2200 valve springs - Page 7 - Performance Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:59 AM
OHV notec wrote:2200-1.327" wide
Proform-1.515" wide
Garrin, I thought you had the 2.2L, not the 2200... Those studs are for the 2.2L (note the difference in thickness). PM me so we can get this sorted out.


Yeah both my cavs are 2200's. And that is a big difference in width if I were to just look at the dimensions alone, my guess would have been they would not work.


____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.




Re: 2200 valve springs
Saturday, April 15, 2006 5:34 PM
Well, the -.050" 10 deg 7mm locks (Manley 13171-8) have been ordered. They should be in some time after the 23rd of April. I'll still need to get some valve spring shims, which I'll be getting locally. I'm going to try to install the springs at 1.730", which will give me a seat pressure of 106 lbs. We'll see!





Re: 2200 valve springs
Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:45 AM
Good luck. If everything goes together well, could you possiblly measure the width of the Crane fulcrum, and the clearance it has with the neighboring spring? I'd like to see if anyone would have a chance with a K-motion/proform setup.
Over the summer (assuming funds are as planned) I'm going to try putting together a 2.2L head using Manley 221428 or Comp Cams 26918 and Proforms. Sometime next week I have to go pick up a head I gave the machine shop to check to see how much material could be removed from the valve seats (going for 1.800" installed height).



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Re: 2200 valve springs
Sunday, April 16, 2006 2:41 PM
No problem, I'll be doing allot of measurements while the valve cover is off.

I'm playing with my new scanner. Here's a couple things from the 1994-95 Crane Cams Catalog that has some relevance to what we're doing here:









Re: 2200 valve springs
Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:17 PM
What purpose would distance "A" serve? It will always be further than distance "B", and it's not like you could go w/o valve stem oil seals...



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Re: 2200 valve springs
Monday, April 17, 2006 12:36 AM
I think they're saying something like "when assembling the head, it's not enough to make sure you have clearance between the guide and retainer, you have to install the seal and check the clearance there, too.

-->Slow
Re: 2200 valve springs
Monday, April 17, 2006 4:23 AM
That would be for umbrella type seals and/or oil deflectors over the valve springs. Those were used on some of the older SBCs, but not on the 2.2/2200s, that I know of.






Re: 2200 valve springs
Monday, April 17, 2006 7:18 AM
For those whom haven't read it or just want a little more information on valve springs, read the link below.

Chevy High Performance: Closing Time, The Ups and Downs of Valvesprings






Re: 2200 valve springs
Monday, April 17, 2006 7:34 AM
Here's another one for you to ponder:

Chevy High Performance: Valve Training

Also take note of the side bar article on pushrod length at the bottom of the main article.







Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:19 AM
The -.050" locks should be in today. I'll post some more pics as to the fittment. Don't know when I'll be able to do the install, hopefully next week.





Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:23 AM
BTW, another link with valve spring rate information: Crane Cam's Pro-Engine Builders Newsletter #22.






Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:57 AM
I didn't take the time to read through the entire thread, but has anyone considered using the springs from a 3400 (3.4L) GM engine?
Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:43 PM
The Locks are in! Click on the images for full size

Here are the two packages, side-by-side. The labels tell you which one is which.

Here's a close-up of them,the locks are in the same order as above.These look like they should fit the Crane Self-Aligning tips.

I'll get to doing the install as soon as I can get the new pushrods (ordering tomorrow and let you know how everything fits. I'm going to get the Trick-Flow 5/16" dia, .080" walled 7.400" long Chrome Molly push rods (part #21407400 for set of 16). I'm going with the 5/16" pushrods for two reasons, one is more clearance in the push rod hole (as per the article from Crane about pushrods causing timing retard) and their less expensive. These pushrods are stiffer than the stock ones, so they wont flex as much and I'm using the Crane Self-Aligning rocker without the guide plates.





Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:24 PM
Looks much better, actually they look like mine, except mine are this pretty $$$ilver color. So, 16 pushrods huh...are those stock length?



