1.95 ratio roller rockers

[davec73]

That's what it does to the grand prix. It increases the lift and duration gives you more performance in the higher rpm range. It simulates camming the car without actually going into the motor.

[davec73]

Originally Posted by decipha

i know its all too soon but...

92bird... any progress?

I'll be putting a crate engine I scored recently into my black 90 5spd possibly this weekend, the 1.95s would give it some extra pep and are ideal for what im doing with it.

I'm almost tempted to purchase a set and try it out, I already did a 5 angle valve job with 130lbs OTS so I don't forsee any problems there

where do you gtp folks order the yella terras? pricing?

Look on intense racings website they have a number listed and can get any yella terra product you want. I do NOT recommend dealing with ZZP they have the worst customer service of any business I know of however you can reach john at intense with ease and he is very knowledgeable and knows a bit about our platform as well.

[92bird]

Still waiting to get these mocked up..

These are not cheap, but if they work for the SC, we would not need their whole kit, which includes pushrods, pedestal rail, the wrong bolts, etc..

Dave, now that crane is back in business, can you get the correct springs for stock valves again? I haven't checked. If so, that would make it a nice package if it all fits.

If the mockup works, i'm going to test them out on my bone stock '94 SC.. With that pathetic excuse of a cam it came with, it might actually make a noticeable difference.

One other thought, what about a split ratio? Like 1.95:1 on exhaust and 1.9:1 on intake, or vica versa?

Jeramie

[XR7 Dave]

I can get the valve springs, but at over $400 just for a set of rocker arms that don't fit without modifications, this isn't starting to look like such a wonderful idea.

[aroot1]

Both listed web sites list 1.9 as highest ratio ava. $399 with pushrods and wrong size hardware. How much did u pay for the 1.95s? In the above pic from the end of the head it looks like the tip is well to the inside of the valve tip, and rocker is at furthest point of arc of travel (flat or level). When valve is opened the tip looks like it will move further in. Is the geometery totally fubar there? Summit lists a supercoupe cam at $369, how much would one expect to pay for a custom cam? Is a cam with the cleveland type rocker (1.73 stock ratio, under $200) worth the slightly higher cost and add. work?

[XR7 Dave]

With the rocker arms from Intense you get a set of $25 pushrods. Really not something to get excited about. I checked with my sources and the basic price for the rockers is about the same anyway meaning there isn't going to be any great discount available for buying just the rocker arms regardless of where you get them.

As for geometry and exactly what is going to be required - well that is unknown at this point. Until you get the right length pushrods and check valve travel you just won't know. Geometry with the 3.8 isn't the greatest anyway and even with the 1.73's you need longer pushrods and shims both to get it close when using stock valves.

That being said, for someone looking for a mild performance upgrade I do a reground cam, matching pushrods, valves springs, and the Scorpion rocker arms for $550. No machining or fiddling around required.

What is the benefit of a reground cam with .520" lift vs. a stock cam with rockers that give you the same lift? People don't realize that lift is only part of the equation. You are still stuck with the stock timing which is by far the biggest factor in cam design. For example it is completely possible to have .600" lift and still have a stock sounding motor that makes it's power before 5000rpm or to have a .520" lift cam that runs all the way to 7000rpm. Ramp design and valve event timing are much more important than lift by itself.

I'm just saying that if you are going to spend $500 then I'd spend it on a properly designed cam. I'm still willing to buy a set of these and test them out if people really want to go this route.

[aroot1]

I'm just saying that if you are going to spend $500 then I'd spend it on a properly designed cam. I'm still willing to buy a set of these and test them out if people really want to go this route.[/QUOTE]

Gotcha. You can scrarch my name from the intrest list on these Dave. You can however add it to the Cam list Just need to decide how deep I can get into this. I feel like I've already fallen down that fabled slippery slope
Adam

[RalphP]

Originally Posted by aroot1

I'm just saying that if you are going to spend $500 then I'd spend it on a properly designed cam. I'm still willing to buy a set of these and test them out if people really want to go this route.

Gotcha. You can scrarch my name from the intrest list on these Dave. You can however add it to the Cam list Just need to decide how deep I can get into this. I feel like I've already fallen down that fabled slippery slope
Adam[/QUOTE]

Slippery? It's molybdeum steel coated with Teflon(tm)! At a 85 degree incline.

