I really don't think you got anything at all. A smaller cam with higher ratio rockers can produce more torque and hp than a bigger cam with smaller ratio. I am putting up charts and real dyno tests (not theorys) and you chose to ignore them. In return you have not shown anything. You are just being stubborn now so I am tuning you out.

 

You showed 1 chart from vinci and a dyno graph from vinci. If he wanted to prove lift diff then why not just change rockers on his cam like you say to do. It wasn't an a-b comparison at all and the fact that you choose to look over that shows i hit a sore spot and you dont like it so you "ignore" me and call me wrong.
Literally everyone knows its easy to gain power vs an off shelf comp cam. You dont need a chart for that or vinci.

 

To others with comprehension skills reading this thread, I showed an image of basic cam lobe/rocker geometry that I made myself, my dyno pull from Vengence Racing out of Cumming, GA and a Dyno graph real life comparison test on a LS engine done by Vinci. No theories, no slight of hand, no voodoo.

 

Because everyone knows your build amd should trust the chart you mad yourself.

As far as proof you use your dyno graph and a graph you made yourself and a bs comparison of a comp cam vs a vinci cam with 1.8 rockers.
Go ahead and give yourself a third pat on the back.

 

Typos and insecurity issues. Someone needs some sleep. Not sure it all help the business.

 

Typos are not as big a concern as valid info. Nitpicking at me because i wont agree with your dated theory and irrelevant homemade graph isnt very becoming and seems typical.
Our business is doing just fine. Thank you for your concern though.

 

Wow, relax fellas. I don’t follow the point of his arguement.

 

When I mentioned Velocity, I meant the speed of the incoming A/F charge. if you only have .500" of valve lift vs .600" the .500" valve will have a higher air velocity than the .600". the volume remains the same, the area you're forcing it through changes.

High velocity intake air (i.e. low lift) is torque friendly.

changing the rocker ratio is a poor man's cam swap remedy. sure it will get you more lift & more duration, but at the cost of heavier rockers & decreased mechanical advantage... not to mention you're still operating off of a less than ideal cam profile. If the rocker change is significant enough to produce gains, a set of springs will be needed as well.

In my mind, a custom grind cam puts you right where you need to be without compromising.

 

Somewhat agree.
Velocity isnt the same for all cid or at all rpm. A larger scavenging effect or more simply a larger low pressure area allows the airflow to retain or increase velocity as more air is allowed to rush in to the cylinder.

Compare the 2 low lift and high lifts here from the overlay

 

You are correct regarding the air velocity. Regarding the mechanical adavantage keep in mind that with the smaller lift and the laid over ramp actually reduces the torque on the cam and thus provides longivity. The given up mechanical advantage at the rocker gives better mechanical advantage at the cam lobe. Also, with the higher ratio rockers the lifter and pushrods are traveling a shorter distance. However, it is quite important that your rockers are very stable. As for the springs, they need to be upgraded no matter if a high lift 1:7 or low lift 1:8 combo is used. A custom grind is the best way to go but there are off the shelf cams that will work fine with enough research.

The gains of going from GenI 1:5 to 1:6 were greater than 1:7 to 1:8 on the new gens but it is still power left on the table.

Thanks for the input.