Saw this in one of the other members post...

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DefiantGSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

endyn did some testing, and those are a no-go! help me!!!!</TD></TR></TABLE>

He was referring to prelude LMA's + washer.

True? or

Thanks.

 

just get some modified ITR/GSR LMA's

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by :thumbsdown: &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Saw this in one of the other members post...

He was referring to prelude LMA's + washer.

True? or

Thanks. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I think it boils down to the engine builder. A engine builder has thier own formula or ingredient when building a motor.

RLZ makes modify ones that he figure out. (Maybe he didn't know about the Prelude ones)

Omniman has a extensive history of building high hp motors and records, i.e. Skunk2, Roger Foo, etc. His knowlegde comes from real world experience.

Endyn, in all honesty, it might be something he don't feel comfortable with.

Keep in mind, like the other world we live in, track times sells.

 

So what exactly did the tests conclude.

If he's says it's a bad idea with no reasoning and leaves it up in the air then that's not saying much.

I have heard of people running this setup with no complications and I have not heard of anyone having a negative outcome with this setup but just because I haven't heard it doesn't mean it's not out there I guess.

 

You are correct Bert. Larry at Endyn does not like the Prelude LMA 'trick', and always recommends ITR LMAs for cams with more than stock lift.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EKhatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So what exactly did the tests conclude.

If he's says it's a bad idea with no reasoning and leaves it up in the air then that's not saying much.

I have heard of people running this setup with no complications and I have not heard of anyone having a negative outcome with this setup but just because I haven't heard it doesn't mean it's not out there I guess. </TD></TR></TABLE>


http://www.team-integra.net/fo...earch

that should explain it all.

not only are h22 LMAs shorter, they have less spring pressure (more importantly)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DefiantGSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


http://www.team-integra.net/fo...earch

that should explain it all.

not only are h22 LMAs shorter, they have less spring pressure (more importantly)</TD></TR></TABLE>

Bla, have to sign up.

Obviously they are shorter that is where the .040 washer comes into play.

As for the stiffness I thought the later gen LMA's were the ones being used and the spring pressure wasn't an issue?

 

anyone with experience with this? I think they said there's 25% less spring pressure? can anyone confirm this?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Stock@$$GSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">anyone with experience with this? I think they said there's 25% less spring pressure? can anyone confirm this?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Steve has done this quite a few times if I remember correctly. I know that a couple of people on here are running with this set up but I can't remember exactly who.

 

hasent rocket already set this ITR/GSR LMA thing to rest?

<u>ITR LMA IS SAME AS GSR LMA</u>

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=571523


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The Great LMA Debate: GSR v. ITR
Question: Is the GSR LMA different (functionally) than the ITR LMA?
Answer: NO. Just different part numbers.


I just got finished doing some testing on a spring tester.

Pressure: 56lbs ITR v. 54lbs GSR(slightly used but sold as new).
Lift Capacity: Exactly the same.
Pad Diameter: 7mm on both LMA nipples. (please do not quote this with hehehees like Beavis and Butthead would).
The only difference: Blue painted dot on ITR LMA
</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SkRiBLaH &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">hasent rocket already set this ITR/GSR LMA thing to rest?

<u>ITR LMA IS SAME AS GSR LMA</u>
</TD></TR></TABLE>

we're actually discussing the use of H22 LMA's in b-series heads.

Is there anyone with the right tools to measure what the seat pressure of the H22 LMA's to verify what Larry at Endyn has said?

 

Unbeknownst to alot of people is the fact that given enough valve float the retaining clip in the GSR/ITR LMA can break loose from the LMA and wind up in the oil pan and even worse get stuck in the oil pressure relief valve causing it to permamently stuck open causing loss of oil pressure.

The necessary spring pressure for the LMA will be dependant upon the Vtec profile and when you want to switch into VTEC. If you are using say Toda cams and crossing over at 6800+ rpms then I would be careful to have enough LMA spring pressure.

 

how about skunk2 stage 2's with the Prelude LMA's? That's what I was planning on running. Thanks for that reply Rocket

 

The skunk stg II/ JUN3 profile has extremely crazy ramps so I would be careful to switch into vtec no later than 5.8k rpms. Once in Vtec you got 3 springs (2 valve springs and 1 LMA spring) supporting the vtec rocker.

 

Thanks for sharing the wisdom Rocket

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The skunk stg II/ JUN3 profile has extremely crazy ramps so I would be careful to switch into vtec no later than 5.8k rpms. Once in Vtec you got 3 springs (2 valve springs and 1 LMA spring) supporting the vtec rocker.</TD></TR></TABLE>

with this being said, what would it be like running a cam with a lot less crazy ramp, but still a lot of lift (12.4mm), which will probably need a x-over in the mid to low 5's? Would b16a lma's do the trick?

 

You might have a problem with the early B16 LMA.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You might have a problem with the early B16 LMA.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Can I use the factory LMA's from a 97 GSR head with M24's and RM valvetrain?

 

Yeah, 96+ GSR and ITR LMA's are the same functionally from my testing.

Only diff is ITR has a blue dot.


Modified by Rocket at 7:53 PM 5/20/2004

 

actually, the older GSRs(94 and 95?) have the same tapered nipple as the B16 LMAs but the pad on the bottom is the larger. I have a 94 GSR head with the tapered nipple. I believe the 95 and maybe other years have the tapered nipple too.

 

Thanks for the clarification, I think I've seen the same but thought someone put old B16 LMA's in a GSR head. Good looking out!

You'll want like OBDII LMA's.

 

here's a pic so no one thinks im talking out of my ****.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You might have a problem with the early B16 LMA.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What kind of problems? The differences so far are

-seat pressure
-bind
-nipple diameter

Now if there is no binding (this is checked by turning over the engine), and sufficient seat pressure for low vtec xovers, then there should be no problems, correct? So that leaves the only remaining factor that "may" be an issue - the nipple diameter. If thats the case, than like you had said, with smaller ramp angles and lower vtec xovers, the whole issue doesn't seem as important...


Modified by teg92 at 3:33 PM 5/20/2004

 

On high lift cams the contact area on the earlier LMA's may not be sufficient.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rocket &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">On high lift cams the contact area on the earlier LMA's may not be sufficient.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Excuse me for being reduntant, but what exactly are the advantages of the bigger nipple diameter for more lift? And have these "issues" ever caused failure, and if so, right away or after time?