Roller Rockers - 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 11-19-2006, 03:47 PM   #1
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
67Goat is on a distinguished road
Default Roller Rockers

OK, still debating about which rockers to get. I'm between 1.8'*, 1.84'* and 1.9'*. Is there a link to comparison dyno figures on each. Someone was trying to talk me out of 1.9'* because they said it adds too much stress on the timing chain and tensioners. Anyone hear the same thing? I also heard that the 1.9'* barely make 5 hp more than the 1.8'* and less than that for torque? I'd like to make as much hp as possible without sacrificing reliability.
67Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2006, 03:55 PM   #2
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 34
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PURENVY is on a distinguished road
Default

Any time you up the spring rates it is going to put more stress on the timing chain and cause more wear on the tentioner. As far as HP per $$ I feel the 1.9 modded stockers are your best bet. If your heart is set on roller rockers then ZZP 1.84. I really don't feel the extra HP you get out of 1.9 or 1.95 roller rockers is worth the price of springs and retainers.

FYI fastest and most HP on stock cams have been on 1.9 modded stock rockers.
PURENVY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2006, 05:58 PM   #3
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
67Goat is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks - good point about the spring rates. Maybe I'll go with the 1.84'* with a fresh set of stock springs. Anyone have problems with valve float at 6000 rpm using this combo?
67Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2006, 08:34 PM   #4
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 34
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PURENVY is on a distinguished road
Default

That is the reason ZZP went with the 1.84 ratio... ZZP tested that to be the highest ratio without having to change springs so you don't have to worry about valve float.

As far as changing your stock springs - I wouldn't worry about it. Your stock springs have proven themselves already don't change something out that you don't have to.
PURENVY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2006, 09:25 PM   #5
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
chadow427 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PURENVY
FYI fastest and most HP on stock cams have been on 1.9 modded stock rockers.
I disagree. I know for a fact that Silverbullet and I run 1.9 roller'*, and I think Pdad does too. I swapped the springs too, it wasn't that bad.

I'm not sure about the power difference between the 1.9'* and 1.8'* though.....
chadow427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2006, 09:38 PM   #6
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 34
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PURENVY is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadow427
Quote:
Originally Posted by PURENVY
FYI fastest and most HP on stock cams have been on 1.9 modded stock rockers.
I disagree. I know for a fact that Silverbullet and I run 1.9 roller'*, and I think Pdad does too. I swapped the springs too, it wasn't that bad.
Do they have over 315 WHP? No Are they about to break into the 11'*? No

It look like they are not the fastest and don't have the most WHP.

My point being the HP you are going to gain from 1.9 modded stockers on stock springs to 1.9 roller rockers with springs and retainers is hardly anything if anything at all.

Even if their is gains to be had are they worth $190?

If I was going to do it I would do 1.9 modded stockers with stock springs. If you heart was set on roller rockers then ZZP 1.84 roller rockers on stock springs. If you were set on changing springs then I wouldn't do anything less then ZZP 1.95 roller rockers.
PURENVY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2006, 10:29 PM   #7
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 6,313
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PontiacDad is on a distinguished road
Default

I have a set of the original 1.9'* with over 50k on them now.
This was a nice upgrade and shaved a few tenths off my time.
I changed out the springs, retainers and rods.
Once you open up the valve train, for a few bucks more you can have peace of mind.
PontiacDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2006, 11:38 PM   #8
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 my opinion on it.

If your gonna go for the rollers, then obviously you are not that concerned about cost so you might as well just go with 1.95'* and do the whole package, spring, retainers, etc... Personally if I were gonna go that far (which I would if i were gonna do rollers) then I'd just get a cam instead. Would cost you the same (assuming you did your own install) and you'd get much greater gains.

However, the best power per dollar is modded stock 1.9'* and as far as reliability should be fine. With stock springs you'll probably be okay if you don't spin it over 5800, but I've seen many setups do much better than that. We have modded 1.9'* on the Monte Carlo and SSEi, both with stock springs, and I've never expereienced either car get float, both cars shift at 6000rpm. The SSEi is coming up on 180k on the clock too and the rockers have been in there since 70k. But if you do modded 1.9'* with 105lb. springs and retainers, you should be all set. It will be a reliable setup and shouldn't cause a whole lot of wear on the valvetrain.

As was already said, ALL of the top rocker cars have run modded stock rockers.

Shawn
dbtk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 12:21 AM   #9
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
chadow427 is on a distinguished road
Default

My bad....I tried my stock springs with the 1.9'* and it didn't work. I didn't know about the zzp 1.95'* either. I didn't get a cam because at the time I didn't know I was going to go that far, and I was a little intimidated about going that far into the engine.
chadow427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 01:19 AM   #10
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
67Goat is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, this car is my daily driver and the down time involved for a cam swap is not currently in the picture. Besides, with only 59k miles on the engine, I am not ready to start tearing it apart yet. If it had 159k, I would tear the whole thing down and start from scratch, but I am looking to get well over 100k before I have to take apart internals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacDad
I have a set of the original 1.9'* with over 50k on them now.
This was a nice upgrade and shaved a few tenths off my time.
I changed out the springs, retainers and rods.
Once you open up the valve train, for a few bucks more you can have peace of mind.
P dad - what brand 1.9'* are you running? To your knowledge, do you have any timing chain stretch or other issues? I was thinking of going with the 105 springs because the last thing I would ever want is a valve kissing my piston.

I know there are arguments out there saying that the 1.84 is the "perfect" ratio for stock springs, but if there are no reliability issues with 1.9 rollers, (I am definitely going with rollers) then I may as well go all the way while I'm doing the rockers. I have not heard of 1.95'* yet. I'm not overly familiar with building these Buick V-6'*, but that sounds like it is really pushing the valve train geometry just for an extra 2-3 hp, so unless someone has run those issue free for a long time, I'm staying at 1.9'* or less.
67Goat 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
WORKING ON ROLLER ROCKERS FOR THE SERIES 1 Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 40 01-12-2004 12:48 AM
FOR US 92 AND EARLIER SERIES 1 GUYS THAT WANT ROLLER ROCKERS Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 11 06-09-2003 08:58 PM
Roller Rockers. Dillon Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 41 05-25-2003 04:04 PM
ROLLER ROCKERS AND STAINLESS VALVES FOR SERIES 1 Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 13 02-27-2003 10:53 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 05:38 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.