Im looking at a little build on my 99 2200 boat anchor.
P&P
Rockers
Cam
Yada yada yada
Standard stuff.
Im looking at getting some higher comp pistons. Should I upgrade rods if I do pistons? Whats a good CR for a daily car?
Im also looking at getting the head decked if possbile. Whats the max I can deck the 2200 head?
Where can I get larger valves?
Whats this Ive read about 1.7 rockers or something like that?
Stiffer valve springs?
I think thats all Im curious about now but Ill probably thing of something else while Im sitting at school
I see someone is making 1.7 SBC rockers now. I haven't tried them on anything, but they might be worth looking in to. Someone has them on
ebay.
The LS1 1.7:1 rocker mod is a thread here... Please don't ask me to list it.
I'd only upgrade rods if you static (Calculated) compression gets above 9.5:1, which is the max I'd run for a day-to-day car (92-octane minimum).
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
The rockers in that auction I listed are not the LS1 rockers. These are for the pre LS1 style engines. It might end up being easier than the LS rocker swap.
Well, it's be an option for the pre-'98 builders. Are you sure they're not for the BBC? I ask because 1.7:1 was stock on those.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:P&P
Rockers
Cam
Yada yada yada
Standard stuff.
That's hardly "standard stuff". You definitely need to put more focus on the cam aspect of this.
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:Im looking at getting some higher comp pistons. Should I upgrade rods if I do pistons? Whats a good CR for a daily car?
Im also looking at getting the head decked if possbile. Whats the max I can deck the 2200 head?
Why are you decking the head if you're getting higher compression pistons? If anything, deck the block...
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:Where can I get larger valves?
Karo at carcustoms.net, among others.
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:Whats this Ive read about 1.7 rockers or something like that?
I guess I'll never understand why people waste money on rockers with the 2200 if they have a custom cam grind
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:Stiffer valve springs?
Will depend on your cam/rocker combo. Madjack usually knows what the latest findings are with LN2 springs (not easy to find something that will work).
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Nickelin Dimer wrote:Well, it's be an option for the pre-'98 builders. Are you sure they're not for the BBC? I ask because 1.7:1 was stock on those.
The auction states they are for SBC. There are also other people selling them, but not too many yet.
I need to research these more to see if they really do fit the standard SBC valvetrain. If so, that gives me some ideas for cam lobes for boost that should give some good power increases.
Need to make sure the rockers are narrow bodied... Other than that, OHV notec hit it on the head....
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
Ok thanks guys. Im just trying to figure out how I want to go with this build. All I know is what Ive been reading in the older threads. A lot of the stuff is kinda ambiguous about what works with what well.
So what would be better? Decking or the pistons?
So the stock valvetrain wont mind a custom cam grind?
My dad knows a machinist so I would need to get with him and find out exactly what he can do.
I say deck the block and do piston's. As far as the valve train I would do a custom ground cam and bigger valves. Also I would do a set of Eagle rods and stronger push rods. The thing you want to remember when building the motor is that where ever you cheap out on the build that will be your weak link and depending on your plans for the car/motor the could be devastating.
Good luck with the build bro. And don't let the LN2/2200 haters get you down. Your getting good advice from the people that have posted on here already. Minus just a couple of other builders that haven't chimed in we pretty much make up the primary group of hardcore OHV enthusiast's on this site. And these guys know there sh!t.
If the engine's coming apart anyway, I'd go with pistons... Merely because milling take-away from deck strength (Although not much, but still...) which will be really necessary when you seriously bump-up the compression & add head studs.
Before you grind your cam, ask yourself this: Where do I want the most power to made in the RPM band? The argument here is that the whole purpose of increasing duration is to not only move the peak torque higher in the rev-range to make more horsepower, but also to prevent valve-float at higher RPMs when said engine's revved higher. Especially when the cam's lift has been increased. Of course, this don't negate the need for stronger springs, but still...
Look at it this way: You go with a larger cam... but not much larger cam... of the same LDA/LSA (Lobe displacement/separation angle) and centerline, yet stay with the stock rockers. Sure, you have more lift... but you also moved the peak-power point higher in the RPM-band. Now take a cam of smaller duration & lift and add higher ratio rockers, like the one's mentioned here so-far. You're still getting the same amount of gasses in and out, but doing it at a lower RPM... and making the same amount of power too. This is something to consider when choosing cam & rocker combos in the build, and can have big effect on what choice of springs in terms of height & valves in terms of length you'll need to go with.
While you're at it, do the lifter mod for-sure to save yourself headaches later-on. Trust me.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
QWK LN2 (aka ImPhat0260) wrote:Need to make sure the rockers are narrow bodied... Other than that, OHV notec hit it on the head....
Well, there's a little more to it, but I think a boosted engine with a higher rocker ratio will benefit from a cam lobe that holds the peak lift a little bit longer. If you use a 1.6 rocker and want .500 lift the lobe will take a certain number of degrees to reach peak lift. If you build a lobe to use a 1.7 rocker and the same .500 lift, you can get there is fewer degrees of cam rotation and then have the lobe hold peak lift for the rotation of the cam that you would have used to reach peak lift with the lower ratio rocker. Engine builders use lobes designed like this for stock eliminator class drag racing or in certain classes of circle track racing where they are required to use stock lift, but can change the duration of the cam.
Chris wrote:QWK LN2 (aka ImPhat0260) wrote:Need to make sure the rockers are narrow bodied... Other than that, OHV notec hit it on the head....