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:46 PM
7.400", stock are 7.406". My stock pushrods are just the right length for my set up and these are close enough not to make any difference what so ever. Those are one piece pushrods also.

BTW, that intake valve (on right, second pic above) tip is worn further than the exhaust valve (left) and you can still see a difference.





Re: 2200 valve springs
Friday, April 28, 2006 3:46 PM
Pushrods have been ordered. Should be in next week. Hopefully I can get them installed, with the springs, locks and retainers, if they come in early enough in the week.






Re: 2200 valve springs
Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:28 PM
Well, I recently ordered another set of del west retainers (trying to find some to fit oversized top locks for a possible 2200 build), and for whatever reason they don't fit any of my del west locks (and I have pretty much every deisgn out there lol). For the heck of it I tried some stock LN2 locks and they fit perfectly . The top ridge gives a +.090" installed height compared to stock, giving a 1.800" spring height to 2.2Ls (which is ideal for most aftermarket LS1 springs). I may try machining the retainer down (it is 1.4+" diameter right now) and installing some Comp springs on a spare head this summer. Oh yeah, the Proforms still clear as well
For anyone else interested in trying this out, they are Del West part#DW309B, and there is another set for sale here (I'm not selling these, nor am I affiliated with this guy what-so-ever...although he does have a lot of my money lol).



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Re: 2200 valve springs
Wednesday, May 03, 2006 8:17 PM
Got my pushrods in today. Going to try to get them and the springs, locks and retainers in tomorrow, if I can find an air hold fitting(compression tester w/ removable hose).

I still need to get the car ready (wash, wax & vacuum) for the Florida J-Body show, Friday and Saturday. I have to work Friday, then load out for the meet, which track night is Friday night. It's going to be a busy day tomorrow!





Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, May 11, 2006 5:00 PM
Well, I went to do the install of the springs and ran into a couple of problems, but I was expecting that.

First off, the K-Motion K-700 springs and K-750 retainers wont work with the Crane self-alighning rockers.There is insufficiant clearance between the arms and the reatiner, even with the Manley -.050 locks. They will, however work with the standard tipped narrow bodied rocker arms. I found the tip to be too close to close to the retainer(.003"). I called Crane and they stated that you need atleast .020" clearance. Looks like I will be getting another set of rocker arms.

The second prblem I ran into was the shims. There are no shims to fit on top of the steel valve spring seat insert. Shims will however fit underneath the seat insert. I'll be getting a set of spring shims from Comp cams(a set of 48, 16 .060", 16 .030" and 16 .015". Using a valve spring hight mic, I found the locks and retainers gave me an installed hight of 1.806". I will be putting a .060" and a .015" shim underneath the valve spring seat insert of each valve. To do this, I will have to remove the valve stem seals to remove the seat, so I will also need a set of valve stem seals (they never seem to come off without damage). This will give me an installed hight of 1.731" and a seat pressure of 106lbs. With my cam and rockers total lift is .467" and an open pressure of 322lbs. The stock springs rate at approximately 78lbs on the seat and 241lbs open with my cam. This will definitely increase my operating range of my valvetrain.

I will now need to find my old guide plates, reinstall them, since the next set of rockers won't be self-alighning.

While I had the valve cover off, I did install the Trick Flow pushrods and set the lifter preload. As of right now, I don't see any difference, but i wasn't expecting any. I did find that the stock replacement pushrods were rubbing on the sides of the pushrod holes in the head. That shouldn't be a problem with the new 5/16" pushrods, they have a little more clearance. The new pushrods are stiffer than the stock pushrods, so that should reduce any pushrod deflection.

As I've said before, this is going to be all trial and error fitment. It would go faster, if I had a head to do all this fitment with, but I'm just working with what I have.





Re: 2200 valve springs
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:08 AM
Once again, I'm Bringing this one from the deep! I was doing some more research and found a good article about Pushrods & Lifters in Engine Builder Magazine, April Articles:

Pushrods & Lifters

Are they obsolete or continuing to advance?

