Yes, you can use the self-aligning(guided) rockers on the '97 and older 2.2s. I reccomend you remove the guide plates, so that you dont have two items trying to guide the rocker arm, potentialy breaking the push rod. Such as, if there is any misalignment or the pushrod deflects and the guide plate moves the rocker tip one direction and the self-aligning tip fights against the guide plate, causing damage.
The shimming of the studs is to ensure there is sufficiant thread engaugement on the poly-lock nuts.
Okay, that makes sense now. So there's nothing special about the pushrod themselves, right? I can use the standard size pieces?
You should be able to use stock pushrods. If you have any questions concerning the proper pushrod length read
this, from Comp Cams.
MadJack wrote:ARP's are them most economical and will just crew in place of the stock studs.
Actually, I believe you said the GM V6 studs were the cheapest
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
OHV notec wrote:MadJack wrote:ARP's are them most economical and will just crew in place of the stock studs.
Actually, I believe you said the GM V6 studs were the cheapest
Actually, that was in reference to the 3/8" top studs, as compared to the Crane studs($$$).
Hey Jack... i've also noticed shaft-mounted rocker conversions in my digging...... Now i'm guessing that most if not all of these wouldnt work because the rocker spacing wouldn't be the same from the SBC to a 2200? They're pricey as hell too, but supposedly offer even less friction than the needle bearing rockers? Just wanted to know your thoughts since you're undoubtedly the most knowledgeable when it comes to the OHV configuration... I'm still learning and all of these great posts make me feel like a total newb sometimes lol.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
No there isn't any shaft mounted rockers for the 2.2/2200's that I know of.
The biggest advantage to the shaft mounted rocker systems is valve train stability. They work really well where really radical cam profiles are used. The loads placed on stud mounted rockers with really high lift mechanical cams (roller or flat) can actually deflect the studs enough to lose some lift, or cause serious harmonics. These deflections and harmonicscan break thing, such as rocker arms, rocker studs, pushrods, valve stems, springs, etc... I seriously doubt that anyone will be building a 2.2/2200 with such a radical cam as to warrent shaft mounted rockers.
Here's a picture I scanned from the 1994-95 Crane Cams Catalog concerning the rocker arm typs used on the small bock Chevy and 2.2/2200s. Note: the dates are not correct for the 2.2/2200 motors, the '97 and older used the rocker set-up on the left, while the center is similar to the '98+ 2200s and the one on the right is an aftermarket rocker (such as the Crane Gold Race).
I'm intrigued by the "self-aligning can't be used with mechanical cams." Is this just referring to the aggressive grinds, or is it something else? Would it be okay for someone to use them on our stock cam with a solid bodied lifter? (I know there's no reason to use a solid lifter on a stock cam, but just asking)
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
I would think it has to do with the possibility of "lauching" the valve off the roller tip and the rocker arm turning and not lining up with the valve tip when they come back together. That and the self-aligning guides may not be able to handle some on the side loading that may occur with a mechanical cams valve spring rates.
Here's another thread being brought back for the depths!
Doing some looking around and I found this:
Harland Sharp 1.65:1 Roller Rockers!
According to
Harland Sharp they will fit the centerbolt SBCs, which means it's a narrow body rocker arm, so it will fit the 2.2L. This is not a self-alighning tip, so it won't fit the 2200, unless you can fabricate a set of guide plates, such as Hotrod V6 did. To use this on the 2.2L you will have to clearance the guideplate a little further than the guide plates for the 1.6:1 rockers.
These will give you .4752" lift with the stock 2.2L cam. On my Crane regrind it will give me .482" lift. I think I might have found the rocker arms to go with my spring, lock and retainers.
Now to find my guide plates!
Where did I put those things?
Wow, awesome find! They look like quality pieces too (I think the Proforms look a little cheap)
Also, I have an extra set of guideplates if you need them.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
How much of a difference will the 1.65 versions make compared to the 1.6? I'm still intrigued by this, Jack. I've really been studying up on this stuff. It's all your fault!!
And for that I thank you.
.288*1.6=.461
.288*1.65=.475
.475-.461-.014" lift difference.
It's not worth trading up if you already have some good 1.6's, but if you haven't gotten anything yet, and can afford to spend a little more, these are that much better (remember that we still don't know where the stock 2.2L spring binds...).
