c3_dk

68post

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.

gkull

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

PainfullySlow

Nothing ground breaking or great revelation there but it is nice to have a number to associate with the swap.

derekderek

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.

TimAT

I'd like to see the difference between the roller rockers and shaft mounted rockers.

calwldlife

damn, that valve is going for a ride.
I remember when .500 lift was great.

427Hotrod

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

bazza77

he never mentions the cam !

NewbVetteGuy

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

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

NewbVetteGuy

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

NewbVetteGuy

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

c3_dk

L98
195
65cc heads.

Look @ 3.12

v2racing

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

NewbVetteGuy

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


Adam

v2racing

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

Mike

NewbVetteGuy

Thanks; updating the airflow post to reflect this.


Adam

Shark Racer

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.

NewbVetteGuy

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 @#$@#% the L82 cam was for L82 engines. That extra 0.050" of lift beyond 0.400"; not that useful.



Adam