Bob, a question on the HVX mods

I was once again reading about the HVX mods on your blog site,

http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com/2.../hvx-mods.html

And I remembered a question I meant to ask you long ago. It has become
relevant in another discussion so I wanted to get some clarification.


Regarding the grooving of the rocker shaft:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...HVX+ROCKER.jpg

http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...X+ROCKER+A.jpg

http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...CKER+SHAFT.jpg


Q1: you groove only the shaft, not the inside bore of the rockers
themselves? I assume the shaft is stronger and safer to groove, I
wouldn't want to make the rockers any weaker.

Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut groove
between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is available for
the UNDERSIDE of the shaft, where the most friction and wear occurs? You
get more oil to the adjuster screw, which is fine of course, but at the
cost of reducing shaft lubrication where it is needed most.

Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters, what purpose does the last
oil passage in the rocker have? Oil would only seep past the threads
slowly, correct? You also mention cutting the underside of the rocker
where the adjuster screw is. Is that to expose the oil passage or the
groove in the adjuster screw, to release more oil out? The rocker design
we have in mind has a solid flat foot pressing the valve, and the
adjuster is at the pushrod end. I doubt that there are any oil passages
at the valve end of the rocker since it has no moving parts.

Here's an example of the rocker assembly in question:

http://www.cbperformance.com/catalog.asp?ProductID=1371



I am specifically trying to prevent rocker wear and seizure in a high
performance engine, where a bronze bushing is used between shaft and
rocker. Needle bearing rockers are available (Bugpack, ugh) but I fear
they create another problem, since needle bearings rely on constant,
full rotation to survive, and here they would only be jerking back and
forth a little bit. I would think they will eventually dig little
grooves on the shaft where they ride back and forth. For example: front
engine, rear wheel drive cars have their driveshaft mounted at an angle
to the rear diff, to force the U-joint needle bearings to rotate
(however slowly) when you drive, instead of just nervously jittering
back and forth more or less in the same position. Also, needle bearings
would leak oil past them faster, depriving the adjusters of oil.

Any comments would be most appreciated...
I already talked a customer out of needle bearing rockers, but I need to
give him peace of mind about his second choice, the bronze bushing type.
I'm recommending the HVX mods to him.


Jan

Jan Andersson wrote:
>
> I was once again reading about the HVX mods on your blog site,
>
> http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com/2.../hvx-mods.html
>
> And I remembered a question I meant to ask you long ago. It has become
> relevant in another discussion so I wanted to get some clarification.
>
>
> Regarding the grooving of the rocker shaft:
>
> http://bp0.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...HVX+ROCKER.jpg
>
>
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...X+ROCKER+A.jpg
>
>
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...CKER+SHAFT.jpg
>
>
>
> Q1: you groove only the shaft, not the inside bore of the rockers
> themselves? I assume the shaft is stronger and safer to groove, I
> wouldn't want to make the rockers any weaker.
>
> Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
> trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut groove
> between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is available for
> the UNDERSIDE of the shaft, where the most friction and wear occurs? You
> get more oil to the adjuster screw, which is fine of course, but at the
> cost of reducing shaft lubrication where it is needed most.
>
> Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters, what purpose does the last
> oil passage in the rocker have? Oil would only seep past the threads
> slowly, correct? You also mention cutting the underside of the rocker
> where the adjuster screw is. Is that to expose the oil passage or the
> groove in the adjuster screw, to release more oil out? The rocker design
> we have in mind has a solid flat foot pressing the valve, and the
> adjuster is at the pushrod end. I doubt that there are any oil passages
> at the valve end of the rocker since it has no moving parts.
>
> Here's an example of the rocker assembly in question:
>
> http://www.cbperformance.com/catalog.asp?ProductID=1371
>
>
>
> I am specifically trying to prevent rocker wear and seizure in a high
> performance engine, where a bronze bushing is used between shaft and
> rocker. Needle bearing rockers are available (Bugpack, ugh) but I fear
> they create another problem, since needle bearings rely on constant,
> full rotation to survive, and here they would only be jerking back and
> forth a little bit. I would think they will eventually dig little
> grooves on the shaft where they ride back and forth. For example: front
> engine, rear wheel drive cars have their driveshaft mounted at an angle
> to the rear diff, to force the U-joint needle bearings to rotate
> (however slowly) when you drive, instead of just nervously jittering
> back and forth more or less in the same position. Also, needle bearings
> would leak oil past them faster, depriving the adjusters of oil.
>
> Any comments would be most appreciated...
> I already talked a customer out of needle bearing rockers, but I need to
> give him peace of mind about his second choice, the bronze bushing type.
> I'm recommending the HVX mods to him.
>
>
> Jan


