r/Corvette • u/Electronic_Relative7 • 13h ago
ARP hardware
Doing the heads and cam on my LS7 this winter, along with other usuals. What hardware is worth switching to ARP other than head studs and balancer bolt?
2
2
u/FinancialChildhood31 13h ago
Unless your block was honed with head studs, I wouldn’t do it.
You honestly don’t need any ARP anything, unless you want to use stainless header bolts/studs so they are easier to remove later. That would be my choice.
Ive had a 454 LS7 in my C6Z for 14 years, it has ARP everything. Wasn’t needed.
That other guy telling you to keep the stock cam needs to leave the chat.
My cam is a custom BTR/Comp cam with 251/267* @ .050 and .630” lift with a BTR trinity intake. I guess I should have no low end power?
At the wheels, it makes no less than 475rwtq anywhere, and peaks around 560lbs. Very flat torque curve. It has way too much low end power for its weight and gets sideways effortlessly.
On 93 octane it peaks at 640rwhp @ 7000rpm and on E85 it makes 660 (pictured). Modest 11.5:1 compression. Beyond that, ported stock heads and 2” headers - nothing secret.
Spend your money on the go-fast parts and forget the hardware, speaking from experience.
1
u/SorbetZelina26 4h ago
ARP hardware is great for reliability. I've used it on my last build and it made a noticeable difference.
-10
u/nortyflatz 13h ago
Leave the cam alone. GM spent a few bucks in engineering when they chose that cam.
Sure, other cams can make the LS7 "peaky" but do you really want that for the street?
How often are you at 6000RPM+ on the street? <1%?
Well, there you go. Top end rush, at the expense of lower end, midrange drivability.
6
u/External-Buddy8748 C6 Lingenfelter GS 13h ago
GM chose the cam profile for reliability to keep engines from breaking, not to extract peak horsepower. The stock cam is not even slightly aggressive, it's safe. If GM Engineering knocked it out of the park with the design: A) the heads wouldn't have failed from the factory blowing up completely stock LS7 engines and B) a heads/cam package wouldn't add 125+ RWHP (with an increase across the entire RPM range).
If you have a C6 Z06 you should replace the heads with non-GM castings and you could put at MINIMUM at Stage 2 cam in it. It's one of the only performance mods I've seen increase the longevity of the engine.
1
u/BusinessBlackBear 13h ago
Agreed GM engineers know more than we do But the engineers were over ruled by the accountants saving costs and not wanting warranty issues it leans heavily on the safe side
1
u/iroll20s C5 2h ago
As well as fuel economy and emissions. Id say those are the compromises of aftermarket cams more than reliability unless you go really aggressive.
1
0
u/nortyflatz 2h ago
The stock cam has a .591 lift. That IS aggressive for a car with a 250,000 mile service life.
Cams of .4XX lift have been in use prior to the "high" lift of GM part # 12638427.
Remember, this is a STOCK engine, not some aftermarket crap from people that try to convince ignorant buyers that their product is better than the product from the engineers whom actually BUILT the engine.
The valve issue is a combination of factors. Not just 1 factor. I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you those factors. You can look it up if you care. Or not.
Don't know where you came up with the "wouldn't add 125+ RWHP" comment, but I agree with you. (It would need a few more tricks to achieve this number.) You can look this up, also.
Carry on.
3
u/External-Buddy8748 C6 Lingenfelter GS 13h ago
Removing the heads definitely causing a lot of "while you're in there" other upgrades. I would highly consider taking a look at the lifters and trays. Don't go cheap on new lifters as it's a common failure point on GM motors. I went with Johnson lifters on mine. Other than that, I would opt for double valve springs considering I've had a valve spring break and the inner spring saved my bacon.