Author Topic: Cams vs. rockers  (Read 1547 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jeffy

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14934
Cams vs. rockers
« on: June 12, 2006, 10:38:25 PM »
I thought I'd throw this up for the ones who know to give some solid answers.  I haven't looked into it much and would like to know the pro's and cons.  Hopefully it will stay fairly focused to the question.

So we have people installing performance cams.  They have various 'cuts' which change the duration, overlap, lift and what not.

Then we've got rockers.  Most are stock 1.6:1.  There are a few that are 1.7:1.

Now here's what I'd like to know.  How does increased rocker ratio and stock cam compare to just getting a new cam?  Now overlap would not change.  Neither would duration, I think.  So, what would the equilivant cam be compared to 1.7:1 rockers.

What I'm leading to is, would it be worth it to swap rockers rather then change cams.  Performance wise, what would the difference be?
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZNlr60GXH5OlKIFrT7P6mg
My Jeep: http://4bangerjp.com/forums/index.php?topic=2783.0
"If the motor car were invented today, there is absolutely no way that any government in the world would let normal members of the public drive one."

Beachbum

  • Guest
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2006, 05:33:12 AM »
Hey Jeffy I'd like to throw in my .02 worth on this, and may go deeper than you are asking for. I have been researching roller rockers recently trying to decide if the cost is worth the benefits for my engine. Here is what I've learned. 1.7 vs. 1.6 very little differnce in lift nothing else, but the added stress to the valve train because of the added lift. From the information I've gathered researching roller rockers of any ratio. it appears there are no real performance benefits except at high RPM's. It appears that the main benefit for a street engine is lower oil temperatures due to reduced friction, I found this information on the Hesco website, it was a thread in a forum/bulletin board. I also have personal concerns adding roller rockers because the rockers have bearings i.e more moving parts if a bearing in the rockers fails and enterers the engine it could destroy the engine. Cost vs. benefits ? They sure do look good hidden under that valve cover !!!!!!!!!!!

Guardian7

  • Guest
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2006, 10:41:54 PM »
My 3 cents, I have never felt the high cost of roller rockers to be worth the small power gain on my own engines, if money was no object I would use them with a good set of high intensity springs. Jugding by the beefy designs I have seen the roller rocker is not going to ever break. You will use less horsepower to rotate the cam, less friction & less wear, higher redline on the engines top end. But commonly people build-up the top end and then the bottom end goes out. A Cam is a better price per power gain and should always be installed with a new set of high intensity lifters and double roller chain to handle the increased torque required to rotate a cam with more lift. Now a new problem arises, passing the smog check could now become an problem. A mild cam may not fail the smog but with many other variables involed you really wont know until you test. In this case you may really benifit from a hotter ignition to help burn the increased Fuel/Air mixture like the PD system Jeffy reviewed. Shaving a few thousands off the head has made some major power gains for me in the past and the only reason I did this was to remove some gouges caused by broken timing chains were pistons hit the valves into the head. Ultimately it all comes down to money, but if I had a choice right now, I think I would change my ring and pinion gear ratio letting my 4banger 5 spd work less & go faster!

Offline Jeffy

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14934
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2006, 10:47:45 PM »
Quote from: "Guardian7"
My 3 cents, I have never felt the high cost of roller rockers to be worth the small power gain on my own engines, if money was no object I would use them with a good set of high intensity springs. Jugding by the beefy designs I have seen the roller rocker is not going to ever break. You will use less horsepower to rotate the cam, less friction & less wear, higher redline on the engines top end. But commonly people build-up the top end and then the bottom end goes out. A Cam is a better price per power gain and should always be installed with a new set of high intensity lifters and double roller chain to handle the increased torque required to rotate a cam with more lift. Now a new problem arises, passing the smog check could now become an problem. A mild cam may not fail the smog but with many other variables involed you really wont know until you test. In this case you may really benifit from a hotter ignition to help burn the increased Fuel/Air mixture like the PD system Jeffy reviewed. Shaving a few thousands off the head has made some major power gains for me in the past and the only reason I did this was to remove some gouges caused by broken timing chains were pistons hit the valves into the head. Ultimately it all comes down to money, but if I had a choice right now, I think I would change my ring and pinion gear ratio letting my 4banger 5 spd work less & go faster!


