Caliber308 Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 If you really want to come up with a new design. Try and figure out how to make a Hydraulic Roller Rocker that doesn't need a shim installed. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technology Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Ya know, the idea is good, but in reality, people have had great success with stock stuff. The hydraulic adjusters have been the only ones I've had trouble with. I left a mechanical adjuster out of adjustment for too long once and it ruined the top of the valve, but that was my fault. We use pretty mild spring pressures and can't achieve much more than .450" lift without getting into grinding the valve guides down, and even then I don't know if you could get to bigger lift like .600" with regrinds. You'd have to use long valves at the very least. A solid slipper billet rocker would be cool, if you could make it a little lighter, but I think there are other parts of the head that could use more work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen405 Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 I have a set of hydraulic lifter roller rockers that I never used and probably never will. I got them with the car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 well sonce we;re coming up with designs, what parts would you like to improve Andrew? i think we could easily make solid slippers. but would they wear a lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technology Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 I don't think so, the stock ones do pretty well, I'd say. I think that valve spring retainers with more clearance for the stem seal would be good. Guys could get a little more lift and still be on the safe side. Not smashing the seals and causing big headaches. Something I bet a ton of guys would be interested in is a cast stock replacement manifold like the FP mani for evo's where they keep each runner seperate until the turbo. It could be pretty nice and provide a good alternative for cracked, warped, somewhat restrictive stock ones. Or bolt on dampners. I think a fluidampr style main pulley would be really useful. It could be lighter and dampen better than stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 i have a set of Brians Titanium retainers and locks, but they only allow up to .500" lift. Couldn't you machine the bottom for more lift? and then machine down the locks that same amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpaul98 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 i have a set of Brians Titanium retainers and locks, but they only allow up to .500" lift. Couldn't you machine the bottom for more lift? and then machine down the locks that same amount? The titanium retainers are already machined on the bottom, thats where you get the .500" (1/2") clearance for the valve seal. I have to be totally honest with everyone, I just don't understand why you always want to re-invent the wheel. There are guys our there, many down in Florida, that are running in the low 9's high 8's in the 1/4 mile not 1/8th with stock heads because they are too cheap to buy anything. They won't buy a set of hard pipes let alone what you are talking about here and they run those times all day long. My point is why waste your time and effort on something like this when there are so many other very beneficial places you can spend your money? A super trick roller rocker is just not something thats going to give you the power gain per dollar ratio that your looking for. If I were you I'd put one of Chads headers on your car, a Gato intake, intercooler, a nice big turbo and a standalone fuel system so you can tune everything. That's money well spent because thats whats going to make you the most power per dollar not roller rockers. I hear this said all over the place and as far as the stock cam not working with the 1.6 (3.0 liter Chrysler) roller rockers or you need a "roller cam" with roller rockers I beg to differ. I've had the 1.6 roller rockers on my DD for years and I've built heads with big cams using the 1.6 roller rockers with zero issues. If the stock slipper cam profile is so different then how can you just bolt the 1.6 roller rocker on and go? What you are gaining by the 1.6 roller swap is about .050" lift and I believe it was 5 or 6 degrees of duration per side of the lobe so say 12 degrees total. Just visualizing the cam timing off the top of my head I would say that the 1.6 roller rocker would actually retard the intake lobe and advance the exhaust lobe slightly. As far as the negative affects of this I would have to say there were little if any as the car had a smoother power curve than with the 1.4 rockers. Another point that you need to understand is that just by putting a roller cam or roller rockers in your engine does not mean that you will automatically gain anything considering its the same specs as the slipper cam. You also shouldn't confuse the principals of a roller cam in a V8 engine and those in a SOHC engine because they are very different. The main reason to use a roller cam in a V8 engine is because after a certain amount of cam lift the flat tappet (lifter) will start to dig into the lobe. This was remedied somewhat by the mushroom tappet but still only allowed slightly more cam lift. For those of you that don't know what a mushroom tappet is it had a larger end that rode on the cam and you had to install them from the cam side into the lifter bore. Really bad idea if you needed to replace just