Build an LN2... = Torque monster...
Mine makes 225ft/lbs and just under 200hp but it makes that 225ft/lbs before 3000... and its rediculously fun to drive and eliminates the "peakiness" that typically an outright "torque build" often causes.
Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
I'm thinking of taking two obx or pacesetters 4-1 headers and cutting them up to a 4-2-1 header. Yeah the firing order is 1-3-4-2, so that makes since to combine the cylinders 1and3, 4and2 with each other. The dc header is 1and4, 2and3.
So, I was thinking again...scary I know.
Has anyone used LG0 Valves and Guides in a LD9 head? If there enough room for the valves in the head? Since the 1mm overzied LD9 ones are so close to the stock LG0 valves in size....Thoughts?
I'm thinking of regrinding the LG0 cams to W41 specs. Since there are a few company's that can regrind without messing with the base circle.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
Md i have thought about this. Ive been told that our ports are too close together and the head can crack near the portsif we try this. I dont think we can make our intake side much larger but the exhaust side i dont think would be an issue.
-MD- Enforcer wrote:So, I was thinking again...scary I know.
Has anyone used LG0 Valves and Guides in a LD9 head? If there enough room for the valves in the head? Since the 1mm overzied LD9 ones are so close to the stock LG0 valves in size....Thoughts?
I'm thinking of regrinding the LG0 cams to W41 specs. Since there are a few company's that can regrind without messing with the base circle.
I am pretty sure stock intake valves from the 086 head are 2mm larger than stock LD9 valves and the exhaust are 1mm larger.
That was a good read. I wish Joshua Dearman still frequented this place.
-MD- Enforcer wrote:So, I was thinking again...scary I know.
Has anyone used LG0 Valves and Guides in a LD9 head? If there enough room for the valves in the head? Since the 1mm overzied LD9 ones are so close to the stock LG0 valves in size....Thoughts?
I'm thinking of regrinding the LG0 cams to W41 specs. Since there are a few company's that can regrind without messing with the base circle.
That doesn't make sense to me, unless they weld material to the lobe itself and regrind. I just don't see how you can get something from nothing.
Also, considering the valves sit closer to the pistons in a Quad4 head and because the cam carriers have the same depth betwee LD9 and Quad4, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that all quad4 valves are longer than LD9 valves... which means that no, they won't work.
I have no signiture
There are I think three companies that can now add to the lobes, and then machine from there.
Yeah, I haven't looked up the specs yet, but I'm sure it would be possible to machine/cut the length to match the LD9 stems.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
If the lengths are slightly different, it might be difficult to just machine them down to LD9 specs. You need enough meat on the top of the stem to hold the retainers and the groove needs to match the retainer as well, which means you'd have to do something similar to what you want with the cams (i.e. adding material to the valve). I'm thinking you'd be better off with just the 1+mm SI ss valves vs the cost to machine stock carbon steel valves (assuming it did work). It doesn't hurt to look into it, though, I guess,
Also, why do you want w41 specs? That's hardly any different than the HO specs. Plus, with the longer duration and longer overlap, you will be pushing peak torque even higher in the RPM band, which seems to defeat the kind of build you originally proposed. Personally, if I were having that kind of work done on cams, it would be HG2 specs at the very least.
I have no signiture
hopefully here in the next month or 2 ill have an answer for ya, well exhaust valves......my motor and head are at the machine shop and the 2.3 exhaust valves and seats is something we are looking at doing.
