![]() |
|
|
|
||||
|
1.65 sbc rocker geometry question????
I understand the differences and advantages to increasing rocker ratio. If I use Harland Sharp 1.65 rockers on Canfield heads will there be any drastic geometry problems other than needing custom pushrods?
|
|
||||||
|
the reason for longer pushrods is b/c the roller tip travels in an arc. This arc needs to follow the valve stem and stay centered as best as possible thruout the arc.
=== Well in this pic i have the arc angles wrong but the idea is to have the roller tip centerd at half lift. Last edited by NXS; 02-15-2005 at 09:01 PM. |
|
||||||
|
valve
Valve train geometry from Comp cams
http://www.compcams.com/information/Products/Pushrods/ |
|
||||||
|
Still, I think the pushrod length he had before will be the same. You always need to check tip travel with new valvetrain components, but for the most part the original lengths should work.
|
|
||||||
|
high ratio rockers
I never could understand why people use high ratio rockers unless they have cam to rod clearance problems. I have seen people put .488 cams with 1.6 rockers. Why not just buy a .500 cam and save the money on the rockers. The cam doesn't cost any more. Or, you get people putting 1.6 rockers on stock heads because the deck is too short for a large cam. They don't breathe anyway. Why the big cam?
|
|
||||
|
Don't have pushrods yet, may as well make sure it's right.
Why higher ratio rockers? Heads flow well to 600 lift. With a solid flat tappet cam I can run a less aggressive lobe and make up the lift with the rocker. |
|
|
| Recent Engine posts with photos |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|