Cams & Rockers

Yes, I think that was my comment. Rockers = one of best mods, because our cars need more power up top. On my dyno sheet, HP slowly gains until about 4k RPM, then suddenly makes a sharp move upward. I take it for granted sometimes, but I still remember the first day I put them in... blew my mind with the extra top end power, ties spinning all over the place. Congrats on the new found power!

congrats sounds like what i need to do after a downpipe and front plog or headers.

I should say that my 1.9:1 ratio INTENSE (Harland Sharp) Gen III (red aluminum) roller rockers have been installed for 102k miles(!). They regularly see near 6k RPM during WOT throttle runs. Haven't done the math, but I'd guess each rocker has seen hundreds of millions of lifts by now. I used LS6 blue (Z06) valve springs and INTENSE oil restricted push rods. So far my engine is very happy running this combo, easily besting EPA fuel economy ratings to boot.

Best of luck to all those choosing to install high-lift rockers. They should last you the life of the car with zero drawbacks and a substantial amount of extra HP.

AA wrote:

I should say that my 1.9:1 ratio INTENSE (Harland Sharp) Gen III (red aluminum) roller rockers have been installed for 102k miles(!). They regularly see near 6k RPM during WOT throttle runs. Haven't done the math, but I'd guess each rocker has seen hundreds of millions of lifts by now. I used LS6 blue (Z06) valve springs and INTENSE oil restricted push rods. So far my engine is very happy running this combo, easily besting EPA fuel economy ratings to boot.

Best of luck to all those choosing to install high-lift rockers. They should last you the life of the car with zero drawbacks and a substantial amount of extra HP.

I have the same RR/spring setup with stock pushrods, over 80K on mine now, and still running strong. I highly recommend replacing valvesprings when replacing the rockers.

deekster_caddy wrote:

I have the same RR/spring setup with stock pushrods, over 80K on mine now, and still running strong. I highly recommend replacing valvesprings when replacing the rockers.

Part of the reason i went with the modded 1.9 stock rockers is because ZZP's site said that with them new springs are only required for 6k rpms or higher shift points , and i keep my shifts a few hundred rpms below that , as do many others and they have had little no issues running this way. however if i had higher mileage i'd certainly replace them anyway,

I'm cammed with rockers. Having driven both by themselves, there is a difference. Both are great and both have their benefits. If I were to choose one over the other w/o getting into the labor differences, the cam would win.

Both together is simply amazing. The only downside is you need heads with the proper clearance and some porting to make it work.

Aaron, have you done your timing chain yet? I noticed your sig says 180K. That's getting up there with the added stress of stronger springs.

BillBoost37 wrote:

I'm cammed with rockers. Having driven both by themselves, there is a difference. Both are great and both have their benefits. If I were to choose one over the other w/o getting into the labor differences, the cam would win.

Both together is simply amazing. The only downside is you need heads with the proper clearance and some porting to make it work.

What ratio rockers are you running with the cam?

Quote :

Aaron, have you done your timing chain yet? I noticed your sig says 180K. That's getting up there with the added stress of stronger springs.

I've had the Rollmaster sitting on my shelf for over a year, hoping to change it out this year but have a lot going on. I used the 90# springs instead of the 105s. Are there any warning signs before the timing chain goes?

Bill, how is fuel economy with a cam? I can run a high 13 at the track, then ride home and get 39 MPG without changing anything but tire pressure. How does yours compare?

AA wrote:

Are there any warning signs before the timing chain goes?

When the chain gets loose the ignition timing starts to move around at idle.
There is more slack at idle, increasing RPM's tightens it up.

i know this is an ongoing debate on the other forums, but...

Are the 90lb LS6 springs less wear than the cc 105lb's??
i believe the 90lbs have less initial pressure, but they are progressive and ramp up the lbs pretty high with high rpms. Where the 105's are linear springs but have a higher seat pressure.

which is safer for use with 1.9 rollers and stock chain?
i have a set of LS6 springs sitting here, and i'm waiting on a good deal on the yella terra 1.9's. Should i ditch the 90's and get 105's?

I'm running the S1X with the 1.8's.

Aaron, with 3.29's and not fully finishing a tune yet, it's mid 20's for highway mileage. Like you I don't change my tune from street to track. I want the car consistent and running the same.

While I have the ability and setup to run up past 6500 rpm's, I keep all my shifts below 6200.

Lemme add that I miss the heck out of the 2.93's, but when I built my own transmission the other weekend, I still dropped the fun as hell 3.29's in it.

On the springs that's a tough one. Looking at the vendors sites as to total pressure and their recommendations...it looks like a cam suggests 105's and rockers suggest LS6's. Seems that the LS6 would be weaker..but apparently not.

Mr.Riviera wrote:

which is safer for use with 1.9 rollers and stock chain?
i have a set of LS6 springs sitting here, and i'm waiting on a good deal on the yella terra 1.9's. Should i ditch the 90's and get 105's?

