Go Back   Corvette Forum > C4 Corvettes, 1984 - 1996 > C4 Tech/Performance
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
C4 Tech/Performance
L98 Corvette and LT1 Corvette Technical Info, Internal Engine, External Engine Sponsored by
J&D Corvette

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C7 Parts & Accessories
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
C4 Parts & Accessories
C3 Parts & Accessories
C2 Parts & Accessories
C1 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-18-2005, 02:27 PM   #1
jadedvette
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Philadelphia Pa.
Default 1.6 rocker arms, why do I want them?

The stock ratio rocker arms for a 1986 coupe is 1.5. If I change them to 1.6 I know it will give me more cam lobe lift, but why do I want that. Is it more horsepower, or more torque, or both. Will I feel it seat of the pants. I know this sounds like a dumb question because I know what it does. I just don't know if it helps. What will raising the lift without changing the duration do?
Thank you,
Joe
jadedvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 02:40 PM   #2
siggy_freud
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Default

Getting more lift for the same duration, is in a way getting free horse power/torque. I say that because, in a sense, your not changing anything else about the engine or its powerband. You aren't really sacrificing power at a certain range to gain it somewhere else. Some argue that it does change duration, however thats impossible since duration is dependent on the cam lobe itself and short of regrinding the cam, duration wont change. It can change duration when measured at a certain lift.

Realize that by going to 1.6, the valve is staying open for the same amount of time. However, the valve is also lifting further, thus allowing more air in, during the same amount of time. That translates into more torque and horsepower. If the valvetrain can handle it, I dont see any reason not to do it. Just be sure to keep valve geometry in mind.
siggy_freud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 02:44 PM   #3
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jadedvette
I know it will give me more cam lobe lift, but why do I want that.
What will raising the lift without changing the duration do?
It will not change your, "cam lobe lift", but it will increase the amount of lift at the valve. By it's self, a rocker arm ratio change should be good for 5-10 horse power.

RACE ON!!!
__________________
CFI-EFI
1984 Crossfire
Member: NHRA
160,000+ Miles. Untouched, factory stock, longblock.

Rode hard. Put away wet!
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 02:49 PM   #4
redbullapril23
CF Senior Member
 
redbullapril23's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: atlanta Georgia
Send a message via AIM to redbullapril23
Default

also you gain hp just by the rollerized tips because it has less frictions than your stock rockers.
your friend
Sean
redbullapril23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 02:52 PM   #5
jadedvette
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Philadelphia Pa.
Default

Thanks for the answers, but of course I have one more question. Why do people split the ratios (1.5 on exhaust and 1.6 on intake). I would think that if you add more fuel mixture you would need more exhaust opening to get rid of it.
Joe
jadedvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 02:52 PM   #6
siggy_freud
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbullapril23
also you gain hp just by the rollerized tips because it has less frictions than your stock rockers.
your friend
Sean
That and less side to side movement and strain on the valve stems. But if your going to rollerize it . . . go full roller, not just roller tips. Just my opinion anyways.
siggy_freud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 03:01 PM   #7
bogus
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2000
Location: San Pedro CA
Send a message via Yahoo to bogus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jadedvette
Thanks for the answers, but of course I have one more question. Why do people split the ratios (1.5 on exhaust and 1.6 on intake). I would think that if you add more fuel mixture you would need more exhaust opening to get rid of it.
Joe
I have wondered that myself...
bogus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 03:27 PM   #8
VAHROOM
CF Senior Member
 
VAHROOM's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2000
Location: Chandler AZ
Default Not to mention.

It has also been said that the stock rockers aren't all created equally. I have heard that the ratio between a set of stock rockers vary within the set. You may be getting parts that make each cylinder work equally and smooth out the engine even more.
__________________
Vince
I wave even if you don't

LT-4 CE Roadster.
VAHROOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 03:44 PM   #9
65Z01
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In II Veteran
 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Send a message via AIM to 65Z01
Default

Going to 1.6:1 RRs increase valve lift by 6.7% and increase duration at .050" lift by 2deg, though of course they do not change advertised duration (i.e. at .004"). This is because at every point along the cam lobe the valve now opens 6.7% higher so the .050" valve opening point comes earlier in degrees or cam rotation and the .050" valve closing point comes later. If you plot a typical cam profile with 1.5:1 rockers and then add 6.7% to the lift at every point you will see how this works.

