As simple as possible...
The valve seal/spring seat...if possible...was moved deeper into the head...would allow for more lift, Correct?
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
in theory, in general, yes thats absolutely correct.
But not an option on the eco. A lot of the spring seat area is only about 1/4" thick as shipped from the factory. You can see this in the cut-away pics in the eco build book.
To use 35mm springs would require removing about 1/8" from that 1/4" thats there. I wouldn't run with that little of material under the seat.
sig not found
Quote:
seat pressure is way high to begin with.
Why?
I was linked to the supertechs by a ss/sc guy, who linked me to a couple different threads on cobaltss.net where the people using them were elated about the performace. Guess I just don't understand why one group w/ basically the same engine would say they are great and another would blow them into blasphemy w/o even trying them.
Also from what I understand quite a few honda's run them as well. Of course not the same specs but the same manufacturer.
The height difference was almost imeasurable, I did a before and after. What? 5mm is the rounded difference. Not on my head. It was 2 at best from the stock to the supertechs.
I'm no expert, I've been reading and learning, I'm just at a loss as to why these are sooooo bad according to one individual. I believe it was givien a
FAIL by a member.
---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!
Todd knows what he is talking about. He did a lot of looking into on the Eco head.
mitdr774 wrote:Todd knows what he is talking about. He did a lot of looking into on the Eco head.
X2
He is no dummy, hes by far leaps and bounds more educated then your average tuner.
As for why others swear by them.... there's still people that swear the Jet Module works
Skunk wrote:Quote:
seat pressure is way high to begin with.
Why?
I was linked to the supertechs by a ss/sc guy, who linked me to a couple different threads on cobaltss.net where the people using them were elated about the performace. Guess I just don't understand why one group w/ basically the same engine would say they are great and another would blow them into blasphemy w/o even trying them.
Also from what I understand quite a few honda's run them as well. Of course not the same specs but the same manufacturer.
The height difference was almost imeasurable, I did a before and after. What? 5mm is the rounded difference. Not on my head. It was 2 at best from the stock to the supertechs.
I'm no expert, I've been reading and learning, I'm just at a loss as to why these are sooooo bad according to one individual. I believe it was givien a FAIL by a member.
It still fails because you are beyond coil bind with the comp cams, the seat pressure is a lesser concern. The seat pressure if anything will rob more power due to unnecessary friction, I'm not sure if it has any other bad side effects. Just because someone rants and raves about something doesn't make it good. Math has already proved them not to be suitable.
Your height difference measurement makes no sense to me. What are you measuring the height of the spring? Are you comparing it to stock and calling that correct? The capable lift of the factory spring lessened with the installed height (.300) so those who are using the comp cams on factory springs, I guess we'll see how long that lasts. You can't compare and say a honda is using something with success so it must be great for our cars to. Supertech didn't do their homework on this one or they are just using the same springs that they used for another application that happened to be about the same size. If it can't compress to where we need them without hitting coil bind, it's not going to work for our application, simple as that.
Feel free to believe whomever you want... continue to use them but something will break and it probably won't be a simple fix when it does.
12.770 @ 111.99 Intercooled Eaton M62
again, just poking my head in...
the stock springs held up for his motor, what makes you think these stiffer ones will not? im not even going to get into the whole not enough pressure argument, im just saying for sake of strength.
to this day i wonder why todd puts up with our ignorance, other then pure entertainment lol
just for everyone's information, I'm also working the spring problem. I have the patriot head, a stock L61, and a stock LSJ head that I'm tearing down, measuring up and comparing.
oh and M2Race systems is 15 minutes from where I live, so I plan on asking about their LSJ race head package, and their CNC port job package in general.
z yaaaa wrote:again, just poking my head in...
the stock springs held up for his motor, what makes you think these stiffer ones will not? im not even going to get into the whole not enough pressure argument, im just saying for sake of strength.
I would assume because the stock springs can handle more
lift than the ones he has / going to use.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
DroptopPaul wrote:to this day i wonder why todd puts up with our ignorance, other then pure entertainment lol
Ignorance? I don't know that's why I ask. How is it ignorant that I don't know why something won't work and ask for a little better explanation? I got information from a few other people along w/ calling supertech themselves. That is why I asked why they won't work. I really don't know. I have these springs in my head. They seem fine as of right now. The car seems to run smoother than it did w/ the stock springs in there. It seemed to boost easier and it seemed as though it did pick up a little more at the top. I could be wrong, and I cannot prove anything at this point. As soon as I've got a new differential in the car I will be heading back to the dyno.
