1.725:1 rockers
#1
#2
#5
The 1.725:1 rocker arms may put the Valves to close to the Pistons when fully opened.
The SE-204 cams lift is .510 of an inch, and with a high lift rocker arm like a 1.725:1
you will need to make sure there is enough piston clearance when the valves are opened.
I would forgo the high lift rocker arms, and go with a standard lift roller rocker arms for
less valve ware & friction. Less friction also means lower engine heat in a TC 96 engine.
The Se-204 cam will work well with a 103 engine too, as they say bigger is better.
John
The SE-204 cams lift is .510 of an inch, and with a high lift rocker arm like a 1.725:1
you will need to make sure there is enough piston clearance when the valves are opened.
I would forgo the high lift rocker arms, and go with a standard lift roller rocker arms for
less valve ware & friction. Less friction also means lower engine heat in a TC 96 engine.
The Se-204 cam will work well with a 103 engine too, as they say bigger is better.
John
Last edited by OldPhat; 10-28-2017 at 10:43 AM.
#6
On the friction front, I'm not sure how it would transfer to the lower end, but would not rollers reduce friction as they are rolling over the valve tips rather than rubbing?
#7
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Windwardside, Saba N.A.
Posts: 8,250
Received 3,988 Likes
on
2,065 Posts
Trending Topics
#9
On my last bike I had 204 cams with 1.725 rocker arms on stock 103.
it was a blast,26 to 28 thousands rpm is where they come in and they do like gang busters.
still pulled good down low,don’t think I lost anything at all there.
my dyno was 96 horsepower and 114 ft lbs of torque.
and they sounded wicked,I was running a 2/1/2 header pipe and jackpots with competition baffles.
it was a blast,26 to 28 thousands rpm is where they come in and they do like gang busters.
still pulled good down low,don’t think I lost anything at all there.
my dyno was 96 horsepower and 114 ft lbs of torque.
and they sounded wicked,I was running a 2/1/2 header pipe and jackpots with competition baffles.
#10