Rocker Arm Ratios

[TC]

TC once again, so its the same if I use a 2.200 valve as a 1.94? Its all dome profile from the bottom of the Valve relief on up. Its such a waiste of time to try to make you think about the stuff you say and understand how much more there is to all this than you know.

You are changing things now, the OP(JcharlieM) said everything stayed the same, just the stroke changed, well compression height and dome height would have to change to, but he was saying everything else would be the same...... It's not my scenario, it's his......

So the question is, is the longer stroke of the 377 going to have more valve clearance than a 302 of the same bore/build....... I'm thinking the difference will be in the .001's..........

[JeffMcKC]

Its been expained. Think

[jcharliem]

Ya I know all that...So if your running a 5.7 rod in the 377 which would be considered a long rod and a 5.7 rod in the 302 which would be considered a short rod...

Do ya really know all that? Your statement is actually reversed... it's the other way around.

[JeffMcKC]

Did you have to point it out? LOL

[TC]

Do ya really know all that? Your statement is actually reversed... it's the other way around.

I think you better rethink that, especially with compression height factored into the equation.......... A longer rod sets the wrist pin closer to the oil ring........ Or in other words the short stroke motor would need a longer rod to achieve the same compression height as a longer stoke motor would need.....

[jcharliem]

^^^^ LOL. I give up. A waste of time. TC, carry on.

[TC]

^^^^ LOL. I give up. A waste of time. TC, carry on.

It's all good......

[jcharliem]

I think you better rethink that, especially with compression height factored into the equation.......... A longer rod sets the wrist pin closer to the oil ring........ Or in other words the short stroke motor would need a longer rod to achieve the same compression height as a longer stoke motor would need.....

I can't let it go... this is too much fun. You're changing your story again. Above, you now reference different rod lengths. In your earlier post... you babbled something about a 5.7 rod in a 377 (3.75" stroke) being considered a long rod, and a 5.7 rod in a 302 (3" stroke) being considered short. You have no clue what you post about.

Comical.

[TC]

I can't let it go... this is too much fun. You're changing your story again. Above, you now reference different rod lengths. In your earlier post... you babbled something about a 5.7 rod in a 377 (3.75" stroke) being considered a long rod, and a 5.7 rod in a 302 (3" stroke) being considered short. You have no clue what you post about.

Comical.

Which one has "more" compression height the 377 or the 302 if both are using a 5.7 rod??

[JeffMcKC]

That would depend on the deck height used on each, and the bore size used to come up with the cubic inches wanted. Keep trying to wiggle and we will just Giggle

[TC]

That would depend on the deck height used on each, and the bore size used to come up with the cubic inches wanted. Keep trying to wiggle and we will just Giggle

Who's wiggling, you keep trying to change stuff, he said everything was the same, so deck height would be the same, bore size would be the same, rod size is the same, only the stroke would changed and of course the compression height so you still get the 12:1 compression that he was talking about........

[JeffMcKC]

I an just pointing out how weak your question is and that you have no idea how to back pedal fast enough to flip flop

[dieselgeek]

it's good to know that it's not just MY posts that get shit up by TC the Expert At All Things