warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Well it seems we have three separate people now that are measuring the escape cams and finding out that the lift on them is only 0.168" versus the SVT and SE cams being 0.188" or about 0.020" difference in lift!
Here is an excerpt from one of my emails that started this line of questioning and it explains what I've been trying to say that past week.
I convinced Ross "Kremit" that it would be worthwhile to test the escape cams into an SVT because of the higher peak in midrange torque they seem to be setup for and I thought that the better breathing would help the cams hold on longer. This was based on my theory that the SVT upper intake system actually worked better than the ovalport. I believe I was right on that fact but actually discovered more in the process.
Here is an excerpt from one of my emails that started this line of questioning and it explains what I've been trying to say that past week.
I convinced Ross "Kremit" that it would be worthwhile to test the escape cams into an SVT because of the higher peak in midrange torque they seem to be setup for and I thought that the better breathing would help the cams hold on longer. This was based on my theory that the SVT upper intake system actually worked better than the ovalport. I believe I was right on that fact but actually discovered more in the process.
warmonger said:I was tipped off when I installed the escape cams into Kremit's car before I left Alabama. I was originally trying to prove the escape cams were good and would either produce good torque, or not. I ended up finding out they dropped a ton of power but the torque curve was NOT characteristic of the normal ovalport 3L dyno's where the power dropped off like a rock above 5200rpm.Instead, the torque curve was rather flat all the way across with a much slower dropoff. I attribute the flatter torque curve to the intake manifold tuning of the SVT manifold runners, but I attribute the lower overall peak numbers to the 0.020" lower lift that the escape cams have.
I was questioning the lift back at the beginning of the year reviewing both dynos and trying to figure out what could cause the lower output when everything was showing it should be much better.
So when Joey got in some escape and taurus cams I told him to check the measurements and he did and found out the lift is lower. Then today Justin measured his and confirmed the lift was 0.168" on his cams.
So Joey's cams are not the same ones that were in Kremit's engine, nor were the ones Justin measured, telling me that there are likely three sets with lower lift and probably all of them suck.
There is still no proof that the '04 rocker arms have any different rocker ratios but they definitely have a wider roller in the rocker arm. All else remains equal so I can't imagine without a geometry change in the rocker that there would be a way to get increased ratio. At a minimum the roller would have to be moved and it would also have to remain in contact with the base of the cam lobe meaning that any change in it would have to have the roller remain at the same radial distance to the cam lobe while STILL moving linearly closer to the hydraulic lash adjuster pivot point and further from the valve stem. With the same basic shape to the rocker I can't see this being a viable idea and I'm suspecting they just have a wider roller. I'm going to post this email content on the forums tonight hoping that someone will prove it right or wrong.