Years ago TPIS installed 1.6:1 RRs on an '85 L98 and found that 1.6s on the intake gave about a 15chp peak power gain but that installing 1.6s on the exhaust brought no more power but a rougher idle. So they recommended splitting the RR ratio. You might also want to split ratios to keep valve lift within the bounds of the springs when going to a new cam.

I now run 1.6:1 RRs on both intake & exhaust of my '88 L98 (with #113 Al heads) and idle is even smoother than with stock stamped rockers.

Also, with the iron heads the push rods are guided by slots in the heads which can interfere with 1.6:1 rockers. So it might be necessary to machine iron heads to accept the 1.6s.

If your '86 has iron heads and don't want to bother with the possible needed machining, you could still gain about 10chp at peak power by going with 1.52:1 RRs. This gain comes from reduced friction as well as reduced side thrust, which allows the valve to track the cam profile more accurately.
__________________
My 1988 Z01 #65 Site

------------------
65Z01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 04:07 PM   #10
Yellow95
CF Senior Member
 
Yellow95's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: Irvine CA
Default

Only down side is engine wear. You lower mechanical advantage with the increase in lift. The cam/lifters/push rods/rockers/springs have to work harder. You go to rollers to manage the additional forces.
Yellow95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 04:08 PM   #11
neat
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: May 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Send a message via AIM to neat Send a message via MSN to neat
Default

If the heads work well witht he cam shaft design to promote good scavenging, you can get away with less lift on the exhaust side. Using a smaller ratio rocker is easier on valve train components, especially the springs. It also allows you to use a spring with less pressure on the exhaust side. Less pressure means less force is required to open the valve, so the engine will put that power to the tires instead of losing it internally by opening a stiff valve spring.

Popular hot rodding did an article awhile back called "Horse power shootout" or something like that. 10 of the best engine builders in the world built NA small block V8's. One of the top 3 made over 600 CHP, and had a 1.3 rocker on the exhaust side. They tried all the way 1.6 with no gain in power.
__________________
1971 Chevelle - Convertible - Silver/black - Automatic - 15.0 @ 90 -
2002 Trans-Am WS6 - Navy Blue/black - 6 speed - 11.23 @ 126 -
1991 Corvette - Black/black - 6 speed - 11.37 @ 122 -
neat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 07:39 PM   #12
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbullapril23
also you gain hp just by the rollerized tips because it has less frictions than your stock rockers.
your friend
Sean
This is a small factor IF one goes to roller rockers. jadedvette didn't specify or address rollers. Not ALL 1.6:1 rocker arms are rollers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by siggy_freud
That and less side to side movement and strain on the valve stems.
The RATIO of the rocker arm has no effect on the "side movement" or "strain on the valve stems"

RACE ON!!!
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 08:48 PM   #13
red88L98convert
CF Senior Member
 
red88L98convert's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: clovis ca
Default

The RATIO of the rocker arm has no effect on the "side movement" or "strain on the valve stems"

RACE ON!!![/QUOTE]


uh.......if you use a lever to pry or force something open, you apply pressure, or strain, on whatever you are trying to move or pry. if you use a bigger lever, you exert more pressure, or strain, with all else being equal.
red88L98convert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 09:02 PM   #14
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red88L98convert
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI
The RATIO of the rocker arm has no effect on the "side movement" or "strain on the valve stems"

RACE ON!!!

uh.......if you use a lever to pry or force something open, you apply pressure, or strain, on whatever you are trying to move or pry. if you use a bigger lever, you exert more pressure, or strain, with all else being equal.
The spring provides the resistance to the valve opening. The rocker arm ratio doesn't change the pressure required from the tip of the rocker arm, to open the valve. Besides, the operative phrase, here is, "SIDE MOVEMENT

