Can someone help me choose the right set of heads? Im building a 383 HSR, 30# injectors, forged bottom end. Im still kind of unsure of the cam to use. My goal is to build something with good bottom end and high RPM, I want to shift at 6500-6800 but still have tq. to do figure eights in the driveway. My question is should I get the AFR 195 comps and something like the xfi280 cam or get the 210 comps with a xfi292 cam? Maybe the 210's would be overkill with the 280 cam? From what I understand the xfi292 might be a little harder to tune for a new guy just getting into tunning. I was hoping someone could help me choose a combo that would work with my goal. Thanks

 

I vote 195s with the 280 cam. It's only a 383, not a 434.

 

I dont think 210's are overkill but the 195's work very well for what they are. I had a 230 cam shift by 6600-6800 and ran very strong. My actual torque wasnt as impressive as some builds but that car ran mid 1.55's 60's with out trying hard at all. Just a 3600 stall and 3.42 gear. Had a touch of tire slip due to bad track prep and old tires. Should have done low low 1.5's maybe 1.49 in good air. Still spin tire on the street at will so it was plenty torquey.

Above 6200 rpm I think the 210's will take over in the power department and not give up that much lower end if any at all.

Either of those heads will outflow the box stock HSR so port the HSR to run best. Only thing is 195 comp ported and the 210 heads are a 1206 gasket and the HSR was made for 1205's until around 2007 when the casting changed alittle to allow porting to a 1206. Before you had to weld material onto the intake to allow a taller port.
You have to see what casting you get as I think some people still get the old casting these days. Hard to say.

When I was considering a 240 deg cam for peak in the 6400-6500 rpm range on my old 383, I was also considering the AFR 210 heads but make sure you have a valve spring to handle the lobes on that cam. They are aggressive and require good spring pressure to turn rpm. If you did go XFI 292, I'd run 210 heads and let that combo eat. It will be a nasty street motor, running low 11's, maybe better. 210's like to flow to .650 lift so getting up near .600 lift would be very helpful on that head. XFI falls alittle short of that but they do have some lobes that can get you up over .600 that you may want to check out.

XFI 292 is big but definately doable to tune. Some claim its easier to tune than the CC306 grind in the LT1 world. XFI292 has same overlap at .050 as my old cam did and I didnt have any problems with MAF setup. My cam has more total overlap than that cam as well. On speed density that may change the game abit and be more picky to tune. I have tuned a 280xfi on a 360" MAF based L98 and it idles fine and drives around fine so 292 on a 383 shouldnt be too much different.

 

Well that was the best thing I heard all day Orr89RocZ... Thats what I wanted to hear. How do I know what style HSR intake I have? So I should port the 195's and not the 210's, Or can I still port the 210's? Would you know if the 210's have a up grade spring option?

 

I had 195's and that 383 I had did great...just wanted to clarify but I dont think i would have given up anything with 210 heads and onlywould have gained some at high high rpms. I wish I would have went 210s because then i'd have them for my turbo motor which really needs 220 heads haha.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/alte...sr-change.html

Check that post for the visual difference in HSR's. If you have a lot of material around the ports like that, you can be sure you have the later casting and can open up to 1206. Casting date should be after 07

If not, you either stick with 195 non competition port heads because the comp ports are 1206, or you weld material onto the HSR base.

I wouldnt port either of the heads. They are good enough out the box to do anything you want. AFR will put whatever spring you want onto those heads, so yes they all have an 'upgrade' spring. AFR stocks many styles of springs, so talk to them and get something with around 150 lbs on the seat. That used to be the 8019 spring so see if they still have it. Great spring.

 

Orr usually makes some good sense, but not here. First, even Extrude-Honed HSR won't keep up with AFR's basic 195 heads. You'd do better to look into a TPiS MiniRam III.
Second, 210s are far too much for a 383, even with twin turbos. Go look at post 8 of my best builds sticky thread, you'll see how good 180 heads on a 400, with a mild HR cam and a dual plane intake is plenty for for 525 hp and 6500 rpm.
If you want 600 HP and 7000 rpm, forget the 383, you need a 377. More bore, less stroke. AFR's best 195s are still plenty. 210s are for a 434.

 

What are the 220, 227's and 235s for then? I dont think its overkill on a big bore motor and Tony Mamo at AFR would recommend them, he has done so for me several times. Just my opinion tho.

195's are great overall heads however. My 9 to 1 401" motor in my turbo car will push that car around with EASE with 2.73 gears, 4000 stall in 3rd gear of the TH400 from a stop! Not in any boost whatsoever, it crawls up hills easily and i cant believe it... 2.73 gears in 3rd gear in the trans. Drives around with soo much torque.
Joe Sherman made 600hp on a 383 at near 6800-7000 rpm I believe with Eliminator 195's non comp ported so they have the power. I just think the 210's would have made significant gains over 6200 rpm on a setup like that. Cross sectional area is better suited for the rpm range.

