That might be quite a bit much to remove from those bars, but nothing stopping you from having the link bars made from some flat bar sock.
Yeah, thats one thing i had forgot to check before i took my engine to Cometic. But i just took the stock plastic lifter holder, and set it on my 4.3 engine block from my GT and the V6 has the same lifter spacing as a standard SBC. And well its way off. Not sure if you could grind the link bars to allow the lifters to be closer together or not.
Heres a pic so you can see what it looks like.
Mike
1992 GMC Sonoma GT #492. Oh, Its just a stock V6!
1999 Cavalier Coupe, daily driver, 2200/M5. Mods and pics are in my registry.
Sombody Needs to Make me a cool Sig, Because im Sig Challenged!
Support the site that supports your habit, Go Premium.
Im premium since January, but why doesnt it say that?????
By the looks you'll have to make the link bars or have them made. That shouldn't be too hard or too expensive, especially for what you've done and are doing.
Quote:
The diagram of the 2.0L(pg 2-9) that was posted above doesn't show the lifter centerlines on our blocks
Quote:
but I read an inch on the dot center to center...far from the SBC
Doh! I forgot about the dimensions in the buildup article. On P. 2-9, picture of the block, LH side shows a measurement of roughly 26.0 mm from rearmost edge of rearmost lifter to rearmost edge of next lifter. (It's actually from two other points, but the lines appear to coincide nicely with the lifter bore edges.) Center - to - center distance should be the same. Providing the diagram accurately reflects where the measurements are taken, we're looking at 1.02362." center - to - center. That's close enough to look like 1" when eyeballing.
I really wish I had a roller 2.2 block here. There must be a way to use the Chebby high performance hydraulic rollers in there. Maybe some custom made alignment plates? Then again, depending on the shape and size of the tie bar, moving one hole approximately 1/2" and regrinding the end of the bar may not be too much work.
Also, HotRodV6, were you able to get a damper and tensioner for the timing chain?
-->Slow
Good cacth, Slowlej. I was looking at the lifter center line crosses, not the edge-to-edge measurement on the other side of the diagram!
As far as using the Chevy HP hydraulic roller lifters, you should be able to get some link bars made at most any tool and machine shop and pushrods made by any cam manufacterer. In fact as far as the link bars are concerned, a good shop should be able to cut the stock SBC bars down to the 2.2L centerlines and weld them up.
slowolej wrote:HotRodV6, were you able to get a damper and tensioner for the timing chain?
-->Slow
Well all i have so far is the timing se, which has the crank gear, cam gear timing chain and i believe it has one more piece in the box, il lay everything out and take a pew pics of in the morning. Also, the box has a date on it from when it was made, 7/96 i think is what it was, its beeen sitting around awhile.
Mike
1992 GMC Sonoma GT #492. Oh, Its just a stock V6!
1999 Cavalier Coupe, daily driver, 2200/M5. Mods and pics are in my registry.
Sombody Needs to Make me a cool Sig, Because im Sig Challenged!
Support the site that supports your habit, Go Premium.
Im premium since January, but why doesnt it say that?????
Also, im thinking i can just cut the link bars in half, put the lifters in and see how much i have to trim the bars, and then just wled them back together, like i did with the guideplates. There is not a lot of stree on the link bars, so with a good spot weld all around and then grind it smooth, it should hold up just fine.
thats what im going to do, now just to figure out weather or not i want to go solid or hydralic, im thinking solid for better valvetrain control and more power.
Mike
1992 GMC Sonoma GT #492. Oh, Its just a stock V6!
1999 Cavalier Coupe, daily driver, 2200/M5. Mods and pics are in my registry.
Sombody Needs to Make me a cool Sig, Because im Sig Challenged!
Support the site that supports your habit, Go Premium.
Im premium since January, but why doesnt it say that?????
Although it sounds cool to have larger rocker ratio's an what not... It really sounds like getting a custom ground cam would be a more economical and easier way to go about getting higher lift...
Not to rain on the parade.
OP wrote:Although it sounds cool to have larger rocker ratio's an what not... It really sounds like getting a custom ground cam would be a more economical and easier way to go about getting higher lift...
Not to rain on the parade.
almost every shop including lingenfelter and howell automotive suggested that was the way to go...granted both work.