RACE ON!!!
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 09:39 PM   #15
red88L98convert
CF Senior Member
 
red88L98convert's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: clovis ca
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFI-EFI
The spring provides the resistance to the valve opening. The rocker arm ratio doesn't change the pressure required from the tip of the rocker arm, to open the valve. Besides, the operative phrase, here is, "SIDE MOVEMENT

RACE ON!!!
not to be tied up on terms......but, ive seen valve tips snap clean off of stems from too much rocker ratio--with the same set of springs. now, these were high spring rates, but point being, there is indeed added strain on the valve tips, which is what i was referring to. not the side to side movement. but on that note, take a look at the wear patten on a set of valve tips prior to changing to a different ratio, run the rockers for a while (50-100 miles) then recheck the wear pattern. youll see a difference. at least i did.
red88L98convert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2005, 12:37 AM   #16
cuisinartvette
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '05
 
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: Chatsworth Ca.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jadedvette
Thanks for the answers, but of course I have one more question. Why do people split the ratios (1.5 on exhaust and 1.6 on intake). I would think that if you add more fuel mixture you would need more exhaust opening to get rid of it.
Joe
Some guys that run a single pattern cam like to run those in search for a "little" extra depending on the seat timing.Changing from a 1.5 to 1.6 can also tell you if the motor would repond to more cam or not. Yours has a dual pattern cam. Most guys here seem to be happy with 1.6 on both
cuisinartvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2005, 10:38 AM   #17
mean8t
CF Senior Member
 
mean8t's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2001
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by siggy_freud
Getting more lift for the same duration, is in a way getting free horse power/torque. I say that because, in a sense, your not changing anything else about the engine or its powerband. You aren't really sacrificing power at a certain range to gain it somewhere else. Some argue that it does change duration, however thats impossible since duration is dependent on the cam lobe itself and short of regrinding the cam, duration wont change. It can change duration when measured at a certain lift.

Realize that by going to 1.6, the valve is staying open for the same amount of time. However, the valve is also lifting further, thus allowing more air in, during the same amount of time. That translates into more torque and horsepower. If the valvetrain can handle it, I dont see any reason not to do it. Just be sure to keep valve geometry in mind.
By going to a bigger cam you lower your engine's dynamic comprassion ratio. The longer the intake valve stays open ABDC the less cylinder pressure (dynamic compression ratio) the engine will have. I agree completely with what 65ZO1 said, 1.6's will increase duration at .050" lift, but frankly that doesn't matter, two degrees is a drop in the bucket. You however are not changing the total duration which is where you get dynamic compression ratio. The dynamic compression ratio is way more important than static compression ratio b/c it determines how the engine will perform. You can make all the compression in the world, but if it is bled off by a cam that is too large then it is all wasted.
__________________

Josh

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the
night to visit violence on those who would harm us."

--George Orwell
God Bless the Infantry

1980 Corvette w/700r4, 85 TPI w/ 52MM TB by David Koldos, ported SLP Runners, SDPC vortec TPI base, ported Vortec heads, 224*/230* @ .050" .510"/.512" lift cam, headers and custom leg pipes.

pics coming....
mean8t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2005, 12:51 PM   #18
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red88L98convert
not to be tied up on terms......but, ive seen valve tips snap clean off of stems from too much rocker ratio--with the same set of springs. now, these were high spring rates, but point being, there is indeed added strain on the valve tips, which is what i was referring to. not the side to side movement. but on that note, take a look at the wear patten on a set of valve tips prior to changing to a different ratio, run the rockers for a while (50-100 miles) then recheck the wear pattern. youll see a difference. at least i did.
What your referred to was my reaction to a post that said, "...side to side movement and strain on the valve stems". You even quoted my post that cited that post. I maintain that the rocker ratio does NOT increase the side movement of the rocker arm or the SIDE strain on the valve stem.