HSR flows 270-275 cfm out the box, so with alittle port job I think it can easily match the 286 cfm flow of a 195 head, and opened to 1206 port, I think it will compliment 300 cfm 210's just fine. Miniram can do 300 cfm opened up alittle as well. Tony Mamo has one cut up/epoxied to 400 cfm to match his 235 heads on a 450 sbc on corvetteforum...

Cant go wrong with miniram either, but boy is that expensive I'd consider a victor E EFI single plane opened up. They can easily flow 300 cfm and match the 195-210 heads.

My buddy has AFR 210's which started out as 195 non elminators but have been ported out to over 300cfm and 210 cc roughly, on his 406 miniram motor and a 250's duration solid roller. Runs 10.6 at 130 in a 93-94 TA 6 spd Has ran high 10's with the old 195's and 242 duration solid roller. Motor peaks in the 6300 rpm range tho, and we think the box stock miniram is holding it back some.

My ported HSR did well on the 195's. I think they could have supported a larger cam and more rpm. HSR certainly held power to 6500 on the dyno graph where the run stopped but shifting at 6800 didnt effect ET. Ran well. Cam was alittle short for much over 6300 rpm peak, which is where I wanted power anyway but larger cam should have made more rpm.


Its up to you, based on my experience with the 195's, i'd be curious to try 210's with a 240 duration hydraulic roller. good rod bolts, 6" rods and light pistons are a must More converter would be necessary too. 4000 would be fun and PLENTY streetable if done right. My turbo converter is very tight when not in boost but flashes up to 4000 ish rpms when flooring it but stays tight when boost comes on. Its a great street setup made by PTC.

 

Wow..Im really surprised that with my luck I dont have the older style intake.
Well thats what im going to do then is get the 210 comps, port my intake to a 1206 and start looking at cams. Has anyone tried or know of AFR's new Hydra-Rev kit? Is it worth the extra money?

 

210s. RPMs make HP and the port speed on the 195s will be too fast and uncontrolled.

I've seen too many people use heads that are too small and build dump truck engines. Engines that FEEL good and go nowhere. One guy I worked with lost 1.5 seconds on a motor that would rip your head off compared to his old motor, go figure. You're spending money to go fast, not pull stumps. 195s will work, yes, but I'd lean 210s and go for the upper end.

You want to shift near 7000 RPMs, the 195s will be anemic compared to the 210s.

Another alternative is Profiler heads. They are 100% American made. They are about $300 cheaper, and Bob Lutz just ran 6.x over 220 MPH using their stuff. They are 100% American made and they own their own foundry.

I am a big fan of Profilers for the money you will save you will lose nothing. Just presenting another option.

A mention of a 434 using 210s, that is just ridiculous. Something that big needs at least 235s if not bigger.

You guys are recommending heads that are too small for a guy shifting that high.

 

I am running AFR 210's on my 406 and had to add material to the my HSR lower housing I think mine is a 2004 casting if memory serves me correctly. You can see how i added the material on my car domain link. Tony Mamo at AFR personally had my intake when it first came out to test fit the 210's to make sure they'd work when he made his reccomendation.

 

"Well thats what im going to do then is get the 210 comps"

If you are going to get the comps I would go with the 195 version. I have them on my 368 motor and the power is just scary. Throttle response is very, very crisp. I was breaking the tires loose at 60mph in second with out being at full throttle. Just no comparison with my previous motor and that one was no slouch. Waiting to get on the chasis dyno. I know I'm above 400rwhp with an unlocked 4000 stall.

 

We all have different experiences and totally different builds. I'm running an older set of 210 Race Ready versions on a 383 with a 0.600+ lift solid roller. Even Patrick at Pro Systems after seeing all my specs said he really liked the looks of the combo and built me a 950 HP Carb for it.

Call AFR and they can make recommendations on the heads and the valve springs they include with them. If you're buying the heads you might as well save the cost of valve springs.

Also make sure you inspect any parts you get. I found an metal disc where the tool wasn't sharp enough and instead of cutting the hole in the coolant passage just knocked the left over metal into it. After some shaking it came out easily enough, but would have caused some real problems if I had installed it in that way.

 

I've heard this before about AFR, but to be fair, that can happen with any part. No matter what part you're bolting on, clean it throughly and inspect it.

 

Correct, but it's always good to mention it. I've also found a screw in my Milodon stroker oil pan jammed under the windage tray. Thankfully I found that when I inspected the pan before installing it on the new motor.

 

This is all really good info everyone.. but still no takers on the AFR Hydro-Rev kit?

 

I hate to say this, but John is right to a degree.

