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 11163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 0.143 seconds with 21 queries.