Brendan Baker, Managing Editor

Pushrod engines have been dubbed as antiquated technology by some, but for many engine builders these engines are far from suffering the fate of the horse and buggy. In fact, with both GM and Chrysler keeping the pushrod engine alive in their current product lineups with the Gen IV, Hemi and others, pushrods and lifters are still very important words in the engine builder’s vocabulary. Overhead cam (OHC) engines may be the current darlings of the OEMs but overhead valve (OHV) engines are what keep the lights on in the rebuilding industry.

For many engine builders the pushrod engine is the bread and butter of their business. The technology has been around a long time and while it has evolved, the basic design has stayed the same. But is this technology going to continue much further on into the future? Most of the pushrod and lifter suppliers we interviewed agreed that pushrod engines are going to be around in one form or another for quite some time.

“People keep predicting the demise of the pushrod engine but we see it hanging around for quite a while,” says Bill Skok of Elgin Industries. “We keep saying we’re going to be the last ones making buggy whips! We still see more life in it, and especially with Chrysler coming out with the Hemi.

Sure, there are more sophisticated engines now, but a lot of rebuilders won’t be able to rebuild the newer OHC engines – but a pushrod engine they can. It’s still more economical to build pushrod engines.”

In many cases, OHV engines, where the camshaft is below the piston and pushrods actuate lifters or “tappets” above the cylinder head to operate the valves, are less expensive to manufacture than an OHC engine. They also offer some benefits to automotive engineers that the OHC engine doesn’t.

Pushrod engines are more compact, thereby allowing OEMs to use more sleek hood designs and lower aerodynamic drag. Pushrod engines also develop peak horsepower at lower rpms and produce better low-end torque than most OHC engines.

There are downsides, however, including the fact that the mass of the valve train creates inertia in pushrod engines causing them to be susceptible to valve train separation. But the pushrod engine has been able to overcome many of these obstacles thanks to improved pushrod and lifter designs.

Pushrods
Pushrods are considered by many to be the weakest link in the valve train. They transfer and redirect the upward motion of the lifters, which move in one direction, to the rocker arms, which move in another direction. Pushrods are also prone to “deflect” as engine rpm increases and can result in valve train separation. While mild steel stock pushrods are generally sufficient for stock replacement applications, performance applications require significantly stronger pushrods to withstand heavier valve spring loads and aggressive cam profiles.

“Everything is a bit different now,” says Elgin’s Skok. “We have made some pushrod design changes over the years and we do quite a few swedged rods where we take a larger diameter tube and swedge down to a smaller end, giving it more column strength. We also use different heat treatments, putting different skin heat treatment on the rods. We use different materials from regular steel balls to tool-steel balls for better wear characteristics. So there are many things happening as these engines evolve and the pushrods have sort of evolved with it. They really are a link in the valve train. Many people refer to it as the ‘weakest link’ because if anything breaks they’d prefer it to be the pushrod.”

According to Engine Pro’s Ron McKey, pushrods have to be stiff, strong and the same size as the other pushrods. “The trend is to go with stiffer pushrods to compensate for higher valve spring pressures that are coming along with the bigger camshafts,” says McKey. “You’re better off having a stiff pushrod that doesn’t deflect than a light one that does. The stiffness of the pushrod is a very critical issue. Weight is still a factor but you have a lot more problems if the pushrod is flopping around than if it weighs a little more. When the pushrod bends it deflects and then you get separation in the valve train (valve float).”

Experts say that while valve train weight is important, it’s not equally important: the pushrod side is not as critical as the valve side. Looking at the rocker arm as a fulcrum, the retainer, keeper and valve combination, because it is controlled by the spring, is much more critical than anything on the other side of the rocker arm.

Another critical factor with pushrods is determining the correct length. This has to be one of the most common questions asked of suppliers. Because tolerances have also decreased significantly in late model pushrod engines leaving less margin for error with regards to pushrod length, say experts. If you have changed anything in the engine you will want to check that your pushrod length is correct for your combination.