IF you're spinning to 7k, the 210s are a better fit for a 383.

I ran 195's on my 412 because I want the port velocity down load as it's primarily a street car, and with a 280xfi cam it's out of breath by 6000 RPM.


However, the whole combo presented in the first post won't work period. That cam on a 383 won't spin to 7k, so you might as well run 195s like I did.



As you can see, the party is over around 5500.

If you want to spin a 383 to 7k you want a bigger cam, probably a solid roller for reliability with heavy springs, big *****, proper machining, etc.

And that same motor will run like a turd at low rpm..


-- Joe

 

Depending on the grind, you may or may not need a rev kit. I didnt on my setup. My setup peaked by 6250 but held flat to 6500 where the dyno run stopped. I shifted that car most of the time at 6600 and ran great times. Occassionaly I'd shift at 6800 and didnt notice a difference in ET. The top end was flat enough i could carry rpm if needed. A good road race setup but never used it like that.

I ran AFR's 8019 springs shimmed alittle bit to have around 165-170 lbs of seat pressure over the 155 ratings from AFR. The AFRs have small diameter lightweight springs and valves so they can pull some rpm without floating. Titanium retainers would help even more so. My buddy turns 7500 in his 4.8L lsx motor using small double springs, I think patriot extreme golds with titanium retainers on ls7 lifters. Very similar to AFR 8019's. No rev kit.

The XFI stuff is pretty aggressive on the lobes and will require good spring pressures. I think 155-165lbs on the seat is a good place to start and the 400+ open pressures should keep the lifters on the cam. If you dont use enough spring, the cam wont pull to its capable rpm range. Rev kit just seems like a crutch for inadequate valvetrain. Run small diameter double springs or even better yet, an ovate wire/beehive type spring with that much seat pressure and titanium retainers.

I dont think a 280xfi cam in the 383 will go that high, but the 292XFI has a chance to rev up some rpms.

 

"This is all really good info everyone.. but still no takers on the AFR Hydro-Rev kit? "

I'm running the AFR Rev Kit on my motor for insurance. I did not want to take any chances on running into valve float with a possible shift point of 7000+ rpm's.

There is a difference between the AFR 195 Eliminators(street heads) and the AFR 195 Competition version the poster is talking about. I had my AFR 195 Competition heads flowed and they were actually around 306cfm at .600" lift on the intake. That will support over 600 at the flywheel.

 

Is it really worth the extra money for the Comps or are the Race heads just as good?

 

I feel you can do alot with the standard street ports on either head. Just not sure its worth the extra 500 bucks to gain the extra flow for what your trying to do. I'd be curious to see how the 210 streets match up with the comp 195's since they suppose to flow the same with the same valve. The 210cc ports should do well on a over 6500 rpm shift point. Their cross sectional area is not as big as most would think so you can use them on a 383 motor just fine and still have response across the rpm range.

 

For reference, a profiler 210cc 2.080" valve combo with a decent solid roller, not super aggressive on the lobes either so will have good spring life.

Solid rpm range and HP. Torque is SOLID too.

 

WHY do you HATE to admit it?

Just proves the big flow small port argument falls on its face, doesn't it?

Joe, I bet you'd pick up AT LEAST .5 seconds going to a head with more CSA.

 

Chad does good work. I'll email him this link. He's good with the profilers and you can get a set ported from him for about the same price as the AFRs.

Look at his AIR WOLF stuff. Dollar for dollar, probably the best value out there.

 

John,

For a 500-550hp street motor, the 195 is the choice for me. If I wanted to pick up .5 seconds, I'd have used a bigger head and different combo. I'm paying on average $300-500 less for AFR heads than summit sells them for, so don't mistakenly think I won't buy what I need.

My 412 is a 500-550hp motor, tops. It's a 2 bolt main block, large journal crank. 550hp is about the limit of these blocks. Additionally, I wanted to build it so I can run it around town, in traffic, etc without the low end bog of a typical large CSA head.


If you want to talk about a 800-900hp twin turbo small block, my suggested parts will differ. For what I'm running, this head was the best of both worlds. I would have also tested your buddy's profiler heads, however as I stated before 1) They only offer them in a 1206 port which is absolutely useless to me, 2) The goons working for him couldn't even answer basic spring questions. Gave me that uneasy working outta the basement feeling.

And it's not to say that AFR is a miracle of a head either. I happen to think they flow quite well, the price is right, and the porting is very well done. Whoever drills and taps the bolt holes however needs to get fired. A simple chamfer on the holes before taping would be nice..

-- Joe

 

OK..but the retail is still more on teh AFR if it is a price thing.

