well i've been watching this thread becuase i also have a 2200. I wanted to keep it a secret, but i will also be building the underdawg, hopefully, iw ill have it done by spring, if not by fall '06

couple things i've been think of, 8.5:1,.020" overbore, nice flowing p&p, balanced and blueprinted, possibly raising the redline since i have megasquirt, and lots of boost.. I only want around 250whp, which is easily done

1. Silver Steak. N20 02 2200 - hopefully Spring 06
2. stevefire. t3'd 96 2.2L - Spring 06
3. Spotabee Racing. Everything 02 2200 Getrag - Fall of 06 or Spring of 07
4. Phlatcav. fully built, direct port n20 02 2200- spring 06
5. notec. built and boosted
6. Lee. t3'd 13.5psi daily 300whp, minor bottom end & full P&P top end - 2200 Getrag06
7. Juice pushrods. 10.50-75:1 built ohv direct port No2 2200 -summer 06
8. Volumeking333(Ryan)- MS, 8.5:1, .020"overbore, p&p and BOOST- Spring 2006

Well, I checked out the old LS1 rocker thread, and found this:

slowolej wrote:Cams made for hydraulic rollers work with solid or hydraulic roller lifters

Thought that was ironic given today's news.

Anyway, I think I'm going to try modifying the link bar on some SBC roller lifters.
But, does anyone think hydraulic rollers could stand 8000rpm? Or am I going to have to go with a mechanical roller cam and lifters?

Also, anyone know if SI ever produced stainless valves for the older 8mm LN2? This would allow use of Ti LS1 retainers and locks...



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.

if you want a 8000 RPM pushrod motor, you better not use hydraulic anything. all roller valvetrain




I was a retard, and now I'm permanently banned.

Though I don't have the experience that Crane has, I'll stand by what I said. In my experience the Crane info is much more applicable to flat tappet lifters (it doesn't specify what type). Roller cams are a completely different game than flat tappets. Just consider that OEM and aftermarket alike will tell you it's ok to re-use roller lifters and/ or cams, where flat tappets get married to a cam after only little run time.

When putting a mechanical roller lifter on a hydraulic cam you're left to decide for yourself what valve lash to use. It's always made sense to me to use smaller values since the hydraulic lifter is always in contact with the pushrod. Values like .006" and .008" hot seem to work well. On the other side of the coin I've seen "loose" factory hydraulic roller systems with noticeable lash (more than .006") last for hundreds of thousands of miles. They beat the cam up just as much as a loose solid roller will. I also know that at least one cam maker is selling the same lobe profile for both types of cams.

-->Slow

OHV notec, as you've stated earlier about the cam selection, it is a difficult thing to decided on. Allot of factors need to go into the selection, first and foremost being the application.

As you've stated you are going for a 7K rpm boosted motor, first I was looking at the RPM Band you would need and compared them to the SBC intake grinds, to determine the RPM band. There is something to remember when comparing to the SBC profiles and that is that our smaller motors will turn approximately 400-500 more RPMs than a SBC, because of the smaller cylinder displacement. That's why I chose the intake duration that I did. I could have gone to the next duration longer, but I prefer to air on the milder side, especially if it is a street driven motor. Another thing I took into consideration is that the head, even P&Ped, seem to max out on the air flow around 0.480" to 0.500" valve lift. Looking at the way the J Tuners Competition Head flow is starting to drop off at the 0.450" lift level and the flow chart some one posted a while ago posted, the airflow leveled out around this lift range. So pretty much, anything above about 0.500" valve lift, is unnecessary strain being put on the valve train.

The exhaust profile is a little easier to choose from this point. Being boosted you want about 8-12deg more exhaust duration and more lift too bleed off the extra exhaust gasses. I selected the +8 deg profile, because our motors are pretty well balanced as far as the I/E flow ratio (exhaust should be 80-85% of intake and ours are at 85.

The lobe separation angle (LSA) is pretty easy to choose here also. Our motors come with a 114deg LSA, this creates a broad torque band and smoother idle. On a boosted motor you want a wider LSA, so that the boost isn't pushed out the exhaust, wasting the A/F charge.

Finally the reason I listed the HR1, HR3 and SR series that these profile are appropriate for computer controled motor (with knock sensors) and how easily they seat the valve, to prevent valve seat wear. Lobe size code B is the same lobe design that the SBC uses and our motors use also.

Wow, look what happens to me when I get on a good topic!

I for got about the lifters capabilities.

Typically stock hydraulic (flat or roller) lifters are only good to 6000 to 6500 rpm. Aftermarket high performance/racing hydraulic lifters can often handle up to 7000 to 7200 rpm with the proper valve train, ie., springs, light weight retainers, rockers and valves. You would think that pushrods should be light weight also, but they need to be stronger, to prevent deflection, which reduces lift and creates a spring effect, allowing the valve to slam closed.

I would reccomend that you change the lifter's plunger spring for a heavier spring or use the JBP lifters, if you want to stay with the hydralic roller lifters.

