Engine master, Rocker arms - CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion


C3 Tech/Performance
V8 Technical Info, Internal Engine, External Engine, Basic Tech and Maintenance for the C3 Corvette

Engine master, Rocker arms

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-08-2018, 08:55 AM   #1
c3_dk
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
c3_dk's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2008
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 2,836
Thanked 152 Times in 140 Posts
Default Engine master, Rocker arms

c3_dk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to c3_dk For This Useful Post:
terrys6t8roadster (01-09-2018)
Old 01-08-2018, 01:06 PM   #2
68post
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Nov 2012
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 373
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Pretty informative , thanks for the link. The end result was more than expected for 1,6's. I have an NOS set of Erson sbc billet rockers that are 1.6 and 1.7. The 1.7's will take dedication to be able to use properly, likely using a custom cam among all else to look into.
68post is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 05:25 PM   #3
gkull
CF Senior Member
 
gkull's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 1999
Location: Reno Nevada
Posts: 18,285
Thanked 163 Times in 147 Posts
Default

It is kinda sad that they didn't install higher valve spring pressure before they started to ensure valve control issues didn't come up!

it also shows you how difficult it is to make over 500 hp in engine like 372 -383 CI class motors
gkull is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gkull For This Useful Post:
NewbVetteGuy (01-09-2018)
Old 01-08-2018, 06:29 PM   #4
PainfullySlow
CF Senior Member
 
PainfullySlow's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2017
Location: Tolland CT
Posts: 470
Thanked 79 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Nothing ground breaking or great revelation there but it is nice to have a number to associate with the swap.
PainfullySlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 08:13 PM   #5
derekderek
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2015
Location: Westville NJ
Posts: 1,515
Thanked 120 Times in 112 Posts
Default

it didn't even answer the question they asked. they used 1.6 roller rockers. so the added power came fron the added lift. almost the eqiuvalent of changing cams. you would have to do same test with same ratio rollers to have comparison be fair.
derekderek is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 08:37 PM   #6
TimAT
CF Senior Member
 
TimAT's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2006
Location: Gladstone MO
Posts: 6,255
Thanked 183 Times in 180 Posts
Default

I'd like to see the difference between the roller rockers and shaft mounted rockers.
TimAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2018, 09:01 PM   #7
calwldlife
CF Senior Member
 
calwldlife's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Southern Cal Ca
Posts: 37,800
Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
Default

damn, that valve is going for a ride.
I remember when .500 lift was great.
calwldlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 01:55 AM   #8
427Hotrod
CF Senior Member
C2 of the Month Finalist 2017
 
427Hotrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2000
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 10,840
Thanked 424 Times in 295 Posts
Default

Did I miss it? What was the cam? If it was way too small...it would certainly love the added lift/duration of the 1.6's.


JIM
427Hotrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 03:15 AM   #9
bazza77
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2010
Location: perth western australia
Posts: 1,054
Thanked 139 Times in 134 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 427Hotrod View Post
Did I miss it? What was the cam? If it was way too small...it would certainly love the added lift/duration of the 1.6's.


JIM
he never mentions the cam !
bazza77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 04:03 PM   #10
NewbVetteGuy
CF Senior Member
 
NewbVetteGuy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2016
Location: Woodinville WA
Posts: 1,528
Thanked 99 Times in 85 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gkull View Post
It is kinda sad that they didn't install higher valve spring pressure before they started to ensure valve control issues didn't come up!

it also shows you how difficult it is to make over 500 hp in engine like 372 -383 CI class motors
Totally agree. They should've sized the springs for the 1.6 ratio rollers and then just used them for all the runs.


Adam
NewbVetteGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 04:11 PM   #11
NewbVetteGuy
CF Senior Member
 
NewbVetteGuy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2016
Location: Woodinville WA
Posts: 1,528
Thanked 99 Times in 85 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by derekderek View Post
they used 1.6 roller rockers. so the added power came from the added lift. almost the equivalent of changing cams. you would have to do same test with same ratio rollers to have comparison be fair.
The switch from a 1.5 to 1.6 ratio gives you more than just the benefits from added lift, though. You also spend more time at higher lifts AND there is a slight increase in the duration at most lifts, more airflow with the same CSA is slightly more port speed which is why you see an increase in torque, too.

I calculated the added duration with my cam from switching from 1.5 to 1.6 RRs and my durations change from roughly 227 / 228 @0.050" to 230 / 232 (explains why the torque and hp peak RPMs moved upwards slightly with the ratio change). -I estimated using a simple calculation assuming a simple linear acceleration from the valve open event until the valve hitting max lift, though so it's off by a slight bit; I've rounded down.


Agree they didn't test whether roller rockers at the same ratio would increase power.



