Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [All]

Author Topic: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?  (Read 11117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« on: December 27, 2015, 09:26:26 PM »

Does anyone here know how to do the math to estimate the equivalent cam specs when changing from a 1.65:1 ratio rocker arm to a 1.725:1 ratio rocker arm?

see attached

Thank You,
dnlpnd
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2015, 09:55:48 PM »


Lift" / 1.65 X 1.725     OR    Lift" X 1.0454

.574" / 1.65 = .348" actual lobe lift;  .348" X 1.725 = .600"

        OR

.574" X 1.045 = .600"

Jerry
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2015, 01:56:45 PM »

So, assuming 1.625:1 rockers are stock and using the Jim's 1.745:1 rockers (because they are the most radical I could find) my cam specs would turn into the following:  see attached  Thanks for the Math lesson grc!

With that said, is there some reason unbeknownst to me why, if the goal was to get the cam lift up into the .615” range, a simple rocker arm change could potentially leave the cam chest untouched while doing a head and TB/intake upgrade?  I was considering either SE MVAs or R&R Stage V heads paired with a SE 58 mm throttle body with the intake opened up to 1.8”.

I realize the point of these 1.745:1 rocker arms is to achieve higher lifts when you’ve maxed out your high lift cam options, but thinking outside the box, why couldn’t this be a good thing for my situation too?

Thanks,
dnlpnd
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 02:15:56 PM by dnlpnd »
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE

prodrag1320

  • AMRA & AHDRA P/D record holder
  • Vendor
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2015, 06:19:10 PM »

Make you check valve to valve & valve to piston @ TDC. we only use increased rocker ratio's when bigger cams are not avaliable on drag motors

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2015, 08:18:00 PM »

Make you check valve to valve & valve to piston @ TDC. we only use increased rocker ratio's when bigger cams are not avaliable on drag motors

 :2vrolijk_21:
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2015, 11:03:59 PM »

There is no logical reason to do this
There are many .600 + lift grinds that fill the bill.
Logged

prodrag1320

  • AMRA & AHDRA P/D record holder
  • Vendor
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2015, 07:43:09 AM »

100% agree`d

Ridgerunr

  • Elite CVO Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 921
  • www.CVOHARLEY.com
    • TN

Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2015, 08:11:30 AM »

Several wise engine builders have said if "you feel it necessary to change rocker ratio, you got the wrong cam".
Logged
2004 Roadglide 113" (sold)
2014 CVO RoadKing
2015 RGS

grc

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14216
  • AKA Grouchy Old Fart
    • IN


    • CVO1: 2005 SEEG2
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2015, 08:58:59 AM »


I was hoping someone would mention the geometry change caused by the different ratio rockers, the affects that could have, and if it would be enough to cause a problem.

Jerry
Logged
Jerry - 2005 Cherry SEEG  -  Member # 1155

H-D and me  -  a classic love / hate relationship.  Current score:  love 40, hate 50, bewildered 10.

MCE

  • Guest
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2015, 08:21:56 PM »

Another thing to consider is; Do your heads flow any better at the new lift(s)?
Logged

prodrag1320

  • AMRA & AHDRA P/D record holder
  • Vendor
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2015, 07:29:16 AM »

agree here too

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2015, 09:46:11 AM »

Thanks everyone for the feedback!  I did some asking around outside of CVOHarley.com too and the conclusion I am coming to is that if the varying the lift arm ratio gets you valve train properties you seek for your specific intake system, there is NO difference between changing the rocker arms or changing the cams.

I do understand the question of why would you do this, if cams are readily available for your application, but when you’ve already changed the cams, lifters, and pushrods it seems like a good choice to not disturb all of that again if a rocker arm change accomplishes the same thing during a new head installation.  Changing just the rockers arms, instead if the cams is not a money saver either, as higher ratioed rocker arms are about the same cost as cams.  All you really save are re-disturbing parts that have newly found their happy place, a little bit of labor cost, and the usual upgrade to roller rockers that tend to come with the higher ratioed arms.

My head builder, rrcycle.com, is going to let me know how to proceed…new cams or new rocker arms.  Bottom-line though, the engine does NOT care, cams or different ratioed rocker arms provided you get the correct valve lift and timing for your intake setup.