Ok so it was several questions, lol

More on the rocker assembly I'm looking into now, if anyone is interested:

http://www.scatvw.com/RockerArms.htm

I would likely buy them from aircooled.net
(Shameless plug for a good shop, lol)

Jan

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:43:50 +0100, Jan Andersson
> wrote:

>
> I was once again reading about the HVX mods on your blog site,
>
> http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com/2.../hvx-mods.html
>
> And I remembered a question I meant to ask you long ago. It has become
> relevant in another discussion so I wanted to get some clarification.
>
>
> Regarding the grooving of the rocker shaft:
>
> http://bp0.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...HVX+ROCKER.jpg
>
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...X+ROCKER+A.jpg
>
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...CKER+SHAFT.jpg
>
>
> Q1: you groove only the shaft, not the inside bore of the rockers
> themselves? I assume the shaft is stronger and safer to groove, I
> wouldn't want to make the rockers any weaker.
>
> Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
> trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut groove
> between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is available for
> the UNDERSIDE of the shaft, where the most friction and wear occurs? You
> get more oil to the adjuster screw, which is fine of course, but at the
> cost of reducing shaft lubrication where it is needed most.
>
> Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters, what purpose does the last
> oil passage in the rocker have? Oil would only seep past the threads
> slowly, correct? You also mention cutting the underside of the rocker
> where the adjuster screw is. Is that to expose the oil passage or the
> groove in the adjuster screw, to release more oil out? The rocker design
> we have in mind has a solid flat foot pressing the valve, and the
> adjuster is at the pushrod end. I doubt that there are any oil passages
> at the valve end of the rocker since it has no moving parts.
>
> Here's an example of the rocker assembly in question:
>
> http://www.cbperformance.com/catalog.asp?ProductID=1371
>
>
>
> I am specifically trying to prevent rocker wear and seizure in a high
> performance engine, where a bronze bushing is used between shaft and
> rocker. Needle bearing rockers are available (Bugpack, ugh) but I fear
> they create another problem, since needle bearings rely on constant,
> full rotation to survive, and here they would only be jerking back and
> forth a little bit. I would think they will eventually dig little
> grooves on the shaft where they ride back and forth. For example: front
> engine, rear wheel drive cars have their driveshaft mounted at an angle
> to the rear diff, to force the U-joint needle bearings to rotate
> (however slowly) when you drive, instead of just nervously jittering
> back and forth more or less in the same position. Also, needle bearings
> would leak oil past them faster, depriving the adjusters of oil.
>
> Any comments would be most appreciated...
> I already talked a customer out of needle bearing rockers, but I need to
> give him peace of mind about his second choice, the bronze bushing type.
> I'm recommending the HVX mods to him.
>
>
> Jan

Needle bearings are used as piston pin bearings in a multitude of
applications, no full rotation there..

J.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

P.J.Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:43:50 +0100, Jan Andersson
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> I was once again reading about the HVX mods on your blog site,
>>
>> http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com/2.../hvx-mods.html
>>
>> And I remembered a question I meant to ask you long ago. It has become
>> relevant in another discussion so I wanted to get some clarification.
>>
>>
>> Regarding the grooving of the rocker shaft:
>>
>> http://bp0.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...HVX+ROCKER.jpg
>>
>>
>> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...X+ROCKER+A.jpg
>>
>>
>> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...CKER+SHAFT.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> Q1: you groove only the shaft, not the inside bore of the rockers
>> themselves? I assume the shaft is stronger and safer to groove, I
>> wouldn't want to make the rockers any weaker.
>>
>> Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
>> trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut
>> groove between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is
>> available for the UNDERSIDE of the shaft, where the most friction and
>> wear occurs? You get more oil to the adjuster screw, which is fine of
>> course, but at the cost of reducing shaft lubrication where it is
>> needed most.
>>
>> Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters, what purpose does the
>> last oil passage in the rocker have? Oil would only seep past the
>> threads slowly, correct? You also mention cutting the underside of the
>> rocker where the adjuster screw is. Is that to expose the oil passage
>> or the groove in the adjuster screw, to release more oil out? The
>> rocker design we have in mind has a solid flat foot pressing the
>> valve, and the adjuster is at the pushrod end. I doubt that there are
>> any oil passages at the valve end of the rocker since it has no moving
>> parts.
>>
>> Here's an example of the rocker assembly in question:
>>
>> http://www.cbperformance.com/catalog.asp?ProductID=1371
>>
>>
>>
>> I am specifically trying to prevent rocker wear and seizure in a high
>> performance engine, where a bronze bushing is used between shaft and
>> rocker. Needle bearing rockers are available (Bugpack, ugh) but I fear
>> they create another problem, since needle bearings rely on constant,
>> full rotation to survive, and here they would only be jerking back and
>> forth a little bit. I would think they will eventually dig little
>> grooves on the shaft where they ride back and forth. For example:
>> front engine, rear wheel drive cars have their driveshaft mounted at
>> an angle to the rear diff, to force the U-joint needle bearings to
>> rotate (however slowly) when you drive, instead of just nervously
>> jittering back and forth more or less in the same position. Also,
>> needle bearings would leak oil past them faster, depriving the
>> adjusters of oil.
>>
>> Any comments would be most appreciated...
>> I already talked a customer out of needle bearing rockers, but I need
>> to give him peace of mind about his second choice, the bronze bushing
>> type.
>> I'm recommending the HVX mods to him.
>>
>>
>> Jan
>
> Needle bearings are used as piston pin bearings in a multitude of
> applications, no full rotation there..
>
> J.
>
>
>


