of HP is yet to be seen.....but we all know it definitely pays off in durability and longevity.
I will also add that we are still in the infancy stage of lobe development for the LS compared to the nearly 7 decades of development the SBC has had.
Writing a proper comment to add to Eric's explanation and requirements is impossible due to TH-cam's awful ad coding which breaks the comment after 3 or 4 ads.
I believe the early Ls1 had the same roller lifters as the later SBC..
I bet the bigger hyd roller in the Ls kills more torque than it’s worth, and the manifold may hold it back up top, personally I would have just put a 229 hyd roller in the sbc, the lobe profile on the sr probably give the small block a quicker valve opening,
Does the LS really need a bigger camshaft with better flowing heads, better valve angle and higher rocker ratio? I don't think so. Yes we will find out!
One question idoes the LS has the same value size as the small block chevy ?
It depends on which head was used but on this one it was 2.08ls vs 2.10 sbc. I have used 2.165 valves on the Ls and on those heads it made less. All the same exhaust size 1.60.
So for this test tdid the LS have the bigger valve
The SBC had the 2.10
BTR shaft rocker kit WITH rockers $470
PRW shaft rocker kit $890
Hell, Speedmaster $464
Will any of these work?
No they will only handle Hydraulic roller cams and the btr is non adjustable
The LS has a rocker racial of 7.1?
1.7 and LS7 are 1.8
Wow, in general I like your Contnet, but that is some serious gaslighting...
You technically do not lie, but what if we have a more exact look at the cams:
- the solid cam has almost 0,05" of lift more (accounted for lash)
- the solid roller has at 0,,1" of lift (being almost 0,08" of Lift accounted for lash) a duration of 226/236, and the hydraluic has 229/244
Judging from the durations at 0.05" and 0.15" I think the actual duration od the solid cam at 0.05" is around 240/250.
- combine these with the faster ramp and therefore even more duration differnce at higher lifts AND the noticeably higher Lift, and I get to the conclusion, that the solid roller should perform more like a Hydraulic roller cam with 245/255 duration and .7" of Lift
I don’t agree with your lift statement. Because you lose far more lift with solid roller springs than hydraulic roller spring setups. I have done a video on that. So .685 minus .022 is .663 then take away .030 from deflection and you are much closer. Still more but much closer. On the duration you are correct which is good because i tested a 243 hydraulic roller cam on the Ls you are going to love those results. As far as aggressiveness of the lobe that depends on the lobe. I have a cam doctor for a 260 duration hydraulic cam I will show on Saturday it’s close to the solid roller.
@@WeingartnerRacing from what I have witnessed, if that 243 cam had a bigger exhaust split, a different lsa, and maybe more lift it would've made more power everywhere compared to Texas speed cam. I would love to see a similar cam tested with those things to compare.
Just show the results of the solid roller in the LS so we can move forward with the testing please. Damn
As soon as I round up $2400
We?
You know all this cost a lot of money you don't just tell someone test this out when he is giving you results for free. If you think is that easy and your able to afford you go buy it and test it. Eric ain't rich he is just giving you free results he put time and money into his dyno sections
@@chevyrc3623 sir I agree I love these videos but I am not a patient person. Just want to see the results not everyone’s opinion on why.
@@scottsigmon926 good things come to those who are willing to wait
Do the LS fans know the LS uses the same lifters as the mid 80’s and up roller cam blocks for the small block?
Same lifters.
Some of us know how to adjust valves for the sbc. 😂😂🤣🤣
There's early LS and late LS. Late are what's referred to as "LS7" lifters. They changed the oil groove slightly.
@@chriswise1232the ones I am referring to were the ones that do not exist anymore. The ceramic check ball, and ones that the race engines used that were said to go 8700 rpm’s. Part numbers change. And many long searches I can’t find the originals as mentioned above. As of a few years ago all the lifters became “LS7” lifters. There is no specific gm production ls7 lifter. Somewhere along the way the lifter you get in the high performance model are the same you get in the base 4.8. And yet still everyone claims ls7 lifters are the upgrade. When the ls7 lifters are literally the production lifters everyone gets now.
No love for Android users, l😅
No. Apple just doesn’t communicate with them well.
I know what Eric is talking when he does send stuff it does come out blurry for us android users. That's all. Now why I don't know I guess apple and android hate each other
@WeingartnerRacing i have the same issue, i send pics to FB messenger so they come out clear and don't look like you used a potato as a camera, 😂
@@chevyrc3623 they just want you to buy their equipment and products, not the other's, all the best to you all
@WeingartnerRacing looked into it. Apple shares between devices but the pictures never leave their servers, unless sent to another platform. That is why they come out like this. FB messenger would be an easy workaround.
I want to do what I would like with my phone. Hence...me being an Android owner!
I get it but they don’t communicate well with apple.
@@WeingartnerRacing no doubt sir, totally agree. Just Apple being Apple. I really appreciate your information, keep up the great work!
Imagine actually hating an engine 🤣🤣🤣
Well it’s not a Honda.
Lol. No more iphones for me, thanks. They can't even text a pic properly. Videos... haha. Sorry Apple, not buying into your shit anymore. Once bitten.
Eric, stick with Engines. You get those, better than all of us, or we wouldn't be here.
I think you have it reversed. If an apple sends a pic to me crystal clear and android it is blurry. I know it’s apple screwing with android. I have had an android and my biggest complaint was it wouldn’t save all me text. After two weeks it would auto delete them. You can’t operate a business that way. Apple keeps them forever.
@@WeingartnerRacing Not sure what was going on there, but Apple does not follow tech standards, they make up their own, even when standards exist. Google's Android follows established protocol standards. My texts don't disappear ever so again, I'm not sure what went on for you. My wife has always used an iphone and we have to use a different texting app, Signal, Whatsapp, etc. because of the Apple texting weirdness. I'm a computer/software guy. I see this constantly.
Android does, however, allow vendors (Samsung, etc) to 'customize' the user interface on Android, so maybe it was a vendor's customization that caused your experience. I have always used Google's phones so I get pure Android. No BS that way.
LS fan boys and Tesla fan boys are the same people separated by dead Dino juice. Like put the white claw down Tyler, it’s just a car/engine