YT 1.95s + rocker bolts for 300 plus shipping good enough deal for ya? Some guy offered that to me but i turned it down and they only have 3k on them. I'm sure they're still for sale.

that is a good deal, but i dont think i want 1.95's without upgrading the timing chain and other stuff too.

edit i'm waiting on a really good deal too. i see 1.9 RR's go on clubgp for 250 shipped with extra's, but you have to jump on the deal quick!

i was thinking about getting some 1.8s since im not looking 2 mod the motor 2 much more after the downpipe and 3.4 gets installed. what kinda off extra power would i get from the 1.8s over the stocks?

Quote :

i believe the 90lbs have less initial pressure, but they are progressive and ramp up the lbs pretty high with high rpms. Where the 105's are linear springs but have a higher seat pressure.

which is safer for use with 1.9 rollers and stock chain?

This is how I think about it. The more tension you have operating the valvetrain, the harder it should wear your timing chain and damper. If 90# springs have less initial pressure, then ramp up at high RPMs, isn't this ideal? OEM springs are like 60-70# I think, so 90# should be good up to 6k at least. That's all the higher I ever go anyway.

The other argument is that I have logged 105k miles (so far) on a set of 1.9s and LS6 90# springs. Not going to complain at all.

anybody know if a timing belt would fit our cars? JEZEL claims theire timing belt set up lasts longer than a chain. any thought?

Timing belt = bad idea. I don't think it would fit anyway. I doubt any rubber belt can last longer than a comparably sized steel chain. Most timing belts need replaced about every 60-80k miles. Timing chains on the other hand should last 150k-200k miles or more.

Our engines are an interference design, so we use a chain because it is much more reliable. If using a rubber belt it can slip (that is usually how they fail) and if timing gets off by too much, your pistons will smash into the valves. Engines that use timing belts are usually the non-interference type, so if the belt fails you won't need a new engine.

AA wrote:

I can run a high 13 at the track, then ride home and get 39 MPG without changing anything but tire pressure. How does yours compare?

Aaron, you seem to be the only one that gets such high gas mileage. After I match your mod's it might be worth a trip for you to tune my car.!!!!!

All timing belts that I know of all need to be replaced around 60K-80K miles. I have been running 90 lb LS1 springs under 1.9 Roller Rockers for about 80K miles now, with 140K miles on my OE timing chain. I also believe the 105 lb springs are probably easier on the cam lobes, but I haven't had any problems yet...

All this talk about the LS springs and 105# springs while using non roller 1.9 rockers has me slightly concerned about using the 105# springs and the 1.9 rockers I have.
Should I be concerned or just do it and forget about it.

No need to worry, Rick, you'll be fine. I know a lot of people running both, supposedly the 105s are a little better than the 90s because of their progression. The differences are slight, I am not sure why they offer both, what the pros/cons are of them.

I'm with Derek.. you should be fine. There's much discussion about which is better the LS6 or 105's and there's pros and cons to both from the spring rate area.

Thanks Guys, I feel better now.
All I have to do is install everything!!!!

from: https://rivperformance.editboard.com/audio-electronics-f7/good-battery-replacement-t321-75.htm#96577

Quote :

Oh, and I forgot to add something before: I'm leery of hi-ratio rockers because they did exactly the opposite when we put them on the boat engine. To get a boat going faster you really need more oomph in the high revs because of all the drag. Yet when we changed rockers, we got more bottom end and fuel consumption, but it still wouldn't go over 50 MPH...

Was your boat motor supercharged? That changes all kinds of rules... Re-writes them. Installing rockers in our engines is comparable to installing a mild cam, or VTEC in a Honda. All else being the same, your tach will move noticeably faster above 4kRPM. If anything, it might seem as if you lose a tiny bit of bottom end torque, but it's relative due to the extra top end gained.

Eldo wrote:

Oh, and I forgot to add something before: I'm leery of hi-ratio rockers because they did exactly the opposite when we put them on the boat engine. To get a boat going faster you really need more oomph in the high revs because of all the drag. Yet when we changed rockers, we got more bottom end and fuel consumption, but it still wouldn't go over 50 MPH...

Having owned several boats and naturally had to modify the engines in all of them, just because I could.
Well, a Marine application is much different than an Auto in that the engine must make HP at a relatively narrow RPM band. You need the power to plane off, then need your power curve to be at an almost constant RPM for cruise. That is why the higher ratio rockers as an only mod will not help you other than during planing.
I found that changing cams, carburation and setting timing was much more beneficial for the needs of the marine engine and the way they are operated. You have to consider their operating RPM range is very narrow.
After some experimentation I found i could get a good increase in torque and power without sacrificing too much in fuel consumption. That along with blade pitch changes made it a little more challenging to find the correct combination that works.
Each boat required very different combinations based on hull design, weight of the boat and where i was operating the boat. Calm waters or open ocean traveling.