 Pauter Rocker arms, ??? |
|
|
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
|
| ChrisReale |
 May 10 2004, 04:09 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Sleazy  Group: Members Posts: 2,665 Joined: 20-January 03 From: San Francisco Member No.: 176  |
What advantage do these provide over the stock rocker assembly? These look trick, but also look expensive. Worth it?(IMG:http://www.pauter.com/VW%20Parts_files/t1rockr2.jpg)
|
   |
 
|
  |
Replies(1 - 4)
| Jake Raby |
May 10 2004, 04:21 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Engine Surgeon Group: Members Posts: 9,394 Joined: 31-August 03 From: Lost Member No.: 1,095 Region Association: South East States |
They have issues AND about 90% of the cams available off the shelf have too fast of a ramp rate for them.
I stay stock with 98% of what I build,, These rockers are also splash oilers and promote valve train wear. If I use them I add oilers to the valve covers to keep the guides from hurting. I have seen MEGA failures from these when used with the wrong cams... One guy lost 4 valves before he finally listened and went for stock rockers. |
|
|
|
| Dave_Darling |
May 10 2004, 04:31 PM
Post
#3
|
|
914 Idiot Group: Members Posts: 14,991 Joined: 9-January 03 From: Silicon Valley / Kailua-Kona Member No.: 121 Region Association: Northern California 
|
Advantages:
I believe they are lighter than stock. Light == good, as long as it's strong enough. Roller tip. Less wear on the valve tip, if done right. Higher "ratio" than stock, I think 1.5:1? Gives you more valve lift for the cam lift than stock. . Disadvantages: See Jake's post above. They seem to be good for race engines when someone who knows what they're doing is building the motor? (That would leave me waaaaay out! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) --DD |
|
|
|
| Jake Raby |
May 10 2004, 07:26 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Engine Surgeon Group: Members Posts: 9,394 Joined: 31-August 03 From: Lost Member No.: 1,095 Region Association: South East States |
They are not that light.... a lightened stocker is the same weight..
The higher ratio is what makes them not compatible with many cams, they accelerate the valveopening and closing more harshly... The worst applications I have seen with them are full race engines... Those roller tips wear out and snapoff unless you pull the pins and re do them... The higher ratio creates more wear on the cam and lifters, as it raises valve lift and increases friction and tension against the cam... Stay stock, the only engines I have seen benefit from them are in busses, as the ramp rates actually compliment them and they need extra lift and flow off the seat.... These rockers are the fastest way to make the guides hurt.... ask Charles from LN about seized valves when using them. He knows first hand! |
|
|
|
| Mark Henry |
May 10 2004, 08:16 PM
Post
#5
|
|
that's what I do! Group: Members Posts: 20,065 Joined: 27-December 02 From: Port Hope, Ontario Member No.: 26 Region Association: Canada |
I've seen this on the Type 1's as well.
When you think about it, the heaviest part of the rocker (the roller) is right where you don't want it, hanging out over the valve. If some one did want to make a "proper" ratio rocker it would be a forged unit like the original EMPI or Berg. Not going to happen, as you have to make 2 separate forgings, proper geometry, oversized shafts, etc. $$$$$ Besides a stock T4 rocker is already a ratio (1.3-1) rocker |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th June 2024 - 10:54 AM |
Invision Power Board
v9.1.4 © 2024 IPS, Inc.