Thanks,
dnlpnd
« Last Edit: December 30, 2015, 09:54:12 AM by dnlpnd »
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE

sadunbar

  • 10K CVO Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11416
  • EBCM # Stealth - SSBS # 1.1 - SoA # Z&E2525 .01%
    • IL


    • CVO1: 2007 FLHTCUSE2
    • CVO2: 2000 FXR4
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2015, 10:53:56 AM »

Thanks everyone for the feedback!  I did some asking around outside of CVOHarley.com too and the conclusion I am coming to is that if the varying the lift arm ratio gets you valve train properties you seek for your specific intake system, there is NO difference between changing the rocker arms or changing the cams.

I do understand the question of why would you do this, if cams are readily available for your application, but when you’ve already changed the cams, lifters, and pushrods it seems like a good choice to not disturb all of that again if a rocker arm change accomplishes the same thing during a new head installation.  Changing just the rockers arms, instead if the cams is not a money saver either, as higher ratioed rocker arms are about the same cost as cams.  All you really save are re-disturbing parts that have newly found their happy place, a little bit of labor cost, and the usual upgrade to roller rockers that tend to come with the higher ratioed arms.

My head builder, rrcycle.com, is going to let me know how to proceed…new cams or new rocker arms.  Bottom-line though, the engine does NOT care, cams or different ratioed rocker arms provided you get the correct valve lift and timing for your intake setup.

Thanks,
dnlpnd

Installing alternate ratio rocker arms will also alter your valve train geometry.  You may want to quiz your builder to be certain there are no adverse effects...
Logged
2007 Screamin Eagle Ultra Classic - Light Candy Cherry and Black Ice
Screamin Eagle 120r
Revolution Performance EMS
Fuel Moto Jackpot headpipes and 4.5" Pro Touring Mufflers
HPI 55mm Throttle Body w/5.3 injectors
BDL clutch w/VPC92T
Traxxion AK-20
Legend Air Suspension
Brembo Brake Calipers/Rotors
Garmin Zumo
575 Chubby's
Bushtec Quantum

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2015, 12:31:18 PM »

the conclusion I am coming to is that if the varying the lift arm ratio gets you valve train properties you seek for your specific intake system, there is NO difference between changing the rocker arms or changing the cams.

This statement is not true
Changing ratios increases the lift rate, effectively adds a small amount of duration, and may cause an adverse effects for a lot of reasons. Think about what the added lift gets you on the exhaust side. .574 to .600+ lift. Where is the motor at in the point of the exhaust cycle near maximum lift? The blow down event has been over long before. Plus this cam is opening the exhaust VERY early already. So if there were any gains to be made on the intake side you then potentially give it back on the exhaust side. That said the exhaust is not ideal for a cam this short.

If you use either the R&R or the MVA heads, both which I am very familiar with, consider a new cam. The Feuling 574 is a poor choice lifted or not.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2015, 12:45:52 PM by HD Street Performance »
Logged

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2016, 09:29:29 PM »


If you use either the R&R or the MVA heads, both which I am very familiar with, consider a new cam. The Fueling 574 is a poor choice lifted or not.

So, if you could pick any chain driven cams out there, what cams would you recommend for the R&R Stage V heads with the 2.00 intake and 1.625" exhaust sitting atop the new SE 117 Kit w/SE 58 throttle body?

Thanks,

dnlpnd
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 09:39:44 PM by dnlpnd »
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE

hrdtail78

  • Vendor
  • Elite CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 762
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2016, 09:48:19 PM »


This statement is not true
Changing ratios increases the lift rate, effectively adds a small amount of duration, and may cause an adverse effects for a lot of reasons. Think about what the added lift gets you on the exhaust side. .574 to .600+ lift. Where is the motor at in the point of the exhaust cycle near maximum lift? The blow down event has been over long before. Plus this cam is opening the exhaust VERY early already. So if there were any gains to be made on the intake side you then potentially give it back on the exhaust side. That said the exhaust is not ideal for a cam this short.

If you use either the R&R or the MVA heads, both which I am very familiar with, consider a new cam. The Feuling 574 is a poor choice lifted or not.

Does it actually change duration or just at advertised .053? 

Is this a 110 and what is the compression?  I have wondered what a DM598, but the R&R 615 would make sense with the heads.

Logged

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2016, 10:03:36 PM »

Does it actually change duration or just at advertised .053? 

Is this a 110 and what is the compression?  I have wondered what a DM598, but the R&R 615 would make sense with the heads.