I didn't say large, I said larger than 195. I don't suscribe to the theory that bigger ports make for a less snappy engine, if the heads are speced correctly. I mean, I've seen cars with pretty big port heads melt the tires in a street car. so...I think it would be more of a tuning/combination issue of matching the cam and giving the fuel pump a bigger shot off idle. I just haven't see where that theory holds water.


I don't disagree with that. 1206 port isn't a big deal especially for this poster, he's going to port to 1206 anyway. So for this application it's a non issue. We are only addressing what this OP has asked. For another application, the answer may be different. The AFRs he's looking at are 1206 anyway.

As far as getting questions answered, that's coming from ME not them on this sale, and I have answered every question within minutes of it being asked. Now understand where this company has come from. They were making strictly products for big block and all out race applications. They don't get customers who need to be told what to buy, their customers tell them what they want. But that's the difference in between their customer base and consumers. These 23* heads are a new offering coming from a company whose product put many cars in the winners circle. They are going to consumers with this product. They do know their stuff.

Now, does shifting from a hard core race company to a more street and consumer based company have it's growing pains? Yeah, it does. And I will be the first to admit that perhaps their service can be better.

But let's not let that detract from the value of these heads at $950. Made 100% in the USA by seasoned professionals, designed by Darin Morgan, a legend in head design. They own their factory, and once you put them in place, who cares? They are a known quantity in race circles and are breaking into consumer. I call that an opportunity for someone willing to put the money out.

I agree. AFR is a good product. But I also believe Profiler is a good product too. And it's a few hundred bucks less, and until you've seen one and used one in person, or got reviews from people who have, really hard to pass judgement. It's hard to argue with the track success they are having. Their fit and finish is great. All I'm saying is, if it were me, I'd put the $300 in my pocket because I feel both products are equal and with all things equal, I'll take the money.

I think these heads are the best value for the money. Quality piece designed by experience people, made in America, for a good price.

That does not take away from any other product out there.

 

Just found this thread and I have to say we've gone completely away from what the guy wanted. He asked for a cam and head to make bottom end power and shift at 6500-6800RPM.

None of these heads will make a dump truck motor, only the cam in this situation could cause that; these are all awesome heads. It's not like we're comparing stock 882's to Vortecs.

All the heads in this thread are so well designed I would go big. The XFI280 should make loads of torque and decent top end with any of them. While the XFI292 would loose a bit on the bottom end and pick up significant gains over 5000RPM.

Those profilers look awesome I was poring through the pictures I found of their ports and they look great. The ports look a lot like vortec design if you ask me, just bigger of course.

 

Depends on the cam. Also depends on if it's EFI or carb. You know the velocity plays a big game in atomization of fuel. At lower RPM, the valve is open for longer period of TIME, and velocity is down.

Even batch fire port efi needs velocity. It fires the injector at a closed valve, and it's the valve opening and surging of air that atomizes the fuel.


Right, you are correct. My bad. I was referring to my needs. The OP's desires and what he suggested using are at opposite ends of the spectrum anyway. He's not revving the combo he spoke of (mainly due to the cam) to anywhere near those RPMs.

Good question. I think the problem with profiler, or problems is 1) They don't offer a smaller 1205 head for street guys yet they offer a great entry price point. Like you said, $1,000 for heads that flow 260+ cfm is a deal, but most guys are running HSR's and performer RPM's, ya know what I mean?
and 2) like I said the guys answering the phone just can't seem to give up info. Took me like 3 tries to get the spring info.. Not cool.

Yeah.. My cost on the AFR 195's is about the same price Darin quoted me for his.. Like I said, I would have tried them if they had a 1205 port but I'm not buying a special intake just to try some heads. And, if I ran an intake with way bigger ports than my heads were well that would be a hack.

Maaaaybe, just maaaaybe, I can use a pair of his heads for a twin turbo project down the road with a 1206 ported victor e.

[QUOTE=Doom86;4687375]Just found this thread and I have to say we've gone completely away from what the guy wanted. He asked for a cam and head to make bottom end power and shift at 6500-6800RPM

You are 100% correct. For his high spinning 383, he needs a big solid roller cam.. He should probably look at camquest, and model a few things. I've been using EEpro for a while now too, and it's pretty close. But either way, he's not spinning to 6800 without getting valve float on an XFI 280 cam, or 288 like I have.. Like the charts I posted above of a 383 with a 288 cam, it's done before 6k..

-- Joe

 

I will have to post my 383 HSR graph.. Its in another thread somewhere i'll try to link it.
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/alte...got-383-a.html
second post shows graph.