“Engine tolerances are about 70 percent tighter than what they were even 10 years ago,” says Elgin’s Skok. “The rebuilder really needs to look at the stacking of tolerances when he’s rebuilding an engine. We offer special length pushrods for these engines to help the rebuilder take up the tolerance. We’ve worked very closely with quite a few rebuilders in this area, so we know tighter tolerances are a big issue with all late model pushrod engines.”

However you set up your process it must have consistent results for the correct pushrod lengths. For a lot of shops that want to reclaim pushrods, this creates a problem because it’s a link to the valve train. According to our experts, you have to set up your process so you can order a pushrod in one of the custom lengths. And then you also have to realize that when you’re machining and maybe taking off a little less or a little more there has to be a process to compensate for the irregularities.

Skok says pushrod length is critical for both small shops and larger production engine remanufacturers and consistency is the key. “Even if you need to have a custom rod made …you dial in your 3.4Ls, for example, and you find you need minus .030" or maybe plus .060" or plus .043", and you figure that’s the way you’re going to set your process up as a production engine rebuilder. You need a pushrod that will hold the same tight tolerances as the OEMs. Aftermarket guys need the same thing, so you need to set up your processes the same way. And it’s very difficult to hold those tolerances, but it’s going to be very critical in going forward for the industry when shops start doing more and more of these late model pushrod engines.”

Pushrod suppliers offer a wide range of custom length pushrods that are often carried in stock. “We have two different diameter rods in our ‘shelf’ pushrods: 5/16" and 3/8",” says Engine Pro’s McKey. “And then we keep a pretty big range of lengths in stock. From 6"-11", we make a pushrod every .050". So that’s about a 5" range of pushrods measured in .050". They are all made of 4130 alloy steel with .083" walls and carbon nitrided to 60-62 HRc, so they’re a hard pushrod, too.”

Clevite Engine Parts’ Gary Wertzbar says your selection process should include paying attention to what you modify and by how much. If the camshaft is ground down too far, it may require a different length push-rod than stock.

“We offer custom length pushrods because when engine builders get into the performance work such as modifying the head in order to get the lift they want, you have to grind the base circle of the cam down,” says Wertzbar. “You need to maintain a geometry so that the nose of the cam is not higher than the cam bearing. To do this you would need to take the base circle of the cam down – but if you take it down too much you have to use longer pushrods to compensate for that variation. And we offer a .060" longer pushrod than stock. Here again – you need to know what the geometry of your cam is from a stock cam and then you will know how much longer you need the pushrods. For the most part, until you get into the higher performance applications, you can use a fairly stock pushrod.” Manufacturers repeat their warning that the margin of error is not what it used to be, and the shops reclaiming rods are going to have a difficult time down the road. The mileage on cores is higher so there’s more of a wear issue, which takes up more of your tolerances too. Your rocker arms, pushrods, lifters and mating components all need to be replaced in many cases.

Lifters
“Lifters are always a huge topic of conversation in the aftermarket because of supply and price,” says Enginetech’s Hunter Betts. “It’s been a real issue. There’s only one engine being manufactured at the OE level anymore that uses the flat tappet, and that’s the Jeep 4.0L. Everything else uses hydraulic rollers, and since about the 1990s everything switched to roller lifters at the OE level.”

As the OEs have moved away from the flat tappets to the roller lifters, the price of the component has jumped significantly too. One of the things that have been difficult for the aftermarket says Betts is that many rebuilders are reusing the roller cams and lifters now when they rebuild an engine. This is because the newer pushrod engines have steel roller cams that don’t wear, and they’ve got hydraulic roller lifters that don’t go bad at the same rate as the flat tappet components. However, Betts and others caution that it is risky to rebuild an engine with 100,000-plus miles and reuse the cam and lifters when you’re going sell it back to the customer as a like-new engine.