Buy my stuff!!! CLICK
R.I.P. Brian Klocke, you will never be forgotten
yes, the 2.3 valves are longer than stock. by a significant amount as well. something would need to be addressed with the lifters as i doubt the plunger would take up that much slack, but you never know. cutting them down is an option but then you're keeper groves would need moved too...
now... think about the thicker 2.3 valve stems and guides, they are going to take up more space sacrificing some flow.
the 2.4 1mm oversized intake valves are the EXACT same size as the 086 intake valves. however... the 086 exhaust valves are still larger than the 1mm os's by 1mm. you can order custom 086 sized exhaust valves from sivalves.com and done. the correct length, smaller stem and guides for more flow AND they will be lighter.
ive looked at doing the 2.3 valves and honestly, i dont see any benefit whatsoever. we have no issues with 2.4 valves snapping due to them being 6mm over the 2.3 7mm's.
another thing, i am not convinced doing the 1mm os's valves OR 2.3 valves in an LD9 head is doing anything but harming us on an N/A engine. call me crazy if you want to.
Whalesac wrote:-MD- Enforcer wrote:So, I was thinking again...scary I know.
Has anyone used LG0 Valves and Guides in a LD9 head? If there enough room for the valves in the head? Since the 1mm overzied LD9 ones are so close to the stock LG0 valves in size....Thoughts?
I'm thinking of regrinding the LG0 cams to W41 specs. Since there are a few company's that can regrind without messing with the base circle.
That doesn't make sense to me, unless they weld material to the lobe itself and regrind. I just don't see how you can get something from nothing.
Also, considering the valves sit closer to the pistons in a Quad4 head and because the cam carriers have the same depth betwee LD9 and Quad4, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that all quad4 valves are longer than LD9 valves... which means that no, they won't work.
Thats how regrinds work, you cannot add material to the lobe (well, used to not be able to) but you can grind away the lobe base circle, which increases lift since lift is = Lobe centerline height - base circle.... If you make the base circle measurement smaller, you increase lift. Albeit you also increase the amount you need to shim or adjust the valves, but all things being equal...net lift is increased... its the only way to do a regrind without adding material...
Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
Alex Richards wrote:Whalesac wrote:-MD- Enforcer wrote:So, I was thinking again...scary I know.
Has anyone used LG0 Valves and Guides in a LD9 head? If there enough room for the valves in the head? Since the 1mm overzied LD9 ones are so close to the stock LG0 valves in size....Thoughts?
I'm thinking of regrinding the LG0 cams to W41 specs. Since there are a few company's that can regrind without messing with the base circle.
That doesn't make sense to me, unless they weld material to the lobe itself and regrind. I just don't see how you can get something from nothing.
Also, considering the valves sit closer to the pistons in a Quad4 head and because the cam carriers have the same depth betwee LD9 and Quad4, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that all quad4 valves are longer than LD9 valves... which means that no, they won't work.
Thats how regrinds work, you cannot add material to the lobe (well, used to not be able to) but you can grind away the lobe base circle, which increases lift since lift is = Lobe centerline height - base circle.... If you make the base circle measurement smaller, you increase lift. Albeit you also increase the amount you need to shim or adjust the valves, but all things being equal...net lift is increased... its the only way to do a regrind without adding material...
I know that. Reread what Mike wrote, and then how I responded to it. If you you don't reduce the base circle, then you have to add material to the lobe in order to get more duration out of the same lift (HO and W41 cams are both .410" lift). You can't magically get more duration at the same lift without doing one or the other.
I have no signiture
Lars wrote:yes, the 2.3 valves are longer than stock. by a significant amount as well. something would need to be addressed with the lifters as i doubt the plunger would take up that much slack, but you never know. cutting them down is an option but then you're keeper groves would need moved too...
now... think about the thicker 2.3 valve stems and guides, they are going to take up more space sacrificing some flow.
the 2.4 1mm oversized intake valves are the EXACT same size as the 086 intake valves. however... the 086 exhaust valves are still larger than the 1mm os's by 1mm. you can order custom 086 sized exhaust valves from sivalves.com and done. the correct length, smaller stem and guides for more flow AND they will be lighter.
ive looked at doing the 2.3 valves and honestly, i dont see any benefit whatsoever. we have no issues with 2.4 valves snapping due to them being 6mm over the 2.3 7mm's.
another thing, i am not convinced doing the 1mm os's valves OR 2.3 valves in an LD9 head is doing anything but harming us on an N/A engine. call me crazy if you want to.
honestly with all the machining we have to do to make parts work for our engines cutting down the stem and remachining a keeper groove in it isnt all that bad. also brad was saying something about maybe calling up si valves to custom makes some bigger valves retaining the 2.4 stem. and i guess my build is alittle different since im throwing a lot of boost at it so i need to get exhaust out quickly.
