NUTCASE . wrote:first off I have modded several cars that have gone 12's and faster.whoop-dee-friggin-doo...All I have to say about this is those must have been very easy builds...like stripping down a Fararri 360 to gain that .1s (I don't know what that car runs stock, so don't go look it up to try and "prove me wrong", that was mearly a bit of sarcasm).
NUTCASE . wrote: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.Well, this would be good and all, except that the 1.6 is a higher ratio than the 2200 stock. I know you will try and argue this, but as I'll note later, you're wrong. Also, you are apparently stupid, or ignorant, because ANY reduction in friction or reciprocating mass WILL result in a power increase...it's physics, deal with it. Will it be enough to be observed on a relatively low resolution and vulnerable dyno run? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Power is power, speed is speed, there is no 'relative' when engine building. 2hp NA is nothing to smuck at, especially when you're trying to squeeze every ounce. You think .1s is't a big deal either? How about 1s? 1min? Where do YOU draw the line? (hint: I don't care).
NUTCASE . wrote: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"Well, you haven't been around here long enough to have gone through the weekly, rediculous, "I wish"es. We get them on a regular basis, and from what you had said up to that point, I assumed you didn't have a clue.
NUTCASE . wrote:and as for you 1.54rr's on the 2200 motors here ya goCongratulations, now to burst your bubble, the sun used to revolve around the Earth...
http://www.ny-jbodies.org/library/engine/2200/2200.htm look about halfway down where it talks about VALVE SYSTEM
NUTCASE . wrote:the 1.54's were on the 97 and earlier 2.2'sNow, I've never measured them, but it's accepted around here that the pre-98 2.2L rockers are 1.5. ]Check it out., your beloved ny-jbodies even agrees with me.
NUTCASE . wrote: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 WRONGIf I was wrong, then congratulations. But, unfortunately for yourself, I was not in error. If you want to continue trying to blow smoke up our asses, go ahead, but you're just living up to your name.
NUTCASE . wrote: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.Well, I'll tell you what, you go right ahead and reinvent the wheel. But, if you would read around here some, you would see why you're looking more and more retarded with every post. Mostly because you would see how close the rocker fulcrum comes to the side of the neighboring spring. If you want to go ahead and modify (grind away) at the bearing, have fun. I'll laugh as you go throw your $$$ down the drain, and then as you destroy your valvetrain.
so busting me on that and not just saying "your wrong dude" was kind of retarded
Quote:
whoop-dee-friggin-doo...All I have to say about this is those must have been very easy builds...like stripping down a Fararri 360 to gain that .1s (I don't know what that car runs stock, so don't go look it up to try and "prove me wrong", that was mearly a bit of sarcasm).
Quote:
Also, you are apparently stupid, or ignorant, because ANY reduction in friction or reciprocating mass WILL result in a power increase...it's physics, deal with it. Will it be enough to be observed on a relatively low resolution and vulnerable dyno run? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Power is power, speed is speed, there is no 'relative' when engine building. 2hp NA is nothing to smuck at, especially when you're trying to squeeze every ounce. You think .1s is't a big deal either? How about 1s? 1min? Where do YOU draw the line? (hint: I don't care).
Quote:
Well, you haven't been around here long enough to have gone through the weekly, rediculous, "I wish"es. We get them on a regular basis
NUTCASE . wrote:do you have any idea what it takes to take a car from 15's to 14's to 12's. or even what it takes to make a high 11 car go low 11? you tend to learn a few things on the way, like what works and what doesn't. and btw, I only stripped down 2 of my cars so I know exactly how far gutting your interior gets you and that its usually not worth it(for your stripped ferrari comment)Wow, even after I directly stated that as sarcasm, you still took it all literally. Congrats. Unfortunately I've never had a car long enough to experience that, and there is no replacement for a little expendable $$$ (which I've never really had, hence the baller $300 turbo setup). If you'd like to elaborate on your builds, feel free, everyone here likes hearing about some tricky ish.
NUTCASE . wrote:changing out a stock roller rocker for an aftermarket one of the same ratio will not make you ANY FASTER.
NUTCASE . wrote:yes, ANY reduction will make you a LITTLE faster. do you have any ide what 1hp at the flywheel translates to at the wheeles? hardly .005sec and if your headwind goes up just a little you will still go slower anyways. you rag on me but do YOU even know what it takes to take .2sec off a car??? a hell fo alot more than 1fwhp.I don't think it's hard to see why what you say may be a little confusing. (Does this seem to parallel the famous VE thread to anyone? ). IMO (and I'm pretty sure just about everyone would agree), every little bit helps, especially if you're shooting for 12s in an NA LN2 powered Cavalier. Oh yeah, that little headwind will make a difference aftermarket rockers or not (once again, sarcasm present), so maybe going with that 5 or 6 degrees more duration was rediculous as well, or that 2 degrees of extra timing, or switching out a compressor housing to gain 5% more efficiency. Maybe that extra half hour of time on the dyno tuning for that extra 5hp and 2 mpg was a waste...where are you going to draw the line? If you want people to understand, you have to be more literal, and throwing more variables at the situation adds nothing to your argument. Oh yeah, it takes 40 .005s to take off .2s
NUTCASE . wrote:whenever you hear someone say "I wish" or " I would like it if" do you go off on the same tangem? I think someone is a little sensative and should go to the doctor to get the sand knocked out of there v****a. now if you want to keep this escalating by throwing these insults back and forth I will just start ignoring youlike I said already, I only brought that up because your post had already been overflowing with ignorance. It's called c-o-m-p-r-h-e-n-s-i-o-n...try it.
NUTCASE . wrote:if I got bad info on that nyjbodies page then so be it. you don't have to sit there and do the baby namecalling thing and try to piss me off. I have better things to do in my life that sit here and play bitch games with you. I can talk about cars all day and I actuall like to find out when I am wrong and get my own facts straight but I am not even going to listen to you anymore if you are going to try and talk s**t to me.In case you didn't realize it, the only reason I "went off" is because you flat out said I was wrong, without doing adequate research. You're a noob in this particualr field, it's expected that you won't do the proper research before saying something stupid, but when you say someone else is incorrect in the process, you're asking for it.