The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 05, 2024, 18:09:58 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
350705 Posts in 28580 Topics by 6823 Members
Latest Member: Riisager
* Home This Year's European Top 20 lists All Time European Top 20 lists Search Login Register
+  The Cal-look Lounge
|-+  Cal-look/High Performance
| |-+  Pure racing
| | |-+  Pauter 1:3		 « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Pauter 1:3  (Read 2794 times)
Paulus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 93
« on: February 24, 2011, 18:09:32 pm »
Hi There,

I want to now your guys opinion on which cam to use with pauter 1:3 rockers.

At first i want to install a Webcam 86b but that cam wants 1:4 rockers.
There is an other webcam with some more lift @cam.... The "Webcam 226" Does someone have some experience with that cam?

Or does anybody now a great cam to use with 1:3 rockers?

Its going to be installed in a 78,4 x 90,5 "2017" street/drag engine
044 heads with 40x35,5 valves and big ports
Weber Ida's
allu pushrods from aircooled
titanium retainers
1 5/8 exhaust
etc.....

I want to use the engine as a weekend warrior en drive it to the strip


 
Logged
Less is More !
Torben Alstrup
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 716
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2011, 18:55:06 pm »
Web 86C. If heads are good, the powerloss compared to 1,4 rockers is minor. Something like 1 to 2/10 on the quarter. More than that and the FK87 comes to mind.
T
Logged
Paulus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 93
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2011, 19:08:38 pm »
Quote from: Torben Alstrup on February 24, 2011, 18:55:06 pm
Web 86C. If heads are good, the powerloss compared to 1,4 rockers is minor. Something like 1 to 2/10 on the quarter. More than that and the FK87 comes to mind.
T

Allright, i have read some thinks about the Fk87.... Its a great cam but is it useful for street with my "small" engine? I want to rev it up to 7000 - 7500 max!  and i still want to drive to Ebi4 Cool that's about 155 miles......
Logged
Less is More !
Torben Alstrup
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 716
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2011, 01:29:42 am »
Well, personally I would take the 86C, because it pulls better in the lower rpm. With your relatively small valves I do not think you will benefit much from reving it to 7500. I anticipate over and out at about 7 grand. Let it pull and have fun.
T
Logged
Paulus
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 93
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2011, 18:48:48 pm »
Okay....... wat about the engle fk10 compared to the 86c? They have the same duration but the fk10 has a little bit less lift. Hows the fk10 on the street with a small stroker and small valves? I can buy an fk10 easyer than an webcam in the netherlands.   Smiley
Logged
Less is More !
thejohn66
Full Member
***
Posts: 192
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2011, 22:25:56 pm »
My engine is using an fk-45 with pauter 1.3 rockers. Haven't driven it yet but the engine builder thought it would work well
Logged
Bitburg motor boating club member.
Torben Alstrup
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 716
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2011, 20:46:29 pm »
The 86C is way better than the FK10 IMHO. Never liked the 40 series.

If you need a Web cam, I got them in stock. I´m only in Denmark. Not so far away.  Wink
T
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!