Percent of lost lift due to 58 degree lifter angle?
A bit late to the discussion, but since I've done all of this measuring when I was blueprinting my W2 408 stroker build, I thought I would share.
So here is the combo:
1) comp cams hydraulic roller cam XR292 and their roller lifters
2) Harland Sharp 1.6 ratio rocker arms
3) two different lash caps: CAP1 = 0.0.79" thick, CAP2 = 0.87" thick
Take a look at the attached charts, here is what they show:
1) @1.6 - this is the theoretical lift at valve
2) AS-IS - is the uncorrected lift, bad the geometry was really bad here (my W2 heads were the long valve Econo castings)
3) CORRECTED - this is the lift with Mike's (B3) correction package
4) LASH CAP1 - this is the lift while using CAP1
5) CORRECTED TO AS-IS DIFF - this is the actual valve lift loss/gain comparison between the AS-IS setup and B3 kit corrected setup, see RIGHT side of the chart for scale
6) LASH CAP1 TO AS-IS DIFF - same as #5 above, but comparing the CAP1 lift
7) LASH CAP2 - valve lift with CAP2
8) LASH CAP2 TO AS-IS DIFF - same as #5 above, but comparing the CAP2 lift
Mike and I discussed, he concurred that what I was seeing was correct with the use of the kit, however the benefits would stem from the actual geometry corrections.
To better understand the true contribution of the cam=>lifter=>pushrod=>rocker arm=>valve geometry to the final lift I re-did all of these measurements with 3 threads showing on the rocker arm adjuster. If you visualize this you can tell how that causes pivot to be moved, and therefore by extension the effective rocker arm ratio.
I must say that I've regularly spun that motor up to the 6500 RPM redline, and you can't tell this is a hydraulic roller cam setup. The thing buzzes up in no time, if I'd let it, it would readily pull right past that 6500 mark! ...which leads me to believe that the valvetrain geometry here is NOT an issue.
A bit late to the discussion, but since I've done all of this measuring when I was blueprinting my W2 408 stroker build, I thought I would share.
So here is the combo:
1) comp cams hydraulic roller cam XR292 and their roller lifters
2) Harland Sharp 1.6 ratio rocker arms
3) two different lash caps: CAP1 = 0.0.79" thick, CAP2 = 0.87" thick
Take a look at the attached charts, here is what they show:
1) @1.6 - this is the theoretical lift at valve
2) AS-IS - is the uncorrected lift, bad the geometry was really bad here (my W2 heads were the long valve Econo castings)
3) CORRECTED - this is the lift with Mike's (B3) correction package
4) LASH CAP1 - this is the lift while using CAP1
5) CORRECTED TO AS-IS DIFF - this is the actual valve lift loss/gain comparison between the AS-IS setup and B3 kit corrected setup, see RIGHT side of the chart for scale
6) LASH CAP1 TO AS-IS DIFF - same as #5 above, but comparing the CAP1 lift
7) LASH CAP2 - valve lift with CAP2
8) LASH CAP2 TO AS-IS DIFF - same as #5 above, but comparing the CAP2 lift
Mike and I discussed, he concurred that what I was seeing was correct with the use of the kit, however the benefits would stem from the actual geometry corrections.
To better understand the true contribution of the cam=>lifter=>pushrod=>rocker arm=>valve geometry to the final lift I re-did all of these measurements with 3 threads showing on the rocker arm adjuster. If you visualize this you can tell how that causes pivot to be moved, and therefore by extension the effective rocker arm ratio.
I must say that I've regularly spun that motor up to the 6500 RPM redline, and you can't tell this is a hydraulic roller cam setup. The thing buzzes up in no time, if I'd let it, it would readily pull right past that 6500 mark! ...which leads me to believe that the valvetrain geometry here is NOT an issue.