Dyno quits at 6400 rpm or so, but on one pull i think we hit the 6800 rpm limiter because dyno guy was looking at stock tach which 6500 is 6800 apparently. Not sure why the dyno shows only 6400 or slightly less, but you can see it flat lines out from 6200 to 6400 and would have kept pulling. I shifted that setup 6600 90% of the time but have tried 6800 and never really noticed a difference in ET. Maybe a few hundredths if that. Most of my runs were between 11.52-11.60's i believe but mostly dependent on traction/60 foot, not shifting rpm. That combo used a somewhat mild intake/exhaust lobe, with AFR's 8019 springs shimmed to 165-170 lbs on the seat. Cam was 286/230 intake, 306/245 exhaust..similar to comp cams magnum lobes which are less aggressive than XFI or XE but I had more lift than any of those, so the ramps were still somewhat aggressive I guess. I open/closed the valves slower.

A good designed cam with a 230-232 or so duration intake lobe can make power to 6300 or so and shift by 6600 well within the range of the OP's goals. But I'd use the 210 cc heads, peak around 6500 and shift 6800.
Theres a BIG difference in shift at 6500 on a setup, and shift by 6800 on a setup. XFI 280 may not quite get 6800 on a 383. I'd say it would be more of the 6000-6200 rpm peak and shift by 6500. XFI 292 however if controlled should do the 6400-6500 peak and shift by 6800, but you have to control the valves.

Solid roller would be worth significant gains in power over hydraulic roller when considering 6500 rpm peak shift by 6800. The combo posted above may be slightly overkill but would allow you to shift at 6800 if you wanted but you could also go to 7200 if needed. Shouldnt matter with that flat top end.

If you stick with aggressive hydraulic rollers i'd run the strong PAC beehives with 150-160lbs seat pressure and maybe even titanium retainers. I like AFR heads for an application like this since they have 8mm lightweight valves. Not sure what Profiler has.

 

I'm interested how you think these "lightweight valves" really help in this specific application.

 

It's physics. The lighter the valve the less spring pressure required to close it. The less spring pressure the more reliable hydraulic lifter will be.

The problem with hydraulic lifters is the constant battle between enough spring pressure to keep aggressive ramps in check, while keeping the spring from collapsing the lifter.



-- Joe

 

You always talk physics, well this is exactly that case. Lighter valve is easier to control because requires less pressure. Same reason titanium valve retainers are made and smaller diameter springs are generally preferred over large diameter because their resonant frequency is higher, so they can turn a higher rpm before vibrating out of control and causing float. Beehives were eventually made to help eliminate the resonant frequencies as well and give much better valve control.

Solid roller may not need this and the right spring for a hydraulic roller may handle a heavier valve train just fine, but I am not a fan of going too much over 170lbs seat pressure and 420 open which is about the capability of AFR's 8019 spring which was designed ot handle the aggressive lobes. Same kinda of specs the Patriot Extreme Gold double springs have and they perform very well on the aggressive hydraulic rollers found in LSx stuff.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, I'm just asking how in THIS application it matters. Here's what cracks me up. I'm told in many cases "these are street cars and don't need to spin that high RPMs"...then a big ol' point is made of lightweight valves, which really have no value unless it is spun up high. It confuses and entertains me at the same time.

6500-7000 RPM is not high enough to make a difference. The smaller valves are done to increase FLOW not to control valves. So the first question is again, back to basics. What CSA/Flow relationship is important here. IMO, the valves will not play a role in THIS APPLICATION, and I'd even go as far as to say MOST applications on this board. Not enough of a difference to matter. It's like flow at .700 if you have a .525 lift cam. WHO CARES?

BTW, I'm not a fan of the reasoning behind the "rev kits" either. I think it's more of a fad than technical necessity IN THIS APPLICATION and many we talk about here. They are designed as insurance to keep the lifters from flying around as a pair if you lose one in much higher performance applications than this one. If you don't need the insurance because your application does not demand it, DO NOT BUY IT. It's not money well spent in this application.

Something else that gives me giggles. I'm told "those are race motors" when it comes to the laws of physics. Then we talk about REV KITS which, are REALLY for "race motors" and throwing them into "STREET MOTORS". That's the difference in being consistent and buying cool, unnecessary parts. Save your money on the rev kit. How many people here have lost a motor because they didn't have one? Anyone? Anyone? Can anyone point to any street-performance motor that HAS lost a motor because of not having a rev kit? Guys, it's your money ask the important questions before spending it.

Since I tend to rub people the wrong way with my position, we discussed in PM, Orr89 and I, that we welcome these discussions and there is ZERO animosity in any of our banter. For example: I mean, rev kits are cool, how can I point out that something cool may not be needed. How can I brag to my friends I have a REV KIT if I don't? It's great banter at the car show, and helps stroke my ego.... (sarcasm off)...

 

RPM's don't have to be that high. I've had valve float issues on world products heads which ran heavier valves on fairly short duration camshafts. I don't like running a lot of spring pressure on hydraulic rollers because I've also had issues with comp cams lifters. I'm using howards now.


I don't know who is telling you what. Are you still using Pat to build your engines? I've been building and breaking my own stuff since I was a kid, and while I'll take input from folks and try it myself I won't just accept something someone tells me until I've tried it myself and have results one way or the other.

I don't know how many combos you have built and tested yourself, raced, rebuilt, etc. But I've tried a lot of things and have years of notes.


I'm not sure why you don't understand the reasoning behind the rev kit. It puts pressure on the outside of the lifter rather than the plunger to aide in valve control by keeping the roller planted on the cam lobe.

If you want to see pictures of motors that have exploded due to valve float, we can start posting them. Again, I'm not sure how many combos you have built and raced over the years but I've had my share of successful winners and stuff that just wouldn't stay together. And like some of your buddies that give you advice and built motors for you, I too used to own a shop and build for customers. It's a hard business because a very small percentage of guys actually know what is going on, and there is just too much bench racing on the forums.


-- Joe

 

Well I'm not the one saying to build a dump truck motor I like more aggressive street motors and take rpms when I can get them. I was recommending 210's if the intake manifold was set up for 1206 gasket.
For a hydraulic roller I feel its a good idea to limit valve train weight when planning to turn over 6500 rpm. Especially 6800 rpm. With a solid roller, perhaps its not as important.
There is a decent difference in weight from a 8mm valve and 11/32" valve but as long as you have a light spring and retainer you probably can get away with it for most street applications to 6500.

I dont know how much spring pressure a typical hydraulic roller lifter can handle. I ran 170lbs seat/412 open. Had no problems but now have a bit of a ticking noise that may be lifter so I'd have to check. Hope its not collapsed.
I have read of a guy running 200lbs seat and near 500 open on LS7's but not sure. That seems excessive.

I'm a fan of hydraulic rollers till about 6800-7000 rpm shift points. If you want a peak hp much above 6600 rpms, I'd seriously consider a solid roller. You will make MUCH more power there. Even below that rpm, you can make more hp with a solid. If the OP builds a solid roller car, I dont think valve weight is that important. Less weight helps, as use only as much spring as needed and no more is the motto I'm hearing and I agree.

Now I have a friend using LS7 lifters on a 4.8L LSx based motor that was turbocharged. Decent sized hydraulic roller in that motor turned to 7500 rpm peak power and never had a problem with float. Double springs/titanium retainer, I'm not sure he had much more than 160 lbs seat pressure and 420 open but I'd have to ask him to be sure. Thats under 23psi booost as well. I dont think that could be done with conventional fat double springs and heavy 11/32 valves that most heads used to come with. Thats a ton of RPM for a hydraulic roller and I'm very impressed with that setup.


Never used one but I'm trying to recommend one to a friend who is under-springed for the simple reason its probably cheaper to try the rev-kit vs new springs, and easier to install. He has 1.437" double springs with only 120lbs on the seat and they are used so no idea what mileage is on them. Not enough for an XFI280 cam. I dont think its able to make power over 5800 rpm and it should make power to over 6200. Its got the head/cam/intake to support that. So far the 1/4mile times are not what was expected and i think it may be float limiting power. I cant seem to locate a drop in 1.437" diameter spring that will reuse his retainers. AFR recommends their 8019 spring but I'd need a retainer/lock combo to use for these 11/32" valves and AFR doesnt make it. These are going on old AFR 190 heads. If I can find something thats relatively cheap (under 200 bucks or so for the kit) then he'll do spring swap. Else maybe a rev kit could work. I hear they add another 20-30 lbs pressure to the lifter, so that would act like 140-150lbs on the seat which is where I wanted to be at. We shall see. Havent confirmed valvefloat but XFI cams are aggressive and without proper spring pressure you should see float.

 

Guess this thread is taking a turn for the worst.....so this will be my last reply. I could pick this apart, but why? I don't understand the hostility other than to say bench racing is OK when it fits your view of the world I guess. To coin a phrase by a good southern friend of mine, when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit....guess I hit.

Bottom line is a properly built engine in this class does not need a rev kit. And no one can show where a rev kit would have saved a properly built engine in this class.

And yes, I recommend Pat Musi to anyone who will listen. I don't think I need to explain why. Oh, and Pat, Sonny Lenord, and many winning builders, don't post on forums....just sayin.

Joe, I think you're too busy arguing with me than listening to the OP. He said he wanted to run a 1206 ported head to 7000 RPMs. Instead of listening to that, you're hell bent on proving me wrong.

 

Nobody is being hostile silly..

That is not entirely true. It's a balancing act. Some guys like me like hydraulic rollers for maintenance, and want aggressive lobes for performance but don't like bent pushrods.


Nope they don't. Guys with big egos fear being questioned. I understand that, I work with guys like that. But if I wanted to pay someone to build me an engine, I'd buy a new car..


