Reduced upper end oiling
Thread Starter
Advanced
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 66
Likes: 1
From: San Diego CA
Reduced upper end oiling
I am considering reducing the oil flow rate to the top end of my LS7 road race engine and would like to know if anyone has long term experience with running reduced orifice pushrods. My concern is that oil flow is needed to dissipate valve spring heat - this is especially critical when running a high lift (.650"+) cam at high rpm (7000 limit) for extended periods.
Reduced (within limits) oiling is desirable for (at least) two reasons; reduced windage loss due to less oil draining back onto the spinning crank and less oil being pushed out the breather during extended high rpm periods [the change to the internal baffling in GM valve covers between LS1 and LS2 engines likely attests to their recognizing unacceptable breather oiling issues].
If anyone has experience with reduced orifice pushrods in a road racing application I would appreciate your sharing your results.
Reduced (within limits) oiling is desirable for (at least) two reasons; reduced windage loss due to less oil draining back onto the spinning crank and less oil being pushed out the breather during extended high rpm periods [the change to the internal baffling in GM valve covers between LS1 and LS2 engines likely attests to their recognizing unacceptable breather oiling issues].
If anyone has experience with reduced orifice pushrods in a road racing application I would appreciate your sharing your results.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,561
Likes: 448
From: Atlanta metro Ga.
I am considering reducing the oil flow rate to the top end of my LS7 road race engine and would like to know if anyone has long term experience with running reduced orifice pushrods. My concern is that oil flow is needed to dissipate valve spring heat - this is especially critical when running a high lift (.650"+) cam at high rpm (7000 limit) for extended periods.
Reduced (within limits) oiling is desirable for (at least) two reasons; reduced windage loss due to less oil draining back onto the spinning crank and less oil being pushed out the breather during extended high rpm periods [the change to the internal baffling in GM valve covers between LS1 and LS2 engines likely attests to their recognizing unacceptable breather oiling issues].
If anyone has experience with reduced orifice pushrods in a road racing application I would appreciate your sharing your results.
Reduced (within limits) oiling is desirable for (at least) two reasons; reduced windage loss due to less oil draining back onto the spinning crank and less oil being pushed out the breather during extended high rpm periods [the change to the internal baffling in GM valve covers between LS1 and LS2 engines likely attests to their recognizing unacceptable breather oiling issues].
If anyone has experience with reduced orifice pushrods in a road racing application I would appreciate your sharing your results.
Last edited by Dan_the_C5_Man; May 22, 2007 at 11:58 PM.
