i have a few questions. i did search but didn't find want im wanting to know.

does the LO (LD2) cams have the same width of a lobe as the LD9 cams? i should know this but didn't pay much attention to the width of the lobes when i installed my secret cams. reason i'm asking is i got more cams and im not a 100% sure. i'm thinking there HO because i compared them to the LD9 cams and the lobes are wider. also they came off an 086 head with a HO mani.

and are all 2.3 lifters 35mm? HO and LO. or does the HO/W41 cams only use 35mm lifters?

also where can i get some new 35mm lifters?

ok thanks for the help i have answered all my questions above but am a lil confused or just thinking to much.

the LD2 cams have wider lobes than the LD9 cams. which the HO cams have the same width of lobe of the LD2 cams.

when doing the secret cam swap on a LD9 you use the LD2 exhaust cam. which is as wide of lobe as HO cams.

now my new question is why bore the LD9 intake tower to use the 35mm lifters when using the HO cam when the wider LD2 cam will work on 33mm lifters????

because to utilize stiffer 2.3 springs you cannot use smaller lifters. they dont fit correctly.



Familiar Taste of Poison.

well @!#$ kinda feelin dumb here. i just dont have an extra LD9 tower to see what the HO cam does in it.

i think i answered my other question. the reason for the bigger lifters is because of the more lift of HO cams not the width.

z yaaaa wrote:because to utilize stiffer 2.3 springs you cannot use smaller lifters. they dont fit correctly.

isn't some people using stock LD9 srings with the HO's?

correct. 95 2.3 cams are same as ld9... size wise i mean. and use 33mm lifters as well.



Familiar Taste of Poison.

maxZ24 wrote:

z yaaaa wrote:because to utilize stiffer 2.3 springs you cannot use smaller lifters. they dont fit correctly.

isn't some people using stock LD9 srings with the HO's?

unfortunately... yes, a few are. i would never do it...



Familiar Taste of Poison.

^^^ i think im gonna just go back the junk yard and get a LD9 tower to see what im confused about. because if the HO's will work with the 33mm lifters and the stock LD9 springs, im gonna try it.

but before the HO's go in my car the trans need attention. bad!

I was always told the HOs needed the 35mm because of lift and clearances.

z yaaaa wrote:because to utilize stiffer 2.3 springs you cannot use smaller lifters. they dont fit correctly.

The turbo car had 33mm lifters, HO springs, and an LO cam

u 100% sure intake springs are ho???

if they are idk then. tjpekes had a horrible clanking i his first engine because of this. and the springs had grooves carved into the tops.



Familiar Taste of Poison.

^^^^Yep they matched both sets of HO springs i have now.

Zs Z wrote:I was always told the HOs needed the 35mm because of lift and clearances.

Even when you bore the ld9 tower to 35mm, the cam will still have clearance issues. I think you could use HO cams with stock lifters, but i dont know if that would cause more wear on the cam because of the missing surface area.

jmarks82 wrote:^^^^Yep they matched both sets of HO springs i have now.

Zs Z wrote:I was always told the HOs needed the 35mm because of lift and clearances.

Even when you bore the ld9 tower to 35mm, the cam will still have clearance issues. I think you could use HO cams with stock lifters, but i dont know if that would cause more wear on the cam because of the missing surface area.

That makes sense.

Right now on my engine I have an 086 head with the non conical 2.3 springs and 33mm lifters and stock ld9 cams. I hear no clacking but am slightly worried about what I will find when I tear it down to put the head on my built bottom end.

you guys are too brave.

gm designed the 2.3 to work with the larger lifters and the stiffer springs. im pretty sure they did that for a reason

why try and re-invent the wheel?

oh... and jmarks- dont you remember what i told you about you're lifters that came you of YOU'RE engine? they were DESTROYED. cracks all over the surfaces and pieces missing off them. definitely not something i would want to run in any of my engines. and that was just a tiny ass LO cam. imagine what a ho cam could do...



Familiar Taste of Poison.

z yaaaa wrote:you guys are too brave.

gm designed the 2.3 to work with the larger lifters and the stiffer springs. im pretty sure they did that for a reason

why try and re-invent the wheel?

oh... and jmarks- dont you remember what i told you about you're lifters that came you of YOU'RE engine? they were DESTROYED. cracks all over the surfaces and pieces missing off them. definitely not something i would want to run in any of my engines. and that was just a tiny ass LO cam. imagine what a ho cam could do...

