The TF headed 505 is done, and she is wicked

[PRHeads]

Slightly off topic, but.......

On Andy’s 470...... a cam swap could have easily had the results of the rocker ratio test show that at each increase in ratio, there was an increase in power.

It’s all about the complete combo.

 

[biomedtechguy]

My builder gave a similar response as dvw, whose posts I highly value. AndyF is a legendary Mopar "engineer" and I have his BB Mopar engine building book...
BUT
I am 100% bought into and intellectually on board with B3E Michael Beachel and his tech papers 1 thru 4.
(I want #5 out now @B3RE ! )
My builder went along with my insistence on going that route, and he could have saved me a few hundred dollars for T&D rocker arms, but with all that I'm investing in this "572 mostly street, but by God it had better kick *** on the race track" build, it didn't make ANY sense not to go with B3E and the valvetrain geometry setup!
YES, there are oodles of stroker and others out there screaming down the track for seasons w/out it and no problems, but I am convinced that EVERYTHING B3E says and shows about their system is the TRUTH and it HAS TO make a number of positive improvements.
One is not requiring any more spring pressure than valve control, vs also making up for less than perfect geometry. It IS more efficient in transmitting the cam profile to the valves, no 2 ways about it, and those factors have got to make for a more stable, less wear, better functioning cam and valvetrain.
How can it NOT?!

 

[69 GTX]

I remember Mr. LaRoy saying there was a HS part # just for the TF heads.

 

[Wietse]

My builder gave a similar response as dvw, whose posts I highly value. AndyF is a legendary Mopar "engineer" and I have his BB Mopar engine building book...
BUT
I am 100% bought into and intellectually on board with B3E Michael Beachel and his tech papers 1 thru 4.
(I want #5 out now @B3RE ! )
My builder went along with my insistence on going that route, and he could have saved me a few hundred dollars for T&D rocker arms, but with all that I'm investing in this "572 mostly street, but by God it had better kick *** on the race track" build, it didn't make ANY sense not to go with B3E and the valvetrain geometry setup!
YES, there are oodles of stroker and others out there screaming down the track for seasons w/out it and no problems, but I am convinced that EVERYTHING B3E says and shows about their system is the TRUTH and it HAS TO make a number of positive improvements.
One is not requiring any more spring pressure than valve control, vs also making up for less than perfect geometry. It IS more efficient in transmitting the cam profile to the valves, no 2 ways about it, and those factors have got to make for a more stable, less wear, better functioning cam and valvetrain.
How can it NOT?!

I also use B3 his product and am happy with the correction it has made, and if you get the full picture, you understand the what and why.
But, as I went through it all myself later on I can conclude that you can make more power when off perfect geometry.
Reason is that, if you want power, you need those valves (mainly intake) to open a.s.a.p. and perfectly centered geometry is all about an even stroke during open and close event.
If geometry is perfectly centered and is set for the mid lift theory, the valve velocity coming from the valve seat to open is slower compared to the place in "less perfect" geometry where the valve is slammed open but will immediately have max. velocity opening and giving the valve a longer open time with higher lift. (area under the curve I believe its called)
It then becomes a price you pay for more power, how much wear & tear it causes and what power gains you could make I have no idea.
I just found it interesting when adjusting things and what the effects would be that I found perfect geometry does not mean max. power.

 

[biomedtechguy]

"...what if we look at the same .500" lift scenario with the fulcrum point at the correct location? Now the action at the valve will change dramatically. Because the fulcrum is higher, there will be less sideways motion at lower lifts, so the valve will accelerate quicker off the seat, and reach the perpendicular plane at .250" lift. At this point, the valve will start to decelerate until it reaches .500" lift, where it will dwell briefly, and then reverse the cycle. Let’s see, get the valve to .250" quicker, slow it down from .250" to .500", dwell briefly at .500”, accelerate back to .250”, and slow the valve to gently set it down on the seat."
That is from tech article 3.
B3 Racing Engines LLC - Mopar Rocker Arm Geometry Tech
I'm not sure how your scenario would result in the valve staying open longer as a total though, and I believe the cylinder will fill more completely by having it open the amount of time designed vs a "pause", slammed open, and then what? It can't stay fully open beyond peak lift, and I think in the situation you describe it must also slam closed (comparably speaking).

 

[Wietse]

I read all his articles.
My point of view is exactly as he describes with the valve at mid lift being in the perpendicular plane of the rocker shaft, which means that max valve velocity occurs around mid lift.
The opening and closing sequence will be smooth with a nice ramp up in lift.
If you would adjust it so that the rocker tip is more close towards that perpendicular point, where max. valve velocity is, the valve will open faster at lower valve lift, which means there is more opening for air to flow through than before.
The valve cannot stay open longer indeed, it is just a adjustment of where you want the rocker arm to provide the most velocity to the valve.
For smooth and balanced/stable valve train the max velocity provided should be around the mid lift area, both ends of the operation the valve needs to slow down which is does in this case.

If you select the correct camshaft, designed to fully utilize the .904" Mopar lifters, this effect is also used.
Those cams kick off a little faster compared with a "universal" grind that works on various brands cars.