Domestic Manufacturers

Whether it is mechanical, hydraulic, flat tappet or roller style, the lifter is one of the most important components in the engine. The lifter determines how the camshaft will react to the rest of the engine combination. Depending on the type of application, valve train separation may become a serious issue. Experts say increased spring pressure can be a solution, but that depends on whether the lifter can handle the valve train load or not.

While flat tappet solid and hydraulic lifters were very common in the ’60s and ’70s muscle car era, and still used in some economy pushrod engines, the biggest trend today is a roller lifter. There are two main advantages to a roller lifter. One is that it offers reduced friction, which is always a good thing. The thinking here is that a wheel rolling on a cam lobe generates much less friction, heat and wear than a flat faced lifter rubbing metal-on-metal against a cam lobe.

The other advantage to a roller lifter is that from a performance standpoint, it can handle much steeper ramps on the cam lobe than a flat faced lifter, which allows the valves to open more quickly and reach maximum lift sooner.

“Gradually more and more people are going to roller lifter cams,” says Howards Cams’ John Steely. “The solid lifters are still very popular among racers and even street performance enthusiasts, surprisingly, but we do sell a lot of roller stuff as well.”

Clevite’s Wertzbar agrees that solid lifters are still a popular choice but also sees the roller lifters becoming more popular among their performance customers. “The demand for the roller lifter still isn’t great,” says Steely. “But we are seeing increases in demand for them. For the most part, the Saturday night racers are still running mechanical or hydraulic flat tappets. For the weekend racer on a budget, going with roller lifters is a lot more expensive, but the benefit to that is you can go with a higher lift camshaft because there is less stress on the component.

Flat tappet solid lifters have improved say experts, but how much? Howards Cams is one of a few suppliers that offer solid lifters with an electrical discharge machining (EDM) hole in the face for added lubrication. “The Direct Loop lifter with the EDM hole works best in two extremes: for circle track racers who use very fast or high ramp rates on the cam lobe, which requires fairly healthy spring loadings to handle the fast ramp rates and high rpm. Some additional oiling is needed because of the heavier load ratings,” says Steely. “And it helps in the extreme opposite end for the street guy with the solid lifter who doesn’t turn any rpm. There’s not enough rpm to oil the lifters and cam because the camshaft is oiled by splash. If you’re only revving at 1,500-2,000 rpm there is a good chance it’s not getting enough oil in a healthy solid lifter camshaft.”

Hydraulic lifters generally don’t work very well in performance applications, according to some experts, because you’re limited by the valving in the lifter. A hydraulic lifter will only handle a certain amount of spring pressure or loading. If you’re not limited to a hydraulic lifter, as some racing classes require, then it’s definitely an advantage to use a solid tappet or roller.

In the stock replacement environment there are other issues going on according to Enginetech’s Betts. “Right now our customers need to build a less expensive engine. They are looking to save money on engine components and lifters are a big part of that. Lifters and the matching cam have become a big percentage of the cost of an engine. A flat tappet lifter might cost $1.50 and a roller lifter will cost $6, and when you’re talking about 16 per engine, it adds up quickly. And there’s a much bigger difference with cams (roller vs. flat tappet).”

There’s no doubt that the cost to build a roller lifter is greater than the flat tappet lifter, and since the flat tappet is essentially obsolete in the production OE environment, manufacturers are not eager to tool up to make them.

“Lifters were sort of a commodity in the past,” says Betts. “It’s the tightest tolerance component in the engine. The tolerances inside a hydraulic lifter are about .0002" of an inch (that’s two ten-thousandths) clearance, which is extremely small, and they have to be perfect or the lifter will fail. A flat tappet hydraulic lifter has to be forged, heat-treated, and machined at a maximum tolerance of .0002" yet it sells for less than a soda? Come on!” Betts exclaims.

According to Betts and others, the only quality made lifters are manufactured in the U.S. right now. Foreign made lifters have had quality control problems to this point, which is why some of the major lifter suppliers will only sell the U.S. lifters. It’s not worth the risk for both supplier and engine builder to save maybe 5 or 10 cents on a part that has a higher risk of failure. U.S. made lifters have a very low failure rate of maybe 4 out of 1 million, says one expert.

