Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Performance\s+camshaft\s+vs\.\s+roller\s+rockers\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Performance\s+camshaft\s+vs\.\s+roller\s+rockers\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Performance camshaft vs. roller rockers? (score: 1): Author: "Simms, Bruce CIC" <BSimms@cicorp.sk.ca>; Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:48:16 -0600; The head is off my 73 and at the machine shop for repair and upgrade. Will get hot tanked, crack tested, shaved to 9.0 compression, port matching and relief of valve shrouding as recommended by vario; /html/6pack/2003-05/msg00448.html (8,071 bytes)
2. RE: Performance camshaft vs. roller rockers? (score: 1): Author: "Navarrette, Vance" <vance.navarrette@intel.com>; Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:36:12 -0700; For these kinds of questions, you will get lots of opinions. Instead, why not pop $40 and get Dyno 2000 engine simulation software? You can set it up to match your existing engine (stock) and then t; /html/6pack/2003-05/msg00453.html (10,125 bytes)
3. Re: Performance camshaft vs. roller rockers? (score: 1): Author: Don Malling <dmallin@attglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 20:58:36 -0400; My understanding is that the early TR250/TR6 cam lift was .214. 1.75 Roller Rockers will give you .374 valve lift. I think .425 valve lift is max for standard TR6 dual coil valve springs. The later T; /html/6pack/2003-05/msg00455.html (8,804 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]