I understand that Todd knows his @!#$. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply looking for more information, not just a it won't work cuz I said so type deal.
---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!
are the supertech springs not dual valve springs? and if so... they can handle more lift than stock, yes?
They are dual. That's why I'm trying to understand why they are so bad. As I said before installed height is not the 5mm that was claimed it's more like 2.
I'm obviously the only one that has installed them.
---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!
z yaaaa wrote:are the supertech springs not dual valve springs? and if so... they can handle more lift than stock, yes?
No, because when the springs are compressed they will Coil Bind at a height greater than the stock springs.
So they will handle less lift than stock springs will.
Drawing to follow.....
Added: Hope this explains a little more. I have no idea what stock springs coil bind at so I used what was already posted.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:15 AM
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
haha...had to paint em a pretty picture
Makes sense to me. Basically put...strength of the spring isn't the issue, its the height of the spring when compressed, and the stiffer springs are taller, therefore reducing the amount the spring can compress. so if you put more material in there...less room for the cam lobe to push into. thats the idea I'm getting.
Curtis, I'm not trying to call names, especially wasn't towards you in general. Sorry if you took that as a personal poke, as it wasn't.
I think my point is, you come in, talkin 5mm vs 2mm, and Todd is coming in with micrometer readings...now whose is more accurate?
spring height? i thought they were stock with stock height but with an extra coil down through the center, hence 'dual' springs....
just going by what i was told here...
Being a dual spring means nothing if the spring binds when it is compressed. The Eco uses a shorter installed height than normal, and as a result a spring that looks good on paper may not work. If teh spring is good for .650 lift with an installed height of 1.350, but the engine it is in uses an instaled height of 1.200 you will be good for .500 lift. If that makes sense.
yeah i understand just thought these springs were something different i guess...
me and curt have some communication issues sometimes LOL
Coil bind is not the limit useable lift, its the absolute limit of lift.
The useable limit of lift is usually about .020" before coil bind.
Coil bind is the point where the spring acts exactly like a solid spacer instead of a spring any more in a static state, like clamped in a vice.
But springs bounce and vibrate when there are running in a engine and this can make the spring act like its in coil bind at a height greater than coil bind.
sig not found
btw...great thread! I learned a lot here
z yaaaa wrote:spring height? i thought they were stock with stock height but with an extra coil down through the center, hence 'dual' springs....
just going by what i was told here...
Brad, it doesn't matter if they are stock height. Its all about the coil bind height. Stock height just makes the calculation easier.
protomec wrote:Coil bind is not the limit useable lift, its the absolute limit of lift.
The useable limit of lift is usually about .020" before coil bind.
Coil bind is the point where the spring acts exactly like a solid spacer instead of a spring any more in a static state, like clamped in a vice.
But springs bounce and vibrate when there are running in a engine and this can make the spring act like its in coil bind at a height greater than coil bind.
This is what is in the
Mustang Performance Handbook that we used for my dad's 302.
Quote:
If the Coil Bind length does not include the required coil separation clearance, you must subtract your theoretical lift the spring can endure an amount equal to the number of coils multiplied by .010" This will provide the maximum safe lift the spring can handle.
So....
1.210-(.815+Number of spring coils*.010)=Maximum safe lift
JoeyDaBomb wrote:Everyone keeps saying that the patrriot springs can only handle .400 of lift but on their site they say it can handle .550 of lift. What gives with that?
https://www.patriot-performance.com/xcart/product.php?productid=200&cat=44&page=1
Also from Patriot Performance
Quote:
Patriot Performance's Gold dual spring designed for the GM Ecotec. These springs are good for .550" lift and an excellent choice for power adder applications.
Patriot Performance Part Number: 8110
*16 required per head.
Technical Specs:
Install Height: 1.375"
Max. Valve Spring Lift: 0.550"
Spring Pressure Closed: 70 lbs. @ 1.375"
Spring Pressure Open: 175 lbs. @ 0.825"
Coil Bind: .765"
So actually...
1.21"-
.765"=.445 minus the 0.060" they recommend for say clearance =
.385" safe lift
What they claim...
1.375"-
.765"=.619 minus the 0.060" they recommend for say clearance =
.559" safe lift
Edited 4 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:59 AM
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
DroptopPaul wrote:btw...great thread! I learned a lot here
Indeed.
---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!
say should read safe...
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
Ok so I check partriots site, they have the retainers and springs and not all that pricey either. Problem is they don't say anything about seats or anything like that. Input?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:53 PM
---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!
I emailed them about the install height, and all i got back was.
"We are not responsible for misuse or improper installation."
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