I think brian had used lifters, thats why they were destroyed. I have always agreed with you about using new lifters, cheap insurance.

LO cams can be used with the stock lifters and springs. All they need are the hex for the ps.

The RIGHT way to use the HO cams is to upgrade springs and use 35mm lifters. Thats the only safe way to use them.

HO cams can be used with stock springs. I have been doing this for about 15k now. If i would have had the HO springs i would have put them on.

Now i will say, HO cams on a stock head is almost pointless. There is LITTLE difference in flow on the stock head from .356 to .410 or stock cams to HO cams.

z yaaaa wrote:you guys are too brave.

gm designed the 2.3 to work with the larger lifters and the stiffer springs. im pretty sure they did that for a reason

why try and re-invent the wheel?

oh... and jmarks- dont you remember what i told you about you're lifters that came you of YOU'RE engine? they were DESTROYED. cracks all over the surfaces and pieces missing off them. definitely not something i would want to run in any of my engines. and that was just a tiny ass LO cam. imagine what a ho cam could do...

Ehhhh not so much brave as ignorant to the issue when I assmebled my engine. When I put my head on I was under the impression that the 35mm were only needed for HO cams, 33mm lifters fitting the 2.3 springs never crossed my mind. I will however be using brand new 35mm lifters when I do my shortblock.

i think the reason GM went with the smaller 33mm lifters is because they are lighter. the bigger 35mm lifters is not a performance uprade. lifters WILL NOT make your car faster. but i can see using stiffer springs for the HO's. i still haven't put a HO in a LD9 tower, but you know how there is a shaved edge around the LD9 33mm lifters in the tower? i think that MAYBE because of that shaved edge the HO's will clear the bottom part of the tower with the smaller lifters...???

gm used 35mm lifters because they physically fit over the larger tops of 2.3 springs. its a SIZE thing.

that and 2.3 cams ave wider lobes. again... its a SIZE thing.

its all relative. larger lobes and bigger cams means stiffer springs... which in turn means larger lifters.



Familiar Taste of Poison.

the wider lobes work with 33mm lifters we know this because of the LD2 exhaust cam. and IF the HO's clear the bottom part of the LD9 tower why not just get stiffer springs for the 33mm lifters? the lighter the valvetrain the faster the motor can rev, which is great but still no extra HP.

i WILL figure this all out because i wanna use the LD9 towers so i can still use the 33mm lifters and the power steering. im not worried about the cam sensor.

I still think you should use the 2.3 springs and lifters I dont think the HO cams can clear the 33mm lifters properly, therefor causing damage, your better off just using the 2.3 towers then staying with the stock LD9 towers and 33 mm lifters..........I think sounding pretty dangerous or dumb....but hey if you can do it all the power to you but then again.....I dont think the LO and the HO cams are the same width but I could be wrong(has been before), but like we figure 35mm, ho springs, and ho cams is safer to do


"As I lay rubber down the street, I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God protect my ride." -Amen

^^^ i have the HO cams, LO cams, 95 cams, and LD9 cams. the HO's and LO's are the same width. 95's and LD9's are the same width.

the secret cam swap calls for the wider LO exhaust cam on the 33mm lifters. aint that dangerous and or dumb? A LOT of people are using it.

still haven't got an extra LD9 tower to see what the HO's do in it.

well I got 4 intake towers laying here, the one Im going to see about is the 95 intake tower and see if they will clear, I have hard time seeign those fitting right, when I put the 2.3 springs on the new head then I will put cam tower over with 33mm lifters, I doubt it will work, but hey you can be first to try, what you are saying is making sence, with what you are pointing out is we could almost just run a hex insert on HO cams and install on the towers without the 35mm lifters, but like I said Im not quite sure they will fit


"As I lay rubber down the street, I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God protect my ride." -Amen

2.4 power steering wont work on a 2.3 tower (cept for 95).

ive used LO e cam for years w/ 33's but its because it doesnt have .410 lift that i did it.



Familiar Taste of Poison.

yeah the .410 lift is the only thing im worried about. i'll get a hex insert and get my local machine shop to hook it up.

jmarks82 is running HO's with stock springs.

and the wider lobes work with 33mm lifters.

if there is a clearence problem i'll break out the dremel on the tower. :-p

i'll get it to work! next weekend i'll hit the junkyard again and get some towers.

i wish GM would of let people know how they put the big cams in the Moab ZR-24.

question. Will the 2.4 spring retainers work with the 2.3 HO springs?