like in my ex moped

didn't think of that.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:23:38 +0100, Jan Andersson
> wrote:

> P.J.Berg wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:43:50 +0100, Jan Andersson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I was once again reading about the HVX mods on your blog site,
>>>
>>> http://bobhooversblog.blogspot.com/2.../hvx-mods.html
>>>
>>> And I remembered a question I meant to ask you long ago. It has become
>>> relevant in another discussion so I wanted to get some clarification..
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the grooving of the rocker shaft:
>>>
>>> http://bp0.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...HVX+ROCKER.jpg
>>> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...X+ROCKER+A.jpg
>>> http://bp1.blogger.com/_JU6RC7jJfRc/...CKER+SHAFT.jpg
>>>
>>> Q1: you groove only the shaft, not the inside bore of the rockers
>>> themselves? I assume the shaft is stronger and safer to groove, I
>>> wouldn't want to make the rockers any weaker.
>>>
>>> Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
>>> trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut
>>> groove between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is
>>> available for the UNDERSIDE of the shaft, where the most friction and
>>> wear occurs? You get more oil to the adjuster screw, which is fine of
>>> course, but at the cost of reducing shaft lubrication where it is
>>> needed most.
>>>
>>> Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters, what purpose does the
>>> last oil passage in the rocker have? Oil would only seep past the
>>> threads slowly, correct? You also mention cutting the underside of the
>>> rocker where the adjuster screw is. Is that to expose the oil passage
>>> or the groove in the adjuster screw, to release more oil out? The
>>> rocker design we have in mind has a solid flat foot pressing the
>>> valve, and the adjuster is at the pushrod end. I doubt that there are
>>> any oil passages at the valve end of the rocker since it has no moving
>>> parts.
>>>
>>> Here's an example of the rocker assembly in question:
>>>
>>> http://www.cbperformance.com/catalog.asp?ProductID=1371
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am specifically trying to prevent rocker wear and seizure in a high
>>> performance engine, where a bronze bushing is used between shaft and
>>> rocker. Needle bearing rockers are available (Bugpack, ugh) but I fear
>>> they create another problem, since needle bearings rely on constant,
>>> full rotation to survive, and here they would only be jerking back and
>>> forth a little bit. I would think they will eventually dig little
>>> grooves on the shaft where they ride back and forth. For example:
>>> front engine, rear wheel drive cars have their driveshaft mounted at
>>> an angle to the rear diff, to force the U-joint needle bearings to
>>> rotate (however slowly) when you drive, instead of just nervously
>>> jittering back and forth more or less in the same position. Also,
>>> needle bearings would leak oil past them faster, depriving the
>>> adjusters of oil.
>>>
>>> Any comments would be most appreciated...
>>> I already talked a customer out of needle bearing rockers, but I need
>>> to give him peace of mind about his second choice, the bronze bushing
>>> type.
>>> I'm recommending the HVX mods to him.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jan
>> Needle bearings are used as piston pin bearings in a multitude of
>> applications, no full rotation there..
>> J.
>>
>
>
> like in my ex moped
>
> didn't think of that.

