|
Re: 0.800 lift on EZ heads
[Re: AndyF]
#51530
01/31/08 01:10 AM
01/31/08 01:10 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,078 Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,078
Oregon
|
I got a set of Manley +.100 Ti retainers today and tried them. Bad news is they have the same 2.020 installed height as the Comp +0.050 retainers! (evidently the guys who design these things don't agree what standard is). Good news is that they have a different shape on the top so they clear the Jesel rocker arms. Not much clearance but at least I can see daylight.
I need to double check the clearance with full spring load and then I'll snap some pictures. Maybe this setup with the Manley retainers will work. If not, I'll keep trying parts until I find something that works.
I also figured out that if I mount up two of the spring removal tools on the same shaft the job goes a lot easier. Too bad Jesel doesn't sell the tool this way, it is a big time saver.
Last edited by AndyF; 02/16/08 03:32 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 0.800 lift on EZ heads
[Re: AndyF]
#51531
01/31/08 08:36 AM
01/31/08 08:36 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI
MR_P_BODY
Master
|
Master
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
|
Quote:
Well PipeMax says I need .809 lift minimum to have peak hp at 6500 rpm and it recommends more lift than that. PipeMax does seem to like a lot of valve lift though and I don't fully understand the assumptions that went into that program. The engine builders that follow that program though seem to get pretty good results so I think it has to be treated with some respect.
Yeah when I run my pipemax program it always calls for a big lift, I have always figured its high but I've never tried their suggestion on lift(max)
|
|
|
Re: 0.800 lift on EZ heads
[Re: AndyF]
#51533
02/02/08 09:46 PM
02/02/08 09:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,514 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,514
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
Andy, i dont know if you covered this in an earlier post or not, but did you check to see how much difference there was in rocker ratio with the Jesel rockers between unloaded and loaded?
as for the .800+ lift requirement to make peak power at 6500......i guess my first response would be.....where did it make peak power before with the .650 lift flat tappet cam?
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: 0.800 lift on EZ heads
[Re: AndyF]
#51535
02/03/08 04:38 PM
02/03/08 04:38 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,078 Oregon
AndyF
OP
I Win
|
OP
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,078
Oregon
|
Just for reference, here is a picture that shows the parts used. PSI 1246 springs and the Manley retainers and locks.
Manley retainers 23640-16 will work with Manley 221424-16 springs and the Manley 13198 locks to provide a 2.00 installed height setup that is good for 0.850 lift roller cams. Manley says the 424 spring is good for .880 lift but that seems to be pushing it. The Jesel rocker arm geometry is good up to a little over .900 lift and then it starts to run off the side of the valve. I'm not sure what rocker arms a guy would use if they wanted to run more lift that that. Guess that is a different problem to solve some day.
Last edited by AndyF; 02/16/08 03:28 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 0.800 lift on EZ heads
[Re: MR_P_BODY]
#51536
02/03/08 09:16 PM
02/03/08 09:16 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807 Mopar Country, Mi
ccdave
The Ultimate
|
The Ultimate
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807
Mopar Country, Mi
|
Quote:
Andy, is there enough flow at .800 to make it worth your while? I would have figured it stalled by then Its surprising that the tool is strong enough to pop the springs off, I have the same and on my W-9 I have to pull 4 springs per head to get to the head studs
|
|
|
|
|
|