one. Another reason for a roller cam in a V8 engine is VERY high spring pressures that were needed for high RPM use. A V8 engine has the lifter which is heavy, then a long pushrod which is heavy and then the rocker arm not to mention the weight of the retainer. Thats a lot of weight at high rpm's so a lot of spring pressure is needed with a .650" ~ .700 lift cam to close the valve in a race engine. Now lets look at what we have, a tiny lifter or adjuster, no pushrod and the cam lobes are pretty much bathed in oil. Just reduce the retainers weight by half and up the spring pressure slightly (100 ~ 120psi) and thats it. In reality you don't have enough spring pressure, cam to rocker friction or a radical cam grind to even need a roller anything on this engine. I'm not saying its a bad idea, I'm just saying its a lot of work and expense for something that will give very little benefit on this engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komeuppance Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=87007 Measurements using roller rockers on a slipper cam. -Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpaul98 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=87007 Measurements using roller rockers on a slipper cam. -Robert Thanks for the link Robert, I haven't seen it before and the cam plot was informative. I don't know how all of you are making out getting hold of Aussie roller cams but what I was trying to say is that the stock slipper cam DOES work with the 1.6 roller rockers so no you don't NEED to run some obscure Aussie roller cam or custom roller grind cam with the 1.6 roller rockers. You do however need to clearance the retainers for the added lift because the chances are real good you will smash the valve seals. As far as what does a "lazy opening intake valve" and "late closing intake valve" mean? Well he never explains this in terms of real world power. He also doesn't say anything about the exhaust lobe / valve which looks to me like its opening sooner and closing sooner than the other plots. What does this mean in terms of real world power? He also doesn't say anything about degreeing the stock slipper cam with the 1.6 rollers to help improve the valve events and if that would help. I would have also liked to see the last plot Kevin talked about with the slipper cam and slipper rockers vs the slipper cam with 1.6 rockers. Too bad none of his links are working either. He just seems focused on crunching numbers with some nearly impossible to get Aussie cam. That in itself is very impractical for the majority of people. What would be practical is to help people get the most out of what they have and what they can acquire relatively easy. I haven't had a chance to actually get my car to the dyno yet and find out what the real world numbers are with this setup. I have somehow accumulated way too many projects and I'm finding I have way too little time these days. Edited January 9, 2011 by brianpaul98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komeuppance Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Thanks for the link Robert, I haven't seen it before and the cam plot was informative. I would have liked to see the last plot Kevin talked about with the slipper cam and slipper rockers vs the slipper cam with 1.6 rockers. Too bad none of his links are working either. Same here, I wonder if someone out there has them saved. Kevin, TurboRaider, hasn't been on in a long while. -Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_C. Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Thanks to brianpaul98. I agree that most of the rocker set-ups have been tried with no need to re-invent the wheel so to speak. The best thing I see that we could try is a mechanical roller rocker. There are advantages to a roller cam that you just can't get with a slip rocker. The main one is the valve stays open longer at full lift with the wider lobe there. Yes, some is lost by using the roller tip, but the wide lobe still allows for much more flow at full lift than the slipper cam and rocker set-up. With a mech roler rocker, we could make a much more agressive cam to take the most advantage of it. It really depends highly on the application too, like what mods are there, and what the overall goal of the build is. Many people have simply put on the 1.6 roller rockers to find it is a dog off the line and comes on too late to make up for it. However, if you have an engine that is modded to rev, that changes things to where it can make up for it mid range to top end, and the bottom end loss isn't as bad either. So again, it really matters what the combination of parts is, as to what a certain cam and rocker does to the set-up. I think Brian's retainers are a definite plus and needed for anyone building a performance engine. I get clearance there with longer valves, but the retainers make it that much easier. I wouldn't plan on going any higher than that unless you want to invest in a lot of research to make custom pistons to run it. Then you might as well not stop there and go ahead and design the piston for a better rod ratio by moving the pin higher and running a longer rod. then our big bore, long stroke engines will also rev with ease like the smaller, short stroke ones do but without losing torque like they do. Anything over .500 lift requires valve cover clearance measures also. It just depends on how far a guy wants to go? Then you might find a handfull of people who want to do the same, with the same basic goals and money to get there. It just isn't worth