OP wrote:Although it sounds cool to have larger rocker ratio's an what not... It really sounds like getting a custom ground cam would be a more economical and easier way to go about getting higher lift...
Not to rain on the parade.
Isn't there a limit to the 'steepness' of the 'slope' on a cam (from base to peak)?
If so, I would think higher ratio rockers would definately be the way to go with a turbo motor for the short (stock) duration and high lift...
Keep going on the lifters guys, I was planning on using these Melling pieces I have here, but a solid lifter would be pretty sweet. Let me know if you need any more measurements or whatever.
<img src=http://hometown.aol.com/yogiandbooboo7/images/french.jpg>
It work on not just boosted motor, but also N/A motors as well. The faster opening valve allows the air/fuel charge to begin move into the cylinder sooner and more quickly without a large gain in the duration the valve is open. The added lift allows for a more complete filling of the cylinder, the valve is open further during nearly the same druation of time and there is less obtsruction for that charge to get into the cylinder. This results in a denser charge from each intake cycle. It also works on the same priciple on the exhaust stroke, allowing the cylinder to bleed down more quickly and completely, so the is less contamination of the next intake charge.
The net result is more torque and horsepower across the entire operating range of the cam.
Maximum ramp depends on variables. Most important areas are beginning of ramp and end of lobe. Flat hudraulic lifters get least agressive cam profiles. Flat solids come next. I've seen guys run hydraulics at "zero lash" on solid lifter cams in racing classes restricted to hydraulic lifters. Larger diameter lifters can handle larger ramps (Ford lifters are used in Nascar Chevy's because of this), as can a larger base circle on the cam. Most reground performance cams have a smaller base circle. Higher valve spring pressure reduces the acceleration and deceleration rates possible to some extent.
Larger rocker ratios can be an economical way to increase lift compared to the cost of cam, lifters, gaskets, and time to make a cam swap. Larger ratios multiply both ways, though. While lift is multiplied at the valve, spring pressure is also multiplied at the lifter.
Roller lifters can handle more pressure and generally have high acceleration rates which generate large lift with fairly small duration. Rollers end much of the balance game played by cam grinders making high lift cams for flat tappets. Hydraulic rollers get slightly lower acceleration rates than solid rollers. Cams made for hydraulic rollers work with solid or hydraulic roller lifters. Cams made for solid lifters may not work well with hydraulics at higher engine rpm.
There's a ton of design in proper cam grinding. It's actually good reading understanding how cam lobe profile affects engine operation. There's a whole lot more than lift n duration to a camshaft.
-->Slow
Very well put Slowlej.
The cam's profile and design, is litterally the heart and brains of the engine, it affects all aspects of how the motor operates; peak torque, peak RPM, peak HP, and powerband the engine operates best.
There are so many variables that go into a cams profile that affect the way a motor operates,type of cam(solid/mechanical, hydraulic, hyd. roller, mech. roller) lobe lift, seat duration, duration @ 0.050, ramp rates, intake centerline, lobe centers/overlap,etc... Selecting a cam is a very difficult choice, thats why I recommend that novice engine builders talk to the cam manufacturers to help them select a cam. The cam can literally make or break an engine!
This is not to say the cam is the only part to make an engine, but it has an effect on all the other parts that go into an engine.
My way of building an engine is to first decide on the primary use of that engine and it's operating range. After that I will do the research on what cams are available, to include talking to the cam manufacturers and finding out what they recomend, be it over the counter grinds or custom grinds. I'll then make my decision on which cam to use, and then start to select the other parts to use on the rest of the engine by where the power band falls with that cam.
any more info about the LS1 rockers?
Kardain wrote:Tonite on Fox:
When X's attack
well i just got my engine back from Cometic, and will be getting it back on the stand and back to work on the rockers and what not.
I have ordered the crane rockers from summit and should have had them by now, but now they are saying nov 11th i think. I sure hope crane doesnt decide to not make them anymore.
I have everything else pretty much figured out.