The problem with the mechanical lifter plunger in a hydraulic lifter body is there will be added wheight, because of the chuck of metal the plunger is made of. Also the oil metering would need to be addressed. Too much oil to the top end would starve the rod and main bearings of much needed oil. Too little oil to the top would cause a lack of lubrication to the rockers and lack of oil to cool the valve springs, which is extreamly critical to the springs life.

I'm going to call Dave Maxwell to inquire about the V6 roller lifters. I'll let you know what comes of it.

Alright, thanks guys. Right now I'm thinking about taking a lifter over to the machine shop and having them see what the stiffest plunger spring they can stick in there is...although I'd love to have some SBC lifters with the link bars for a little added safety...have to think about it and do a little economic analysis.

Madjack, that expansion on your recomended cam selection helped a lot. After the other post I was just kind of going "okay, but why?..." Makes more sense now.
I'm not sure how wild the port job is on the Jtuners heads, but I'll definately have mine flowed before cam selection (I just need to decide if I want to use the 7mm or 8mm head...)



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.

Make sure that the head still has the raised ridge in the exhaust port. Removing that ridge actually hurts flow numbers when the exhaust is connected. I've noticed some pictures of ported heads which don't seem to include that ridge.

I believe that the guides for the 8mm valves can be force fit into the 7mm head. I just happen to be going to the machine shop with a 2.2OHV head in the near future so I can check.

Madjack, if you never found the dimensions you need for the older retainers, I'll try to check on those also. There's absolutely nothing in my books at home and I can't locate an older head to take measurements.

-->Slow

slowolej wrote:Make sure that the head still has the raised ridge in the exhaust port. Removing that ridge actually hurts flow numbers when the exhaust is connected. I've noticed some pictures of ported heads which don't seem to include that ridge.

I believe that the guides for the 8mm valves can be force fit into the 7mm head. I just happen to be going to the machine shop with a 2.2OHV head in the near future so I can check.

Funny, I was just in the garage looking at one of the heads, and wondering if I should remove the ridge. I don't know what effect it would have on a turbo motor with a properly sized manifold and extreme amounts of exhaust flow. I know not much can be taken off the intake ports, as they are already almost identical to the gasket ports, so major improvement would have to be made on the exhaust side (which has itty-bitty ports). So, is there a point where the bumps would hinder flow? Should they be taken down if the rest of the port is opened up (a lot)? Also, I believe the 2200 has the bumps on the intake side, and the exhaust ports are even smaller (if that's possible).

What about 7mm valve guides in a OE 8mm head (the other way around)?

I should probably head to a parts store and pick up some parts samples (SBC lifter, 8mm guide, 8mm retainer, 2200 pushrod, SBC pushrod, SBC valvespring, and whatever else)



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.

god i love how OHV threads always tend to OVERFLOW with USEFUL information.... I guess it helps that being a pushrod engine, more of the "old timers" (pardon the expression guys) who are familiar with the SBC's and other V8's tend to get involved. I love reading these threads because I'm always learning something new. Keep it coming guys, hopefully I'll catch up and have a decent build by the summer time (i'm kinda still debating about boost or trying to set an all-motor record).




Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said

Well, I talked to Crane Cams, they wont be making the V6 roller lifters any more. With the work they are doing on the new motors coming out, the limited production run and the fact that they haven't made a set of those lifters in 6 years, they don't feel that making them would be profitable.

As far as porting the head, yes keep the flow vane (ridge) in the exhaust port. It's there to keep the exhaust velocity up and to prevent reversion (back flow). The bigest improvement in a port job, comes from the bowl blend just above the hardend valve seat and around the valve guides in the port area, keeping in mind the fluid flow and the direction of flow. Reduce the amount of material around the guide and shape it kinda like an airplane wing, rounded at the frontal area and tapered afterward.

Scarab, no offence taken! I've done alot of work on the OHV engines over the years, SBC, BBC, 60&90 deg V6, Pontiac "Iron Duke", and even(pardon my french) Ford's V8s and L6s(even currently doing a P&P on my brothers 351M, a full roller motor at that). I do have some experience with OHC motors, though not nearly as much as OHVs.

I'll add myself to the list, hopefully it will be completed around the end of 06 or the beginning of 07.

1. Silver Steak. N20 02 2200 - hopefully Spring 06
2. stevefire. t3'd 96 2.2L - Spring 06
3. Spotabee Racing. Everything 02 2200 Getrag - Fall of 06 or Spring of 07
4. Phlatcav. fully built, direct port n20 02 2200- spring 06
5. notec. built and boosted
6. Lee. t3'd 13.5psi daily 300whp, minor bottom end & full P&P top end - 2200 Getrag06
7. Juice pushrods. 10.50-75:1 built ohv direct port No2 2200 -summer 06
8. Volumeking333(Ryan)- MS, 8.5:1, .020"overbore, p&p and BOOST- Spring 2006
9. Sean McCoy - fully built, direct port n20

i left something out

1. Silver Steak. N20 02 2200 - hopefully Spring 06
2. stevefire. t3'd 96 2.2L - Spring 06
3. Spotabee Racing. Everything 02 2200 Getrag - Fall of 06 or Spring of 07
4. Phlatcav. fully built, 10:1, direct port n20 02 2200- spring 06
5. notec. built and boosted
6. Lee. t3'd 13.5psi daily 300whp, minor bottom end & full P&P top end - 2200 Getrag06
7. Juice pushrods. 10.50-75:1 built ohv direct port No2 2200 -summer 06
8. Volumeking333(Ryan)- MS, 8.5:1, .020"overbore, p&p and BOOST- Spring 2006
9. Sean McCoy - fully built, direct port n20

