I remember reading something a while back about double roller timing set swaps on older OHV engines..
My question is, did anyone ever find a double roller set and tensioner combo that will work on a '96 2.2?
Double-roller came on the 1.8L in '82. I believe someone here found a replacement that was still using it, but most aftermarket replacement sets are single-roller.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
cloyes PN c3060 is a double roller. my question is, it appears to NOT use a tensioner. this is a BIG selling point for me if it's true and would work on the pre-98 ohv...
JBO Stickers! Get yours today!
Does anyone know if the one Rich mentioned will work? I'm not afraid of modifying the set to fit, but I'm wondering if anyone has found one that can almost be bolted on with minimal modification...
Rich Grayo Jr. wrote:cloyes PN c3060 is a double roller. my question is, it appears to NOT use a tensioner. this is a BIG selling point for me if it's true and would work on the pre-98 ohv...
if it works on the pre 98 wouldn't it work on the 2200? aren't the blocks mostly the same? i thought the timing chains and sprockets were the same between them
Timing sets will swap between all years. ALL sets use a tensioner, and the double roller uses a different tensioner than the others. Unfortunately, the tensioners are the rare parts...
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
OHV notec wrote:Timing sets will swap between all years. ALL sets use a tensioner, and the double roller uses a different tensioner than the others. Unfortunately, the tensioners are the rare parts...
do you have a pic of the setup by any chance?
Rich Grayo Jr. wrote:cloyes PN c3060 is a double roller. my question is, it appears to NOT use a tensioner. this is a BIG selling point for me if it's true and would work on the pre-98 ohv...
So it's basically down to finding a tensioner that will work with this^^set on the pre-98 block.
Do we know of any double roller tensioners that have been modified to fit these blocks? Or some that bolt right in the factory location?
If there is a do-able setup, I wanna get this going.
I've speculated in the past that you might be able to get away with the '83+ tensioner, since the dimensions of the chain/gears are very close, if not the same. However, there might be an increase in tensioner wear because of the chain style, so you'd have to check the friction surfaces every once-in-a-while to be safe.
The '82 setup uses two separate pieces for the tensioning setup. IIRC, one is referred to as the "tensioner", and one is the "guide". There is a rough picture in the OHV Build Guide, showing how the tensioner on the '82 setup pushes the chain inward, rather than outward. There are also a couple extra steps required to use the '82 tensioner/guide setup, outlined in the Build Guide.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Do you know where I can find a copy of the build guide?
That would be an awesome piece of information.
I think Jay might have it hosted somewhere, but I don't feel like digging for the link. So, you have mail.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
I just listed the complete roller setup for sale in classifieds. I think I found one of the last new tensioners in the US
Seriously, it took me a long time to find one, but I may have access to a couple more according to the place that supplies our shop in case anyone is interested.
Hrmmm, Whatcha got?
Pics?
Edit: I just noticed you live in Michigan too..Anywhere near GR by chance?
Also, Thank you Notec for the build guide!!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:04 PM
so, since we're talking about using older parts, does anyone know if the 2.0 head can be used(with modifications most likely, if at all) with the newer ln2? does it maybe flow better? i can't find on here about anyone flowing any of the pushrod 4 cyl. heads.
Mike wrote:Hrmmm, Whatcha got?
Pics?
Edit: I just noticed you live in Michigan too..Anywhere near GR by chance?
Also, Thank you Notec for the build guide!!
I have the gears, chain, tensioner, and damper. They are all brand new Cloyes/Clevite parts. I will have to bring my camera home from work tomorrow to shoot some pics. I'm not near GR though, I'm in the UP.
Dave De Stefano wrote:so, since we're talking about using older parts, does anyone know if the 2.0 head can be used(with modifications most likely, if at all) with the newer ln2? does it maybe flow better? i can't find on here about anyone flowing any of the pushrod 4 cyl. heads.
From what I recall: No. The '92-'97 head got "Eyebrows" to clear the port-style injectors employed on the 2.2L... The 2L never got such a fuel-system.
If you wanna talk which is better flow-wise, and since the LN2 head's design is so much like the Chevy big-block's, I think I can give you a little enlightenment on the subject:
BBCs were typically built with two different types of head: Oval-port & rectangle-port. I asked a friend who builds BBCs which was better & why, and he told me "For low-end, low-revving work-horse builds... The oval-port is choice. For high-rev power-making builds, the rectangle's are the way to go". Since the later LN2 heads are essentually like rectangle-ports, they have the intake-flow advantage.
However, GM made a boo-boo with the later head: Although they corrected the exhaust-side problem that caused need for casting in an air-dam to inhibit reversion by raising the floor up, they also shrunk the size of the exhaust-port inhibiting flow, which required use of a cam with tighter LSA/LDA and a longer runner intake to take advantage of sonic-tuning combined with the cam's larger overlap area to try to correct for it. This "supposely" resulted in the engine making more power while still being able to do well on the EPA's mileage test-loop, but personally I think it was a mistake since the later engine ('98-up) combined with the better management (sequential-injection) gets worse mileage (
Far-worse!(At-best low-18s vs. 23.5avg)) in the real-world than the older version with non-sequential MPI OBD-I system in identically-matching vehicles ('94 S-truck auto vs. a '99 of the same).