Keep in mind that these aren't just roller rockers but they up the ratio from 1.6:1 to 1.7:1.
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZNlr60GXH5OlKIFrT7P6mg
My Jeep: http://4bangerjp.com/forums/index.php?topic=2783.0
"If the motor car were invented today, there is absolutely no way that any government in the world would let normal members of the public drive one."

Guardian7

  • Guest
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2006, 10:54:06 PM »
What prices have you found on these roller rockers and who makes them? Also how will the computer react to both the cam and/or rocker change?

Offline Jeffy

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14934
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2006, 11:26:57 AM »
Quote from: "Guardian7"
What prices have you found on these roller rockers and who makes them? Also how will the computer react to both the cam and/or rocker change?


Like I've said, I've only found one place that makes 1.7:1 ratio rockers.  As for the other question, that's what this is thread is all about.
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZNlr60GXH5OlKIFrT7P6mg
My Jeep: http://4bangerjp.com/forums/index.php?topic=2783.0
"If the motor car were invented today, there is absolutely no way that any government in the world would let normal members of the public drive one."

Oilsmoke

  • Guest
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2006, 06:34:00 PM »
SO if you had .440 lift  x 1.6 ratio you get valve movement of .704
so a .440 lift cam at 1.7 ratio would get .748 of movement. Increase of .044 thousandth if you added this to 2500 rpm i think it would  more fuel to a stock engine at this Speed.

Cons would be Higher lever ratio cause more stress on the stud. Coil bind on the valve spring if tolerance was to close.

But overall a great idea I think.

Offline Jeffy

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14934
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2006, 07:11:39 PM »
Well, instead of saying rockers with a hot cam lets make it a stock came with the rockers vs. stock rockers and a hot cam.
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZNlr60GXH5OlKIFrT7P6mg
My Jeep: http://4bangerjp.com/forums/index.php?topic=2783.0
"If the motor car were invented today, there is absolutely no way that any government in the world would let normal members of the public drive one."

Guardian7

  • Guest
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2006, 08:09:15 PM »
You want more duation and lift which leads me to go with a Cam and maybe throw in some roller tappets such as Mopar Performance sells for the 2.5L.
http://www.jimsautoparts.com/mopar_performance_dodge_truck_magnum_engine_parts.htm#camshafts%20and%20lifters

Oilsmoke

  • Guest
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2006, 09:54:06 PM »
If you want More torque Than more duration is Not Needed but more Lift would Help the Power & torque. Is this not what you are saying Jeffy?
Or am I not reading you right?

Offline Jeffy

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14934
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2006, 11:16:47 PM »
No, I'm wondering what the benefits of each by themselves.  How much does 1.6 vs 1.7 make.  And how it compares to just a cam. (240 or 248)
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZNlr60GXH5OlKIFrT7P6mg
My Jeep: http://4bangerjp.com/forums/index.php?topic=2783.0
"If the motor car were invented today, there is absolutely no way that any government in the world would let normal members of the public drive one."

wrangler387

  • Guest
Cams vs. rockers
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2006, 12:19:19 AM »
You most definately can gain some good lift... but as you go up it could put more stress and wear on the components. For instance lets say the cam has .42" at 1.6 ratio. You divide .42 by 1.6 to get .25301xxxx then you multiply that by 1.7 and you now have a lift of ruffly .43"
I'm pretty sure that is how it is done. What is the stock lift of the 2.5L camshaft? the more lift the stock cam is the more lift you'd gain by upping the rocker ratio.