Rocker Ratios...variances
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Interesting information here. Shows how different brand of rockers, can have quite a bit of different ratios from their advertised ratio. Obviously ratio effects full lift, but it also can affect valve acceleration. Here you can see how each rocker differs.
#2
Registered
Thread Starter
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The 1.8 Ratio's are really interesting. According to this chart, the differences are substantial.
Harland Sharp .127/.649
Crane .131/.649
Comp .126/.638
Scorpion .138/.680
While they are all 1.8 Rockers, the scorpion has .680 peak lift, and the comp, .638. Thats a .042 difference in peak lift at the valve.. plus, a faster accelerating valve opening.
Harland Sharp .127/.649
Crane .131/.649
Comp .126/.638
Scorpion .138/.680
While they are all 1.8 Rockers, the scorpion has .680 peak lift, and the comp, .638. Thats a .042 difference in peak lift at the valve.. plus, a faster accelerating valve opening.
#3
Registered
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
how old is that data?
#4
Registered
Thread Starter
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Feb 2015 publish. Considering they are testing the Comp Cams 1828 Ultra Pro Magnum XD, I wouldn't think its that old. That rocker hasnt been out that long. Looks like it debuted at 2010 Sema show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSLIIrujyzo
Last edited by MILD THUNDER; 10-04-2015 at 09:41 AM.
#5
Registered
Thread Starter
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I can attest, that there is a significant difference, in the geometry of a Crane Gold, Scorpion, and older style Comp Steel rocker when studied back to back on icdedppls engines, doing valvetrain geometry checks. The sweep patterns, and roller tip placement varied quite a bit between the 3, when setting the rockers up using the mid-lift method.
#7
Registered
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Wow !
#8
Registered
Thread Starter
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The author of this particular book, mentions how normally a 1.8 intake rocker, is a way to go when using a dual pattern camshaft, with 6-8* more exhaust duration.
#9
Registered
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Given that these are new production items I'll assume that they used modern manufacturing methods to build them, Cee-N-Cee, basically ruling out tolerance issues.
Does the article make any mention of the arm's installation method or the spring's installed height? I'd also like to know how they measured the valve lift. Small geometry changes from setup to setup will definitely show up in the results. Fr'instance, maybe they used a dial indicator to measure travel and didn't get it back in the exact same spot every time.
Does the article make any mention of the arm's installation method or the spring's installed height? I'd also like to know how they measured the valve lift. Small geometry changes from setup to setup will definitely show up in the results. Fr'instance, maybe they used a dial indicator to measure travel and didn't get it back in the exact same spot every time.
#10
Registered
Thread Starter
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Given that these are new production items I'll assume that they used modern manufacturing methods to build them, Cee-N-Cee, basically ruling out tolerance issues.
Does the article make any mention of the arm's installation method or the spring's installed height? I'd also like to know how they measured the valve lift. Small geometry changes from setup to setup will definitely show up in the results. Fr'instance, maybe they used a dial indicator to measure travel and didn't get it back in the exact same spot every time.
Does the article make any mention of the arm's installation method or the spring's installed height? I'd also like to know how they measured the valve lift. Small geometry changes from setup to setup will definitely show up in the results. Fr'instance, maybe they used a dial indicator to measure travel and didn't get it back in the exact same spot every time.
I am always purchasing new literature regarding engine building, cylinder head porting/design, blueprinting and machining, to attempt to educate myself further on these topics. Mainly, because I am not interested in "opinions", or "theories" any longer. I like graphs, charts, data, and results. I have several of David Vizards books. Each one, I have found vastly informative, on all aspects of things. As far as big block chevy stuff goes, not only does he have vast experience in all types of build combinations, he has tested thousands. He is familar with, used and ported, Darts, AFR's, Brodix, RHS, Trick flows, and tons of stock offerings. From cranks, to rods, to blocks, to valvesprings, he's been around them all. Not a guy who's only dealt with one brand , and thinks its the best. He rarely has a negative thing to say about any brand, he simply gets to the point, and shows his results with data. The man started porting cylinder heads in 1950's, and has intensely studied the effects of the actual combustion process, heat transfer, airflow turbulence, and so on. He has over 500,000 dyno tests under his belt in his day. Spent a lifetime testing theories.
With that being said, I have no reason to doubt his procedure of this particular rocker arm test, or his knowledge of valvetrains. I am pretty certain, the man has learned valvetrain geometry basics, and how to use a dial indicator by now, considering he speaks at events like PRI, writes tech articles for engine builder magazine, etc.
Basically, I just thought it was interesting information, some may like. His contact information is on the web, as he has a website. I'm sure one can email him directly, and ask him about his test procedure/accuracy.