But I digress... I figure if can shape the port on the later head to give better flow characteristics overall that match or excede what the earlier head can do, more power to them.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
Nickelin Dimer wrote:Dave De Stefano wrote:so, since we're talking about using older parts, does anyone know if the 2.0 head can be used(with modifications most likely, if at all) with the newer ln2? does it maybe flow better? i can't find on here about anyone flowing any of the pushrod 4 cyl. heads.
From what I recall: No. The '92-'97 head got "Eyebrows" to clear the port-style injectors employed on the 2.2L... The 2L never got such a fuel-system.
If you wanna talk which is better flow-wise, and since the LN2 head's design is so much like the Chevy big-block's, I think I can give you a little enlightenment on the subject:
BBCs were typically built with two different types of head: Oval-port & rectangle-port. I asked a friend who builds BBCs which was better & why, and he told me "For low-end, low-revving work-horse builds... The oval-port is choice. For high-rev power-making builds, the rectangle's are the way to go". Since the later LN2 heads are essentually like rectangle-ports, they have the intake-flow advantage.
However, GM made a boo-boo with the later head: Although they corrected the exhaust-side problem that caused need for casting in an air-dam to inhibit reversion by raising the floor up, they also shrunk the size of the exhaust-port inhibiting flow, which required use of a cam with tighter LSA/LDA and a longer runner intake to take advantage of sonic-tuning combined with the cam's larger overlap area to try to correct for it. This "supposely" resulted in the engine making more power while still being able to do well on the EPA's mileage test-loop, but personally I think it was a mistake since the later engine ('98-up) combined with the better management (sequential-injection) gets worse mileage (Far-worse!(At-best low-18s vs. 23.5avg)) in the real-world than the older version with non-sequential MPI OBD-I system in identically-matching vehicles ('94 S-truck auto vs. a '99 of the same).
But I digress... I figure if can shape the port on the later head to give better flow characteristics overall that match or excede what the earlier head can do, more power to them.
its too bad noone makes a head with more meat on it to open up more on the exhaust side that works with our engine. i wonder how well ppl get the engine to flow with work(pnp)...
this friend who builds bbc's, has he seen our head? i would show it to him and see what he can do with it
Nickelin Dimer wrote:Dave De Stefano wrote:so, since we're talking about using older parts, does anyone know if the 2.0 head can be used(with modifications most likely, if at all) with the newer ln2? does it maybe flow better? i can't find on here about anyone flowing any of the pushrod 4 cyl. heads.
From what I recall: No. The '92-'97 head got "Eyebrows" to clear the port-style injectors employed on the 2.2L... The 2L never got such a fuel-system.
If you wanna talk which is better flow-wise, and since the LN2 head's design is so much like the Chevy big-block's, I think I can give you a little enlightenment on the subject:
BBCs were typically built with two different types of head: Oval-port & rectangle-port. I asked a friend who builds BBCs which was better & why, and he told me "For low-end, low-revving work-horse builds... The oval-port is choice. For high-rev power-making builds, the rectangle's are the way to go". Since the later LN2 heads are essentually like rectangle-ports, they have the intake-flow advantage.
However, GM made a boo-boo with the later head: Although they corrected the exhaust-side problem that caused need for casting in an air-dam to inhibit reversion by raising the floor up, they also shrunk the size of the exhaust-port inhibiting flow, which required use of a cam with tighter LSA/LDA and a longer runner intake to take advantage of sonic-tuning combined with the cam's larger overlap area to try to correct for it. This "supposely" resulted in the engine making more power while still being able to do well on the EPA's mileage test-loop, but personally I think it was a mistake since the later engine ('98-up) combined with the better management (sequential-injection) gets worse mileage (Far-worse!(At-best low-18s vs. 23.5avg)) in the real-world than the older version with non-sequential MPI OBD-I system in identically-matching vehicles ('94 S-truck auto vs. a '99 of the same).
But I digress... I figure if can shape the port on the later head to give better flow characteristics overall that match or excede what the earlier head can do, more power to them.
I'm not sure about the mileage difference, but there were significant changes to the combustion chamber geometry which could also account for much of that.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
^ ^ ^ I will say that I have a '99 and a '94 and to me the '94 just seems to have a better or smoother run to it. A friend who had a '99 and a '97 feels the same way.
Well... Notec feels it's because of the difference in chamber design in the later heads, and Madjack feels the cam differences are to blame. You're probably both right, as it might be a combination of the two. I'm also glad to see someone with experience with the different models of LN2 able to back-up what I'm saying (Thanks, ohvrolla!). All this just makes me wish I had a '97, so I could get an Al's Header & a top-level Patriot head... The two along with a good exhaust-system & cold-air intake gained 24whp, so you can imagine what the at-crank was like.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