Ten years down the road and whatever the OEs may have come up with by then, the pushrod engine is still going to be in abundance, experts believe.

“I would agree that there is always going to be a market for pushrod engines because there are so many in service now and the amount of racing classes that mandate a pushrod engine should keep demand for pushrods and lifters fairly high,” says Clevite’s Wertzbar.

From an engine builder’s perspective, you want to know what’s coming down the road so you can plan accordingly. Your bread and butter is what’s here and now mixed with earlier engine technology but then you need to be prepared for what’s coming next. But the pushrod engine is not going to disappear.

Side Bar:
Common Misconception of Valve Float
Source: Crane Cams
“Valve float” is a common term for a situation best described as “valve train separation.” This occurs due to inertia load imparted into the valve train by the action of the cam lobe against the follower. Flex in the valve train (the majority of which is located in the pushrod) is the prime contributor to valve train separation. The initial loads imparted into the pushrod cause it to bend (somewhat like a pole vaulter’s pole) and then return to a straight configuration. This unloads a sharp energy pulse to the rocker arm, which transfers it into the valve/valve spring assembly. This often results in “valve lofting,” which causes the valve to operate in a different path than that described by the lobe profile. At the same time, the lifter without any load against it can also be launched off the opening ramp of the lobe, and then, as load is re-established, either strike the nose of the lobe and eventually damage it; land on the closing ramp; or land on the base circle with significant and often damaging impact. If “lofting” can be controlled (by design or good fortune and the lifter lands gently on the closing ramp), it adds to area under the curve and more power. If it is uncontrolled (which happens the vast majority of the time), it can be damaging to valve train components and will compromise performance. Most of the time, power flattens out or is lost when “valve train separation” occurs. Again, the biggest culprit in causing this situation is the flex of the pushrod. In tests conducted by Crane Cams, they claim to have found 12-hp in a 350 Chevy with a 204/214 @ .050" cam (.420"/.443" valve lift) just by going from a .065" wall pushrod to a .080" wall pushrod, and the springs were only 110 lbs. on the seat and 245 lbs. open.

Many people tend to think that the “weight” of the rocker arm is the cause of valve float. If the rocker is rigid and properly designed, it should contribute very little to valve float. Weight in this case is not the prime issue, but rather the “moment of inertia” of the rocker design. “Moment of inertia” is the affect of where the mass of the rocker arm is located relative to its center of rotation. One rocker can be much heavier than another and still have a smaller moment of inertia because of where its mass is located; so weighing rockers to determine their affect of valve float is really not effective at all. (FYI: “mass” is a measure of a body’s inertia; while “weight” is the affect of gravity on “mass.” “Moment of inertia” is unaffected by weight, but is affected by where “mass” is located relative to the center of rotation).






Re: 2200 valve springs
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:51 AM
As a side note to the above article, since I replaced my pushrods, my power isnt dropping off like it used to before I changed my pushrods.

As I noted previously, I thought I was getting some valve float (valve train separation, actually). I was working on getting the K-Motion Springs and Retainers and the Manley Locks to fit in the head of my motor. They do fit, but shimming for proper installed hight is necessary. I discovered that there isn't enough clearance for the self-alighning rocker arms (which I did the conversion to) to clear the locks and retainers, you would have to use the standard tip rockers with the guide plates to use this combination. I am looking into having the valve stems modified to work with this combo, by either having longer tipped valves or lowering the valve keeper groove on some customized valves. I thinking the lowered groove will be the way to go, because it will reduce the installed hight of the springs, so I dont have to shim the springs as much for the seat pressure I'm looking for..( I will keep you posted on what the results are. See some of my previous posts about the seat and open pressures for mor info.)

