|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Iowa
Posts: 209
Likes: 422
Liked 210 Times in 88 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
I understand that. Why the rule change then? Higher RPM capability?
__________________
Phil Vos |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lower Dakota territory
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 1,074
Liked 800 Times in 237 Posts
|
![]()
One less thing for Tech to check, would be my guess?
__________________
"That'll never work....." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: cloquet mn
Posts: 468
Likes: 17
Liked 69 Times in 32 Posts
|
![]()
My guess would be for ease of tech, the performance
Will change very little , not gonna turn a 6500 Rpm engine into a 8500 or gain a bunch of power. I would think at very best .03-.05 the current generation Of limited travel "hydraulic" lifters are solids already! Just my .02$$ lol!!!!
__________________
Ron Mattson 5015 STK |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,737
Likes: 1,602
Liked 460 Times in 91 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
x2
__________________
Bob Bender 144 O/SA 2010-2012 National Record Holder |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|