Rockers 1.9... it works?? - Page 3 - 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 09-18-2005, 01:58 PM   #21
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: montreal, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
mike_peperni is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rel3rd
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantastic88
A stock L67 will DESTROY a stock 5.0.
That'* a very bold, blanket statement to make...lol.
Unless you are referring to a large, heavy Ford car with a 5.0, you are misinformed my friend. A "stock" 5.0 Mustang with nothing but a different set of rear gears will easily run 13'* on regular old radials. I've done it myself in a few different cars. A stock 5.0 Mustang as is, will go low to mid 14'*. The "stock" L67 of the thread poster has a different blower pulley and a cold air setup and barely dips into the 14'*...The only 5.0 car he or anyone else here (that close to stock) would be able to "DESTROY", is one that is 100% stock, with a lame automatic, poor gearing, and in a heavy bodied vehicle, like he described...an OLD Thunderbird...FWIW, I went 14.72 in my old 176,000 mile Lincoln LSC with a 5.0 engine and nothing but basic tuning, a K&N, and a set of better flowing mufflers...

Our Pontiacs are nice running cars, and I love mine, but don't get too caught up in the fantasy that they are unbeatable....

Here'* my old purple "5.0", with about $3000 worth of engine mods, which isn't too far fetched of what our Pontiacs cost to mod, when getting serious...

http://home.comcast.net/~rel3rd/Barneyvslane.mpg


I also noticed someone above said that the higher ratio rocker arms add duration. That is false. Higher ratio rocker arms only add valve LIFT...they have no bearing on camshaft duration whatsoever.
the brother of one of my friend had a Mustang 5.0 with a 3.73 gear , i hear that he got a best of 13.92, manual tranny, ok, i can beleive it, i tryed the car, it was running good,but..

it happen a lot of time that ive walked 5.0 liter with both my honda and my SSEi, the only few that pass me was clearly modded, and they pass me very fast.

the average quarter mile i see here at Napierville dragway (montreal) for a stock 5.0 liter is 15.0- 15.3 (those like '92 model) and the 1995 model ...i beat them when my honda was only with the B16a swap 14.9 -15 sec.

for sure they got descent top speed, but its useless and illegal.(i mean for stock)

but i believe that some 5.0 run very good.

sorry... back to rocker subject
mike_peperni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 01:17 AM   #22
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ukie eagle is on a distinguished road
Default

Speaking of rockers: I understand that the L27 in my '93 SE came with a nice set of heads/rockers from the factory...How true is this?...I mean, why is '93 considered 'a good year'?...
If this is the case, would it be a waste to consider 1.9 rockers?...
ukie eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 01:21 AM   #23
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 19,756
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
1993 SLE is on a distinguished road
Default

the 93 was the first year of the roller rockers....

take a look around www.seriesoneperformance.com
1993 SLE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2005, 03:22 PM   #24
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 rel3rd
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantastic88
A stock L67 will DESTROY a stock 5.0.
That'* a very bold, blanket statement to make...lol.
Unless you are referring to a large, heavy Ford car with a 5.0, you are misinformed my friend. A "stock" 5.0 Mustang with nothing but a different set of rear gears will easily run 13'* on regular old radials. I've done it myself in a few different cars. A stock 5.0 Mustang as is, will go low to mid 14'*. The "stock" L67 of the thread poster has a different blower pulley and a cold air setup and barely dips into the 14'*...The only 5.0 car he or anyone else here (that close to stock) would be able to "DESTROY", is one that is 100% stock, with a lame automatic, poor gearing, and in a heavy bodied vehicle, like he described...an OLD Thunderbird...FWIW, I went 14.72 in my old 176,000 mile Lincoln LSC with a 5.0 engine and nothing but basic tuning, a K&N, and a set of better flowing mufflers...

Our Pontiacs are nice running cars, and I love mine, but don't get too caught up in the fantasy that they are unbeatable....

Here'* my old purple "5.0", with about $3000 worth of engine mods, which isn't too far fetched of what our Pontiacs cost to mod, when getting serious...

http://home.comcast.net/~rel3rd/Barneyvslane.mpg


I also noticed someone above said that the higher ratio rocker arms add duration. That is false. Higher ratio rocker arms only add valve LIFT...they have no bearing on camshaft duration whatsoever.
Put a stock 5.0 in an SSEi with 2.93 gearing and close to 4000lb. curb weight and see it do anything close to what a stock SSEi will do. I have nothing against the 5.0'*, but they aren't FAST by any means, and just comparing engine to engine, the L67 makes more power. Yes, a stock fox body 5.0 5 speed should have no problem walking on a stock SSEi, but take a '94-95 5.0 Automatic and it will be a close race (assuming they have good drivers, with a good driver a stock SSEi should do very low 15'*). My Lumina walked all over my buddies mildly modded (intake, headers/h-pipe/flowmasters, chip, short throw) '94 GT 5 speed, and my Lumina was FAR from a fast car IMO.

Shawn
dbtk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2005, 03:35 PM   #25
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Westerville, Ohio 2000 Black SSEi
Posts: 6,127
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rel3rd
Quote:
Originally Posted by willwren
Yes. There are a few L36'* running them.
hmmm..Just wondering if it'* a worthwhile mod for an NA car? The difference would be much more advantageous in a power adder car, because they "need"that beathing roomt moreso than an NA car, obviously...

Not trying to hijack the post, but where do we find these rocker arms and springs at?
I want to do some researching, hopefully...