Comp Cams 185 or 1.75 LS1 rocker arms---direct from comp
Comp Cams 26918 valve single valve springs---direct from comp
Del West Titanium Valve spring retainers---ebay
Del west Titanium Valve Keepers for 7mm valves---ebay
SI Stainless Steel valves for a 95-97 2.2 1mm oversize---SI Valves direct
Stock 2200 valve seals----local parts store
Crane 60 degree V6 Solid Roller Lifters----Summit (if they ever get here)
Custom length Comp 3/8 pushrods--wont know what length until i have the cam and lifters and rockers mocked in place.
Comp Cams LS1 Screw in rocker studs---direct from comp
Comp Cams LS1 Guidplates, custom modified by myself to work on the 2200---direct from comp
I used the 95-97 valves becasue they were longer then the 98+ 2200 valves and the LS1 springs require a 1.80 installed height, and the stock installed height of the 98+ 2200 is 1.60. with the 95-97 valves the installed height will be 1.720 and you have to machine the valve seat down an additional .080 to get to the 1.80 installed height on the intake valve.
On the exhaust valve with the 95-97 valve the installed height will be 1.742 and you have to machine down the seat .058 to get to the 1.80 needed.
Im fairly confident that the 2200 head has enough material to be machined on, and still be plenty strong. And the 1.80 installed height is good for up to .600 lift.
Like i said before STOCK LS1 ROCKERS WILL NOT FIT THE 2200 HEAD, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WILL BUT THEY WILL NOT, THE GEOMETRY WILL BE WAY OFF, EVEN WITH CUSTOM LENGTH PUSHRODS.
Now some of you will say why go thru all that when you can get the crane rockers from Howell, and my answer is that in the begining i was trying to get more out of the stock cam in my car now, but as you can see it turned out to be not so easy, but on the built motor i want to run more RPM so this will be a nice setup for high RPM stability up to 7K should be no problem.
Mike
1992 GMC Sonoma GT #492. Oh, Its just a stock V6!
1999 Cavalier Coupe, daily driver, 2200/M5. Mods and pics are in my registry.
+
That pretty much says it all.
Support the site that supports your habit, Go Premium.
Well i just checked on my order for the 60 degree V6 Solid Roller LIfters thru summit and they originally said October 26th theyed be in and then they changed it to Nov 11th and now there website says 12/8.
I sure hope Crane hasnt decided to stop making these. I may give them a call in the morning to verify.
Mike
1992 GMC Sonoma GT #492. Oh, Its just a stock V6!
1999 Cavalier Coupe, daily driver, 2200/M5. Mods and pics are in my registry.
+
That pretty much says it all.
Support the site that supports your habit, Go Premium.
HotRodV6 wrote:Well i just checked on my order for the 60 degree V6 Solid Roller LIfters thru summit and they originally said October 26th theyed be in and then they changed it to Nov 11th and now there website says 12/8.
I sure hope Crane hasnt decided to stop making these. I may give them a call in the morning to verify.
Ouch, that sucks. I still haven't ordered mine...stupid Audi POS engines...
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Quote:
HotRodV6
Yesterday 2:11 AM
Well i just checked on my order for the 60 degree V6 Solid Roller LIfters thru summit and they originally said October 26th theyed be in and then they changed it to Nov 11th and now there website says 12/8.
I think they do that on a special order basis
in otherwords, if you order it today you'll get it by then or something cuz I ordered the correct rocker studs for my OHV and the date for them kept changing too.... when you order it is when they order it i'm pretty sure.
ok guys i read over this thread like twoce now and still alil confused so let me ask this!
im gonna be gettin the head port and polished this winter. now my question is can i just use these rockers
http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?lang=-1&catalogId=10002&storeId=10001&categoryId=13701 the 1.6 ratio and 3/8" stud and will they work by them selves or do i need to change a few other parts too?
also will i see a gain in power if i just change the rockers and thats it?
sorry if im asking stupid questions im just really confused, and thanks for all answers left!
jbody customs~Chris Leight wrote:ok guys i read over this thread like twoce now and still alil confused so let me ask this!
im gonna be gettin the head port and polished this winter. now my question is can i just use these rockers http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?lang=-1&catalogId=10002&storeId=10001&categoryId=13701 the 1.6 ratio and 3/8" stud and will they work by them selves or do i need to change a few other parts too?
also will i see a gain in power if i just change the rockers and thats it?
sorry if im asking stupid questions im just really confused, and thanks for all answers left!