all that. So really, like Brain has already stated, everything you need to make power is already out there. To make more and really move the numbers any further would cost a lot more money. To me, the real advantage is usable horsepower and torque. If you have an engine that peaks way high, that doesn't say much because most of those engines take way too long to make power which means the usable RPM range window is too small. So their dyno run may look impressive with a high peak, but the real world road race and even drag scene isn't nearly as impressive. What I have done with mine is stay under the amount of power that will damage the rest of the driveline. And drive to not break it either. I can't afford to replace every part on the car 5 times just because I have enough power to break it. I'm quite happy to stay lower than that. I've already built a car that will do 170+ MPH. What more do I want? I normally don't drag race mine either. They aren't built for it, or drifting for that matter. It is fun, but hell on parts that other cars are made better for. Parts aren't too available any more and getting rarer every year. People will need to fab your own driveline soon if they keep breaking stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpaul98 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Tim I really agree with what you are saying. Every combination is different and everyone has a slightly different goal for their car. I'm sure my setup is different in some ways than everyone else and that does make a big difference. I have been talking with Joe Rivera (4cylfury) for quite some time going through the learning curve with him and all I can say is the more power you want to make the more money you are going to NEED to spend. Right now he has a totally custom drive line just to hold the power his engine is capable of making and he is using the stock 1.4 mechanical slipper rockers. To completely replace the drive train is very unrealistic to the majority of people who are trying to modify their cars. He also has about $1500.00 just in an intake and header plus another $1000.00 invested in his turbo not to mention his fuel system and all the accessory parts. This is something way beyond what the average person is looking to do with their car. Most of the people I deal with want a reliable car that runs strong and won't cost a lot of money to get it there. Exotic and hard to find parts is something I try to avoid because most people don't want to spend the money and don't want the hassle. All I can say is I've been at this too many years, I've tried many different setups and found the simpler you keep it the better. I was also thinking of doing what Chad suggested, making a press fit bushing that is threaded for the elephant foot adjusters and converting the hydraulic 1.6 rollers into mechanical rollers. The adjuster nut would just be under the rocker instead of on top. Another one of many projects that I haven't got to yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 hmm...i agree with Tim and Brian=) But it never hurts to try and make something just a little better. well out of everything in our motor, what would be a few things that hold it back? what things could we try to fix to make it work just a little better or more reliable? The fluidampr idea seems like it would work well=) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89PalermoSHP Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 earl, you must first understand how the stock parts work before you can suggest something that would work better. take some time to read up on the basic systems found on these engines. remember, these cars are 20 years old and if something like a fancy machined part made all the difference in the world, people would already be doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiana Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Get OS valves and HD springsStock intercooler sucksStock exhaust manifold sucks after you get new exhaust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 the stock IC isn't bad IF you enlarge the piping out of it=) SMB hacked off the stock pipes, made the holes bigger, and welded on 2.5" pipes for mine. So it works a little better. But I agree that the stock exhaust manifold is restrictive more and more as you up the power. SMB's header is amazing and flows way more than the stock cast manifold. So he pretty much has the header covered. The IC is covered aswell. I figured there would already be parts if it needed to be improved, but I was just asking because I've searched the threads and didn't see anyone trying to improve the rockers at all. I think that roller rockers with the mechanical adjuster would be great. And what if we put a bearing in the tip? Like the elephant foot threaded adjuster, but instead of the solid ball tip, have a bearing recessed into it to ride on the valve stem? just a thought=) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89PalermoSHP Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 no point in 2.5" pipes when the ends neck down anyway. what does his or the stock exhaust manifold have to do with aluminum rocker arms? and the point everyone is trying to get across about improving rocker arms is that it is not financially feasible for the gains you will get out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 mechanical roller rockers are financially feasable. that's what the majority of people have been talking about. they'd be one of the best things to run instead of hyrdaulic rollers or 