Lightweight parts????
Moderator: Team
Lightweight parts????
Im building a stock car motor. 9.8:1 compression just below the max, and a limit of 360 w/1% error. 4412 gauge legal carb, 1" 4412 TO 4150 adapter, on a 2701 Edelbrock intake, 6600 rpm pill. 50 lbs crank rule. Must use Stamped style rocker arms(no rollers). any cast iron head with 23 degrees. Pump gas.
Where is there a better advantage increasing power, if budget dictates,bottom end lightening the rods/pistons,pins OR spending money on lightweight valve train parts, including light weight lifters?
Where is there a better advantage increasing power, if budget dictates,bottom end lightening the rods/pistons,pins OR spending money on lightweight valve train parts, including light weight lifters?
Re: Lightweight parts????
The best answer is BOTH….I'd buy the lightest piston that are in th budget then work on th valve train. The SBM engine I just bought has over $500 worth of Ti retainers and locks… wow! But it still has heavy 3/8" valves which I will deal with before it runs again.
Honored to be a member of the Luxemburg Speedway Hall of Fame Class of 2019
Re: Lightweight parts????
In a technical discussion, correct terminology is everything. Lighter weight rods/pistons/pins don't increase horsepower. Lighter reciprocating components can help the car gain or lose speed more quickly. Is there a flywheel rule?Where is there a better advantage increasing power, if budget dictates,bottom end lightening the rods/pistons,pin
Sometimes "flutter" or seat bounce is present even at 6600, so lighter weight valvetrain can help the springs control the valve train and more accurately follow the cam profile. Smaller valve stems reduce weight and can slightly increase flow. Better valvetrain control can sometimes allow a slightly taller gear, thus maintain the pull just enough longer to put a wheel on the guy you're trying to pass before hitting the rev limiter.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
- psychomotors
- Pro
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:20 pm
- Location: East Bonne Terre
- Contact:
Re: Lightweight parts????
Both are excellent answers in my book.
Everyone appreciates your honesty , until you're honest with them , then you're an @$$hole.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:55 pm
- Location:
Re: Lightweight parts????
the stamped steel rocker are your limiting factor. heavy valve springs or lobe design will cause a problem as the after market ones sold now do not seem to stand up. I had better luck using older OEM rockers from scraped engines if you can find them.
- psychomotors
- Pro
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:20 pm
- Location: East Bonne Terre
- Contact:
Re: Lightweight parts????
Does that include or exclude "beehive" springs?
Everyone appreciates your honesty , until you're honest with them , then you're an @$$hole.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:08 pm
- Location: Minneapolis
Re: Lightweight parts????
lol.. beat me to it before I could even log in.psychomotors wrote:Does that include or exclude "beehive" springs?
I would agree with the above.. both is always better. The quicker the engine cam come up onto the cam via the lighter rotating compnents.. the more it will tax the springs due to quicker transient throttle control. Lightening the valvetrain not only helps improve lift control.. it also sets you up for less overall spring pressure needed to get the job done. Some reduced losses to be gained back there too. And many times those reduced rate springs will still allow a buffer to run more aggressive ramp rates on the chosen cam. Reduced pushrod flex.. less overall wear and tear.. and even relating to valve control and geometry improvements despite being forced to use those stamped steel rocker arms too.
Cam limitations?.. and can you also run aftermarket stamped rocker arms that are known to have more ratio consistency as well?
Last edited by groberts101 on Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- psychomotors
- Pro
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:20 pm
- Location: East Bonne Terre
- Contact:
Re: Lightweight parts????
LOL. At least I finally asked a legit question.groberts101 wrote:lol.. beat me to it before I could even log in.psychomotors wrote:Does that include or exclude "beehive" springs?
Everyone appreciates your honesty , until you're honest with them , then you're an @$$hole.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2802
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:55 pm
- Location:
Re: Lightweight parts????
make sure the oil does not overshoot the rocker arm ball by using some type of deflector.
Re: Lightweight parts????
Valve springs, 1.250-inch maximum diameter, 0.195-inch wire, steel retainers. Five (5) full coils is the rule. we can use aftermarket stamped rocker arms.
Re: Lightweight parts????
so the hd elgin 1.6 rockers on the intake if you have an open cam rule
can you run "stock" SB Olds or Buick 6" rods you can really lighten up the pistons
can you run "stock" SB Olds or Buick 6" rods you can really lighten up the pistons
Re: Lightweight parts????
Don't blow your budget on one item. Trick valves won't help ring seal and fancy lifters won't fix the wrong cam. A balanced approach will yield the best results.
LOL, according to the post count I'm an "expert." The only thing I'm an expert at is asking questions.
Re: Lightweight parts????
^^^^^this, and i'll add don't skimp on the "any 23 degree cast iron head" rule! get good ones, for this engine...ap72 wrote:Don't blow your budget on one item. Trick valves won't help ring seal and fancy lifters won't fix the wrong cam. A balanced approach will yield the best results.