And 100cc Go-kart engines turning 18K+

J.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Feb 15, 8:43 am, Jan Andersson >
wrote:

> Q1: you groove only the shaft, not the inside bore of the rockers
> themselves?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the lathe, I groove the rocker-arm shafts in the locations
shown. Inside the rockers, I use a Dremel tool (or similar) and a
carbide burr to CONNECT the two oil passages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
> trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut groove
> between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is available for
> the UNDERSIDE of the shaft, where the most friction and wear occurs? You
> get more oil to the adjuster screw, which is fine of course, but at the
> cost of reducing shaft lubrication where it is needed most.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The HVX mods begin with a full-flow oil filter. Then the crankcase
is modified so as to INCREASE the amount of oil reaching the heads by
eight-fold. There is no sense in making mods to the valve train until
you have made the mods to ensure an adequate flow of lubricant to the
heads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The full set of HVX drawings is NOT included in the blog. The HVX mods
includes the use of the Soobie/Ford type swivel-foot adjuster, for
which the adjuster-end of the rocker-arm must be thinned down... as
shown in the drawing you've cited.

All tolled, there's about 125 CAD drawings, a bit much for the blog.
But every time I've posted them publicly someone starts flogging them
on eBay. I'm trying to get all of this information into a POD book
but the size of the book (more than 3 Megs) and the small size of the
market (ie, there's not that many owners of air-coolled VW's) makes it
a tough sell.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Any comments would be most appreciated...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a waste of time to do ONLY the valve-train mods -- there simply
isn't enough oil to do the job. The key is to get more oil out to the
heads. Once you've done that, you'll see the need for the grooved
rocker-arm and connecting the oil channels in the rockers. The
internal oil channel in the Ford/Soobie-type adjusters allows them to
function as SPRAY BARS, allowing the extra oil to pick up a lot more
heat.

As for the grooves and other mods, you will find their functional
equivalent inside EVERY modern-day engine (including the Type IV).

The lubrication system was marginal in the 1300. For larger engines
operating at higher rpm, you have to go back to basics and resolve the
root problem. A big advantage of doing so is that once you've
provided more oil to the heads you will eliminate the snapping hair-
pins, worn washers and galled rocker shafts, which means you can leave
all that expensive after-market valve-train stuff on the counter.

-Bob Hoover

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:37:11 +0100, Veeduber > wrote:

> On Feb 15, 8:43 am, Jan Andersson >
> wrote:
>
>> Q1: you groove only the shaft, not the inside bore of the rockers
>> themselves?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using the lathe, I groove the rocker-arm shafts in the locations
> shown. Inside the rockers, I use a Dremel tool (or similar) and a
> carbide burr to CONNECT the two oil passages.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
>> trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut groove
>> between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is available for
>> the UNDERSIDE of the shaft, where the most friction and wear occurs? You
>> get more oil to the adjuster screw, which is fine of course, but at the
>> cost of reducing shaft lubrication where it is needed most.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The HVX mods begin with a full-flow oil filter. Then the crankcase
> is modified so as to INCREASE the amount of oil reaching the heads by
> eight-fold. There is no sense in making mods to the valve train until
> you have made the mods to ensure an adequate flow of lubricant to the
> heads.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The full set of HVX drawings is NOT included in the blog. The HVX mods
> includes the use of the Soobie/Ford type swivel-foot adjuster, for
> which the adjuster-end of the rocker-arm must be thinned down... as
> shown in the drawing you've cited.
>
> All tolled, there's about 125 CAD drawings, a bit much for the blog.
> But every time I've posted them publicly someone starts flogging them
> on eBay. I'm trying to get all of this information into a POD book
> but the size of the book (more than 3 Megs) and the small size of the
> market (ie, there's not that many owners of air-coolled VW's) makes it
> a tough sell.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Any comments would be most appreciated...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is a waste of time to do ONLY the valve-train mods -- there simply
> isn't enough oil to do the job. The key is to get more oil out to the
> heads. Once you've done that, you'll see the need for the grooved
> rocker-arm and connecting the oil channels in the rockers. The
> internal oil channel in the Ford/Soobie-type adjusters allows them to
> function as SPRAY BARS, allowing the extra oil to pick up a lot more
> heat.
>
> As for the grooves and other mods, you will find their functional
> equivalent inside EVERY modern-day engine (including the Type IV).
>
> The lubrication system was marginal in the 1300. For larger engines
> operating at higher rpm, you have to go back to basics and resolve the
> root problem. A big advantage of doing so is that once you've
> provided more oil to the heads you will eliminate the snapping hair-
> pins, worn washers and galled rocker shafts, which means you can leave
> all that expensive after-market valve-train stuff on the counter.
>
> -Bob Hoover

Any chance of buying a set directly from you, payable via PayPal(f.ex.) ?
Either paper copies, pdf's or any other format you find handy.

