Schrick Big Valve Head

[cata 0]

Did a search on it and no luck. It seems I have a Schrick BVH and was wondering if anyone has any info or knowledge on them.

 

Mainly wondering about the types of springs that were used, valve stems and pretty much the quality of the rest of the parts that go into it. Performance figures would also be nice if anyone has any to share.

 

Can't find anything on it anywhere, nothing on google nothing on the 'tex, it seems like nobody really bothered with them and just ported and polished their own.

[adevr6 0]

pm admin on http://www.vr6oc.com he has one fitted to his vr6.

[eatthis 0]

pm admin on http://www.vr6oc.com he has one fitted to his vr6.

 

vr6pete is the same person his internet is screwed atm he can only get on at work so he may not get the pm for a day or so

[12 DEG BEN 0]

Hello

I have a shrick big valve head on mine. Couldnt tell you how it improves the engine as im Running 268 cams and a lighted bottom end. Can tell you that its a missile but vibrates on tickover a bit. If you got it, Id use it. Even if its just for the name. Sorry I cannot be more help.

 

BC

[cata 0]

Cheers for the respnses. Yes I have mine fitted and the bottom end is knife edged and balanced to 9000rpm which is why I am wondering what rpm the Schrick can be safely taken to.

[eatthis 0]

afaik the top end revs at half the speed of the bottom end not 100% on that though 0k is a fookin lot for a vr hehe i thought the hard rev limit was 7500??

[cata 0]

Think this one was reflashed or something.

I'm a little confused because I know it doesn't have a chip but somehow the rev limiter isn't there.

[eatthis 0]

how are you goi9ng to make the vr produce any decent torque at silly revs? even with 268s mine started dropping at 5500 and was pretty crap at 6800

[double-6s 0]

Surely you don't need decent torque at high revs? High revs = power.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I've seen a 2.9 with VGI + BV head + 268s + remap make 238hp with 244lb/ft torque.

 

It's about as much as you can do to the VR, other than capacity increases. Then it gets expensive for little gain and you may aswell sign up for Forced induction.

[eatthis 0]

Surely you don't need decent torque at high revs? High revs = power.

 

ofcourse you need some torque bhp doesnt come from thin air lol

(and imho is more of a fantasy pub figure than a real world number)

if you wanna know how an car will drive/pull/feel look at the torque graph bhp graph tells u piss all :)

[double-6s 0]

Surely you don't need decent torque at high revs? High revs = power.

 

ofcourse you need some torque bhp doesnt come from thin air lol

(and imho is more of a fantasy pub figure than a real world number)

if you wanna know how an car will drive/pull/feel look at the torque graph bhp graph tells u piss all :)

 

Yes I know you need some torque at high revs. No sh*t. And funnily enough I realise that bhp doesn't come from thin air. Well guess what, bhp doesn't come from torque either. Plum.

 

lol

 

Try looking at some racing cars - think you'll find that torque doesn't count for squat - its all high end power.

 

lol :)

[cata 0]

Very interesting debate but the main question is, will the Schrick head keep up with my bottom end which is safe up to 9000rpm?

 

If it can then surely it's a screamer, but doubt that the components that went into it are made to be reved that high. For example, I doubt it's got titanium retainers and so on.

[mgbv8mike 0]

Double 6.......It would appear that Carol Shelby got it wrong then !

 

"Horse-power sells cars......torque wins races"

 

PS I always thought that horse-power was actually calculated from torque figures....have I got it all wrong ?

 

'Some people (e.g. American automotive engineers) use horsepower (imperial mechanical) for power, foot-pounds (lbf·ft) for torque and rpm's (revolutions per minute) for angular speed.

 

 

Power (hp) = torque(lbf) X angular speed (rpm)/5252'

[eatthis 0]

Surely you don't need decent torque at high revs? High revs = power.

 

ofcourse you need some torque bhp doesnt come from thin air lol

(and imho is more of a fantasy pub figure than a real world number)

if you wanna know how an car will drive/pull/feel look at the torque graph bhp graph tells u piss all :)

 

Yes I know you need some torque at high revs. No sh*t. And funnily enough I realise that bhp doesn't come from thin air. Well guess what, bhp doesn't come from torque either. Plum.

 

lol

 

Try looking at some racing cars - think you'll find that torque doesn't count for squat - its all high end power.

 

lol :)[/quote:c4235]

 

if bhp doesnt come from torque where does it come from?

racing cars r a diffrent kettle of fish they are designed to make as much torque as possible at the highest revs possible and to hell with the low rev performance (exept rally cars which have huge amounts of torque(at low revs) compared to bhp)

[double-6s 0]

yeah yeah yeah. blah blah.

 

my point was......... apart from yankee pig iron, most racing cars rely on high power at high revs rather than high torque. too much torque and you'll have trouble getting the power down.

 

whatever though. i'm sure i'm wrong and to be honest i can't be arsed to argue either way.

 

:)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Race cars rely on low weight mainly and high revs give them more flexibility to reduce the amount of gearchanges. Some corner entries are taken in 1st gear - try that in a road car :lol:

 

F1 cars make something like 800hp currently, but no where near that in torque.....very short crank throw for revs, but consequently small torque. The car's 500 odd kg weight gives it it's phenomenal pace.

 

But you know all this anyway ;-)

[cata 0]

That's something I didn't know before.

So what can I learn from all this? I'm no racecar driver so keep those revs under a leash. Sounds like it's time to get one of those custom shift lights to help me hold back :twisted:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Well F1 cars use straight cut sequential boxes, so can slide into 1st at 60mph quite easily. Road car synchromesh gearboxes can't do that, well, average ones can't anyway.

 

It's very exotic stuff in Racing circles and impossibly expensive :-(

 

F1 has a rev range from 5-18,000rpm, so they can hold onto the gears longer, but they still fly through the gears incredibley quickly, depending on the ratios selected for a particular circuit.

 

For a road car, torque all the way! :-) Just honest to god pure grunt rather than feather weight and VTEC rev ranges. That's why I like the Lotus Carlton so much, and the Porsche Cayenne Turbo. Neither make apologies for their mass or weight, they just give you monster torque and a solid, safe feeling car to hoon around in :-)

[cata 0]

Yeah it's just that the idea of a high-reving 6cyl sounded really cool to me.

From what I understand, aside from the price, the downside to those straight cut gears is that the transmission noise is loud, am I right?

[Deluk 0]

yeah sounds like a tank

[Tristan 0]

The cars with low torque and high rpm have short gearboxes .....a honda crx has 140km/h at 7500rpm, a g60 has 140km/h at 5800 or something... (that's for 3rd gear) the crx compensates the low torque with the higher rpm ...

[RS VR6 0]

Here's a dizzying thread from Vortex about Horsepower vs Torque.

 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2705665

[eatthis 0]

The cars with low torque and high rpm have short gearboxes .....a honda crx has 140km/h at 7500rpm, a g60 has 140km/h at 5800 or something... (that's for 3rd gear) the crx compensates the low torque with the higher rpm ...

 

 

gears multiply the engines torque shorter gear ratios multiply it more than long gears

low torque high bhp (ie very high revving) engines allow for low gearing because they rev so much

[double-6s 0]

Surely they're low geared to get them to rev high because thats where the power is? High revs?