Because
1- The conventional wisdom is that MILVs plus a tune nets 10hp, therefore the MILVs are good for 10hp. I haven't seen that anybody has run the same comparison with JUST the tune, or that they've un-installed the MILVs to show that the gains were lost. So, I'm inclined to think that the tune resulted in the gains.
2- Going from 9.7mm to 10.7mm should result in more than 10hp...
3- A technical examination shows that adding vertical from the MILV modification does not translate into more lift because of the horizontal component of motion. https://youtu.be/u4zKBsJRvYA
4- I've examined my spare head closely and my conclusion is that MILVs change the zero point of the lifter, but since a valve can't be any more closed than closed, that total lift is unchanged.
I think the only way to increase N52 lift would be to swap the camshaft, engineer a re-ground eccentric shaft or to change the geometry of the rocker arms.
1- The conventional wisdom is that MILVs plus a tune nets 10hp, therefore the MILVs are good for 10hp. I haven't seen that anybody has run the same comparison with JUST the tune, or that they've un-installed the MILVs to show that the gains were lost. So, I'm inclined to think that the tune resulted in the gains.
2- Going from 9.7mm to 10.7mm should result in more than 10hp...
3- A technical examination shows that adding vertical from the MILV modification does not translate into more lift because of the horizontal component of motion. https://youtu.be/u4zKBsJRvYA
4- I've examined my spare head closely and my conclusion is that MILVs change the zero point of the lifter, but since a valve can't be any more closed than closed, that total lift is unchanged.
I think the only way to increase N52 lift would be to swap the camshaft, engineer a re-ground eccentric shaft or to change the geometry of the rocker arms.
Comment