When you go to a greater rocker arm ratio, the rocker arm travels through a longer arc to attain the additional lift. This will cause a different wear pattern on the valve stem, but that wear will be in line with the rocker arm, not SIDEWAYS causing side strain.

By the way, a higher ratio rocker arm is a SHORTER lever, not a longer lever.

RACE ON!!!
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2005, 02:46 PM   #19
65Z01
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In II Veteran
 
65Z01's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: SE NY
Send a message via AIM to 65Z01
Default

Take the cam in LPE's book for example:
268/268=int/exh, advertized duration (at .006deg)
218/218=int/exh, duration at .050" lift
110, LSA

With 1.5:1 rockers this cam has an overlap of 24deg at .006" (268/2 - 110 = 24) and no overlap before .005" lift (218/2 - 110 = -1).

Going to 1.6:1 rockers will not change the advertized (at .006") lift much but it will add about 2deg to duration at .050". This now brings overlap at .050" lift to 220/2 - 110 = 0.

Since dynamic CR depends on the area under the curve from advertized druation to the point on the cam profile where there is no overlap, 1.6:1 rockers indeed change dynamic CR.

There are several sources of friction in the valve train 1) rotation of the rocker about the fulcrum, 2) sliding of the tip across the valve tip, 3) sliding of the valve stem in the guide. We will neglect the slight rotation of the push rod tip within the rocker cup. At high RPM there are significant side forces on the rocker stud, which deflect the tip of the stud and increase the motion of the rocker tip across the valve stem tip. This not only increases friction at the valve tip but imposes additional side thrust on the valve stem, increasing friction with the guide. Of course this lateral motion of the rocker stud also reduces effective valve lift, which is why we upgrade to 7/16" studs or even to stud girdles.

So, when upgrading to 1.6:1 RRs there are a number of factors to consider if you want to spin your motor safely to higher than stock RPM (and this is really what upgrading the valve train is about). These can take a $300 upgrade to over $600 in a hurry (e.g. adding Ti retainers at $150/set).

Don't let the above frighten you away from this useful mod though, consider the LS7 with 1.8:1 Rollers.
__________________
My 1988 Z01 #65 Site

------------------
65Z01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2005, 05:34 PM   #20
CFI-EFI
CF Senior Member
 
CFI-EFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: The Top of Utah
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65Z01
Since dynamic CR depends on the area under the curve from advertized druation to the point on the cam profile where there is no overlap, 1.6:1 rockers indeed change dynamic CR.
I disagree that the overlap period has any influence over the dynamic compression ratio. The overlap takes place when the intake valve starts to open before TDC at the end of the exhaust stroke, and the exhaust valve closes past TDC into the intake stroke. The compression stroke doesn't start until 180* PAST the middle of the overlap period. Since the intake valve stays open past BDC, in to the compression stroke, it is the point of the intake valve closing that has the greatest effect on the dynamic compression ratio. Actual compression can't start to take place in the compression stroke, until the intake valve closes. The overlap period has nothing to do with dynamic compression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 65Z01
3) sliding of the valve stem in the guide....
...This not only increases friction at the valve tip but imposes additional side thrust on the valve stem, increasing friction with the guide.
We may not have a "meeting of the minds" as to the definition of "side thrust". I agree that the thrust of the valve stem in the valve guide will be greater at higher lifts, whether due to the rocker arm ratio or the cam profile, But that thrust is in line with the rocker arm and not to the side. It may just be semantics, But I would call that lateral loading rather than side loading. What I hear as "side loading" would remain pretty much unchanged.

RACE ON!!!
CFI-EFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2005, 05:34 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C4 Corvettes, 1984 - 1996 > C4 Tech/Performance
Reload this Page 1.6 rocker arms, why do I want them?
 
 
 
Reply

Tags
15, 16, 1984, 1991, arm, arms, c4, corvette, exhaust, head, intake, iron, l98, motor, rocker, stock, vortec


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Emails & Password Backup