Afr 227 guys..what rockers is everyone using
01-26-2007, 10:40 AM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afr 227 guys..what rockers is everyone using Have a set off AFR 227 going on my car, i was wondering what rockers was everyone using...i am using a tinny CC305 cam..will i need the stud gridle? Do i need to go with shaftmounts or will standard rockers do? what offset intake rockers do i need to get if I have to get them?
01-27-2007, 12:23 PM
#6
Depends on how much offset you need. I am running .150 offsets on my intake with no issues but they are no 227s. I can say with the .150s the push rod has a better angle then stock did. This might not be the case for you. I picked mine up from Jegs for like $120(JUST intakes). Looks like they are made by Lunati
Trending Topics
01-28-2007, 12:12 PM
#8
The problem is that they widened the intake port at the pushrod pinch-point. This means that the intake pushrod has to lean over at an angle to get to the rocker arm. So, if you use regular stud-mounted rocker arms, the only thing holding the rocker inline with the valve, is the guideplate. Since there is a constant load sideways on the guideplate, they tend to wear along with the pushrod.
Shaft mounted rockers don't have this problem.
I got another question, though. Why on earth would you run an AFR 227 and the puny cc305 cam? Isn't that one like 224/230? Those heads are more at home with a solid roller 260+ @ .050. With that little cam, the 210's are a better choice plus they don't have the valvetrain geometry issues.
Mike
Shaft mounted rockers don't have this problem.
I got another question, though. Why on earth would you run an AFR 227 and the puny cc305 cam? Isn't that one like 224/230? Those heads are more at home with a solid roller 260+ @ .050. With that little cam, the 210's are a better choice plus they don't have the valvetrain geometry issues.
Mike
01-28-2007, 12:20 PM
#9
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by engineermike
The problem is that they widened the intake port at the pushrod pinch-point. This means that the intake pushrod has to lean over at an angle to get to the rocker arm. So, if you use regular stud-mounted rocker arms, the only thing holding the rocker inline with the valve, is the guideplate. Since there is a constant load sideways on the guideplate, they tend to wear along with the pushrod.
Shaft mounted rockers don't have this problem.
I got another question, though. Why on earth would you run an AFR 227 and the puny cc305 cam? Isn't that one like 224/230? Those heads are more at home with a solid roller 260+ @ .050. With that little cam, the 210's are a better choice plus they don't have the valvetrain geometry issues.
Mike
Shaft mounted rockers don't have this problem.
I got another question, though. Why on earth would you run an AFR 227 and the puny cc305 cam? Isn't that one like 224/230? Those heads are more at home with a solid roller 260+ @ .050. With that little cam, the 210's are a better choice plus they don't have the valvetrain geometry issues.
Mike
01-28-2007, 02:42 PM
#10
Originally Posted by engineermike
The problem is that they widened the intake port at the pushrod pinch-point. This means that the intake pushrod has to lean over at an angle to get to the rocker arm. So, if you use regular stud-mounted rocker arms, the only thing holding the rocker inline with the valve, is the guideplate. Since there is a constant load sideways on the guideplate, they tend to wear along with the pushrod.
Shaft mounted rockers don't have this problem.
I got another question, though. Why on earth would you run an AFR 227 and the puny cc305 cam? Isn't that one like 224/230? Those heads are more at home with a solid roller 260+ @ .050. With that little cam, the 210's are a better choice plus they don't have the valvetrain geometry issues.
Mike
Shaft mounted rockers don't have this problem.
I got another question, though. Why on earth would you run an AFR 227 and the puny cc305 cam? Isn't that one like 224/230? Those heads are more at home with a solid roller 260+ @ .050. With that little cam, the 210's are a better choice plus they don't have the valvetrain geometry issues.
Mike
Mike after moving the walls out on my LT1 heads and going with the .150 offsets the push rods actually had LESS angle then the stock LT1 location
01-29-2007, 09:12 AM
#11
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TwoFast4Lv
Mike after moving the walls out on my LT1 heads and going with the .150 offsets the push rods actually had LESS angle then the stock LT1 location
01-29-2007, 12:34 PM
#12
9 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the Jesel shaft mounts as well.... Was told by my cam grinder and my engine builder that with this setup there was no other choice and I can't skimp out on shitty stud mounts with a 3K set of heads......
I've got 1.7 intake and 1.6 exhaust rockers.... yeah i'd dump that cam for a solid roller with more duration... even with boost you're gonna need more lift to take advantage of those heads.....
you might get shitty off idle throttle response with that big of a head and that little of a cam...... not sure about what it'd do but it definitely wouldn't be optimized....
I've got 1.7 intake and 1.6 exhaust rockers.... yeah i'd dump that cam for a solid roller with more duration... even with boost you're gonna need more lift to take advantage of those heads.....
you might get shitty off idle throttle response with that big of a head and that little of a cam...... not sure about what it'd do but it definitely wouldn't be optimized....
01-29-2007, 12:50 PM
#13
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OutlawZ
I have the Jesel shaft mounts as well.... Was told by my cam grinder and my engine builder that with this setup there was no other choice and I can't skimp out on shitty stud mounts with a 3K set of heads......
I've got 1.7 intake and 1.6 exhaust rockers.... yeah i'd dump that cam for a solid roller with more duration... even with boost you're gonna need more lift to take advantage of those heads.....
you might get shitty off idle throttle response with that big of a head and that little of a cam...... not sure about what it'd do but it definitely wouldn't be optimized....
I've got 1.7 intake and 1.6 exhaust rockers.... yeah i'd dump that cam for a solid roller with more duration... even with boost you're gonna need more lift to take advantage of those heads.....
you might get shitty off idle throttle response with that big of a head and that little of a cam...... not sure about what it'd do but it definitely wouldn't be optimized....