1.4 mechanical slippers, they'd be about the same price as switching to those. and Brian brought up the fact that other things could be improved. This thread is now for more than rockers. It's for improving things that could use a better and more modern style for more reliability and better performance. and neck down? the ends were cut off, and opened up to 2.5" while the pipe was inserted about a half inch inside the end caps. All is it is a core wit hcaps on each end, and those have a pipe coming out. He just up'd the size of the pipes allowing it to flow in and out for freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89PalermoSHP Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 it necks down at the throttle body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiana Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) and in the core Don't have to tell me about headers. There's already a foot like you describe http://www.b2600turb...ivel%20foot.htmhttp://www.b2600turb...ment_screws.htm http://www.b2600turbo.com/images/IM000510.JPG BTW, don't use those China elephant feet, they are garbage and won't last but a few days. Good ones cost about $16 each, 2nd item from the tophttp://www.pelicanpa...e+scerw&x=0&y=0 Edited January 10, 2011 by Indiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rabbit1 Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 You can spend 10grand developing a head that will flow 20 more cfm, but would it really be worth it when you can port and polish a stock one to do the same? Your saying a better rocker.. but our rockers work just fine and have been proven to work in some killer motor setups. So what everyone is trying to tell you is that it is useless trying to redesign the wheel when the current wheel works great and is far from obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I know it necks down there=P lol and I noticed the only people saying that it isn't worth it, is the people running the original 1.4 hydraulic rollers. A lot of guys either got to a roller cam and 1.6 hydraulic rollers, or to a mechanical 1.4 slip rocker. The 1.6 Mechanical Roller Rocker would just be another possibility, and probably the better choice out of the three. And it would be around the same price. And an insert that's threaded like Brian suggested would work well if designed properly. That would only cost a small amount to make a more stable setup for those who prefer mechanical rockers. I'm just putting it out there as an option, not something that you HAVE to buy=) also, the Marnel and Clearwater heads do flow somewhere around 20 more CFM I'm sure. Ask Bill (Caliber 308) for the exact numbers, but I'm sure it's close. And if you port one of those, then you can flow a ton more. So someone already took care of the head issue aswell. And Indiana, how well do you think those swivel foot adjusters would work? (the bearing type ones) Those look like a good idea. And I'm sure they would be able to do a bulk order to lower that cost a good amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89PalermoSHP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 since you know everything already, why not get a set for yourself and do a write up for everyone else to learn from? you might not see it but you ask a question then turn around and use the information as your own. slow down, read, read some more, read even more and at least give yourself some sort of knowledge base. you've got the cart wayyyy before the horse. can i suggest sticking to the cardboard diffuser and try getting somewhere with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I would definately have the prototype rear diffuser done if my dad didn't burn my sheets of cardboard=( I've been looking for some at work to get going at it again. And I've read, read, read, and read some more. I looked at Indianas link and through all of those styles of swivel foot adjusters. And that there gives plenty of different ways to skin the cat of Mechanical roller rockers. I could machine some threaded plugs thta take place of the hydraulic adjusters and allow for the use of mechanical adjusters, but I wouldn't have a way of testing them, and I don't want to be to blame if they end up causing a failure and eating someones cam. I have access to machines and know very well how to use them. But I trust someone who does it for a living more=) Like I could make a header, but I trust people like SMB and Chad to do it. and sorry if i stepped on your toes at all. and when you ask a question and find an answer to a bigger piece of the puzzle, don't you state each new point to make the picture clearer and clearer. When I must do that, I try to bring all of the information together in one post to paint on fluid picture. Instead of trying to piece it together using everyones individual answer=) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89PalermoSHP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 unfortunately, i dont think its possible to paint a fluid picture that will work for everyone. what your suggesting isnt necessarily a bad idea, it would just require someone winning the powerball to make it a reality. people here just dont have the $ to spend on things of this nature. on top of that, like previously stated, people are getting amazing numbers without fancy machined parts. simply put, if Indiana, Brian, or TimC isnt doing it, its probably not worth being done. This statement probably isnt 100% correct for everyone but certainly for the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts