t8fanning
8v are still cool, right?
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2010
- Location
- Vancouver, WA
probably a pretty good assumption
Our engine setups are pretty much the same, so I think I have a pretty good handle on how you think.
Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here
Thank you for being a part of our community!
probably a pretty good assumption
For only 350 at your elevation you could get away with the 7064 I had previously. It definitely rips around sea level with better response than the 7670. But I bet you'll want more in the future, so that's why I think 7670 is your best option.
My goals are the most responsive 350whp street set up I can achieve.
So, while I know you don’t necessarily like me for whatever reason, I’ll chime in here. Bergen’s head did the same thing a decade or so ago when I still lived in Cali and he was down for Davis. It would keep spitting a lash cap out. The only real solution is to throw away all of the sketchy untested **** that RSI sold (that should tell you how I feel about my previous employer), but some Ferreas that Pat had specced out by them a few years ago and buy Josh’s valve spring setup. My hypothesis is that at higher RPMs and on the limiter everything can bounce around just enough to let the lash cap shift.
Trying to sound as un-biased as possible, but a 70mm turbine wheel and 76mm compressor is definitely going to be overkill in terms of physical size, for 350whp at sea level on a 2.3L.
If I could influence your decision at all without sounding like a corporate shill (which I'm not, at least not that I'm aware of... unless they have programmed me via rally car exhaust chemtrails), I would suggest looking into the G25-660. Turbine wheel is only 54mm inducer but is a high-flow, low inertia brand new design that is not a carryover from anything else. Compressor is 67mm exducer with a wide 79% - 80% peak efficiency island and enough flow to make 500bhp. I'll let you look into it and try not to influence your decision too much. But I'm here if you have questions (and I get no commission!).
Trying to sound as un-biased as possible, but a 70mm turbine wheel and 76mm compressor is definitely going to be overkill in terms of physical size, for 350whp at sea level on a 2.3L.
If I could influence your decision at all without sounding like a corporate shill (which I'm not, at least not that I'm aware of... unless they have programmed me via rally car exhaust chemtrails), I would suggest looking into the G25-660. Turbine wheel is only 54mm inducer but is a high-flow, low inertia brand new design that is not a carryover from anything else. Compressor is 67mm exducer with a wide 79% - 80% peak efficiency island and enough flow to make 500 - 600bhp. I'll let you look into it and try not to influence your decision too much. But I'm here if you have questions (and I get no commission!).
I wasn't holding any bad blood, hope you aren't either (if so apologies from my side).
Actually having you weigh in is very valuable to me. I reached out to Pat via PM but haven't heard back from him. You would suggest going back to a stock bucket and shim setup? That's disappointing for obvious reasons, but I invested so much in this casting that I just have to do what it takes to make it work for me. Any thoughts on the head being machined to compensate for the springs they used? Simple as putting a hardened .060" spacer in the bottom of the seat to get back to stock spring height?
shoot, I was replying on my phone while sitting in a car at work waiting on a scan tool to do its thing. I did not realize you had a shim under setup. What I would to in that case is put the Ferreas in, shim it for stock length valve springs, and then order the correct height shims for your buckets from SuperTech. They should be available in the thicknesses needed to throw the lash caps away. This is what Bergen ended up doing on his car (not the valve and spring part, but to get rid of lash caps). I think it might also be a combination of the lash caps not fitting perfectly and the **** Si valves which were cut down or something to make it all fit. Either way, new valves, better (proper) spring setup, and get rid of the lash caps and you should be good to go.
So, while I know you don?t necessarily like me for whatever reason, I?ll chime in here. Bergen?s head did the same thing a decade or so ago when I still lived in Cali and he was down for Davis. It would keep spitting a lash cap out. The only real solution is to throw away all of the sketchy untested **** that RSI sold (that should tell you how I feel about my previous employer), but some Ferreas that Pat had specced out by them a few years ago and buy Josh?s valve spring setup. My hypothesis is that at higher RPMs and on the limiter everything can bounce around just enough to let the lash cap shift.
we're talking replacing both the intake and exhaust valves, or just the exhaust valves?
Sorry I'm not up to speed on what Pat said, but I'm sure I'll learn.
Definitely ditch the RSI junk valves.
If you order buckets to size from supertech... it will be money well spent.
Also verify the spring setup.
The RSI heads have decent porting but alot of the internal upgraded components were junk, if you upgrade the consumables you will still have a nice flowing unit that will be more reliable.
-Ben
I'll reach out to you independently after I sit down and do some research. Obviously happy to hear your input. That is a new series of letters and numbers for me, just popped it into google and might head over to open a gofundme for that price tag
You're right. EFRs are physically large. I also agree that a G series would be great. The only issue is they don't have T3 inlet flanges as far as I know. He could use a T3-T4 adapter (like I do), but I don't know if he likes the idea of that. The only reason I didn't buy a G series (and didn't recommend one) when I was looking for a turbo upgrade was because they only had V band housings at the time.
on the lash cap issue.
Here's my thinking...
- The lash cap could only be displaced/come lose, if the gap between the valve tip and the inside of the bucket opened up. Otherwise, how would it have ended up not on the valve tip? Stiggy has the numbers, but I think we measured the lash cap at about .080 deep. Would have to look at the geometry, but I'm guessing we'd need around half that to get the lash cap off the valve stem.
- How does the gap open up? By the bucket losing contact with the valve tip at high rpm as the cam sweeps past tip. Essentially the bucket is "thrown" away from the lobe.
- why/how does the bucket lose contact with the cam lobe tip? Because the valve spring is not controlling the valve motion, and at the point where the valve is supposed to change direction (max open) from opening to close, the valve continues to open, the valve gear has now "floated".
-why did the valve float? Because the spring is not controlling the valve motion relative to the cam lobe.
-what are the possible reasons for the spring not controlling the valve motion?
I think this is the real question.
Stiggy has had the springs checked previously and was told they met the specs for the heavy springs using stock valves. Need to confirm that is still the case.
If the valves that RSI put in the head were heavier than the Volvo valves, then, at least the way I'm seeing it, you would need a heavier spring (one with a higher K) to control the valve motion at the max opening transition point. Seat pressure could still be set at the 95 pound target, but a higher K will give you higher spring pressure when the valve is open.
I'm convincing Stiggy to pull an intake and exhaust valve and weigh them.
Does anyone have the weight of the stock valves? Which I believe are what these springs are designed to control in high rev environments.
Admittedly, I'm no Volvo valve train expert, but I do have a 7.0 L engine that spins at the same 6800 - 7000 rpm, and I have spent way too much time on that valve train. I know that for my car, when you go away from the titanium intake valves or the hollow sodium filled exhaust valves to a heavier (more robust?) all stainless valve, that spring rates need to change or the rev limit has to be reduced. Could this be the same thing on his 2.3?
whadda ya tink?
It can also happen with fast ramps on the cam at higher RPMs...especially when bounced off of the limiter. A similar thing happens with cams that have super steep ramps when people try to use them with stock buckets...they kick the shims off of the top of the bucket.
And not only do the valve weights need to be compared, the combined weight of the stock valve with the stock follower/shim assembly needs to be compared to the new valve and follower assembly that's in there.
Furthermore, while minimal, you also have to take into account an oil film which ends up on the whole valvetrain and does not help the situation.
iirc, the buckets should actually be supertech units...the question is whether they are the type meant for lash caps or the proper ones with the recess for 8mm shims in them.
You can get different lash caps that will fit tighter on the valves. I have a set of CB Performance ones that are incredibly hard to remove. The lash caps/shims that you have may not have a deep enough bore to properly locate on the valve, which will cause issues if there is any valve float or bounce.
The cut down triple groove VW valves don't leave enough material past the top of the keeper and create all kinds of issues when setting up the head if you're using a stock base circle cam. I've done it, I don't recommend it.
My go-to setup is to use quality single groove VW valves and a KL Racing cam (that uses a reduced base circle). The VW valves, springs, and retainers are all drop in with the reduced base circle cams, no need to cut the spring seats .060" for proper seat pressure.
We had the buckets as an OD of 1.454", height of 1.023"