Adam

Last edited by NewbVetteGuy; 01-09-2018 at 04:13 PM.
NewbVetteGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 04:23 PM   #12
NewbVetteGuy
CF Senior Member
 
NewbVetteGuy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2016
Location: Woodinville WA
Posts: 1,528
Thanked 99 Times in 85 Posts
Default

Here's the airflow chart for the AFR 195cc:

.200 .300 .400 .500 .550
Int 146 201 247 275 280
Exh 119 166 197 213 218

Definitely plenty of power to be made by increasing the lift (especially if you're not into the REALLY good air at 0.500").
If you had an intake lift of 0.450" with a 1.5:1 rocker and let's say your airflow is 261 CFM at that lift moving to a 1.65:1 RR gets you to 0.495" of valve lift (let's say 273 CFM) that's +12 CFM or +24 HP gain excluding the totally guestimated +2 deg extra duration @ 0.050", spending more time in higher lifts and a small torque gain from flowing that 12 CFM extra through the same size min CSA (more air velocity @ same RPM). Their +15 HP wasn't even a best-case scenario with that head; the jump in flow from 0.400" to 0.500" is pretty freakish.


Now to compare to a smaller head at a few lifts, here's the 185cc Profiler flow #s:
Lift Intake CFM Exh CFM % Exh/Int
0.200 135 110 81%
0.300 201 145 72%
0.400 245 180 73%
0.500 265 206 78%
0.600 270 213 79%
0.700 272 216 79%

Using the 2 HP per HP guideline and some HUGE lifts, you wouldn't expect to see much benefit going from 0.600 to 0.700 (4 HP) just based upon lift increases.




Adam

Last edited by NewbVetteGuy; 01-09-2018 at 07:13 PM.
NewbVetteGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 04:29 PM   #13
NewbVetteGuy
CF Senior Member
 
NewbVetteGuy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2016
Location: Woodinville WA
Posts: 1,528
Thanked 99 Times in 85 Posts
Default

The Flow #'s of the 882 heads on my L82 tell a funny similar story but at normal valve lifts:

No real benefit above 0.400" in terms of flow, so switching rocker ratios to get more lift would gain nothing and just cost more $$ and longevity / reliability in the valve train.

0.100" 70CFM
0.200" 125CFM
0.300" 175CFM
0.400" 204CFM
0.500" 205CFM
0.600" 206CFM


Vortec L31's and GMPP's -intake flow DECREASES above 0.500"; so a higher ratio rocker there would REALLY be a bad idea.


IMHO, you need to weigh the benefits of the extra lift of the extra rocker ratio by looking at your head flow to determine if you'll get any benefits and if so, possibly how much. (If you plug your head airflow #'s into something like DesktopDyno it will do this for you, but it actually doesn't account for the slight increase in lift at 0.050" from the higher ratio.)


Adam

Last edited by NewbVetteGuy; 01-09-2018 at 04:32 PM.
NewbVetteGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 05:26 PM   #14
c3_dk
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
c3_dk's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2008
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 2,836
Thanked 152 Times in 140 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbVetteGuy View Post
Anyone catch which AFR head they were using?

For 7,000 RPM, I'm going to guess the 220cc head; if so here's the airflow chart:

.200 .300 .400 .500 .550 .600 .650
Int 155 210 260 295 304 312 318
Exh 116 162 204 220 225 229


Definitely plenty of power to be made by increasing the lift.


Now to compare to a smaller head at a few lifts, here's the 185cc Profiler flow #s:
Lift Intake CFM Exh CFM % Exh/Int
0.200 135 110 81%
0.300 201 145 72%
0.400 245 180 73%
0.500 265 206 78%
0.600 270 213 79%
0.700 272 216 79%

Using the 2 HP per HP guideline and some HUGE lifts, you wouldn't expect to see much benefit going from 0.600 to 0.700 (4 HP) just based upon lift increases.




Adam

L98
195
65cc heads.

Look @ 3.12
c3_dk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 06:08 PM   #15
v2racing
CF Senior Member
 
v2racing's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2008
Location: Spring Park MN
Posts: 2,006
Thanked 112 Times in 101 Posts
Default

There is one thing that could have contributed to the gain of the 1.6 over the 1.5 roller rockers. The higher ratio rocker gives the valve spring more leverage over the lifter and pushrod weight. Given the valve springs look to be suspect in the 1.5 roller test, it is possible the extra mechanical advantage helped. It would have been nice if they would have had stronger springs. The 1.5 full rollers may have tested better and they would have had a better answer to which rocker worked best instead of more questions.

Mike
v2racing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 06:30 PM   #16
NewbVetteGuy
CF Senior Member
 
NewbVetteGuy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2016
Location: Woodinville WA
Posts: 1,528
Thanked 99 Times in 85 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c3_dk View Post
L98
195
65cc heads.

Look @ 3.12
I see L98 (Angle plug) and 65cc, but how did you figure out they were the 195cc intake port?