You cant run those rockers, they would require guideplates as the are not self aligning, and if you are thinking about those rockers you would be way better off just keeping the stock rockers.
Either the Crane Gold Race rockers from Howell, the Comp Cams rockers im using require a guideplate which no body makes for the 2200 head. The Howell rockers are really the best deal money wise, as you get everything you need and they are cheaper than the Comp setup, and are proven to work and be reliable.
The stockl rockers have a roller Fulcrum and not a roller tip, the crane ones you linked have a roller tip but no roller fulcrum, and are not self aligning, but the fulcrum has the most friction of everything so the factory roller fulcrum would work much better, there really isnt that much friction on the valve stem, not much surface area there.
If i didnt have so much time and money invested in trying to get the Comp LS1 rockers to work, i would just go with the crane setup that i had on the car, works great and a deffinate power increase. If i had to do all over again, i would go that route 100%.
Mike
1992 GMC Sonoma GT #492. Oh, Its just a stock V6!
1999 Cavalier Coupe, daily driver, 2200/M5. Mods and pics are in my registry.
+
That pretty much says it all.
Support the site that supports your habit, Go Premium.
Hey Mike, i might have missed it, but are you already sure that the V6 roller lifters will fit, or did you get them with the intent of making them fit? It appears as if I'll be inheriting DaFlyinSkwirl's OHV motor and since I'm a glutton for punishment i'm going to be doing an all motor buildup. It would seem that solid lifters will be the way to go for max power since they allow more aggressive cams and such, at the cost of more noise and more frequent lash adjustment, right? This will be the first time I've really built a motor and will be a long term project but I wanted to bring this up before this thread got lost again since there's so much good info here.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Scarab (Jersey Jay 1.8T) wrote:Hey Mike, i might have missed it, but are you already sure that the V6 roller lifters will fit, or did you get them with the intent of making them fit? It appears as if I'll be inheriting DaFlyinSkwirl's OHV motor and since I'm a glutton for punishment i'm going to be doing an all motor buildup. It would seem that solid lifters will be the way to go for max power since they allow more aggressive cams and such, at the cost of more noise and more frequent lash adjustment, right? This will be the first time I've really built a motor and will be a long term project but I wanted to bring this up before this thread got lost again since there's so much good info here.
Yeah sombody else posted up that the 60 degree V6 lifters are the same diameter and spacing and wil drop right in on the 2.2/2200 block. They just had to grind the top og the lifter a very small amount so the pushrid had cleaerance, and then with these lifter you will not reuse the stock plastic lifter holders and will have to mesure for custom length pushrods.
And no i dont believe the comp rockers im going to be using will fit under the stock cover once the valves are.200 taller and the studs and pushrods are all .200 taller also, thats why i want to get the Moroso cover, but Moroso needs a 98+ 2200 head in order to make the cover. I have been wanting to call Howell and talk to them about it, as i want to order the moroso oil pan also, and i figure id just order them at the sem time, but right now i dont have that kind of money.
Why are you inheriting flyingsquirrels engine? Is he selling his car oir whats the deal??
Mike
1992 GMC Sonoma GT #492. Oh, Its just a stock V6!
1999 Cavalier Coupe, daily driver, 2200/M5. Mods and pics are in my registry.
+
That pretty much says it all.
Support the site that supports your habit, Go Premium.
Quote:
It would seem that solid lifters will be the way to go for max power since they allow more aggressive cams and such, at the cost of more noise and more frequent lash adjustment, right?
You're talking about solid rollers, correct? You don't want to replace a hydraulic roller with a solid flat tappet. The only reason to do this would be lack of camshaft availability.
Quote:
Why are you inheriting flyingsquirrels engine? Is he selling his car oir whats the deal??
What he said.
-->Slow
slowolej wrote:Quote:
It would seem that solid lifters will be the way to go for max power since they allow more aggressive cams and such, at the cost of more noise and more frequent lash adjustment, right?
You're talking about solid rollers, correct? You don't want to replace a hydraulic roller with a solid flat tappet. The only reason to do this would be lack of camshaft availability.
Quote:
Why are you inheriting flyingsquirrels engine? Is he selling his car oir whats the deal??
What he said.
-->Slow
Right. Hydraulic / roller valvetrain is the way to go.
I was a retard, and now I'm permanently banned.