So, if you could pick any chain driven cams out there, what cams would you recommend for the R&R Stage V heads with the 2.00 intake and 1.625" exhaust sitting atop the new SE 117 Kit w/SE 58 throttle body? (decking heads to ~10.5:1)
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE

Yellow09SERG

  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2055

    • CVO1: FLTRSE3 YELLOW!!
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2016, 10:05:12 PM »

So, if you could pick any chain driven cams out there, what cams would you recommend for the R&R Stage V heads with the 2.00 intake and 1.625" exhaust sitting atop the new SE 117 Kit w/SE 58 throttle body?

Thanks,

dnlpnd

You will end up with as many answers as the are cams with that question. The best answer would probably come from you and what you expect the motor to do and where you want it to do it at would narrow things down for you some
Logged
Most great stores start with a bad decision

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2016, 01:26:19 PM »

You will end up with as many answers as the are cams with that question. The best answer would probably come from you and what you expect the motor to do and where you want it to do it at would narrow things down for you some

Ended up going with the GMR-600 cams, using stock rocker arms for my 117 build.

dnlpnd
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE

kcbike

  • Junior CVO Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2016, 08:36:47 AM »

May we see the dyno results when you have them ?
Logged

HD Street Performance

  • Vendor
  • 2.5K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3119
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2016, 11:45:53 AM »

Does it actually change duration or just at advertised .053? 

Seat to seat remains the same, 0 lift times XXXXX = 0,
The added ratio enables .053 to occur slightly sooner and remain longer until .053 occurs on the closing.
Logged

GMR-PERFORMANCE

  • Vendor
  • 1K CVO Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1769
    • TX

Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2016, 08:39:07 AM »

Well if the arm is longer after 0 it will add what ever it can add over the stock ratio.. I am keeping it simple as the longer arm deal comes down to testing back to back to see if you get any changes.  I would start with intake first, and see what you get..

Here is but one test bike  2009 107 R&R cast heads stage V HO ( 315+ CFM ) comp ratio 10.8 zilla HPI 55 crane 296 

stock rocker  123.88 hp 121.13 tq  VS  1.7 S&S rocker  124.04 hp 121.67 tq   this was back to back on the dyno. Pull tank swap rockers re adjust the push rods and go again..    To me that is a flat out draw and nothing came from it , yes we also tried a few other cams and the results where pretty much the same.

In some case's you might get it to work , but until you do a back to back you really cannot make the statement one way or the other.. I tell guys leave the stock one's in there for a street driven bike.. 

You have a 15,1  comp ratio drag bike a well thats a new test ..
Logged
2012 SHARK  S&S 124 150/140   www.gmrperformance.com

dnlpnd

  • Full CVO Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 179
  • "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."~J.W.
    • IA


    • CVO1: 2014 FLHRSE6
Re: 1.65:1 vs 1.725:1 Rocker Arms?
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2016, 08:56:25 AM »

Well if the arm is longer after 0 it will add what ever it can add over the stock ratio.. I am keeping it simple as the longer arm deal comes down to testing back to back to see if you get any changes.  I would start with intake first, and see what you get..

Here is but one test bike  2009 107 R&R cast heads stage V HO ( 315+ CFM ) comp ratio 10.8 zilla HPI 55 crane 296 

stock rocker  123.88 hp 121.13 tq  VS  1.7 S&S rocker  124.04 hp 121.67 tq   this was back to back on the dyno. Pull tank swap rockers re adjust the push rods and go again..    To me that is a flat out draw and nothing came from it , yes we also tried a few other cams and the results where pretty much the same.

In some case's you might get it to work , but until you do a back to back you really cannot make the statement one way or the other.. I tell guys leave the stock one's in there for a street driven bike.. 

You have a 15,1  comp ratio drag bike a well thats a new test ..

 :2vrolijk_21: totally agree!
Logged
SE Drop-On 117
SE Hi-Cap Oil Pan
SE Hi-Vol Oil Pump
SE Cam Plate
SE Adj Pushrods
SE Pro 58mm TB
SE 5.3 Injectors
SE Hvy Brthr Elite
Dynojet PV2
Dynojet TT-5X
Jackpot 2-1-2 SS
Jackpot Full X-over
Paul Yaffe Monsta 45s
GMR 600 Cams
S&S Prem Tappets
Ward's CNC Ported 110 Heads
AV&V Valve Springs
Cometic .027 HG
Red Shift Dual Piston Tensioner
Axtell Oil Bypass Valve
AIM Clutch Springs
10.8:1, 132ft-lb, 126hp SAE
Pages: 1 2 [All]
 

Page created in 0.198 seconds with 21 queries.