View Single Post
Old 02-26-2006, 02:53 PM   #7
Rev
Registered Member
 
Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 3,887
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwhite65
Some of the guys will argue the added stress of the 1.7's to the valvetrain is not worth it. I have 1.7's, but put this all together from scratch, so cant tell ya how it did with 1.6's or anything like that.
Ryan
Glad to hear that those 1.7 RR's are doing OK, Ryan.

I actually went from 1.7 RR's back to 1.6 RR's when I changed cams. My application is for a flat tappet rather than a roller cam. I changed cams going to .509/.512 lift. I really didn't want much more than that with a flat tappet, so I sold the 1.7's to Ryan.

With roller lifters, you can tolerate steeper valve lifts without stressing the valve train as much as long as you have adequate piston/valve clearance and as long as you have adequate valve springs. "Adequate" is the key word here.

My belief is that a little over .500 valve lifts is OK, and does not compromise longevity of the cam/valve train for a street driven car. "More's law" states that "more is not always better" and may apply here.

Rev
__________________
'66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi.

O.B.C. #2


'66 coupe

Last edited by Rev; 02-26-2006 at 03:10 PM..
Rev is offline   Reply With Quote