RwP

[aroot1]

And, I usually take a good running start and leap over the edge as fast as I can!

[92bird]

Both listed web sites list 1.9 as highest ratio ava. $399 with pushrods and wrong size hardware. How much did u pay for the 1.95s?

I bought them used, it is possible the 1.95's are not made anymore.

[92bird]

Looks like these are gonna work. Ironically the 5/16" 7.25" pushrods that come with them seem to be a good fit with the rocker pedestal "wings" machined off and some pedestal shims used.

Geometry looks decent, the roller tip is mostly centered on the valve tip through the cam rotation.

My biggest concern is the pushrod comes very close to hitting the head on full lift. I need to take some pics and videos so you all can see what I'm dealing with. I'd say maybe .010-020 clearance from rod to head through the pushrod holes. barely enough to see daylight. I also need to check if each cylinder/pushrod hole clearance is the same.

Due to the price of these, its much more worth it to take David's advice and get a custom spec'd cam to start with.

However, I have a set of these that I am not going to use on my GTP due to buying a cam for it, and selling the 1.95 rockers means losing $$ on them. I'd rather put them to use than lose my arse on them.

I wanna play with the SC a little this year, without dumping a lot of cash out of pocket. This fits the bill since I already own these parts.

With that said, I also have an early model cam (89 5 speed). I wonder if it would be worthwhile to swap the stock 94 cam for the 89 5 speed cam, and use these rockers? Don't mind the wrench work, and gaskets are cheap.

Might be a the key to a "stock cam" rwhp record, LOL.. I realize the power band won't change, and i'm fine with that. I need something with killer off idle torque, as I'm NOT changing the factory converter at this point, which is ridiculously low stall.

Jeramie

[aroot1]

I talked with Dave about the stock cams, and even tho the 89 5spd is the best, he was still NOT impressed. I asked about that (using the 89 cam in other yrs) as well and he said it was not worth swaping any of the other cams for the 89. If however you have one and those rockers will work with it and u r willing to do the work, why not?
Is the motor together (heads on)? Would you b able to grind the pushrod holes for add clearance?
Adam

[S_Mazza]

Originally Posted by 92bird

Looks like these are gonna work. Ironically the 5/16" 7.25" pushrods that come with them seem to be a good fit with the rocker pedestal "wings" machined off and some pedestal shims used.

If you are planning to shim the pedestals in any case, why machine the wings down? Why not just put appropriate shims under the pedestal and call it done?

[92bird]

If you are planning to shim the pedestals in any case, why machine the wings down? Why not just put appropriate shims under the pedestal and call it done?

Just to clarify, I am not machining the pedastals "shorter" I am machining the sides off so they fit in the pedastal mount in the head, as opposed to sitting on top of the "wings" (for lack of a better word) holding them up. (see the pics on the first page.

I could do it that way, but it would set the rocker up higher and I'd need even longer pushrods. The geometry looks better with it sunk down a bit, but not all the way down. I had an extra pedestal, so I can still go back to the original idea too.

Oh and Adam: The cam swap is a lot of work - just did one on a local members car last weekend. Does make me think twice about throwing another stock cam in it. If I did an aftermarket cam, I would want it to idle glass smooth and make torque right off of idle, and I would want roller rockers on it. Since I think I can make the 1.95's work, I'd like to use them, but using them with an aftermarket cam would likely be too high lift for stock valves and even aftermarket springs available for stock valves.

Unless David can make me a custom cam with low lift lobes that will work with the 1.95's. I don't care if the damn thing has the stock redline, as long as it pulls hard in low end and midrange. I won't be going to an MP anything blower - maybe port the '94 blower/intake with a 70mm TB and 73mm MAF, so i'd want to cam it appropriately to keep the blower in a somewhat efficient rpm range with said intake components.

Jeramie

[S_Mazza]

Originally Posted by 92bird

Just to clarify, I am not machining the pedastals "shorter" I am machining the sides off so they fit in the pedastal mount in the head, as opposed to sitting on top of the "wings" (for lack of a better word) holding them up. (see the pics on the first page.

I could do it that way, but it would set the rocker up higher and I'd need even longer pushrods. The geometry looks better with it sunk down a bit, but not all the way down. I had an extra pedestal, so I can still go back to the original idea too.

Ok, I see what you are saying. That makes sense. I thought you were proposing to cut the cylinder head down, which would limit your options in the future.