Buy my stuff!!! CLICK
R.I.P. Brian Klocke, you will never be forgotten
Whalesac wrote:
I know that. Reread what Mike wrote, and then how I responded to it. If you you don't reduce the base circle, then you have to add material to the lobe in order to get more duration out of the same lift (HO and W41 cams are both .410" lift). You can't magically get more duration at the same lift without doing one or the other.
Gotcha, just read what Mike wrote and misinterpreted it...
Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
I guess if you want a low rpm tq monster then why would you want a cam with a lot of duration? Wouldnt more lift and less duration be better? Maybe advancing both cams too might help with that too. When he said low rpm i was hinking stock peak rpms for the ld9 or not far from that. If he took a set of hg2 cams that would move the power
band up highe like closer to 6000 rpms. You can grind a set of ho cams and get plenty of lift from those without increasing your duration as much as hg2 cams. The thing is once you start going over .430 lift you might want to look into different springs with less bind. I'm not expert on cams but just for your own knowledge go to different websites and read read and keep reading about cam advancing and cam profiles.
brodycog wrote:I guess if you want a low rpm tq monster then why would you want a cam with a lot of duration? Wouldnt more lift and less duration be better? Maybe advancing both cams too might help with that too. When he said low rpm i was hinking stock peak rpms for the ld9 or not far from that. If he took a set of hg2 cams that would move the power
band up highe like closer to 6000 rpms. You can grind a set of ho cams and get plenty of lift from those without increasing your duration as much as hg2 cams. The thing is once you start going over .430 lift you might want to look into different springs with less bind. I'm not expert on cams but just for your own knowledge go to different websites and read read and keep reading about cam advancing and cam profiles.
I got my HO intake cam reground to 215 duration @ 50 and .439 lift, so there is room to play.
Wow tats big. I just got off the phone with a guy in iowa that buils ld9 motors for cirlce track cars he said they run o cams at 8000 rpms with stock ld9 springs and has never had an issue with valve float. I still havent picked my jaw up off the floor. I dont think a ho cam can make power at those rpms but i could be wrong. As for your question hell throw em in and see what happens. You might get the best of both worlds. Just keep in mind the guy that told me this about his cams also cut reliefs into the pistons.
they might be able to run at 8000 rpm's with stock LD9 springs but are they getting the proper lift out of the valvetrain? they might be floating and you would never know it... especially if they have deep valve reliefs.
there is a reason major cam manufacturers sell springs to match their cams....
I agree but like you said you dont know.
I was mainly thinking higher lift and less or the same duration, but I never explained myself.
I still haven't heard back from a few cam places on their recommendations.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
lol i know its just math but recomodations for a quad 4? ludacrous at best! hahahaha
what i wouldnt give for dyno proven results of 5 or so different cam combos WITH cam timing adjustments on various LD9 engine combos....
That manifold design on the last pages is pretty meh. You'd be better with an equal length manifold than that log style, even if it is a reducing log style.
And so the DC header for the LD9 is actually set up correctly for the firing order of the eco, interesting. Did anyone ever check how close eco and ld9 exhaust flanges were (ie would one be able to cut the ld9 flange off and with little effort bend the tops of the primaries to fit an eco flange)?
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
yes jason mcelvy did... not even close. the LD9 is spread further out iirc....
and the firing order of the eco? i guess i aint seen a 4 banger yet that wasnt 1-4 2-3.
I believe it is, which would mean that the dc header actually has the correct firing order for an ld9. You pair cylinders that fire at the same time for maximum scavenging.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
