TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:26 pm

Is anyone producing 1.3 rocker arms these days? CB is "out". The Pauter roller tips are far more than I need. They seem to be rare or unavailable. 1.4 is too much and 1.25 not quite enough.

Thanks all,

Don

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:51 pm

I have a set of these that check out at about 1.3 to 1.
http://vwparts.aircooled.net/SCAT-1-25-1-Ratio-Rocker-Assemblies-20188S-p/20188s.htm

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:13 pm

I have a new set. Interested? All of the 1.25’s ratio style rockers I have checked are 1.3
Dan

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:43 pm

These supposedly check out at 1.29.

I might upgrade to them this winter.

YMMV

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Performance-super-Hi-Rati...2537560174

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:42 am

every set of 1.25's with the adjuster on the pushrod end I have checked are between 1.33&1.34 bug poop, empi,kuel teck gsc all abut the same rocker.I havent checked the scat ones. the kueltec&gsc need to be checked for squarenedd&heat treet and fixed if needed. also. these flat foot rockers are a variable ratio to an extent.

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:35 am

Not enough lift for what? How did you determine that?

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:48 pm

Back story:

1966 bus
1776
stock internals, balanced, polished crank.
L-3 Heads from AIrcool.net (35 x32)
Weber IDF 40's
1 3/8" 4 in 1 header
Bosch 019
Berg Achiever pulley/ Porsche 356 upper pulley / Berg balanced fan

4.12 r/p .82 4th gear. 27 1/4" tall tires.

It's a touring bus. Brisk acceleration to highway speed, passing @ over 70 and appropriate stopping.

This is kind of an extension of the HVW bolt on HP article. The baseline is a stock engine with added displacement. The bolt on changes are similar, different distributor, dual carbs, (Dual port rather than S/P) existing 4-1 exhaust. What I haven't done is the ratio rocker arms.

In the HVW article they used 1.4 ratio rocker arms. This was to yield max HP at max RPM. a race environment. As my engine does not often enter that environment I think the 1.4 may be a bit more than I want for standard operation.

It's an experiment. I think the combination of carbs, heads and exhaust are well matched. The weak link is the stock cam. I think the 1.3 rocker arms will give the engine a bit more power across the RPM range.

Don

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:20 am

I have done the stock engine with dual carbs and 4 into 1 exhaust with 1.5 rockers and IMO don't waste your time but instead look at a webcam 163 or webcam 218 and run 8.5-9:1 ish compression ratio and you will have much better torque and drivability.

Aircooled.net has both of those cams listed with a summary and you can check the Engine Builder sticky above for dyno pulls with those cams. Both will get you the torque you need.

Dan also has the 163 cam available for sale on an EP12 blank so you can use the CB 28mm lightweight lifters https://www.thesamba.com/vw/classifieds/detail.php?id=2233833

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:41 am

1 st you should of use good heads, 2 the proper cam for the application, 3, get that heavy oully off it! .4,build the engine for what it is intended for, not out of the funny pages for a giggle.5, add stroke.

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:44 am

I have a stock bottom-end 1600 dual-port which for several years had Kadrons, onto which I installed 1.4 rockers. 1 3/8" header with single quiet-pack muffler, and home-porting to the heads. On the highway at cruising speeds ranging from mid 60's to mid '70's depending on the ambient speed limit, the car accelerates well. Those speeds would be approx. 3500 to 4000 rpm engine speed with the '77's 3.88:1 final drive ratio. Even though I did not consider those 1.4's for maximum power at high rpms, they work very well for my driving style. The rockers were a left-over from an earlier engine that had a cam designed for 1.4's. This spring I want to install a pair of Dell'Orto 36 DRLAs to this engine.

Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:07 am

1.3's are a waste with the stock cam. If you want some more power do it right and change the cam. You can leave one side of the engine together and do a cam swap in a day and have it running again. Of course everyone has their opinion about which cam, I would get ANY mild cam and it would be a improvement.

66 bus that drives, if its not rusted out your sitting on a gold mine. I wouldnt be messing with these shortcuts like ratio rockers on a stock cam that give you 1% improvement. Give it the love it deserves.

Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:17 am

OK, thanks everyone.

dgsaz

Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:59 am

mark tucker wrote: 1 st you should of use good heads, 2 the proper cam for the application, 3, get that heavy oully off it! .4,build the engine for what it is intended for, not out of the funny pages for a giggle.5, add stroke.

Thanks for the input. Most helpful suggestion.

Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:15 am

More suggestions, Small valve ported heads work well up to about .460" lift and going more than that is pointless and it will just wear out guides out faster. The stock cam is a very good profile but with an engine like yours the stock cam just does not have enough duration but with the addition of 1.4 ratio rockers the lift is adequate.

Enter webcam, just got off the phone with Faith asking her if we could add duration to the stock profile. Answer is yes and up to 12 degrees more making it go from [email protected]" to 226. Still not a lot but it would be a very noticeable when driving.

Next idea would be the web 86-5 ([email protected]) with 1.4 rockers, runs a lot like the 218 but will be easier on the valve train. Good wide powerband.

Web 119 with stock rockers, a good torque cam designed for stock rockers. Falls between the Engle 100 and 110.

Dan

Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:17 am

You want more pick up power? - Loose the Achiever. At such low rpms it does more bad than good. (Assuming you use a straight rear axle)
Also, ratio rockers generally do not give any benefit untill about 27-2800 rpm. So if you want more lower rpm torque you need more displacement and corresponding heads´n CR. and/or a cam that improves just that.

- Are you using RGB´s or straight rear axles?

Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:06 pm

Alstrup wrote: You want more pick up power? - Loose the Achiever. At such low rpms it does more bad than good. (Assuming you use a straight rear axle)
Also, ratio rockers generally do not give any benefit untill about 27-2800 rpm. So if you want more lower rpm torque you need more displacement and corresponding heads´n CR. and/or a cam that improves just that.

- Are you using RGB´s or straight rear axles?

RGB's

Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:33 pm

dgsaz wrote: Alstrup wrote: You want more pick up power? - Loose the Achiever. At such low rpms it does more bad than good. (Assuming you use a straight rear axle)
Also, ratio rockers generally do not give any benefit untill about 27-2800 rpm. So if you want more lower rpm torque you need more displacement and corresponding heads´n CR. and/or a cam that improves just that.

- Are you using RGB´s or straight rear axles?

RGB's

Change your ring and pinion then

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:59 pm

dgsaz wrote: RGB's
OK. That makes a significant difference. Then yes you will experience a little more usable power in the driving rpm. with 1,3 or 1,4 rockers.
- There are at least 4 different versions of the L3 heads. The early ones worked alright, the "mid ones from the late 2000´s based on GO1 heads were outright crap (But I believe they were mainly distributed from DRD) The later based on AA500 castings from ACN are nice and can actually support decent power out of the box.
I do agree that a 3,88 R/P would come in handy as it will bring the cruise rpm down somewhat which will suit a 1776 well. But it takes a good deal of work and funding to do that. If you drive it a lot it is worth it. If it is mainly used as a weekend display thing its not.

Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:25 pm

Alstrup wrote: dgsaz wrote: RGB's
OK. That makes a significant difference. Then yes you will experience a little more usable power in the driving rpm. with 1,3 or 1,4 rockers.
- There are at least 4 different versions of the L3 heads. The early ones worked alright, the "mid ones from the late 2000´s based on GO1 heads were outright crap (But I believe they were mainly distributed from DRD) The later based on AA500 castings from ACN are nice and can actually support decent power out of the box.
I do agree that a 3,88 R/P would come in handy as it will bring the cruise rpm down somewhat which will suit a 1776 well. But it takes a good deal of work and funding to do that. If you drive it a lot it is worth it. If it is mainly used as a weekend display thing its not.

The heads are the "Super Stock; http://vwparts.aircooled.net/ACN-Stocker-Plus-Dual-Port-Cylinder-Heads-35-X-32-p/l3-heads-pair.htm

My transmission is set up fine for my use. 4th gear at 3500 rpm puts me at 65 MPH. The engine spends most of its time at this RPM and I believe the achiever pulley is a benefit. Using the Berg Pulley with a Porsche 356 upper pulley pushes up to 20 % more air across the heads and oil cooler.

I'm happy with the engine as is. But if there is some extra passing power I'd like to capture it.

dgsaz

Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:43 am

some times what we think or beleave ...isant so good...just sayen. so how do you think it helps??? it;s just extra weight at the rong end of the crank that takes extra power to keep going along with the twisting forces it exzerts on the crank....that the crank dosent need or want. it stores up wasted energy....well energy is taken form the other end of the crank....IMHO dowel pin&crank snapper/killers.. for some reason vw knew this or they would of put a big heavy unit there to "help" with the launch&gear shifts... but they did not.perhaps they tested it? or they knew it did not belong there long ago.