1.9 Rockers - Is it worth the cost ?? - Page 2 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning Talk about modifications, or anything else associated with performance enhancements. Have a new idea for performance/reliability? Post it here. No idea is stupid! (please use Detailing and Appearance for cosmetic ideas)

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-28-2004, 12:11 AM   #11
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Holt, MI & Lima, OH
Posts: 3,022
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
dbtk2 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
News to me. That'* a nice inexpensive option to take in to consideration.
Thats what we have on the GTP & SSEi. (funny how the GTP is the fastest stock cam L67, yet it doesn't even have roller rockers) Well, the GTP has ZZP'* 1.9:1 rocker arms, but they were made by the same company that is now making the I-Win that are listed there. Then ZZP stopped carrying them about 2 years ago, and 3800 Performance started selling them as the I-Win rockers a couple months later. We bought the first set of them that 3800 Performance sold and put them on the SSEi.

Quote:
Without the roller tips, I wouldn't think it is wise to run with OR pushrods because you would need the extra cooling of oil flow due to tip friction that the stock pushrods offer.
There is really not that much friction made between the little contact surface there. Plenty of oil is flowing up there even with the OR pushrods, if there wasn't plenty of oil flowing up there then it would be a bad idea to use those pushrods. I know when we pulled the rockers off the GTP to put the springs in, the rockers & pushrods had been in for 8k (not a lot but still some miles) and they still looked like brand new.

Quote:
just a small question,..... that "25hp" gain... does that also take into account the mods you've already done... cause that would be a HUGE improvement in cam specs over what you've got right now... added to what you've already got... I would think you'd get more then just "25hp" outta going to 1.9 rockers
No, because you aren't increasing duration very much at all. You are increasing lift a lot, but stock L67 heads don't flow that well at much over the stock lift, so really what you are gaining is mainly from the faster opening valves, but still a little from the extra lift. Stock specs for an L67 cam are:
.255 Intake (.408" valve lift stock, .485" w/1.9 rockers)
.258 Exhaust (.413" valve lift stock, .490" w/1.9 rockers)

However, take a look at this dyno sheet from a decently modded '02 GTP:
Blue line is aftermarket cam, red line is stock, green line is 1.9 rockers:


In his fairly heavily modded car the rockers didn't even make much difference. I have found they make 10-15whp on just about every application, no matter how modded. And the cam gains there are promising, however you have to remember that a cam is a LOT more work and definately requires at least different valvesprings, but the pushrods really should be replaced as well. I would recommend a cam for anyone who wants to get really serious, but based on what I have gathered from his posts, silverbullet isn't looking for a race car, and I don't think I would tear into a low miles engine like that either. IMO rockers are perfect for what he wants.

Shawn
dbtk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 02:12 AM   #12
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
2000SilverBullet is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Level 1(shown in red) - 221 wheel horsepower, 276 crank horsepower

First we installed an SLP cold air induction system, INTENSE™ 3.40" supercharger pulley, Gatorback supercharger belt, INTENSE™ 180 degree thermostat and Autolite 605 (one heat range colder) spark plugs. Net gains were 29 wheel horsepower, which is about 36 crank horsepower.

Level 2(shown in blue) - 244 wheel horsepower, 305 crank horsepower

Next we added 1.90:1 INTENSE™ Third Gen Full Roller Rocker Arms with no other changes. Net gains were 23 wheel horsepower, which is about 29 crank horsepower.



Good info Shawn. So how do you explain INTENSE'* claim of 23 whp with just the 1.9 rockers.

I just may give the I-Win'* a go......even if you say it'* only worth 12 hp, I'm optimistic that I may get a little more.
2000SilverBullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 02:15 AM   #13
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
2000SilverBullet is on a distinguished road
Default

Aha. My hypothesis was right, I just noticed that the torque actually decreases by 10 ft-lbs with the 1.9 rockers.
2000SilverBullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 03:56 AM   #14
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,928
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BonneMeMN is on a distinguished road
Default

Intense'* claims are based off of Rogue'* Dyno'*....