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Like Notec said, Not worht it if you already have the 1.6s, but if you haven't gotten any rockers yet, it would be worth while. In my case I have to get new rockers before I can install my springs(K-Motion K-700s), 10 degree retainers(K-750) and 10 degree locks( Manley 13171-8). I'll have to go back to a 3/8" pushrod (Manley 25822-8 for $92.69 from Summit).
Yeah all this will be expensive, but I'm trying to build a Bullit Proof valve train. In fact, I'm looking to build a new head with the +1mm valves, with a more agressive P&P and surfaced a little bit more. By the time I get the rockers and pushrods, all I'll need is the studs and valves to build the new head. It will probably be a while before I start on it, though. Ahhh, the never ending cycle in the quest for MORE!!!!!
Ok notec, you seem to know a lot about valves/springs/rockers/p&p. I'm shooting for 350hp with a 3800 supercharger custom intake mounted, and 4-1 exhaust mani.
i'm thinking a slightly agressive p&p with 1.65 rockers, p&p, using the 3800 sc with the stock ssei 3800 tb on it.
My question really is though, would this be best, or should i not go for +1mm valves and 5 angle job.
C Smyth wrote:Ok notec, you seem to know a lot about valves/springs/rockers/p&p. I'm shooting for 350hp with a 3800 supercharger custom intake mounted, and 4-1 exhaust mani.
i'm thinking a slightly agressive p&p with 1.65 rockers, p&p, using the 3800 sc with the stock ssei 3800 tb on it.
My question really is though, would this be best, or should i not go for +1mm valves and 5 angle job.
First, I can't stress enough (and I say this A LOT), if you're planning on driving this on the street fairly regularly, DON'T have a 5-angle done. The difference from a 3-angle on a boosted engine won't even be noticeable (an NA beast may be different), and the 5-angle would have to be redone more often, which means more $$$ and downtime.
So, a fairly aggressive p&p, +1mm valves (if running a blower you should plan on running stainless valves regardless) w/ seat widening & a 3-angle, and 1.65:1 rockers would be a good combo. The more of these you do, the more air you'll flow, and you'll be able to produce more power with less boost (and less heat). And if you're looking to use a roots blower to make 350hp on this little engine, you'll need every bit of help you can get.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
It's not so much the nuber of angles that determines how often you need the valve seats redone, but the valve seat margin and the top and bottom cut angles. The purpose of a multi-angle valve job is to reduce the angularity of the turns for the air/fuel mixture has to make entering the combustion chamber. The lesser the angle the greater the flow velocity and volume.
The standard valve seat margins(the width of the valve seating area) is genreally .060"-.080" for street performance use and as small as .035" for race motors. The valve seat margine is resposible for absorbing the heat from the valve and distributes the valve closing impact. The greater the valve seat margin the greater the surface area to absorb the heat and distribute the closing forces, the smaller the margin the less area to absorb the heat and disipate the load, hence, the possibility of a burnt valve and faster valve and seat wear.
The top and bottom cut angles can impart more wear by, incrasing the sharpness of the margin. For a street 3 angle valve jog the top cut is typically 30 deg with a 45 degree seat angle and a 60 degree bottom cut. for racing applications the may be as great as 15-20 deg top cut and a 70-75 deg bottom cut.
A 5 angle valve job will usually add an adittional cut between the top and bottom cuts of a grater angle valve job. To do this they must reduce the valve margin or use a valve seat with a narrower throat(which reduces the throat diameter and restricts the volume of airflow).
A newer type of valve seat cutter is slowely gaing in popularity is the continuois radius valve seat cutter. It provides a good medium between the multiangle valve job and the seat margin. As it's name implies, it uses a continuous radius to help with the transitional air/fuel flow from the intake runner to the combustion chamber. The cutters are more complex(read more expensive to buy and use) and the shops generally need multiple cutters, with different radiuses, to do the different heads. Only some of the better shops have started using these cutters, generally at a higher price. The continuous radius provides the smoothest transition, but the greater seat margin, the greater the flow impeadance. A .060" margin usually will not hinder the flow too much, but will slightly increase the wear so the valve and seat over that of a .080" margin. Either cut will still wear at about the same rate as a good 3 angle job, but as they wear more, the greater air/fuel flow impeadance. The problem lies in that the further you wear into the seat, the greater the angle becomes between the top and bottom cuts compared to the seat angle.
If you have a shop that can do this, that is what i reccomend. I think it's the best balance between flow and durability. It's what I had done to my head.