No, I'm not bent on proving anything to you. I addressed the OP, as did other members. But you wanted to bring up the rev kit debate.

Your problem John, is you get too personally attached to this stuff. It's just cars man.. It's not that big of a deal.


-- Joe

 

More chrome will make up for lack of rev-kits I hear. You need more chrome and Edelbrock stamped on it somewhere to really pull this off.

IMNSHO Beehives have changed everything with hydraulic roller lifters. If I was building a roller motor I intended to peak at RPM like this I wouldn't even consider anything else. The double-springs are old tech and should be treated as such. To me it's like comparing the old "grind" cams to the newer "grinds", the old one's get results but pale in comparison to the newer aggressive lobe designs.

 

I agree. Ever since the PAC beehives came out with higher seat pressures than comp's 918's, i've been sold I will go with them on my next build if I ever change anything out. Bit more investment but great valve control.

 

You know what joe, maybe I suffered from the same affliction as people who respond to my postings.

I have a way....I know I know.....of coming across where the meaning and true intent is lost.

I should have afforded you the same consideration. I don't buy group mentality, I ALWAYS find it faulty...

You know me and "fads" no one knew what a rev kit was, no one needed a rev kit, and no one even cared.

All of a sudden about 2 years ago something happened and rev kits became COOL.....now every one needs one. How did that happen? Where's the streets littered with failing lifters popping out of the bores? ESPECIALLY with the dogbone/spider setup in these cars.... The linked lifters, yeah they need them more, but really....

I will submit that a engine that is abused beyond it's build capability may benefit by a rev kit, however, a engine that is built correctly to take the amount of abuse that it is handed IN THIS LEVEL OF ENGINE BUILDING that we see here, I will stand with it's not needed. This is the real trick.. Building to a spec. If you build an engine to operate in a particular condition and it breaks, you didn't build to the right spec and it's more than just picking cool parts out of a catalog, it's about engineering. The engineers at GM are told we need a car that meets this spec, and they need to do it.

 

Thanks man, sometimes I question my sanity...

Yep, technology is great. What does a beehive take the limit of a hydraulic roller to?

 

That I would be curious to know. Even with a beehive I'm sure there is a limit where you still would need more and more spring pressure depending on the cam lobe. If the cam is designed right and not super aggressive, i'm sure you can take a hyd roller to very high rpms. Like I said, my buddy took an LSx motor to 7500 hp peak rpm with LS7 lifters and I think small diameter double springs... 702whp. Thats impressive.

 

Even if aan engine is not seeing super high rpm's I would think that the lighter valves would still be better for the long haul....GM thinks so since they put the light 8mm valve in there ls3 that makes peak power ~6000rpm.....

John-How is your 427 coming along...it was a build that I was following as I am considering a big cube small block down the road...any dyno #'s or track times?

 

Hey Don, how are you. It's good it's been on the road, off the road, on the road, off the road...

As soon as I got it running good on the stock ECU, I ripped it out because I wanted to try a Motorvation ECU. GREAT STUFF for the novice tuner. They pre configure most of it at the factory and you just have to set the idle.

Then I did an MSD ignition after while doing the ECU (6AL Digital). After I got that working, I decided to take the wiring harness apart and cut out all the old wiring I wasn't using. I'm just about finished with that. When that is done, and I have all the wiring dressed and neat, I'm taking a break.

Every time I get the car running right, I decide to change something (read as spend more money) On my list of "things to do" is to swap out the Motorvation ECU and try that new Holley one, see how that works.

I have to stop working on it and start drving it more...

I'll tell you what, for guys on this board that Motorvation ECU for the money is a great product. Unless you're running coil over plug ignition like the LSX Engines, I can sell this COMPLETE with wideband provisions, harness, etc... for under $2000. Not a bad deal compared to what is out there, Big Stuff, Fast, etc... It's hundreds cheaper. If you look at my facebook page I have pictures up there of it.

Dyno numbers in the mid/high 400s, torque about the same at the wheels. I had it on the dyno to figure out some tuning issues, wasn't there to blow it out. Once I clean up the wiring I'll do a final run and get times.

My kids are 10 and 7, weeks will go by, sometimes months, where I don't get to work on the car. Soccer, baseball,etc... it's a function of time and I don't have any.

 

Well glad to hear its coming along....sounds pretty stout.Should be a very strong runner...

 

A oldy but goodie

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/afte...a-rev-kit.html

 

That thread was great. If I recall, backinblack kept telling folks they didn't need a rev kit unless they were a 'race app'. Then if you search his posts from a few months later, he was getting serious valve float and bought a rev kit..

Another thing, which reminds me that I didn't mention earlier. Folks like him running blowers. The boost is going to help hold the valve open too.

