| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| What advantages are there to these 1.6 Rockers?? https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26949 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Greg Ondayko [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | What advantages are there to these 1.6 Rockers?? |
I was looking for the latest pricing on the 6=8 hpak manifold with efi Bosses. andf came accross this.. http://www.cliffordperformance.net/Merc ... ry_Code=MY Any andvantages to using this without rollers and lightweight rockers besides good oiling?? Greg |
|
| Author: | Aggressive Ted [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 1.6 rocker arms |
Greg, I would like to see if Doc or others have used them and what their results were. It seems like this could provide an inexpensive alternative for more torque at low rpms. I wonder if the adjuster will hold their settings? |
|
| Author: | Red [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A seperate (but related) issue is: how long would it take to actually GET them from Clifford? Based on what I've heard lately, Clifford isn't as reliable as they once were in terms of having what they advertise in stock and ready to ship. |
|
| Author: | Bren67Cuda904 [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: A seperate (but related) issue is: how long would it take to actually GET them from Clifford? Based on what I've heard lately, Clifford isn't as reliable as they once were in terms of having what they advertise in stock and ready to ship.
Please see the Shopping at Cliffords post in the Other sectionhttp://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic ... 717#169717 |
|
| Author: | tophat [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
1.6 rockers give a bit more lift then the sock 1.5 rockers. 1.6 x cam lift vs 1.5 x cam lift. They also affect the duration "ramp" I think. I'm sure that someone else here can answer better then I did. And yes I too would be suspect of clifford service, as I have heard bad things on every board I am a member of. TopHat |
|
| Author: | Greg Ondayko [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yes I am aware of the faulty customer service from clifford. I just wondering if besides the added lift of the 1.6's is it worth buying them if there is no roller tips and not made from light aluminum?? Thanks, Greg |
|
| Author: | zedpapa [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
those look a lot like stock rockers. really the only place you need a roller is on the rocker shaft. roller tips are needed with high lift. for a moderate build, these probably aren't needed. but, if you have an extra $400 after your done building an engine, go for it. zedpapa |
|
| Author: | Bren67Cuda904 [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wonder if they are a very consitant 1.6 ratio, unlike the stock pieces which are unconsitant in ratio. |
|
| Author: | LUCKY13 [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: those look a lot like stock rockers. really the only place you need a roller is on the rocker shaft. roller tips are needed with high lift. for a moderate build, these probably aren't needed. but, if you have an extra $400 after your done building an engine, go for it.
Really from what I have seen from past results roller on the shaft is not to good to begin with. Most of the time durability becomes a problem unless you have very hard shafts. A rocker with a bushing has proven to be much better and the fiction is not much differnt. I personally would not run rollers on a shaft for a street setup at all unless it was a well proven setup.zedpapa Greg, I dont know what to think of those rocker they are listing. They look like stock rockers and I really wonder what they are really selling. They may be analuminum rocker, they do have a note about them being a new product and it may take awhile to get them so who knows. As far as them not being roller I would not let that worry me, but the ratio and geomety is one thing that worries me. If I was going to spend that much money on rocker arms, I would get with T&D and get their rockers. T&D's products have always been good and I feel they will make a great setup. They should be the best rockers that have been made for a slant six, although that is just my thoughts on past performance of other engine rockers I have seen of theirs. Greg, Hope you dont mind me asking a question about your setup, you are running a Hyperpack intake, correct? Have you ever used a A/F guage or had a dyno pull with that setup. I am wandering how good (or not) the A/F ratio holds when going through the gears. I am having a problem with going lean on the shift and was thinking about changing intakes, and maybe using a Hyperpack intake. Thanks Jess |
|
| Author: | runvs_826 [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What it all sums up to is two things: fricition and lift. Maybe this is so obvious everyone knows this and I'm just babbling on, but for someone's sake I'm going to talk about what I've been taught. The increased ratio is based on the fact that lift is more of a factor of hp than a "bigger cam." The lift allows more air to flow through because of less resistance, than the just having the duration. The most common mechanical camshaft has to rely on increasing the duration along with the lift. The "roller" cam's popularity and increased power is due to the fact that the lift kicks in instantly, while having a huge lift and not having to sacrifice a 340 degree duration with your .7 lift. What does this have to do with the rockers? They essentially give you more lift with your cam's duration. This will be important not only for torque, but the later on horsepower. The roller's job not only reduces friction like most people know, but it helps with the directional force. The valve stem pushes against the rocker with the standard setup. The roller tip allows the stem's force to spin it making it a constant force on the roller, not an increasing one like stockers. Personally the clifford's look like there stock pieces, they don't seem to be exceptionally knowledgable on Mopar engines. Assuming they are 1.6 I still wouldn't spend the money on them without having them as rollers. Especially if you already have 1.5 rollers (right Greg?). Hope this helps. |
|
| Author: | Doctor Dodge [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Those Clifford rockarms look like a set of reconditioned stock rockers. I have a set of 1.6 roller tip aluminum rocker arms and on most engines I build, there is no big performance difference between a nice set of factory 1.5 rockers and the "special" 1.6 arms. On engines that pick-up a lot with the 1.6 rockerarms... I know for sure that I used to small of a cam.   DD |
|
| Author: | slantzilla [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote:
I have a set of 1.6 roller tip aluminum rocker arms and on most engines I build, there is no big performance difference between a nice set of factory 1.5 rockers and the "special" 1.6 arms.
I have run my junk back to back with 1.6 rollers and a set of RAS stockers. No difference at all.Quote: On engines that pick-up a lot with the 1.6 rockerarms... I know for sure that I used to small of a cam.
Yep. Unless you are trying to get rocker geometry back in alignment after doing something weird, 1.6 rockers are a band-aid for a poor cam choice.
DD |
|
| Author: | Greg Ondayko [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jess - - Here is the info on my car Here http://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13007 and here http://www.geocities.com/gao5498/slant6 That should help you out. And yes I too thought the looked like stockers so I was wondering how they would get 1.6 out of some reconditioned stockers?? Greg |
|
| Author: | LUCKY13 [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks for the link, I will go back and read them. As far as 1.6 rockers not help anything I have to dissagree. There is many thinkgs going on but alot can comes down to the cam itself, and the needs of the engine. One thing that can be done with a 1.6 rocker ratio is the cam can be ground to be a agressive setup, but still not have major ramps to cause wear or valve train durability problems. Alot of this would be more important for very high lift setups. WIth no more cam than most run on a slant six it probably is possible to have avery agressive cam lobe using the 1.4 factory rockers and still retain durability because of the hugh lifter size. Alot would come down to how far your cam grinder was trying to push limits, with X lobe. The more rocker ratio he has to work with, the more he can get out of X lobe and keep durability. That is a good thing if the engine can take advantage of it, which most slant six's will not. But then again, if you understand its purpose and build for it, maybe so. One thing I think hurts us from maybe even seeing the results from what might be a good cam, or rocker setup, is the fact that we really dont have any good intake or header setups to take advantage of it. Jess |
|
| Author: | LUCKY13 [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Greg I went and read all the info on your link. You really have put a lot of work and time into your car, and its payed off your sure. The funny thing is your results are with what I would call a basic build of the engine ( no stroking or extreeme stuff). Even though you have put a lot into it with things such as the rocker arm, hyper pack ect,ect........ Very sweat car and I look forward to seeing more of your progress. About the links, I didnt find any info about fuel mixture as I was asking. Maybe it was suppost to be in the dyno sheets which are not there now. Anyway thanks for trying and good luck with yoru car. Jess |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|