I've driven his car with rockers, it was nice, made smellbirds go faster nicely as well.

However a nice set of heads and a cam would be very beneficial....
BonneMeMN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 11:07 AM   #15
Sol
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,909
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sol is on a distinguished road
Default

How do you end up losing torque from that? That right there turns me away.
Sol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 11:11 AM   #16
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Holt, MI & Lima, OH
Posts: 3,022
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
dbtk2 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
How do you end up losing torque from that? That right there turns me away.
They claim that the torque difference is due to swapping out motor mounts at the same time I guess...

Shawn
dbtk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 11:27 AM   #17
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
2000SilverBullet is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Sol wrote:
How do you end up losing torque from that? That right there turns me away.


They claim that the torque difference is due to swapping out motor mounts at the same time I guess...
This is interesting. Motor mounts! What does that have to do with it.
Can anyone else with 1.9 rockers step in and give us their experience with the 1.9 rocker swap with regard to torque loss of low rpm <3000 rpm.
An actual loss of low end torque is not good for everyday driving. Might be OK for racing where the engine is always up over 3000. rpm.
Of course, our cars are torque beasts already....and it could help traction, not to mention trani life (but that'* a stretch).
There is good reason why true racers install a 3000 rpm stall torque converter.
2000SilverBullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 11:30 AM   #18
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Holt, MI & Lima, OH
Posts: 3,022
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
dbtk2 is on a distinguished road
Default

Here is a whole page about the 3 dyno pulls. That way you can make your own conclusion.

http://www.3800performance.com/cc_xt...7_cam_dyno.htm

I've never noticed a torque loss and I've done quite a few rocker swaps, but thats probably because they have so much torque to begin with. The torque loss isn't noticable if there is one.

Quote:
Good info Shawn. So how do you explain INTENSE'* claim of 23 whp with just the 1.9 rockers.

I just may give the I-Win'* a go......even if you say it'* only worth 12 hp, I'm optimistic that I may get a little more.
I don't know how to explain it other than every car is different, because the car that did that dyno had INTENSE rocker arms on it. I know this because there was a big post about it on ClubGP. People were getting pissed at INTENSE for something, stealing a pic or something stupid like that, and Luan got all pissed off and said that was it, he was done with intense parts and he was pulling them all out of his car. So he took out all the intense parts (rocker arms being one of those things) and replaced them with other parts, in this case he installed a cam instead of Intense'* rockers. But he did have previous conflicts with INTENSE that I don't want to get into right now, so I can almost understand why he did that.

Shawn
dbtk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 11:42 AM   #19
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
2000SilverBullet is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
I don't know how to explain it other than every car is different, because the car that did that dyno had INTENSE rocker arms on it.
Different cars explain minor variations but this is a 100% difference.

Lift is lift.
The only difference between the two brands of rockers is the friction reducing rollers and a slight weight advantage.
2000SilverBullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 05:53 PM   #20
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,928
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BonneMeMN is on a distinguished road
Default

In the long run you'll wish you had the lighter, roller rockers. They'll last longer, run smoother, and aren't cutting corners. I know your gonna keep that car a long time, and wanna keep building her up, so think about the future. Why not hold off till you can get what you want?
BonneMeMN is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Series 1 roller rockers vs Series 2 roller rockers xtremerevolution Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 7 06-04-2010 07:52 PM
Crank/Cam sensor...cost's at shop leadnbrass 1992-1999 4 07-24-2003 09:16 AM
Moonroof Cost ???? ridic2002 General GM Chat 5 04-02-2003 01:22 PM
Cost of tail-light cover JTPtheV 1987-1991 26 03-14-2003 12:38 PM
Cost of adding the supercharger from as SSEI to an SE? Cat88Extreme Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 6 02-03-2003 02:39 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.