-- Joe

 

And that's what happened joe, AFR came out with a rev kit about 2 years ago and all the lemmings fell in place and had to have one. No one understood why, just that it was cool. They are an amazing marketing machine and make a decent product to back it up.

Rev kits have been around for years, but until the edict came down, no one really needed one. How many rev kits did you install before AFR told you that you needed one? How many problems did you have? After? What was the first rev kit you installed, when, what brand, and why?

Now that being said, I am NOT saying there are applications that can benefit from rev kits don't get me wrong. I think it is more important to get the spec of the motor correct before throwing a rev kit at it. It's not a bandaid for a poorly speced valve train. But that's what happens when people (not you take it easy) buy cool internet parts and slap them together. And more importantly this application for this OP it is not necessary. Nor is it for 95% of the builds here, probably more.

I tend to agree with CAMMER here:
http://www.gofastnews.com/archive/index.php/t-726.html

And he's talking about applications that actually require rev kits and now to negate them.. Still, I'm confused by the seemingly opposing views that these are street motors and don't rev to 7000-9000 yet, on these low revving motors a rev kit is needed. Maybe you can clear that up for me, why a 5500-6000 RPM motor would need one.

 

Hey don, thanks to your prodding I went down to the garage last night and cut out the rest of the harness....

I just need to dress it up nice and neat and clean up some other stuff and I'm done. Cutting out the harness along the fire wall plug is nerve racking. One slip and I cut a required wire and I'm screwed. My car has a harness pass through on the fire wall that is not a plug, but an epoxy filled connector. I'm cutting the wires even with the epoxy, then coating them with liquid electrical tape, then taping it back as it was stock. I gently nicked one wire, but no damage...whew....

Thanks!

 

But they add another 100Hp
http://www.airflowresearch.com/index.php?cPath=75

Seriously
My 383 w/ 847 cam dynoed through 7K no problems on Pac 1518 beehives .( cam flat lined past 6400, was just testing the limits)
But when I put my .630 solid in for the " race app" I will be installing the rev kit I have because I like the idea of something other than the valve spring pushing on the lifter at the 7K+ revs I designed this engine for

 

AFR never told me I needed one. I started having valve float problems over 10 years ago when I used to use World heads on supercharged motors. I've never used one made by AFR, but I assume like many other companies AFR started making them for aggressive hydraulic roller cams.

You have said that a few times but I think your missing a few things.

If you want a really aggressive cam profile that snaps that valve open and achieves max lift way early on in the duration than you need to have springs to control the valve. Hydraulic lifters can't take very heavy springs due to the nature of the lifter design. It's not that people are building the motors wrong, they are trying to run very aggressive camshafts but don't want to go solid and deal with the maintenance of setting lash frequently. The solution is to control the valve by putting the spring on the lifter BODY where you won't collapse the plunger.

I'm trying to but you just don't get it John.. It's not always the RPM, but the rate of lift.

Let's say you have two camshafts right. Both are 230/230 at .050"

One is 280* advertised at .006" tappet lift.

The other is 284* advertised at .006" tappet lift.

So from .006" to .050" tappet lift, the first cam does it in 50 degrees, where the second cam takes 54 degrees. The first cam has faster ramps. From closed, seat, damn near closed to a measurable spec of .050" it takes less degress of revolution.

Now this is a minor example. The RPM is a constant factor, say 3k rpm gives you 1500 RPM camshaft speed. However with a slow cam vs a fast cam your valve is moving MUCH faster. The steeper the ram the more the valve wants to bounce rather than glide over it. This causes valve float. You need a proper spring to keep this valve in check. However, especially at low RPMs when oil pressure is lower big heavy springs tend to collapse hydraulic lifters. This causes another problem because as the motor revs up and oil pressure builds the lifter can actually create lash to the tune of .050" ore more at the rocker when the valve closes, which can bend pushrods or break them if they jump off the cup.

Another thing you need to consider as well is the powerband vs cubic inches of the motor. My camshaft in a 350 might make power to 6800 RPM, however in my 412, it might be on it's face at 5800, in your 427 it might be done by 5500. However, the ramps don't become any less aggressive just because the cubic inches of our engine have some much swept area that they require more duration to fill the cylinder (and therefore have higher vac than a smaller engine). They still need proper valve control. To me, a professional engine builder would be negligent at best for not recommending cheap safety insurance like a rev kit if a customer is paying 6k plus for an engine with an aggressive camshaft. While I may or may not choose to run one based on how I feel a cam might perform with the springs I'm running, it's a totally different ball game when you are providing engines for customers that need to stay together. I've blown up many of the combos I've built for myself, but when I owned my shop I NEVER had a customer come back over a mechanical failure..

What did you use for a cam, John?



-- Joe