Also advances in light weight rocker arms, springs and the new roller camshaft designs might play a role in the scheme of things. I was just basing the thought with the LSX motors in mind. The only big difference I can think of would be the diameter of the camshaft versus that on a SBC.
So why wouldn't a 1. I'm talking of lift around. Post by revolutionary » Fri Jun 06, pm The common limitation on rocker arm ratio is the length of the arm itself - meaning the distance from the stud to the tip of the valve and from the stud to the pushrod. Moving the ratio up to a 1. One of the reasons LSx engines and many others like Fords run more ratio is becasue the rocker arm is so much longer. Post by ralph85 » Fri Jun 06, pm I've got 1. Haven't had any issues for about 3 seasons of racing and some street driving.
However, the perf improvement over the 1. The gains would be very small, probably in the order of 6 or 8 HP. The cam you choose is not bad for what you state as you desired application, street, occasional towing and the has enough "performance" for your Jeep. The duration looks good for low RPM torque and I admit a little more lift would not hurt but going over 0.
GreyhoundsAMX is the cam guru, download his spreadsheet and have a play, it has provision for 1. When I was playing with the numbers, 1. The extra lift might be beneficial if you head flow can actually support it. The increased rocker ratio might give you a slight improvement in performance without the loss of low end torque that might come from going the next cam size up.
If you look at the Comp Extreme Energy cams, they try to do something similar to increasing the rocker ratio with more aggressive ramps to open and close the valves more quickly and have more lift with less duration than the traditional Magnum cams. Found a completely different length Pushrod was needed on the same assembled parts. Even different length Rocker Studs were needed. Crane were used but removed the locking hex nuts to clear valve cover ledge on head.
WesternRed wrote: GreyhoundsAMX is the cam guru, download his spreadsheet and have a play, it has provision for 1. The increased rocker ratio might give you a slight improvement in performance without the loss of low-end torque that might come from going the next cam size up.
This is kinda where my thoughts were headed. Since I'm not looking for a race cam, I'm interested in the Howards I think it would be ideal for a highway cam in a My thought has been that stepping up to 1. Search Advanced search….
New posts. Search forums. Log in. JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. New cam vs 1. Thread starter Mansiongardens Start date Nov 15, Dave Garner. I suspect this will have been raised many times so feel free to direct me towards the relevant threads!
I currently have with original heads and cam. It is fed by a Holley cfm Quad Barrel carb and makes bhp on the rolling road. I am trying to decide which way to go with heads and cams. If you have a similar set-up what sort of power is it actually making and how is the drivability?
However, whilst looking at the AFR web site I came across a article form where a stock had been fitted with AFR heads and had retained the original cam which was 'hotted up' with 1.
The article claimed bhp I assume dyno rather than rolling road. Has anyone actually gone down the route of using good heads and 1. All the best Dave. AFR heads are some of the best in the business. They will flow well even without the higher ratio rockers. A with those heads, the right fuel setup and 1.
Not sure if I'd buy the HP as typical though, but I would bet with a good cam and intake it could get there easily enough. Cliff Beer. Dave, I've studied the 1. So say at mid lift the 'tip' of the roller is centered on the valve. At valve close the rocker's roller tip will be further away from the center of the valve tip surface. At full open it will be closer.
The distance from the center of the rocker bolt to the rocker tip roller is always the same. The rocker just changes its contact point on the valve tip but the distance from rocker center to roller tip never changes.
Hence a 1. Look at the tip of a used rocker. See the shiny part? You can see that the tip of the rocker is worn over maybe.
This is because as the valve opens, the rocker changes contact point on the valve. And actually a stock rocker can be setup to be 'centered' on the valve through duration better than a roller.
Anyway the rocker essentially gets longer the further you open the valve. So in my example above of 1" from pushrod cup to bolt and 2" from bolt to rocker tip. You may actually get 1. Now that you understand this, how does this work in the real world? Well, the stock rocker is a low ratio when the valve is closed, this is easy on the valve springs and keeps valve float away.
This is why you can run 1. It's also why cars with stock rockers make more power consistently than cars with rollers.
0コメント