Rockers with higher ratio

picture blocked with some Finnish words I presume asking to download a updated google chrome, internet explore or Fire fox etc. any pictures that are readily viewable? etc..
Thanks,
Deo
 
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1366770938.408110.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1366770995.541995.jpg
These are CumChe s photos

Look ok in my opinion curious to see how it works out. Certainly a cheap way to gain a bit of lift
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1366770545.715710.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1366770545.715710.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 0
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1366770566.071782.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1366770566.071782.jpg
    70.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
GOT-Torque said:
I would suggest head work first, then based upon your flow numbers, you can choose a cam and or higher ratio rocker to take advantage of the increased flow. Not much sense to a big cam or higher ratio rockers when the head is the major restriction.
Click to expand...

:Cheer:

Tuning your flow with the cam and rockers PLUS cam phasing is what you really want to look at Jarvi. If your head is restrictive and your rocker lifts higher than your port flows why run it past plateau when you can't utilize that 'held back' flow? Your valve should be flowing from seat to seat without choking, it is (or should be) the smallest CSA point. Granted our divergent side (firedeck side) is junk as far as proper pressure recovery maybe running the valve at less lift may create the final base of the flow path end instead of lifting too far and just dumping globs of air in where efficiency is in question on that particular area. If the head /intake is restrictive your boost is only amplifying the turbulence situation and the high lift rocker is not doing its intention.
 
Lookin' good Robby! Is the rocker-scrub pretty consistant with these aluminum pieces or is the movement less than in a gasser mill anyhow to not worry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top