| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Social Groups |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Correct me if I am wrong. If you restricted flow thru the push rods wouldn't you still see full flow at the lifter? You would just be limiting oil to the valve springs and rockers.
My restrictors for a solid roller are .030 but tapped into the oil feed to the lifters in the block. But this is a mainly strip car with occasional street driving. Myself, I would rather have restricted push rods. |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Mike S For This Useful Post: | ||
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's what I was wondering too.
__________________
70 TA, 467 cid IAII, Edelbrock D-port heads, 9.94:1, Butler HR 236/242 @ .050, 520/540 lift, 112 LSA, Q-jet, TKX (2.87 1st/.81 OD), 3.31 rear https://youtube.com/shorts/gG15nb4FWeo?feature=share |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Spring cooling would be a concern on engines expected to meet warranty or make higher mileage. For engines that see low mileage the trade off to provide more pressure below makes sense.
I am in the water industry and a short neck down does not affect flow much. Is the entire push rod orifice restrictedor just a portion? Also, If pressure increases on a smaller orifice so does flow as they are they are related. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
66 GTO, 495, M22, Strange S-60 w/4.10 Sold new at Royal Pontiac (Dealer# 07-679) 70 Formula 400/auto |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Jay S For This Useful Post: | ||
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|