Quote:

god i love how OHV threads always tend to OVERFLOW with USEFUL information

I've always noticed that too. I'd say since late 04 things started really picking up info wise in posts for 2200s. I have a folder on my main computer than has just about every useful piece of info saved in it. Alot of stuff I haven't seen posted in over 4-5yrs that some might have forgotten or some just don't even know! I'll make a sticky one day.


N2O + Bolt-ons = 220Hp/250Tq

Coming Soon:HpTunersPro, EagleConnectingRods, WiescoPistons, 13sec2200

do eeeettttt!

mmmmmmm 2200 list going to be swwwweeeeeeettttttt....

mmmmmmm

Go Pushrods Go

PUSH I TELLS YA PUSH...

haha I like what I see already I can't wait to get this build off underway...

the only way it should count is if you have Videos, Dyno Numbers AND track times.....

just to weed out the non believers......

Lee


JDM Civic Hatch
Status: Parting Out Turbo Kit....
14.224 @ 102.01MPH @ 5.5psi.... 2.3 60'
Next: Civic JDM B16a2 w/GSR LSD Turbo - Goal 300whp 1400lbs...

sorry, this thread was originally for the 2200's, but I guess all of us pre 1998's wanted some attention too, lol.

ya it does say 2200 ... haha ....whatever....
damn 97's and such with there side feed... haha side feed...

Lee


JDM Civic Hatch
Status: Parting Out Turbo Kit....
14.224 @ 102.01MPH @ 5.5psi.... 2.3 60'
Next: Civic JDM B16a2 w/GSR LSD Turbo - Goal 300whp 1400lbs...

pre-98s OWN YOU
Well, I took the day off of work to study for my modern physics final tomorrow, but since I'm a procrastinator, I did something else instead. I finally found my JBP HD retainers and locks, so I did some assembly:




Phlatcav asked for someone else to post pics, so these are for you man.
This is going onto an engine I'm building up as a temporary project. I need something in the car to do a little fabbing and to wire up the EMS, so I figured I might as well have one that works Hoping to put it in summer/fall '06. (also going to try a 2200 head swap to see exactly what needs to be done...may be the easiest way to get top-feeds for everyone else...)
Head is mildly ported w/ 3-angle and has Mantapart springs, JBP HD retainers and locks, SI valves, and 1.6:1 V6 roller rockers. Apparently Chris K didn't feel like removing the rocker studs when I bought the head off of him, so I now have an extra set for the comp rockers. Block will have my Eagle rods (won't suffice for the 'real' engine) and some stock bore/cr Al pistons. I just need to find a block that is in decent shape so I can shove them in without machining.



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.

crap, I forgot, the point of making the post in the first place...
Assuming the valves are still good after a NASCAR race...I found some Ti valves that would be perfect for the next build. They would make it so that I could use some existing retainers (also Ti) and locks (which would otherwise have to be custom made) with the LS1 dual springs...and get the springs to an installed height of 1.790" (stock LS1 = 1.800", stock LN2=1.720"). The only thing is...they are a little over 3mm larger in diameter than the current exhaust valves, which places them closer to the edge of the combustion chamber (but still some room before touching). The head gasket leaves quite a bit of material on the head before the cc, so would it be safe to pull the edge of the cc out a tad to maintain adequate area around the valve?



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.

nice work man

stevefire wrote:nice work man

I agree...nothing like a little head

hrrrmmm, maybe someone can help me out a bit here.

I have JBP valvesprings + locks + retainers and Crane 1:6 rockers. Well with the JBP parts the roller on the rocker does not touch the end of the valvestem!!! Here are some pics of what im saying...





If I remove some material off the bottom of the rocker head where it is hitting the top of the retainer will i affect anything at all? I would assume that as long as the roller is untouched all would be fine? I also assume the unit of measure is based on the roller contacting the valvestem correct, so no ratio would change by grinding the sides down.

Help

Notec, watch getting too close to the cylinder wall, you could end up losing air flow from the cylinder wall shouding the valve. I know the valves are canted, like the BBC, but at low lift you could end up with shrouding. The low lift flow is more important than at high lift, thats where the exhaust cycle starts and it would disrupt the entire cycle.

The Del West 7mm locks are the best you can get, even if they are used NASCAR locks, there is still more life to them than our motors would ever use! Just make sure the ones you get are the standard installed hight, not the +0.050", unless you need the added hight for the springs you are using. I might end up having to use them myself, if the '91 & older retainers dimensions don't work out.

As far as the top feed conversion did you miss this?

Damn, it took me that long for that last post, I didn't see that PhlatCav! What valve locks are you using? what about your spring's installed hight? Looks like you might need the -0.050" locks or see if you can find some lash caps for the 7mm stems.