Back to the subject at hand. As I previously stated, when I was test fitting the Spring combo and found it wouldn't work with my rocker arms, I went ahead and installed the TrickFlow Pushrods. While removing the stock pushrods, I found some wear markings around the pushrods where they went throught the head, indicating posssible pushrod deflection. Since I installed the TrickFlow Pushrods(5/16", .080 walled one piece hardened chrome molly, as opposed to 3/8", three piece hardend mild steel, stockers), I don't get the valve float and resulting high rpm drop in power! It seems to be that I had some pushrod deflection(resulting in lauching the valve train components) and/or pushrod noise(noted in a previous post) causing the drop off in power. It appears not all the valve train separation problems are caused by lighter pressure springs, but by pushrod deflection. The new pushrods are thinner, but with the thicker stronger walls, resulting in less deflection and no longer lauching the valvetrain. This wil vary depending on the ramp rates of the cam lobes and the weight of the valvetrain components, but it looks like we can use the stock springs on mild to moderate cams without experiencing too many problems. This may not be the case with someone using a cam with a faster ramp rate.

If anyone out there is using an after market cam and the power seems to drop off at higher rpms, reply here or send me a PM, so I can look into this a little more.






Re: 2200 valve springs
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:08 PM
MadJack wrote:There is insufficiant clearance between the arms and the reatiner, even with the Manley -.050 locks. They will, however work with the standard tipped narrow bodied rocker arms. I found the tip to be too close to close to the retainer(.003"). I called Crane and they stated that you need atleast .020" clearance. Looks like I will be getting another set of rocker arms.
Well, that sucks. We were right on one point though, there was clearance (just not enough).
MadJack wrote:As a side note to the above article, since I replaced my pushrods, my power isnt dropping off like it used to before I changed my pushrods.
That is GOOD news. This could be a fairly cheap mod for people looking to broaden their powerband (and we all know how little high-end we have), and it's an easy install when your doing rocker arms. Would you happen to know if you may have gotten any false knock readings due to the deflected pushrods hitting the walls?



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Re: 2200 valve springs
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:43 PM
OHV notec wrote:
MadJack wrote:There is insufficiant clearance between the arms and the reatiner, even with the Manley -.050 locks. They will, however work with the standard tipped narrow bodied rocker arms. I found the tip to be too close to close to the retainer(.003"). I called Crane and they stated that you need atleast .020" clearance. Looks like I will be getting another set of rocker arms.
Well, that sucks. We were right on one point though, there was clearance (just not enough).


I checked into getting valves made by S.I. Valves, with the keeper grove moved down the stem about .060". The valves would be $27-28 apiece (upto $224 a set).

OHV notec wrote:
MadJack wrote:As a side note to the above article, since I replaced my pushrods, my power isnt dropping off like it used to before I changed my pushrods.
That is GOOD news. This could be a fairly cheap mod for people looking to broaden their powerband (and we all know how little high-end we have), and it's an easy install when your doing rocker arms. Would you happen to know if you may have gotten any false knock readings due to the deflected pushrods hitting the walls?


Like I stated further down that post,
MadJack wrote:This will vary depending on the ramp rates of the cam lobes and the weight of the valvetrain components, but it looks like we can use the stock springs on mild to moderate cams without experiencing too many problems. This may not be the case with someone using a cam with a faster ramp rate.
The ramp rates are higher on your cam, as is the lobe lift. I can't say what results you'll have with the stock valve train. Short of having it Spintron tested, the only way to find out would be at the track.

It's hard to say about the knock readings, I don't have access to a Tech2 or other scanner to test it. Not that that would do any good now that I've got the new pushrods in!





Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:25 PM
MadJack wrote:I checked into getting valves made by S.I. Valves, with the keeper grove moved down the stem about .060". The valves would be $27-28 apiece (upto $224 a set).
I have an extra set of Ti valves you could have machined for less than that, just let me know.
Also, I'm starting to think the stock LS1 springs were what Mantapart sold as performance springs for the 2.2L. I'm going to pull mine out when I get home to compare. If I'm right, they will bind around .460 lift



fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Re: 2200 valve springs
Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:04 PM
Like I said in the other thread, I will probably end up building a new head, to do the new springs, locks and retainers.





Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search