Adam
NewbVetteGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 06:38 PM   #17
v2racing
CF Senior Member
 
v2racing's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2008
Location: Spring Park MN
Posts: 2,006
Thanked 112 Times in 101 Posts
Default

Listen at 1.4 minutes, he talks about the engine and says it has 195 heads.

Mike
v2racing is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to v2racing For This Useful Post:
NewbVetteGuy (01-09-2018)
Old 01-09-2018, 07:04 PM   #18
NewbVetteGuy
CF Senior Member
 
NewbVetteGuy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2016
Location: Woodinville WA
Posts: 1,528
Thanked 99 Times in 85 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by v2racing View Post
Listen at 1.4 minutes, he talks about the engine and says it has 195 heads.

Mike
Thanks; updating the airflow post to reflect this.


Adam
NewbVetteGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 07:58 PM   #19
Shark Racer
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Shark Racer's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2000
Location: San Jose CA
Posts: 11,899
Thanked 82 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbVetteGuy View Post
The Flow #'s of the 882 heads on my L82 tell a funny similar story but at normal valve lifts:

No real benefit above 0.400" in terms of flow, so switching rocker ratios to get more lift would gain nothing and just cost more $$ and longevity / reliability in the valve train.

0.100" 70CFM
0.200" 125CFM
0.300" 175CFM
0.400" 204CFM
0.500" 205CFM
0.600" 206CFM


Vortec L31's and GMPP's -intake flow DECREASES above 0.500"; so a higher ratio rocker there would REALLY be a bad idea.


IMHO, you need to weigh the benefits of the extra lift of the extra rocker ratio by looking at your head flow to determine if you'll get any benefits and if so, possibly how much. (If you plug your head airflow #'s into something like DesktopDyno it will do this for you, but it actually doesn't account for the slight increase in lift at 0.050" from the higher ratio.)


Adam
Remember that duration is a metric of how long a valve is open. CFM is "Cubic feet per minute". More valve open time = more air flowing through and filling the cylinder. So there would be more HP potential even if the CFM was the same. So getting the extra lift doesn't help but the duration that came with it would.

But I do agree with the basic premise - it's likely not worth it. I watched the video and thought about it. The big boost they saw was at 6700 RPM - my engine revs to 6100. I might pick up 10hp. For $300 and a chunk of my time. If I was picking rocker arms to replace a broken set or upgrade from OE rockers, it'd be an easy decision for me. However, I've already sunk that $300 into a set of full-roller 1.52s that I've had since ~2004.

Does make me wish I went with the 1.6s during the last engine build, though... maybe if I go up in cam and intake after moving out of CA. We'll see.
Shark Racer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 08:16 PM   #20
NewbVetteGuy
CF Senior Member
 
NewbVetteGuy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2016
Location: Woodinville WA
Posts: 1,528
Thanked 99 Times in 85 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Racer View Post
Remember that duration is a metric of how long a valve is open. CFM is "Cubic feet per minute". More valve open time = more air flowing through and filling the cylinder. So there would be more HP potential even if the CFM was the same. So getting the extra lift doesn't help but the duration that came with it would.
I'm confused on what you're arguing for / against.


The GMPP head's flow FALLS from 243 CFM @ 0.500" to 238 CFM @ 0.600"; the Vortec L31 head's flow FALLS from 239 CFM @ 0.500" to 229 CFM @ 0.600"


The Vortec head would lose 20 hp worth of power at 0.600" vs. 0.500" at the same duration. ---Agree that you should increase duration but not lift with that head if your valve lift is already at 0.500 or thereabouts and you want more power without porting.


My point was simply that there are circumstances where the extra valve lift from a high ratio rocker won't really get you much extra power; the 882's above 0.400", for example. Tangent Alert: Which highlights again how @#[email protected]#% the L82 cam was for L82 engines. That extra 0.050" of lift beyond 0.400"; not that useful.



Adam

Last edited by NewbVetteGuy; 01-09-2018 at 08:16 PM.
NewbVetteGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Go Back   CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion >
Reload this Page
  • Engine master, Rocker arms
  •  
     
    Reply

    Related Topics
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Democrats live in bubble and is confused by Trump's "many sides" reply acts Politics, Religion & Controversy 50 11-19-2017 02:02 PM
    Test Over9K Testing 1 10-02-2017 10:38 AM
    Let's Rock This Weekend! Force-1 Off Topic 9 05-08-2017 11:30 AM
    [10/12/16] Trump Rally - Ocala, FL _Will_ Politics, Religion & Controversy 7 10-12-2016 04:45 PM
    Fact Check Sites Connected To Hillary And Foundation 1%r Politics, Religion & Controversy 7 10-05-2016 02:28 PM


    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

    Sponsored Ads
    Vendor Directory

    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 PM.


    We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
     
    • Ask a Question
      Get answers from community experts
    Question Title:
    Description:
    Your question will be posted in: