# Increasing my rocker ratio



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

This is about to get interesting. 
Rocker ratio changes are very popular way to increase performance in many makes of cars when guys hot rod them.. even with VW, but from what I've seen, only air cooled. I can't say that I've ever seen anyone change the rocker ratio on a water cooled car yet. Not that I've looked very hard..










For several months now I have been talking with a couple engineers at Schaeffler about our rocker arms. The reason is that I want more than the 11mm lift that all the aftermarket cams have for the 24v VR6.
Today I was happy to receive the following email-
"found one that MIGHT be beneficial to you and it has a slightly higher ratio. There is
no guarantee that it will fit or operate successfully without running a
full analysis on it. These calculations take weeks, unfortunately my
boss wont let me do side jobs like that. Buy a set (or one) and try it
out on the bench to see how things line up.
Good luck! Let me know how it works"









Sounds like typical engineer disclaimers to me. They have the full specifications of both right in front of them, I'd imagine they would bother telling me about them if they didn't think they were going to work. I'm stoked!
The 'slightly higher' ratio he is talking about is roughly a 14% increase over stock. 
They should jump the lift on the Schrick cams from 11mm to a hair over 12.5mm.
I can't find my old email file from Willy @ Supertech with the specs on the stock valve springs, but if I remember correctly somewhere around 12.5 was the coil bind limit on them. I should have that info again tomorrow when he responds again. Looks like I might need to change them out if this rocker is indeed functional in this application.

I also sent an email to the Schrick engineer I converse with to see what his thoughts are just for fun.
While these rockers would be a cheap way to gain power on any of the 24v regardless of cams or head, I am especially looking forward to them as my ported head is capable of decent peak CFM over stock.
aprox .430 VS .490 with the stock rockers and these new ones..about a 15cfm gain intake side at peak lift.
For those of you wanting to know more about changing rocker arm ratios, here is a quick page with a nice graph showing area under the curve. By opening and closing the valves at a faster rate, the engine flows more air for the same number of degrees of valve duration. It is for old American iron, but the concept is the same.
http://www.pontiacstreetperfor....html


----------



## DasTeknoViking (May 25, 2008)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (PowerDubs)*

Ran Comp Rockers on many V8s I've built...
Interesting idea thats overseen by many in the import car game.
Do they actually have a rocker arm that could be mounted in our heads ? What kind of price ??


----------



## Slampig (Jun 20, 2008)

*FV-QR*

wow, im liking this, excited to hear more info.
im also curious on what this would cost also.


----------



## r32dub88 (Dec 9, 2007)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (PowerDubs)*

subscribed! 
very interested in this, i knew my P&P would come in handy later on.









_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_I can't find my old email file from Willy @ Supertech with the specs on the stock valve springs, but if I remember correctly somewhere around 12.5 was the coil bind limit on them. I should have that info again tomorrow when he responds again. Looks like I might need to change them out if this rocker is indeed functional in this application.


so even if springs are not required (which they may be) would they be recommended?
also what about retainers?
i would assume these rockers combined with this set would benefit significantly with a P&P head. correct?
Specs:
* 13.90mm max lift
* Coil bind at 17mm
* Rate 12.6lbs/mm


_Modified by r32dub88 at 11:33 PM 2-3-2010_


----------



## nkgneto (Dec 4, 2004)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (r32dub88)*

Good read, interested in price also.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Nice Josh i'll have to did up my old info i had on doing this.If i can find it this was before i moved on my old computer i back everything on my moms computer at the time to save it.Hopefully she has it.I though of the same thing but i was also doing the rest of the head to


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 29, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

subscribed http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*

subscribed http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_While these rockers would be a cheap way to gain power...

How cheap? Last I priced out doing similar it was getting pretty expensive.

_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_I also sent an email to the Schrick engineer...

Schricks N/A cams for the 16v are 12mm/11mm and use stock valvetrain.
The R32 and the 16v utilize the same rocker set up, springs, etc.
I imagine you would at least be good up to 12mm lift.
I was all about this after having my engine fora few months a seeing that cams might be a struggle. There is a gain to be had from this is there, but in stock form it is not as impressive as what you are going to see with you worked head. I plan on keeping the head stock for quite a while so I kept barking up the camshaft tree, found a solution and I am content to see what they do first. Here are HPR's AXW 16v numbers that I put into a chart, you can see that jumping from 11mm stock to 12mm aftermarket is minimal at this point. Headwork will most likely open the spread much more....








Looking forward to what comes from all of this.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (billyVR6)*

Josh was thinking if i am in there doing the rockers i never did valve train yet on a 24v.I was thinking of upgrading springs and retainers in the process not sure yet it it woud be worth it with the ration being low enough to still run the factory stuff.
Now i am not sure on this particular cylinder head if we can upgrade valve train without removing the head.I know some motors you can pull the cams and then fill the cylinder with air and do the springs and reatiners.It would be nice to beable to do it that way and not have to pull the head.Hopefully someone can chime in here if they done so.
Hopefully we can got that route if need be without pulling the head


----------



## Euro-tuner (Dec 17, 2005)

*FV-QR*

wow, I'm a 1.8 guys and I'm excited about seeing how this pans out

_Quote, originally posted by *r32dub88* »_
Specs:
* 13.90mm max lift
* Coil bind at 17mm
* Rate 12.6lbs/mm


^ those are some "feel good" numbers, with assurance like that in your valvetrain you're not going to have to worry about a damn thing! If Powerdubs is right (considering he always is) that's a great improvement over stock.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (Euro-tuner)*

billy you said 16v rockers are the same? 
I had Jeff's spare rockers in my hand and my R32 rockers side by side and the rockers were clearly different in size with the 16v being shorter then the R32 rockers. I even went further as to find 3.6 rockers and those were the same as R32 rocker arms.


----------



## xbluewaterx (Jul 20, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (fourthchirpin)*

Very interested in this as well. I always upgrade the rockers on small block chevys I build. Typically with crane rollers 1.6 or 1.7 but I never even thought about doing this with the VWs. I would think that this could be an easy upgrade. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Bills might be different, it's from a different (euro NA FSI) casting. We did a 'quickie' look at them didn't measure them vs the BDF or R32 ones. 
Some thoughts... 
The only way to change the rocker ratio is to change the location of the roller section that hits the cam. My concerns would be with the change in cam phasing if all else is left the same. I had to draw it out below. The numbers are just for reference, they mean nothing compared to actual parts. I just started drawing it out and some of the dimensions might be on the large side so the effect would be exaggerated. 
Stock type cam, stock rocker:








Increase rocker ratio by moving center pivot toward lifter. This is a ~25% change in designed pivot and ratio. You can see that the lifter would have to pump up slightly to compensate:








Now we take this bad boy to the old full lift cam angle, notice the offset from the new full lift cam angle. 








Also, notice that the true rocker ratio at full lift is higher. This is due to the rocker tip needing to 'slide' out to keep valve contact. Some of that can be mitigated with a radius on the end of the rocker arm where it hits the valve, but it was hard to draw








I might redraw it with real numbers if someone could measure a rocker (length, pivot location, lifter ball dia, etc), and get me the approx base circle, tip circle, lift, of the cam, etc. That along with the difference in the new rocker pivot, I can calculate approx differences in how the new rockers will act. *Hint*










_Modified by need_a_VR6 at 10:23 AM 2-4-2010_


----------



## Euro-tuner (Dec 17, 2005)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
I might redraw it with real numbers if someone could measure a rocker 


I was wondering what the numbers were measured in, 12mm = 0.47 inches so I wasn't sure. assuming there is no fix yet, would you be able to advance/retard the cams enough to make the "New Lift" angle? Assuming your last numbers are correct, can the cam gears adjust up to 19 degrees? I know there is some adjustment there, maybe even enough to accommodate any angle between teeth?
For example, the cam gear could adjust up to 20 degrees and each gear tooth is 20 degrees apart (not real numbers)


_Modified by Euro-tuner at 8:17 AM 2-4-2010_


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I just made up all the dimensions to illustrate the point, they have NO bearing on reality other then to show the difference in the relationships once you start moving things around. 
There might be ways to get the cams to be in the right spot. The thing I would worry about at first with having the centerline retarded is exhaust valve lift @ tdc would be higher. This could possibly be compensated with the vvt somewhat, or with different centerline cams.


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

subscribed


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (DasTeknoViking)*

Ok.. lets start with the basics.
#1. Stop asking me what engine the rockers are from. There is no way I am releasing that info yet as these could potentially destroy an engine if they do not fit correctly or smack pistons.
I'll tell you 2 things about them though-
They are NOT from a VAG product.
They are NOT from any engine available in this country (unfortunately).

#2. I have no idea what cost is yet. If there are similar to the stockers in cost then that would put them around $300ish for a set. I'm going to guess and say more since they have to be imported and don't appear to be as common as our stockers.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (billyVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *billyVR6* »_There is a gain to be had from this is there, but in stock form it is not as impressive as what you are going to see with you worked head.

True the ported head will gain more.. but remember this isn't about peak flow #'s. 
For those that didn't click the link above to read the article and see the chart..increasing the ratio "the opening and closing rates are much faster, and the area under the overall "curve" is much greater."
For the rough guess $300ish these cost.. _*if they work*_ I would call them a no brainer.
CHART-


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_I might redraw it with real numbers if someone could ....

Sent you what I have so far. I think it is enough to be of some use.
Happily awaiting pretty pictures.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I'll work on it tonight, sent you a PM for more details.


----------



## killacoupe (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

benz 6cyl and v8 rockers are the same style as the r32's....ill take a measurement of them tomorrow http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (killacoupe)*

There are a ton of cars that have rockers that are the same style. The INA engineer listed something like 15 different variables that make a difference. 
Seeing as these are the ones he recommends (and INA is the company that makes our stock ones) I don't think you need to look elsewhere at this point.

At this point the only source I have found for them is a used parts place in the UK.








I would like to find a source for them new, although I might buy 1 used to test.

Heard back from Willy @ Supertech.. yes we will need to change the springs to run this much lift so that drives the cost up a lot, as well as much more involved install. This just went from cheap and somewhat easy to fairly pricey and more involved.
Oh well.. no guts no glory!!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

You'd probably only need to upgrade the springs if you use larger cams. It might be an inexpensive way to more lift/duration with stockers.


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

Pdubs, this the article that I mentioned, it's a good read at the least...
http://www.carcraft.com/techar....html


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Did some more playing around.
New drawing of stock with some actual numbers. Started with 11mm peak lift from the Schricks and worked from there..








New 2.3:1 rocker








Two things - the ratio of the old vs new lift doesn't rise as fast as the change in rocker ratio. For this configuration max lift goes from 11mm to 11.65mm. 
The cam timing error of 2deg with the rocker change seems reasonable.
One thing I didn't get right is the dia of the rocker rollers which does influence how much the lifter needs to move when the pivot is moved. Once I find my spare rockers or someone else measures one for me this is about as much as I can do.
Even if I'm off on the low side .65mm extra lift and small cam timing error doesn't sound bad as long as it's not crazy money.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_You'd probably only need to upgrade the springs if you use larger cams. It might be an inexpensive way to more lift/duration with stockers.

Correct. I'm not sure what the stock cams lift is off the top of my head, but Willy said the stock springs bind around 12mm in an email today.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_For this configuration max lift goes from 11mm to 11.65mm.

Boo.. not enough! I was happy with the 12.5 figure off the top of my head.. even if it meant new springs + retainers the flow increase made the hardware changes worth it. Of course if the true lift really is only 11.65 then the stock springs will still work.
I'm going to send those drawings..(and maybe a link to this thread) to the INA engineer. Maybe it will catch his interest enough he can help us with some further input. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## HPR (Oct 31, 2004)

std AXW head tested on Superflow 1020 (bore 84 mm ) @10`` H2O
inlet 
2 mm 36.0 cfm
3 mm 54.1
4 mm 71.1
5 mm 86.0
6mm 100.2
7mm 113.3
8 mm 125.2
9mm 134.1
10mm 138.4
11mm 140.7
12mm 143.3
13mm 144.7
14 mm 145.6
15 mm 146.5
no valve 143.6 
exhaust 
2mm 33.6 cfm
3mm 51.3
4mm 66.7
5mm 78.2
6mm 85.5
7mm 89.6
8mm 91.9
9mm 93.5
10mm 94.7
11mm 95.6
12mm 96.5
13mm 97.2
14mm 97.6
15mm 98.1
no valve 104.2 
after porting flow will be close to 150 cfm @ 11 mmm on inlet with std valves and exhaust about 115 to 120 cfm @ 11 mm
( numbers @10``multiplied x 1.67 )
flow @ 28``H20 should be:
inlet /exhaust
2mm 60.12 / 56.11
3mm 90.34 / 85.67
4mm 118.73 /111.39
5mm 143.62 / 130.59
6mm 167.33 / 142.78
7mm 189.21 / 149.63
8mm 209.08 / 153.47
9mm 223.94 / 156.14
10mm 231.13 / 158.15
11mm 234.97 / 159.65
12mm 239.31 / 161.15
13mm 241.65 / 162.32
no valve 239.8 / 174.0

On Catcams Full race profiles ( no pump lobe) who are used now by some engine builders 
Up to 13.10mm valve lift / 7.80 Cam lift / 314 [email protected]/266degr @1mm /105degr
Rocker ratio is 1.68 / 1.69 std rocker ( axw- axx - bhz ) source: Catcams
The TFSI cams ( with pump lobe) are ready , but not tested in a car so far 
All cams are mechanical lifter /non hydro 



_Modified by HPR at 12:57 AM 2-5-2010_


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Info on the parts for the solid conversion!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Way to take the thread totally off topic guys


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

*FV-QR*

in for info.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (PowerDubs)*

awesome. its always great to seeing someone trying something new. It seems like too many users dont look to other motors and brands to see how they're able to make power, or improve on power.
props.


----------



## Ld7w_VR (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: Increasing my rocker ratio (TBT-Syncro)*

Subscribed. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Question for you guys. I know the 2.8 24v and 3.2 24v have many differences and some similarities in the head. Are the rockers different in the two engines? 


_Modified by VR6VDub172 at 9:48 AM 2-6-2010_


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Good question. 
I had a reman 2.8L 24v BDF head that used cast aluminum rockers. The other BDF head and BJS heads I had at the time both uses a stamped steel rocker. I'll try and take pics of the 'reman' ones as they seem to not be the norm. Dimensions between both sets seemed similar enough that I didn't measure anything.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

I'd like to see that..aluminum seems awfully soft for that application.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

I wouldn't think they would be aluminum either but a casted part that can have the look of aluminum


----------



## robocopywriter (Jun 18, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

Late coming to this cause I haven't been round in a while. Used to use cast aluminum high-lift rockers in the old days on "A" series mini engines. Besides more lift, they were quieter and lighter.
Damn! When its all over these NA 24v 3.2 engines are going to be pretty impressive. Always knew I would prefer this route to turbo. Too bad I'm now too broke to play


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (robocopywriter)*

Yea, I've seen aftermarket made from aluminum before..I guess I am just surprised to hear of VW doing it from the factory.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Yea, I've seen aftermarket made from aluminum before..I guess I am just surprised to hear of VW doing it from the factory.


x2


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

They're cast something, I just have to find them!


----------



## Det. John Kimble (May 20, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Subscribed to this thread
Some very interesting information already


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_You'd probably only need to upgrade the springs if you use larger cams. It might be an inexpensive way to more lift/duration with stockers.

Ok. Found the stock cams spec chart.
If my math is correct these rockers will bring the stock cams from
9.85IN / 9.90EX to 11.21IN / 11.27EX


----------



## killacoupe (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Good question. 
I had a reman 2.8L 24v BDF head that used cast aluminum rockers. The other BDF head and BJS heads I had at the time both uses a stamped steel rocker. I'll try and take pics of the 'reman' ones as they seem to not be the norm. Dimensions between both sets seemed similar enough that I didn't measure anything.

i broke one of those aluminum rockers in my motor http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Have you switched to the stamped ones now?


----------



## killacoupe (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

yes sir


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Good to know. Those cast ones seemed pretty heavy.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Just purchased 1 of these rockers for testing purposes. 
Since it is coming from overseas, it may take a while to arrive.


----------



## killacoupe (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

I got 23 of them next to me.....you can have them to test


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (killacoupe)*

I'm not talking about factory rockers...I've ordered 1 of the rockers that this thread is about..from a car overseas (non-vag) that will increase our lift.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

Nice Josh waiting to see how this pans out


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

Got a few things to add to this discussion:
Facts:
~The "Cast Aluminum" rocker referenced as a BDF rocker is actually CAST IRON. We have a BDF head here at Ferrea. 
~The cast iron rocker for all intensive purposes is mechanically identical to the stamped steel rockers in the later engines.
~The CAST IRON rocker actually weighs LESS than the stamped steel unit. I expected this to be the other way around, but the scale tells a different story.

Disappointing Reality:
~To change the roller wheel point with the VR6 24v arrangement in order to increase lift *WILL NOT WORK* properly. I read through this thread as clearly as I could, expecting to find someone pointing this out, but I did not. I'll try to explain.
If this were any other engine, there would be nothing but the good facts drawn out in the AutoCAD images that were posted. 16v FSI, etc...EXCELLENT!!
HOWEVER, we are crippled by the inherent awesomeness of the VR6's narrow-angle nature. 
Picture this:
Take the intake cam and rocker arrangement for example. The front 3 cylinders are actuated by rocker arms that are facing the front bumper. To change the rocker ratio for these means that the roller wheel with be moved further towards the pivoting point which will cause the cam lobes to begin opening and closing the valves LATER. I saw someone mention 2° somewhere. Sounds ok, right? Most people degree cams _retarded_ which would shift the RPM band UP. Still sounds fine with me, how about you?
Super-Large wall that we are about to crash into:
What about the 3 cylinders that are on the rear bank of the engine? They get their valve lift from the same bump-stick that the front 3 cylinders do, right? So what is the problem? They are actuated by rockers that are TURNED AROUND!!! Facing 180° from how the front 3 cylinders are actuated will cause you to shift the opening and closing events by the same amount as the front cylinders, however in the OPPOSITE direction!! 
If your front cylinders have intake cam timing that is retarded by 2° and you run the same set of "different/new" rockers on the rear 3 cylinders, you will now have the rear-cylinder valve timing events altered by a +2° since they will be advanced by an equal amount.
The only way to get your "more lift" properly would be with cams that have "more lift". You could compensate the cam timing with rockers if this were a normal in-line engine, but that gets thrown out the window being that we have rockers facing two different directions. You can't compensate for it on both front AND rear cylinder banks.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

So having cams ground to make up for that would be out of the question?


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_So having cams ground to make up for that would be out of the question?

Well yes, that would take care of that problem....but having cams made at all would eliminate the need to mess with rocker ratio changes at all. Moot point. 
Besides, a lower rocker ratio puts less fulcrum loads and resistance on the valvetrain components as well. Nothing major, but just a fact. Custom grind cams is your best solution.
BTW.....since Crane Cams went the way of the Dodo Bird, we are no longer at their mercy for having cams produced to our specs and have moved production into our existing production facilities in Argentina. We are currently in the design stages for FSI 16v camshafts. I think there's a very good opportunity that I could talk our way into production of camshafts for the VR6 if there is enough interest, and DEFINITELY at a lower cost than what is available.
Any interest?


----------



## Sanjay24V (Sep 15, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

Ummm Hell Yeah!!!!


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (Sanjay24V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Sanjay24V* »_Ummm Hell Yeah!!!!

Hmmmm, I just speed-browsed PowerDubs thread about Schrick 272° cams. I'll admit, I flipped through the first 4 pages, then jumped to the last page. Someone had a dyno sheet that had comments about the powerband shifting heavily to the right.
Can anyone give me an accurate Cliff-note's version in the meantime until I read through 31 pages of it?


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
..., and DEFINITELY at a lower cost than what is available.
Any interest?









If they a) work on an MK V R32 and b) don't give up too much torque the YES as I'm still looking for the cam with the best low/midrange for my daily driving (aka more often around 2-4 rather than 5-7)


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (BlixaBargeld)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BlixaBargeld* »_
If they a) work on an MK V R32 and b) don't give up too much torque the YES as I'm still looking for the cam with the best low/midrange for my daily driving (aka more often around 2-4 rather than 5-7)

I noticed some mentioned that MKV cams were different. What specifically is different between these?
Also....what you are asking for is difficult to obtain. A "PERFORMANCE" camshaft by nature commonly needs to sacrifice low-end power in order to make a power increase at the higher RPM. Everyone WANTS _racecar power_ but no one wants to live with _racecar compromises_ however.


_Modified by KingVR at 4:39 PM 2-8-2010_


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
I noticed some mentioned that MKV cams were different. What specifically is different between these?
Also....what you are asking for is difficult to obtain. A "PERFORMANCE" camshaft by nature commonly needs to sacrifice low-end power in order to make a power increase at the higher RPM. Everyone WANTS _racecar power_ but no one wants to live with _racecar compromises_ however.

_Modified by KingVR at 4:39 PM 2-8-2010_

The exhasut cam is different if I remember correct. PowerDobs can probably confirm this 
The 268/264 mix is supposed to have gains all over the range (yes low/midrage too). While what you state is true in most cases the VR6 seems to be an exception to this rule. Don't have dynos available (there might be some) but as this comes from PowerDubs .....


_Modified by BlixaBargeld at 1:52 PM 2-8-2010_


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (BlixaBargeld)*

In the meantime I thought that I might bring up an option that most are probably not yet aware of. 
If you would like to _almost_ convert your VR to a solid-lifter setup, we have a very very cost-effective solution for you. Originally designed for the 16v FSI engine, I noticed that it is a direct 100% drop-in for the 24v VR6 as well...and the newer inline-5 engines. The original design intention was Mr. Ferrea's solution to the FSI customers having their rockers getting tossed off of the lifter sockets, let alone breaking the retaining clip on the underside.
What we came up with was a shim of a specific thickness that you install under the OEM hydraulic lifter body. This effectively PRELOADS the OEM lifter nearly 100% so that it functions similar to a solid lifter, but still has the lash-adjusting capability that it was meant to have built in.
Hydraulic lifters are known to have pump-down issues above the 7,000 RPM range, which causes excessive lash...which inherently causes you to lose _X-amount_ of valve lift and duration values. In many cases, this is why you can witness your torque curve suddenly take a dive at higher RPMs. When people run bigger cams, they can make more power at those higher RPMs because they have started with more lift, and when the lift is lost, it lands in the stock-value areas making power that the OEM cams could not.
Part number is LP1101 and quite affordable with retail pricing at only $2.15 each.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Only negative is that it requires cam removal for installation, but at least you don't need to mess with the spring assembly and pressurizing the cylinder like you do with valve spring removal, etc.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

Hi King VR.
Thanks for joining the discussion.

I've got pictures to clarify what you are saying for people who haven't seen the insides. Yes, we are increasing the spread between the front and rear banks timing, but the timing events (IN/EX) of each cyl stay the same within itself. I think that is more important.

I'm not sure these won't work. What is happening here is not much different than header pulse, etc.. Many engines have inherit imbalance issues in port design, firing order, etc..which might not be ideal on paper but still function in real life. Hell, Harley made an empire off of it.

As a matter of fact if you look at the pictures.. taking into account the higher ratio rockers have the roller moved closer to the pivot...and the cams spin counterclockwise the front bank (short ports) will open a little later and the rear bank (long ports) will open a little earlier. Could this not, in theory HELP to even out the inherit flow differences that the port lengths of the front rear bank design themselves create? Food for thought.. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

I actually bought a set for my 24v back in the Fall from Jeff. Cant wait to put it all in a car. :sigh:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (fourthchirpin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fourthchirpin* »_I actually bought a set for my 24v back in the Fall from Jeff. Cant wait to put it all in a car.


A set of what? The cast rockers that they mentioned above having failed?


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

A set of what? The cast rockers that they mentioned above having failed?


lifter shims kingvr mentioned.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

P-Dubs...I thought about that as well, but lets take a look at what WILL actually happen on paper:
Your front bank of cylinders will have both intake and exhaust open later by the same amount....whatever that amount is, that is to be determined, but negative from the factory timing setup.
The rear bank will have the timing events for both intake and exhaust occur in a positive manner...positive from the factory timing setup.
The VR6 can really be looked at as if it were literally two entirely different "3-cylinder" engines.
One thing that I have never heard discussed is how radically different the centerline of the crankshaft's offset is between the front and rear banks within the engine: 
One bank has a radical (in a bad way) amount of connecting rod angle-offset which creates a not-so optimal leverage/dwell on the power-stroke and a fast piston speed in relation to the speed as the piston comes back up on the compression and exhaust motions.
...and the other bank has the exact opposite issue behavior. Perhaps because the negative effects of one are a positive on the other, and visa versa, they cancel each other out.









Ok, back on topic......proper cams are the way to go. Unfortunately it would be more costly to do than it would be to have simply done some nifty rockers. However, while you may gain flow from added lift, you won't know that true benefit because you're altering the valve timing events so radically.
Josh...I would love to send you those lifter shims to you at no cost for you to install and show the difference they make. The FSI guys push into the 8k RPM and above area, which makes them cure the danger-factor of tossing the rockers off to the side, but if you're not going to such extreme RPM's then you may not see any change. But if you have ANY instability issues, then you are definitely losing power because you are not following the cam profile any longer. You would be the perfect candidate for this testing.
Just let me know.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

So what was the result of this?
Do we have hope?


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (Draxus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Draxus* »_So what was the result of this?
Do we have hope?

He hasn't installed them yet....but the FSI people have over in Europe.
Unfortunately no one has installed the shims without installing our spring kit. It has solved the issue of them tossing the rockers off when they go beyond 7500 RPM. I think at least one has gone to 8500 RPM with no issue at all, so that says something right there.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I'd love to see what these cam do by themselves, but there is always the issue of the OEM springs not being up to the job and allowing the valves to not stay shut when they should, hence a possible reason why Josh saw no increase in power after having his head ported. And IIRC he didn't gain much when doing the Schrick cams. Why? If you care about your cam specs at all, then you can toss that right out the window when they are not being followed by the valve.
Many people, even professional engine builders, believe that spring pressure will consume horsepower from the engine. With these later-generation VW engines using roller wheels to contact the cam lobe, there is little frictional energy to acquire when increasing spring tension. 
While spring tension in itself will cause resistance to opening a valve, that tension is a moot point as it is washed out by a spring assisting the rotation of the camshaft as it will be on the closing side. Might not be as true on a single-cylinder engine, but with 6 cylinders, we have 12 pairs of lobes to neutralize the opening tensions.
Many aftermarket springs out there don't show any power improvement usually because in most cases, nothing more than the concern with making it fit the OEM retainer (which is usually excessively heavy) so that people feel like they got the benefit of a great spring. We take far more than that into consideration. In fact, that is a design element that we intentionally do NOT take into consideration. To restrict your spring design means that you are compromising the potential performance of the arrangement. There are harmonic issues that take place as well. Many engine designers actually engineer the valvetrain so that if one were to defeat the factory RPM limiter, the valvetrain BY DESIGN will lose power, making the driver not interested in abusing the engine at engine speeds above the factory setting, either because of spring harmonics or simply intentionally designing in too-low of a spring pressure. Sort of, mechanical speed limiter, if you will.
So, to make your "Performance Spring" fit a factory retainer, you are compromising the design potential, and you are causing that _limited performing_ spring to work with an excessively overweight retainer.
The 12v VR6 retainer which is made of steel, weighs 18.5 grams. A certain *A*ftermarket *T*itanium retainer, which is a complete 100% dimensional copy of the OEM steel retainer, weighs 12.5 grams. Our Ferrea Titanium retainer which is optimized in every way possible with no compromises, weighs less than half of that competitor's retainer at only 6 grams.
Before I worked at Ferrea and learned all that I have, springs and retainers were the last thing on my list to consider to upgrade in an engine. Now that I know what I do know, they would be my first. Before valves, before cams, before intake manifolds, etc. If your valvetrain system is not keeping itself under control, then what do you expect to gain by changing out other parts in hopes of gaining huge power, while allowing your valves to take on closing behaviors of their own which is a sure bet that you will be losing power where you could have had it.


_Modified by KingVR at 10:01 AM 2-10-2010_


----------



## robocopywriter (Jun 18, 2004)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
reason why Josh saw no increase in power after having his head ported. And IIRC he didn't gain much when doing the Schrick cams.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*

I'll be the first to admit, I'm skeptical. But I'm also open minded enough to give things a chance and try them.
I've always been of the school of thought that springs only need to be changed if there is a specific need to.. to allow more lift, or if there is a problem with valve control.
I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that there could be issues on the stock setup that are minor enough that we don't notice them, but still can be corrected to show a difference.
See if your boss would be willing to hook me up with the parts, I'll do the install and dyno testing and post the results. If they truly do make a difference in the top end curve as you think they will and I can prove it... more sets will be sold. At this point nobody really considers them as they are not proven to be needed or beneficial at the revs normal people are seeing (7300).


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (robocopywriter)*


_Quote, originally posted by *robocopywriter* »_









Ahem...you forgot to quote the word _*POSSIBLE*_ in front of that quote that you quoted, as it should be. What you posted can too easily inferred differently than how I stated.









If springs from us do not cure that torque fading out above 6,500 then his intake manifold may be playing an important role as a bottleneck. I'd really like to see the OEM valvetrain be optimized with our parts. If nothing else changes, then it would confirm the intake manifold really is junk for power in that area.
I'll see what I can whip up for a promotional deal for our buddy PowerDubs. Stay posted.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_I'll see what I can whip up for a promotional deal for our buddy PowerDubs. Stay posted.

Cool.. because at the end of the day it will cost me as much in gaskets, coolant + dyno fee (plus my time + work) as the parts cost you guys.
You stand to gain advertising and I might gain a couple hp. Win-Win.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

And a purchase from me if it works out.Since i p/md him asking about vlave train already lol


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (newcreation)*

Tada!!


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
Cool.. because at the end of the day it will cost me as much in gaskets, coolant + dyno fee (plus my time + work) as the parts cost you guys.
You stand to gain advertising and I might gain a couple hp. Win-Win.

We understand you will have costs of your own involved, but you don't need to remove the cylinder head to install a spring kit.
There are different places to purchase the tools from, but MAC for example has a tool kit that makes compressing the retainer while installed onto the cylinder an easy procedure.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
We understand you will have costs of your own involved, but you don't need to remove the cylinder head to install a spring kit.
There are different places to purchase the tools from, but MAC for example has a tool kit that makes compressing the retainer while installed onto the cylinder an easy procedure.



Well it will still be like doing a came job with extra work.He's trying to say he will need those gaskets and the two cam bolts plus the antifreeze probably a little over $100 somewhere for that stuff been along time since i did my cam install.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*

Who mentioned pulling the head?
Intake to head gasket, valve cover gasket, spark plug hole gaskets, thermostat housing to head gasket, couple bottles G12.. same parts needed to swap cams. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Ahh..forgot the cam bolts.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Ahh..forgot the cam bolts. 


don't wan to forget them








It should be pretty easy to do the retainer and springs on the head since we can fill the cylinder with air and do the work that way.If it works out i'll do those plus finally get larger cams and my c2 tune all at once


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

When Steve Hannaford ported my head he mentioned he had to come up with something to get the springs compressed. 
I haven't tried it yet...but that leads me to believe my spring compressor will not work if a guy that does heads all day long for a living had a snag.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

What is different on 24v that you need to open the coolant system to get the cams out? 12v never needed that.
Just curious...haven't ripped a 24v open myself yet.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*

You need to pull the side cover and thermostat housing to pull the cams.
Note the coolant port on the head around the 8 o'clock position.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

I was just gonna post a pic that is about the same you beat me to it Josh


----------



## beachball6 (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_What is different on 24v that you need to open the coolant system to get the cams out? 12v never needed that.
Just curious...haven't ripped a 24v open myself yet.

I said the same thing before I did my 24V cams.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_You need to pull the side cover and thermostat housing to pull the cams.
Note the coolant port on the head around the 8 o'clock position.


That looks similar to a 12v, which has nothing requiring it to take the coolant housing off because it is completely independent of the timing cover. Obviously something is different, so I understand.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_When Steve Hannaford ported my head he mentioned he had to come up with something to get the springs compressed. 
I haven't tried it yet...but that leads me to believe my spring compressor will not work if a guy that does heads all day long for a living had a snag.

With a standard "C-CLAMP" style tool, it perhaps didn't have enough depth to get to some of the valves. 
The tool that I am talking about uses a bracket that bolts onto the cam bearing-cap points and uses a locking "lever" into that bracket so that you can simply pull the lever up which presses the retainer down on the other side.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

Yea.. I've got the one with the lever + brackets. I'm not beyond improvising if I need to.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

yea mac tools makes a good one for $130 bolts to the bearing caps spots and make the change a breeze just don't know if its a breeze on our motor


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*


_Quote, originally posted by *newcreation* »_just don't know if its a breeze on our motor


That's where the issue lies.. look at how little space there is..


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

Yea everything is in there pretty good well still should be to bad.its been alot time since i have done and spring changes they were all 4cylinder mitsu, and honda motors.


----------



## killacoupe (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
That looks similar to a 12v, which has nothing requiring it to take the coolant housing off because it is completely independent of the timing cover. Obviously something is different, so I understand.

on the 24v the coolant housing bolts to the upper timing cover....unlike the 12v being separate from the cover


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (killacoupe)*

Josh if you get a valve spring compressor its pretty easy to do. You just have to adjust it every 6 valves which takes a while
but the tricky part isnt' even that, you have to try not to lose your keepers while installing them. Theres a technique that will prevent you from doing that though.


----------



## killacoupe (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

i hope that isn't a current pic.....that valve to the left is the wrong height


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (killacoupe)*


_Quote, originally posted by *killacoupe* »_i hope that isn't a current pic.....that valve to the left is the wrong height

when I install the springs/retainers/keepers I place everything together as how you see it on the valve on the left, so that when I pull down on the lever to compress the spring the keepers slide down on the valve groove makes it alot easier instead of compression the spring, then trying to place each keeper into place. Makes everything go alot quicker.









a bigger pic of the whole thing


_Modified by fourthchirpin at 9:10 PM 2-10-2010_


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

Drill press?


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

drill press with a valve compressor attachment. and the bottom swings for different angles. But Josh you can use this








My friend used a similar one to this to change his springs.


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

hummmmmm


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (XXX008XXX)*

thats the one mac tools sells for 130


----------



## lil8v (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fourthchirpin* »_Josh if you get a valve spring compressor its pretty easy to do. You just have to adjust it every 6 valves which takes a while
but the tricky part isnt' even that, you have to try not to lose your keepers while installing them. Theres a technique that will prevent you from doing that though.










looks like ginos machine to me


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (lil8v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lil8v* »_

looks like ginos machine to me









http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif yup. He goes you know the drill. heres your valves, springs, shims, keepers. lemme know when your done.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Hot damn. Subscribed.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Josh tell C2 to get rid of that low limiter before you go 'testing' the lifter shims.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

fourthchirpin....are those single-groove keepers that you are installing like that, or triple-groove?
If those are triple-groove, then I wouldn't suggest installing those like you described since you would be stressing the locks and "splaying" them apart and warping/damaging them. This would also make it easy to gall the valve stems. Upon removal of the valves at a later point those gouges will damage the valve guides on the way out. Stress risers in most any valvetrain component is never a good thing either.
...but if those are _Single-Groove_ locks, then installation like you stated has no ill effects.
_However_, if those are a certain aftermarket brand of valves and locks in single-groove, I would be afraid to start my engine.
While I am embellishing that comment, yes...it is only slightly.
I just recently showed our engineering department a sample of that competitor's valves and locks for a 1.8T he was stunned at how low the quality was. The locks are simply stamped steel and most likely from some OEM application. Nothing performance-quality oriented about them at all. Reason for it simply so it is interchangeable with OEM retainers, and to claim to be more reliable than the OEM triple-groove setup. The inherent problem with a triple groove is that the two lock-halves press against each other. The only benefit of this is that it does NOT tightly hold onto the valve which allows the valve to rotate and land in a fresh location as grandma drives around town, this keeps carbon from being able to build up on the valve seats. Fantastic engineering to avoid warranty claims, etc from those drivers. However, when you and I drive, we turn up the wick. Now the lose-holding design now means that you have valves, locks, and retainers dancing around in an uncontrolled manner. This leads to an erratic clamp/release/clamp scenario that galls and gouges into the lock area. A slight fracture/crack in a valve stem will eventually lead to the propagation of a complete failure. Having a valve and its locking area modify itself into a 2-piece valve means massive engine failure. I point out to customers all the time, you may have saved a little money initially, but when the grenades its going to cost you far more money (let alone hassle) than it would have to use the better parts.
Anyways, back to the these terrible single-groove locks at hand. The customer that sent these in wanted us to make him custom valves to work with these single-groove locks. I was about to but checked with my engineering department to see what they thought of that idea. They were blown away by how low the quality was on the lock. As I mentioned in an earlier post, when you design things to mix & match with OEM or other brands, you cannot do so without compromising either performance or reliability, or both.
Because these are designed to mimick the install fitment of the OEM lock, they are very thin at the bottom, and cheaply produced as stamped steel. Compared to our method of precision CNC machining, stamped steel can never hold the tolerances anywhere near as close. Even on this lock sample that we had, we could see evidence of wear on the lock due to inconsistent tolerances fluctuating from top to bottom. Another issue is that locks like this are so thin at the bottom of the lock that if you were to put them through a heat treatment sufficient for the upper body of the lock, the lower (and thinner) area of the lock will become case hardened which in turn means that it will be brittle and susceptible to breaking during installation if not done carefully.
Not applying uniform pressure within a steel retainer rarely has any wear-related issues. This is because a steel retainer has enough hardness to resist galling. Titanium on the other hand is a more malleable material in which gouging will occur when used in a severe race application. If you're not breaking these compromised parts, you're not pushing it hard enough. By that I mean road racing applications where the engine is living at the limiter the majority of the time, etc.. Probably won't be a problem in a street-driven vehicle, but why risk it? Not worth it to me just to save a few bucks.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

[vague]I think they fixed that problem.[/vague]


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (KingVR)*

Another quick thing to add about the springs to consider:
If the OEM springs are designed to handle a certain amount of valve lift, then keep in mind that they had only considered a design that would handle a certain amount of RPM...or rather, cycles per second. At the engine speed 6,000 RPM means that each valve is opening and closing at the rate of 100 cycles _every single second_. To get an engine to operate at 9,000 RPM takes 50% more (obviously!) cycles each second making it 150 cycles each second. Try to visualize that for a moment. Now consider the fact that making a spring function in complete control 100 cycles/second cost X-number of dollars to engineer and produce. You can be assured that it cost MORE dollars to engineer and produce a spring that stays in control at an RPM higher than that which is needed and approved for by the bean-counters upstairs.


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*

those are single groove keepers. josh i am selling my supertech springs and retainers cheap and they are brand new







as for what KingVR is saying about a competitors product over yours, ferrea is made in china. i know this for a fact, and supertech is made in argentina. i dont know about you but they both sound like sh!t


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (XXX008XXX)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XXX008XXX* »_those are single groove keepers. josh i am selling my supertech springs and retainers cheap and they are brand new







as for what KingVR is saying about a competitors product over yours, ferrea is made in china. i know this for a fact, and supertech is made in argentina. i dont know about you but they both sound like sh!t

haha....that's a good one.
_"Ferrea is made in China"_ yet you're unloading your _better?_ Supertech stuff for cheap?
Just to set the record straight from how it is known in my industry:
Ferrea valves are made in Argentina. All three owners of Ferrea came from Argentina. Mr. Ferrea grew up with the guy who started the factory where our valves are produced. This is how we started in the industry 40+ years ago. We own most of the machining "cells" where our specific valves are produced within, which allows us complete control over production methods and quality. BTW, most all European automakers produce their valves in this same factory. And yes, yours as well. Retainers, springs, locks, and spring locators are made right here is America.
SuperTech on the other hand....hmmmmm, I believe that they MIGHT be made in a valvetrain factory that you pass by while driving from the airport on the way to our factory. THAT factory was started by a previous employee from the factory that we work out of. (_...don't all industries have situations like that_) This factory's main market is producing ultra-low performance valve applications for engines such as lawn equipment, generators, and perhaps some automobiles as well. Keep in mind SuperTech has its hands busy trying to have parts made that go elsewhere inside an engine. Meaning, they don't have any one key market that they focus on to be an expert in.
Manley is another interesting story as well. We've had customers of ours that have told us that THEIR customer insisted on only paying for Manley valves and nothing more. So when he gets a box of valves from them, every two valves appear as if they were made in a different factory. Different finishings and different tolerances, etc. Reason being: they come from at least 3 different factories, get stored in the same boxes together, then pulled by luck of the drawn at random when building a complete set of a valves for a customer. Some from China, some from India, some from Argentina, etc.


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*

i never said my supertech stuff was better, and i am selling it because i dont have a 24V anymore. they are all pretty much junk. most honda people choose supertech over ferrea. why? who knows. cheaper maybe? of course your going to back up the product that writes your check.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*

KingVR,
Enough is enough. This thread was started about my acquiring and testing a higher ratio rocker arm for our engines, but for the last couple pages you have turned it into a Ferrea sales pitch and now have moved on to bashing other manufacturers without them being able to defend themselves about your claims.
To that end, I have sent this link to Willy @ SuperTech so he can read it and comment if he feels he needs to.
I do not know if Ferrea parts are superior to SuperTech, they may be or they may not. 
I do know 2 things.. 
#1 Willy has always been very good about answering any questions I have ever had since I've been dealing with him over the last 6-7 years. Supertech has also worked to address any problems with their products that I have ever heard about.
#2 Your bashing of a 'competitors' product while probably the result of youthful pride, energy and ego.. is in bad taste and makes a bad impression of the company you work for.

You came in here telling me first you wanted me to test some shims..then it evolved into the concept that you thought there would be an improvement with the springs + retainers as well.
I offered to take the time & labor to rip my engine down, buy new gaskets + supplies, drive to & pay for a dyno then write up the results for them if they comp the parts.
You came back and said the marketing department would allow a discount of "Damn near 1/2 off at the price of $506.40 complete." 

To which I replied to you that I know enough about business to be well aware half off *retail* is still their cost or less. 
If I am taking time and money out of my own pocket so can they. They stand to make a profit off other peoples sales on this. I won't make any money..I'm spending time & money on a small *chance* I might see a couple hp.

You came into my thread trying to push those things...and maybe they are better...maybe they will make a difference.. why don't you front the $500 then? If they work and I can prove it, others will buy them and you can do what you need to do with your marketing dept at that time in regards to your contribution.
Here is the bottom line- PUT UP OR SHUT UP. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (XXX008XXX)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XXX008XXX* »_i never said my supertech stuff was better, and i am selling it because i dont have a 24V anymore. they are all pretty much junk. most honda people choose supertech over ferrea. why? who knows. cheaper maybe? of course your going to back up the product that writes your check.









Well, yes I would back it up. But not only because it pays my check. Once someone understands the value of a better product and all the reasons behind it, I'm willing to bet that most all would never consider any alternatives after that. Supertech uses from fairly impressive "creative writing" for their marketing with products like "high-compression" valves which might bump you up 0.2:1 ratio while adding additional valve mass causing your valves to become unstable at an earlier RPM than they would have being dished. Unstable valvetrain means significant power loss in comparison to any power you MIGHT have gained with "highER compression".
That being said, it is very difficult to educate the consumer on the values. One of the reasons that I am here. It doesn't matter if a sale occurs just because I am here in a couple threads. I don't make commission, and we don't sell direct. I'd like to see some accurate results for power gains on any engine, but the VR6 has always been my personal favorite. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_KingVR,
Enough is enough. This thread was started about my acquiring and testing a higher ratio rocker arm for our engines, but for the last couple pages you have turned it into a Ferrea sales pitch and now have moved on to bashing other manufacturers without them being able to defend themselves about your claims.
To that end, I have sent this link to Willy @ SuperTech so he can read it and comment if he feels he needs to.
I do not know if Ferrea parts are superior to SuperTech, they may be or they may not. 
I do know 2 things.. 
#1 Willy has always been very good about answering any questions I have ever had since I've been dealing with him over the last 6-7 years. Supertech has also worked to address any problems with their products that I have ever heard about.
#2 Your bashing of a 'competitors' product while probably the result of youthful pride, energy and ego.. is in bad taste and makes a bad impression of the company you work for.

You came in here telling me first you wanted me to test some shims..then it evolved into the concept that you thought there would be an improvement with the springs + retainers as well.
I offered to take the time & labor to rip my engine down, buy new gaskets + supplies, drive to & pay for a dyno then write up the results for them if they comp the parts.
You came back and said the marketing department would allow a discount of "Damn near 1/2 off at the price of $506.40 complete." 

To which I replied to you that I know enough about business to be well aware half off *retail* is still their cost or less. 
If I am taking time and money out of my own pocket so can they. They stand to make a profit off other peoples sales on this. I won't make any money..I'm spending time & money on a small *chance* I might see a couple hp.

You came into my thread trying to push those things...and maybe they are better...maybe they will make a difference.. why don't you front the $500 then? If they work and I can prove it, others will buy them and you can do what you need to do with your marketing dept at that time in regards to your contribution.
Here is the bottom line- PUT UP OR SHUT UP. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
















Although my prior post before this was submitted AFTER you sent yours, I hadn't read yours....
....but yes, I did realize that this thread did get hi-jacked away from the original topic of rocker ratio. And I agree I was unprofessional about a few things, but I came here as an enthusiast simply trying to educate the public, and possibly help someone get a comp'd set (or at least a good deal) on parts in exchange for some technical data. 
The offer to provide a set of parts that are retail-valued at nearly a thousand dollars wasn't approved because time after time that we have done so, the promise of providing us detailed data fell through. Not a single time that I know of has anyone provided us with the details that we requested. The most that we have got in response was that it "works great, more power in the top-end powerband" and such. And when we ask for the dyno files to review for ourselves, they just tell us that they'll get to it...but then never do.
At any rate, you obviously have some loyalty to SuperTech since you've known someone there for some time which is understandable. I stand behind what I know to be true. If something isn't what it is, I would love to see the facts laid out as they are, just as I explained about Ferrea. But no, this should not be a thread with vendors bashing each other, and for that I most definitely apologize and will clean anything up that is asked of me if needed.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_#2 Your bashing of a 'competitors' product while probably the result of youthful pride, energy and ego.. is in bad taste and makes a bad impression of the company you work for.

My only reason that SuperTech came into a conversation was because someone else brought them in and bashed Ferrea as being junk made in China, and then praised the SuperTech brand as being better...and conveniently an item of his for personal sale.http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
Perhaps it was a joke? Text over the internet is too easily taken the wrong way, and proof of it is that even I may have taken it the wrong way. 
Sorry to all for getting caught up in it.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*

Cool. Nothing personal... things were just getting out of hand.
As far as me sharing info VS hoarding it, all anyone has to do is click the links in my sig. I've got plenty more than that, but that is the limit of what it will let me have there.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

KingVR you qouted me and you made your rant on "competitors" I didn't bash Ferrea Products infact I posted up the shims thats are from you guys..

Only reason I didn't go with "your" valves was because you guys didn't sell "stock" sized R32 valves, you wanted me make a custom order for stock size valves. (This was about 2-3 yrs ago, so you might sell stock sized valves now.) I didn't want to go with over sized valves.


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
My only reason that SuperTech came into a conversation was because someone else brought them in and bashed Ferrea as being junk made in China, and then praised the SuperTech brand as being better...and conveniently an item of his for personal sale.http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
Perhaps it was a joke? Text over the internet is too easily taken the wrong way, and proof of it is that even I may have taken it the wrong way. 
Sorry to all for getting caught up in it.

show me where i said one was better then the other. how can you proove one is better then the other? its like what piston is better then the other... its all personal preference. the fact is everything aftermarcket fails. its how the company takes care of it that makes them good.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

The only good piston is the one that doesn't hit **** once it's all the way up.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (XXX008XXX)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XXX008XXX* »_
*show me where i said one was better then the other.* how can you proove one is better then the other? its like what piston is better then the other... its all personal preference. the fact is everything aftermarcket fails. its how the company takes care of it that makes them good.

I would. However you deleted your post where you offered them for sale to someone, and then stated that you "know for a fact that Ferrea stuff is made in China" which is a completely false statement, and since it is common for people to assume the reputation that products made in China are of lower quality in comparison to products made in other countries, that could be considered slander to say the least.
And yes. It easily can be explained how material selection, heat-treatment methods, dimensional designs and manufacturing technique can make one product superior to another. No question about it.
I'm sure the same applies to pistons, but I am definitely not an expert on those. If you want to know specifics of what I am talking about, PM me or email me to my Ferrea work email address, or even call me on the phone: 888-733-2505 extension 215. It would not be advantageous for me to spell out all the details to become public knowledge.
I think I've provided enough information for this thread. Good luck to all.


_Modified by KingVR at 11:40 AM 2-12-2010_


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
I would. However you deleted your post where you offered them for sale to someone, 

_Modified by KingVR at 11:40 AM 2-12-2010_

no i didnt, and that post is there and is un-modified. try again.


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (XXX008XXX)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XXX008XXX* »_those are single groove keepers. josh i am selling my supertech springs and retainers cheap and they are brand new







as for what KingVR is saying about a competitors product over yours, ferrea is made in china. i know this for a fact, and supertech is made in argentina.* i dont know about you but they both sound like sh!t*

ACTUALLY HERE IT IS AGAIN AND ITS THE FIRST POST ON THIS PAGE. HERE I EVEN HIGHLIGHTERD WHAT I SAID


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (XXX008XXX)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XXX008XXX* »_
ACTUALLY HERE IT IS AGAIN AND ITS THE FIRST POST ON THIS PAGE. HERE I EVEN HIGHLIGHTERD WHAT I SAID

Didn't see that before. But someone deleted something, because the first post on the top of this page was not yours previously.
...and making a statement that "both sound like sh!t" doesn't really balance out the false statement of Ferrea being "Made in China".


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (KingVR)*

His post was there the whole never modified or deleted i have been following this thread real close as i do most threads


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_
Didn't see that before. But someone deleted something, because the first post on the top of this page was not yours previously.
...and making a statement that "both sound like sh!t" doesn't really balance out the false statement of Ferrea being "Made in China".

reguardless what is made where, everything is lowest bidder, so the products could be machined in argentina, but the metal is still junk chinese stuff i am sure. oh and i am still waiting for proof on how ferrea is better then supertech... both companies are the same. i buy what i get the best deal on. i have had good luck with both your company and supertech, but honestly after reading what you write, it makes me stray away from ferrea a little bit.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Guys... can we get back on f*cking topic please?
I don't give a **** about your drama.
I want more power.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (Draxus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Draxus* »_Guys... can we get back on f*cking topic please?
I don't give a **** about your drama.
I want more power.

Great idea.
If anyone wants to ask me something specific, (besides highly-confidential information obviously), then simply PM, email, or call me. If its something of universal interest that is on topic that you feel you would like everyone to learn from that I can assist with, then I would be more than willing. 
However, I don't appreciate someone generalizing that there is no difference in performance, reliability, or quality. Completely unfounded. I'll say no more about it. If someone wants details on such differences, please contact me directly.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (KingVR)*

Back on topic (thank god).. 
At first all I could find was a guy selling these rockers USED on Ebay.uk...and I had 'bought it now'..but it has been about a week and I never heard back from him. Just heard back from the source I have found in the UK for these rockers NEW and have ordered 1 and now we just have to wait on it to arrive.
I had to pay a steep premium to purchase and ship just 1 (about $35), but was told that if it works..the cost in the future for a set of 24 shipped to me would be aprox 432.48 (today's exchange rate)
I have not stopped looking around as I still think they probably can be found for a little less eventually. 
Hey Paul.. where are those new charts you promised?


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Dubs, 
I missed it apparently.
What did you order?
Thanks.
-Spencer


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Draxus)*

Start at page 1, post 1. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Oh, I thought those were looked at in the CAD models a few pages back and deemed ineffective due to their offset.
Or was that something else?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Draxus)*

The pics Paul made were just a quickie he threw together just to explain concept.. not true to exact #'s.
KingVR is of the mindset that they won't work...but the very offset he is talking about making them not work is explained by me in the next post as to why I think it will *help* us.
As mentioned, start at page 1, post 1. All the info we have currently is in this post. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Awesome. I am anxious to see how it goes.
Any word on that intake manifold you molested?
Did you install it yet?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Draxus)*

That's a separate post..or ask me via PM. 
No point in cluttering up this thread. KingVR already did enough of that.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I still need the following measurements:
Camshaft Base Circle
Rocker Roller Diameter
Once I have those, I can update the diagrams. I don't know where any of my spare parts are at the moment, there's lots of unlabeled boxes still.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Emails sent requesting that info. 
Closing time on a Friday eve is a bad time to ask such questions.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

no caliper owns me. I would have posted up hours ago. sorry guys.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_I still need the following measurements:
Camshaft Base Circle
Rocker Roller Diameter


One down, 1 to go.. 
Camshaft base circle radius: 17mm AVL SCHRICK GmbH


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I still haven't found the box my rockers are in.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Roller wheel Ø: 17.98mm (.708")
Approximated distance from lifter's "pivot-center" to roller wheel's centerline: 22.64mm (.891")
Approximated distance from lifter's "pivot-center" to valve tip-contacting area: 46.13mm (1.816")


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_I still haven't found the box my rockers are in.

My garage by chance???
Let me know...


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_Roller wheel Ø: 17.98mm (.708")
Approximated distance from lifter's "pivot-center" to roller wheel's centerline: 22.64mm (.891")
Approximated distance from lifter's "pivot-center" to valve tip-contacting area: 46.13mm (1.816")

Here are the specs given to me by the engineer at the company that makes the rockers, you were very close. Thanks for helping! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif -

Roller wheel - 17mm (same as the cam base circle, go figure)
length from pivot to valve for is 46mm
distance from pivot to roller is 22.8mm


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
Here are the specs given to me by the engineer at the company that makes the rockers, you were very close. Thanks for helping! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif -

Roller wheel - 17mm (same as the cam base circle, go figure)
length from pivot to valve for is 46mm
distance from pivot to roller is 22.8mm

17mm "Base Circle" of the camshaft is a 17mm _RADIUS_. The _Ø/Diameter_ is 34mm.









Unless my caliper is off by .98mm on nothing else but this roller wheel, check back with that guy about that being 17mm.
This rocker is from a "BDF" 2.8L 24v VR6...which is not a 3.2L from an .:R32 but I can't see them having changed the roller wheel for no reason.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_Unless my caliper is off by .98mm on nothing else but this roller wheel, check back with that guy about that being 17mm.


He very well may be 'watching' this thread.. but I'll send him your picture.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I'll make my updates tomorrow as time permits.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Well this work might take a bit but I got the head side view in dxf now..








So I can clean it up and do some of the geometry stuff more easily.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Why did you choose to do cyl's 1/3/5 with 2 lobes/rockers showing instead of 2/4/6 with only 1 lobe/rocker and already 'cleaner'?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KingVR* »_Unless my caliper is off by .98mm on nothing else but this roller wheel, check back with that guy about that being 17mm.

Found out the reason for KingVR's different #.. probably relevant- "The roller diameter of the VW is 18mm, the roller
diameter of the ******* is 17mm. "


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I did both that's just the one I print-screened







It's going to take a good bit to clean up the drawing but it'll get really close to nailing the geometry.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Excited to see the results.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I finished, but the internet at work broke








That's with the real base circle, real roller dia, cams with 11mm lift with stock rockers, and the smaller roller on the 'new' rocker.
Stock








New rocker








Discuss.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
Discuss.

All this is well beyond my scope of knowledge, but I can see 2 things. 
#1 The lift is high enough to *require* different springs if using Schrick or TT cams. Not optional.
#2 6mm of timing difference is substantial. How it will run in the real world is left to be seen since again at least the 'error' is in the direction of 'equalizing' the port lengths.

Anyone else?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

1) Totally and might even push the limits of some aftermarket springs.
2) I'm not sure I buy in to wanting to use cam timing as a pulse tuning tool. You will retard the short intakes by 6deg; shifting power to low end. But you'll also, in the same cylinder, be retarding the long exhaust by 6deg. Obviously, the exact opposite with the opposite geometry. Will all the pulse effects balance out or work to an advantage and make gains? Who knows.
Honestly, this would be better to try out on a car with stock cams just to see what the gains there are vs a set of mild cams with similar lift.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

More data for 18mm and 19mm rollers (timing error on 17mm is 6.10deg)
















As the roller gets larger the change in error gets progressively smaller and smaller. Even at a 24mm roller the timing error is just over 5deg.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Even with a 24mm roller its still a 5° timing shift? Wow...and that would be a seriously heavy-weight rocker to have a 24mm roller in it!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Yep, I went bold just to see how much better it got. 1deg less offset for 7mm more roller diameter isn't worth it!


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

6° or even 5° timing alteration would make for a serious loss of power. I also wouldn't be surprised if "pulse-tuning" was already taken into consideration as it was on the 12v MkIV VR6 with the _unequal total runner length_ intake manifold.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

No one has been able to confirm or refute the cam compensation being present on the 24v.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

I guess that I'll have to break out the Cam Doctor then.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

To my eyes, I can't see a difference in the cam lobes nor the runners on the R32.
I can simply ask the Schrick engineer that I had make the 272's if ya want.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Might as well. I know that they never offered 'runner compensated' cams for the Mk4s. Not sure if anyone really had good results with the DRC 268's that were ground with stock style compensation.


----------



## HPR (Oct 31, 2004)

Just an idea
I would have a look to lower the lifter ( shorter lifter ) with a longer valvestem
And make at base circle 0.2166 more towards 0.300 to end up at full lift with a rocker that is more horizontal and have less offset
I would also look at the negative radius fase at opening / closing..


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (HPR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *HPR* »_Just an idea
I would have a look to lower the lifter ( shorter lifter ) with a longer valvestem
And make at base circle 0.2166 more towards 0.300 to end up at full lift with *a rocker that is more horizontal and have less offset*
I would also look at the negative radius fase at opening / closing..


Positioning a rocker like you mentioned will change the dynamic rocker ratio. However, having it now you are talking about custom valves, custom rocker arms, and custom cams. This thread was started in hopes of finding a rocker that would simply allow a decent increase in lift at the valve without having to pay for costly _shelf-part numbered_ cams as it is.
Its apparently back to square one with producing the cam that we are all looking for. I am currently looking into this.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (HPR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *HPR* »_I would also look at the negative radius fase at opening / closing..

The little "negative radius" that you speak of is there for the purpose of smoother idle basically. Allows the lift that you have without the overlap that creates a chopping idle....which some of us enjoy, and are looking forward to.
Do the Schrick and other cams still have that feature on them like the OEM cams do?


----------



## HPR (Oct 31, 2004)

I know its not the cheapest solution with custom valves ,etc 
but I believe most here are looking for solutions and see what possibilities there are
from what I have read here , playing with the rockers on a VR engine is not without compromise , proper designed cams is a first step
Schrick and Cat cams have a negative radius ( 4 cil FSI ) 
Performance cam manufacturers tend to go smaller on grinding wheels to get more negative radius ( a deeper curve)
From what I understand from a roller cam setup:
Negative radius allows cams with less lift @ TDC
Lift curve is delayed , and going from negative to positive radius resulting in a higher valve acceleration
Valvetrain is more stable and has less friction
Allows rocker ratio and geometry changes
Valve springs need to control less weight.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I thought the negative radius was more to quell jerk.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: (HPR)*


_Quote, originally posted by *HPR* »_
From what I understand from a roller cam setup:
Negative radius allows cams with less lift @ TDC
Lift curve is delayed , and going from negative to positive radius resulting in a higher valve acceleration
Valvetrain is more stable and has less friction
Allows rocker ratio and geometry changes
Valve springs need to control less weight.


*"Negative radius allows cams with less lift @ TDC"*
~I assume you mean TDC at the change of the exhaust-stroke to intake-stroke. That would be so that you have less valve-overlap present, which like I mentioned earlier provides a smoother idle.
*"Lift curve is delayed, and going from negative to positive radius resulting in a higher valve acceleration"*
~That is correct that it results in higher valve accelerations yes, but is simply a side-effect of the intention to have a smoother idle with use of the negative radius.
*"Valvetrain is more stable and has less friction"*
~Faster opening and closing ramps are actually _counter-productive_ to valvetrain stability. Frictional differences when comparing a negative-radius feature in a cam lobe to one without is a moot point when using a roller wheel. If it were like the Honda B-Series with a non-roller friction-contact "pad" a negative-radius feature would induce MORE stress and friction, not less.
*"Allows rocker ratio and geometry changes"*
~I don't see how HAVING the feature of a negative-radius would allow rocker ratio and geometry changes that otherwise would not be possible.
*"Valve springs need to control less weight"*
~Again, a negative-radius induces faster opening and closing ramps which in turn put more requirement of the need for a spring that can keep a valve and its associated components stable and under control.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_I thought the negative radius was more to quell jerk.

It would actually produce MORE sudden jerk.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

That does make sense now that I think about it. So seat to seat duration would change, but duration @ 1mm or .050" could be the same between two cam sets. Not sure what the other advantages are. 
I wouldn't worry about wonky idle, etc with the vvt motors. With the exh cam on and the intake at rest I can get those motors to idle down to 500rpm pretty smoothly.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Ok, who made the mystery bump on the rocker thread? It just popped up in my watched topics.. but nothing is there, and no one is listed. (blank)


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

R32Alex was the 'last poster' according to the main page as I post now.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Ok, who made the mystery bump on the rocker thread? It just popped up in my watched topics.. but nothing is there, and no one is listed. (blank)










i made the "mystery bump" i had commented but then I realized something else so I deleted the comment.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Might as well. I know that they never offered 'runner compensated' cams for the Mk4s. Not sure if anyone really had good results with the DRC 268's that were ground with stock style compensation.

Mr. Ferrea has personally confirmed that the BDF camshafts (2.8L 24v) are in fact *NOT* making any use of "runner compensation" like the 12v VR6 did in the MKIV engines.
All lobes, both LIFT and DURATION values, are 100% identical.
I'm going to see if we can't come out with our own cams that take this into account.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

Why? 
Do you think the engineers at VW would have left it out if they thought it was beneficial?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I would leave the compensation out of the cams and count on people needing cams that will run *good* manifolds.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Why? 
Do you think the engineers at VW would have left it out if they thought it was beneficial?

I had asked Mr. Ferrea about this, and his response was basically that the difference in power to be gained by putting more development into the fine-tuning of that. As if the 24v VR6 isn't complicated enough as it is.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_I would leave the compensation out of the cams and count on people needing cams that will run *good* manifolds.

What is a *good* manifold then?
One with equalized runner length to compensate for the difference in length in the head?
I would vote to put at least SOME compensation into them. To make them for a market that specifically will have an ideal intake manifold would be limiting the small market that there already is for a 3.2L although it does appear that whatever cam done should work in a 2.8L as well, right?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

But VW already did the development work on the earlier generations. 
If they thought it was beneficial I doubt they would have abandoned it.
And before the comments saying that they just didn't want to spend any more time, money or resources.. look at how finely detailed they went into something as minute as the bushing clearance in the intake changeover. Skimping or cutting corners just ain't their style in regards to engine design.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Scott, yes, one with equal length from intake bellmouth inlet to the back of the intake valve(s). Maybe I'll get motivated now that I know there's no cam compensation. I've been wondering awhile about that one.
I'm sure there's a reason that they stopped doing it, could be something very 24v specific (is there injector specific fuel trim that is tuned for not having it?). 
I have put regular cams in cars with the 12v Mk4 manifold and all those cars made good power. I've yet to see a solid dyno from the 'foffa'/DRC front/rear asymmetrical cams on a US car.


----------



## KingVR (Jan 30, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Must be something to it.
Less hassle with having to calculate _how much_ compensation to apply to it if they're symmetrical.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (KingVR)*

*Finally* received the test rocker from overseas today.
It may take a couple more weeks for all things to come together for the measuring to take place. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Weigh it and measure it.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

I don't have the tools for that.. I only have







's


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Well can't wait to see what you come up with then


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

josh u dont have a triple beam balance?...opps.


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (fourthchirpin)*

When it comes making more power NA, your the man. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

That whole power collector design with the roller seems that it could hinder more than it could help for some reason. I mean look how many things you have added to the equation that need optimum conditions to operate correctly.


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

Ever get these installed Josh? 

I know your busy with other stuff and you're still working on the stock mani project too.

:thumbup:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Still waiting on Paul, as last I heard he was changing a diaper, taking out the trash and looking for somone called Tim-e.

There are quite a few inter-related components that need to be measured for this and other projects at the same time.


----------



## kraftaroni (Feb 1, 2005)

Awesome stuff! Any new info? My best friend Henry wrote that Car Craft article. Classic I get all my parts from him.


----------



## my2000APB (Jun 3, 2007)

Has anyone tried these shims?

Anyone got a link to anyone using them on a 16v?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

The lifter shims? I think a few but no one is open about it other then a few people that race FSI turbo cars. I have a set for my new motor and a few others are going to be using them as well. 

The rocker stuff is on hold, my head is elsewhere (for Josh's other project) so I can't do much.


----------



## my2000APB (Jun 3, 2007)

anyone have a link to the 16v 2.0t fsi cars using these shims?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Hit up Scott at Ferrea.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

need_a_VR6 said:


> this would be better to try out on a car with stock cams just to see what the gains there are vs a set of mild cams with similar lift.


 


Hey Paul... My car is currently apart _again_... 

I've got stock cams here.. care to do your chart math wizardry on stock cam specs? 

I'm considering throwing these rockers on stock cams to see what happens.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I think I did the math already, just gotta dig it up.


----------



## my2000APB (Jun 3, 2007)

im eagerly awaiting results with credit card in hand


----------



## killervr6 (Feb 16, 2009)

newcreation said:


> Josh was thinking if i am in there doing the rockers i never did valve train yet on a 24v.I was thinking of upgrading springs and retainers in the process not sure yet it it woud be worth it with the ration being low enough to still run the factory stuff.
> Now i am not sure on this particular cylinder head if we can upgrade valve train without removing the head.I know some motors you can pull the cams and then fill the cylinder with air and do the springs and reatiners.It would be nice to beable to do it that way and not have to pull the head.Hopefully someone can chime in here if they done so.
> Hopefully we can got that route if need be without pulling the head


i did some head work on my brothers supra a while ago. we got soft white nylon rope and stuffed the cylinder with it. turnd the crank pulley to compress the rope and keep the valves up. did each cylinder 1 by 1.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

killervr6 said:


> i did some head work on my brothers supra a while ago. we got soft white nylon rope and stuffed the cylinder with it. turnd the crank pulley to compress the rope and keep the valves up. did each cylinder 1 by 1.


I have heard of that being done as well.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

any updates on this? just wondering.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Just for fun- I happened to be on a website today that lists the rocker arms for a Bentley W12- which is basically a 24v VR6 head design-

*022109417E*


----------