Not that I need them currently, would like to store/save/conserve(you get
the idea) for the future though, along with the Sermons.

Jørn.

>
>
>
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Veeduber wrote:
>> Q2: Why do you make that groove in the first place? I thought you were
>> trying to solve the shaft galling problem? Doesn't that shortcut groove
>> between rocker oil holes actually reduce the oil that is available for
>> the UNDERSIDE of the shaft.....8<
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The HVX mods begin with a full-flow oil filter. Then the crankcase
> is modified so as to INCREASE the amount of oil reaching the heads by
> eight-fold. There is no sense in making mods to the valve train until
> you have made the mods to ensure an adequate flow of lubricant to the
> heads.

Ok, so the overall increase in volume more than makes up for the
potential loss from the connecting groove. There's just more oil to put
to good use.


>> Q3: if you do not use swivel head adjusters...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The full set of HVX drawings is NOT included in the blog. The HVX mods
> includes the use of the Soobie/Ford type swivel-foot adjuster, for
> which the adjuster-end of the rocker-arm must be thinned down... as
> shown in the drawing you've cited.

Ok. I have had to thin that part for the typical aftermarket crappy
swivel feet in the same way.

> It is a waste of time to do ONLY the valve-train mods -- there simply
> isn't enough oil to do the job.

I get that, I am looking at the whole picture, it was just this one
detail that puzzled me, and since the aftermarket rocker assembly I'm
looking at, will not have adjusters at the valve end, there's no second
oil hole/passage on the rocker. Only a solid lever on the valve side.


> The key is to get more oil out to the
> heads. Once you've done that, you'll see the need for the grooved
> rocker-arm and connecting the oil channels in the rockers. The
> internal oil channel in the Ford/Soobie-type adjusters allows them to
> function as SPRAY BARS, allowing the extra oil to pick up a lot more
> heat.

I didn't think oil could 'spray out' of them, the passage is still
blocked more or less completely by the rocker, even after thinning the
underside. On stock rockers, the last oil hole on the rocker was drilled
from the outside, and the hole at the tip is welded/brazed shut. If I
was to use that type of rockers, couldn't I drill a hole into the rocker
tip to tap into the oil filled space around the grooved adjuster shank?
a tiny hole could be drilled at any convenient angle, aiming it at some
convenient spot in the head.

Still, with no adjusters at the valve end, the furthest the oil would
ever get, is to the shaft via the push rod end of the rocker. No swivel
heads there, you'd have to drill a hole into the rocker to get the
sprayer effect, and then it would be located under the shaft instead of
above. Better than nothing I suppose. Or... one could do your groove
modification and drill the hole on the topside

http://www.scatvw.com/images/Rocker4.gif


> The lubrication system was marginal in the 1300. For larger engines
> operating at higher rpm, you have to go back to basics and resolve the
> root problem. A big advantage of doing so is that once you've
> provided more oil to the heads you will eliminate the snapping hair-
> pins, worn washers and galled rocker shafts, which means you can leave
> all that expensive after-market valve-train stuff on the counter.

Someone will still want 1.4:1 rocker ratio, stronger shafts & rockers
and peace of mind from the bolt-type shafts.

The only downside to the rockers above, is the flat, wide valve pressing
arm. I don't think it would make the valve rotate anymore. In a race
engine it may not be so important, I'm sure they would get a rebuild or
a valve lapping before any major wear would occur.

On Feb 15, 6:36 pm, Jan Andersson >
wrote:

>
> Someone will still want 1.4:1 rocker ratio, stronger shafts & rockers
> and peace of mind from the bolt-type shafts.
>
> The only downside to the rockers above, is the flat, wide valve pressing
> arm. I don't think it would make the valve rotate anymore. In a race
> engine it may not be so important, I'm sure they would get a rebuild or
> a valve lapping before any major wear would occur.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the main problem here is that they simply don't understand the
engineering. Attempts to apply water-cooled technology to an air-
cooled engine, especially one that uses only four head-stays per
cylinder, is the start of an expensive trip down a slippery slope.

The other thing they tend to overlook is that it isn't the fastest car
that wins but the one that finishes first. Until they realize that
they have to FINISH in order to win, the hucksters will keep selling
them high-lift cams, valves the size of dinner plates, tales of
enormous horsepower and other useless ****.

-Bob Hoover

On Feb 15, 6:18 pm, "P.J.Berg" > wrote:
>
>
> Any chance of buying a set directly from you,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. While the lubrication mods are about 3Mb, the complete file is
over 12Mb.

Contact me directly. With a valid email address.

-Bob