MadJack wrote:The greater the valve seat margin the greater the surface area to absorb the heat and distribute the closing forces, the smaller the margin the less area to absorb the heat and disipate the load, hence, the possibility of a burnt valve and faster valve and seat wear.
This is what I was going off of, since most poeple won't use irregualr angles.
MadJack wrote:A newer type of valve seat cutter is slowely gaing in popularity is the continuois radius valve seat cutter.
These are really cool, I wish I had this option, but I don't know of any shops around here that have this capability.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
I would think that there would be somebody in the Phenix area that would have them?
I don't know, I haven't really asked around, but the two most popular shops with the muscle car guys don't.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
don't take this word of gospel but I have heard you can use the 1.8 rr's of ls1's with some fabricating
as for everything else, the 2200's come with 1.6rr's so buying and installing 1.6 or anything less is a waste of time and money IMO
those 1.65 's don't sound like such a bad idea though. I really wish somebody just MADE damn rr's for our cars
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
when you beat someone in a civic people wine and make excuses
when you beat someone in a cavalier they pull over and check under thier hoods
NUTCASE . wrote:don't take this word of gospel but I have heard you can use the 1.8 rr's of ls1's with some fabricating
as for everything else, the 2200's come with 1.6rr's so buying and installing 1.6 or anything less is a waste of time and money IMO
those 1.65 's don't sound like such a bad idea though. I really wish somebody just MADE damn rr's for our cars
Then you must not have read the LS1 rocker arm thread, or this one for that matter...Narrow-bodied rockers ONLY.
As for the "waste of time", once again, you must not have read these threads. If you had you would realize that the 2200 rockers spec'd out at 1.54:1, and that aftermarket full roller rockers will give you a lower moment of inertia, further reduced friction, and a much more accurate rocker ratio.
And why in the world would someone go through all the R&D to produce something for our motors when they would get 10 sales at most, and end up losing money? Please come back to reality. We've got plenty of rockers that work, what's the problem?
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
OHV notec wrote:NUTCASE . wrote:don't take this word of gospel but I have heard you can use the 1.8 rr's of ls1's with some fabricating
as for everything else, the 2200's come with 1.6rr's so buying and installing 1.6 or anything less is a waste of time and money IMO
those 1.65 's don't sound like such a bad idea though. I really wish somebody just MADE damn rr's for our cars
Then you must not have read the LS1 rocker arm thread, or this one for that matter...Narrow-bodied rockers ONLY.
As for the "waste of time", once again, you must not have read these threads. If you had you would realize that the 2200 rockers spec'd out at 1.54:1, and that aftermarket full roller rockers will give you a lower moment of inertia, further reduced friction, and a much more accurate rocker ratio.
And why in the world would someone go through all the R&D to produce something for our motors when they would get 10 sales at most, and end up losing money? Please come back to reality. We've got plenty of rockers that work, what's the problem?
dude, cool your jets
first off I have modded several cars that have gone 12's and faster. changing out a stock roller rocker for an aftermarket one of the same ratio will not make you ANY FASTER. this has been tried time and time again both on the engine dyno, chassis dyno and on the track. the most improvement I have ever heard of by swiching out a stock roller rocker for a aftermarket of the same ratio was less than 2 hp. and thats on an engine dyno.
as far as someone making them specifically for our motors notice I said "I wish" I did not say someone MUST or HAS TO or I WOULD NOT REST IN PEACE UNTIL......so there is no breaching of reality here. almost all of my projects have involved pirating some part from a different car or motor for better preformance at one time or the other so don't tell me "whats the problem"
and as for you 1.54rr's on the 2200 motors here ya go
http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/2200/2200.htm look about halfway down where it talks about VALVE SYSTEM
the 1.54's were on the 97 and earlier 2.2's
I don't mind arguing and having to look up stuff I havent seen in forever to prove my point but, and I can take some sarcasm too, but I think you are getting a bit insulting on a subject for which you are WRONG
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
when you beat someone in a civic people wine and make excuses
when you beat someone in a cavalier they pull over and check under thier hoods
and by the way, for the ls1 rockers, I even said it would take fabbing, and I said "don't take this for gospel" becouse I wasant sure and I wanted to get that out in the open.
so busting me on that and not just saying "your wrong dude" was kind of retarded
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
when you beat someone in a civic people wine and make excuses
when you beat someone in a cavalier they pull over and check under thier hoods