Thanks...
Gains for an N/A car are about 1/2 that of a SC car. My car picked up 22whp (28crankhp) with 1.9'* so an N/A car should see about 11whp (14crank).
Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2005, 07:07 PM   #26
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: montreal, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
mike_peperni is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue
Quote:
Originally Posted by rel3rd
Quote:
Originally Posted by willwren
Yes. There are a few L36'* running them.
hmmm..Just wondering if it'* a worthwhile mod for an NA car? The difference would be much more advantageous in a power adder car, because they "need"that beathing roomt moreso than an NA car, obviously...

Not trying to hijack the post, but where do we find these rocker arms and springs at?
I want to do some researching, hopefully...

Thanks...
Gains for an N/A car are about 1/2 that of a SC car. My car picked up 22whp (28crankhp) with 1.9'* so an N/A car should see about 11whp (14crank).
22whp!!!! Rogue, you make my day!!

still saving money for it. ... im close

what is an average price of the 1.9 with install include?(in Can$ if possible)
dont had time to call to the shop where ill get mines installed.
( im doing lot of overtime for that so its closed when i came back home)
mike_peperni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2005, 05:49 PM   #27
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Baltimore, Md.
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
rel3rd is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbtk2
Put a stock 5.0 in an SSEi with 2.93 gearing and close to 4000lb. curb weight and see it do anything close to what a stock SSEi will do. I have nothing against the 5.0'*, but they aren't FAST by any means, and just comparing engine to engine, the L67 makes more power. Yes, a stock fox body 5.0 5 speed should have no problem walking on a stock SSEi, but take a '94-95 5.0 Automatic and it will be a close race (assuming they have good drivers, with a good driver a stock SSEi should do very low 15'*). My Lumina walked all over my buddies mildly modded (intake, headers/h-pipe/flowmasters, chip, short throw) '94 GT 5 speed, and my Lumina was FAR from a fast car IMO.

Shawn
FWIW, I am no Pontiac hater, as I own one and plan to get an SSEi to add to the fleet, since I like my SLE so much...

In regards to the engine swap apples to oranges comparison...
Same could be said for tossing an L67 in a Mustang body...Hardly a DESTROYER.
No doubt a 94-95 stock Automatic car would be a good run, but "DESTROY" was the keyword I got a chuckle from...After all, a 94-95 Mustang is 34-3500# without a driver. My 94 weighed in at 3685 with me in it...hardly a lightweight...just like our Pontiacs...lol. And I'd have to agree that a 94-95 mildly modded AUTOMATIC Mustang is slow (low 15'*, MAYBE high 14'*) and would be a good race, head'* up, against a good running SSEi...

I'm thinking the original "destroy" claimant was referring to a "stock" 5.0 in a big heavy car, after re-reading it? Just can't stomach the fact that you guys must have friends (in Mustangs) who either can't drive, or have something else just flat out wrong with their setups...My 94 when bone stock except for un-catted H-pipe and aftermarket exhaust, and 373 gears, went into the 13'* easily with regular old street tires...Just for giggles since you've already seen my "fast" car'* video, here'* a link to the old "fast/show" 94GT that I'm referring to...Feature car in November 04 5.0 magazine. My big behind in the passenger seat tuning the aftermarket Programmable Management System on the dynojet...
http://andersonfordmotorsport.com/cars/Blunner2.html

I mean no offense to anyone here regarding how fast or slow we may be. Maybe my expectations are too high since I'm an "old timer" compared to most around here, but my 10 and 11 second cars are of the caliber of car that myself and most of my friends own...Here'* my website link with some of my past & present rides, including the Bonnie...
http://home.comcast.net/~rel3rd/wsb/...ome.html-.html

Rogue: Thanks for the 1.9 rocker info...Not sure if a "possible" 11whp gain will be worth it in my case, (as far as cost effectiveness and my labor) but thanks for sharing your results.
rel3rd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2005, 07:07 PM   #28
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: montreal, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
mike_peperni is on a distinguished road
Default

theres no problem here rel3rd ,i agree that somepeople are able to get in 13'* with low mods, but the most ive seen was slow, may be bad drivers but i dont really care, this summer i saw someone running 15'* in his new Pontiac GTO... that was a bad driver.
anyway, back to the main subject now?

im planning getting the PCM next spring, do i have to tell them to raise shift point or it still remain the stock shift point? (with the 1.9 installed)
..sorry if this question as may be already asked
mike_peperni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2005, 09:43 AM   #29
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Westerville, Ohio 2000 Black SSEi
Posts: 6,127
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

1.9 rockers will make their power in the upper rpm band. To take full advantage of them I would recommend a 6000 shift point.
Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2005, 10:11 AM   #30
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: montreal, Canada
Posts: 1,108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
mike_peperni is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue
1.9 rockers will make their power in the upper rpm band. To take full advantage of them I would recommend a 6000 shift point.
nice for the info rogue , intense PCM in my bonny this spring.
mike_peperni 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
Under hood fire works Red Baron 1992-1999 3 01-23-2004 03:03 AM
He works at autometer! Allmachtige Lounge 3 10-10-2003 01:30 AM
Yeah!!!! Fire Works!!!! Champaign-Granny Lounge 4 05-15-2003 03:37 PM
FUEL ADDITIVE that works!!!!!!!!!!!!! vols1992 1992-1999 4 11-10-2002 05:10 PM


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 01:03 AM.


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.