Well, there's a little more to it, but I think a boosted engine with a higher rocker ratio will benefit from a cam lobe that holds the peak lift a little bit longer. If you use a 1.6 rocker and want .500 lift the lobe will take a certain number of degrees to reach peak lift. If you build a lobe to use a 1.7 rocker and the same .500 lift, you can get there is fewer degrees of cam rotation and then have the lobe hold peak lift for the rotation of the cam that you would have used to reach peak lift with the lower ratio rocker. Engine builders use lobes designed like this for stock eliminator class drag racing or in certain classes of circle track racing where they are required to use stock lift, but can change the duration of the cam.
Well put, but if you start getting so quick (Too-quick, as the case would be... as you'll see) with the ramp on a short-duration cam with high lift, you run into lifter following problems. Not "skating" off the lobe over the tip, mind you... but just simply binding. As in: The roller or tappet-face diameter was too small to smoothly follow the lobe's ramp contour, so it bound-up.
As for that stock-lift rule, I've seen something like that once... A '72 Road Runner racing in some "stock"-class that the owner of was forced to run factory compression (8.2:1), so he had a cam made with barely any lift & a "B"-load of duration to work with it. Worked rather well too, form what I remember hearing.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
Nickelin Dimer wrote:Chris wrote:QWK LN2 (aka ImPhat0260) wrote:Need to make sure the rockers are narrow bodied... Other than that, OHV notec hit it on the head....
Well, there's a little more to it, but I think a boosted engine with a higher rocker ratio will benefit from a cam lobe that holds the peak lift a little bit longer. If you use a 1.6 rocker and want .500 lift the lobe will take a certain number of degrees to reach peak lift. If you build a lobe to use a 1.7 rocker and the same .500 lift, you can get there is fewer degrees of cam rotation and then have the lobe hold peak lift for the rotation of the cam that you would have used to reach peak lift with the lower ratio rocker. Engine builders use lobes designed like this for stock eliminator class drag racing or in certain classes of circle track racing where they are required to use stock lift, but can change the duration of the cam.
Well put, but if you start getting so quick (Too-quick, as the case would be... as you'll see) with the ramp on a short-duration cam with high lift, you run into lifter following problems. Not "skating" off the lobe over the tip, mind you... but just simply binding. As in: The roller or tappet-face diameter was too small to smoothly follow the lobe's ramp contour, so it bound-up.
Well, I think you gave the right answer, but for the wrong reason lol. Chris was saying (correctly) that with a given lobe ramp rate, a higher ratio rocker will achive a given lift more quickly (and therefore be at that lift longer). The ramp rate is constant, so it is not the reason binding could become an issue.
The possible binding would come from the variable--the rocker ratio. This is because a higher ratio rocker would exert a greater force on the lifter for a given spring pressure.
The benefit to the method Chris brought up is that it makes the duration more easily attainable when using a reground cam, since there is less material "lopped" off the lobe peak.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
So I have a cam out of blown motor sitting next me. So can someone give me a laymans explanation of what I should get it reground to and why please.
Im a little new to custom building motors. Ive helped rebuild my friends 3800 a few times with him but a lot of this stuff is still hazy to me.
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:So I have a cam out of blown motor sitting next me. So can someone give me a laymans explanation of what I should get it reground to and why please.
Im a little new to custom building motors. Ive helped rebuild my friends 3800 a few times with him but a lot of this stuff is still hazy to me.
You need to give a lot more information in order for anyone to recommend a cam grind. You cam specs will depend on your compression ratio, valve size, head porting, TB size, intended RPM range, gear ratio, tire diameter, car weight, what trans you have, rocker arm ratio, NA or boosted, etc.
OHV notec wrote:Nickelin Dimer wrote:Chris wrote:QWK LN2 (aka ImPhat0260) wrote:Need to make sure the rockers are narrow bodied... Other than that, OHV notec hit it on the head....
Well, there's a little more to it, but I think a boosted engine with a higher rocker ratio will benefit from a cam lobe that holds the peak lift a little bit longer. If you use a 1.6 rocker and want .500 lift the lobe will take a certain number of degrees to reach peak lift. If you build a lobe to use a 1.7 rocker and the same .500 lift, you can get there is fewer degrees of cam rotation and then have the lobe hold peak lift for the rotation of the cam that you would have used to reach peak lift with the lower ratio rocker. Engine builders use lobes designed like this for stock eliminator class drag racing or in certain classes of circle track racing where they are required to use stock lift, but can change the duration of the cam.
Well put, but if you start getting so quick (Too-quick, as the case would be... as you'll see) with the ramp on a short-duration cam with high lift, you run into lifter following problems. Not "skating" off the lobe over the tip, mind you... but just simply binding. As in: The roller or tappet-face diameter was too small to smoothly follow the lobe's ramp contour, so it bound-up.
Well, I think you gave the right answer, but for the wrong reason lol. Chris was saying (correctly) that with a given lobe ramp rate, a higher ratio rocker will achive a given lift more quickly (and therefore be at that lift longer). The ramp rate is constant, so it is not the reason binding could become an issue.
The possible binding would come from the variable--the rocker ratio. This is because a higher ratio rocker would exert a greater force on the lifter for a given spring pressure.
The benefit to the method Chris brought up is that it makes the duration more easily attainable when using a reground cam, since there is less material "lopped" off the lobe peak.
You are correct, Notec. But I think that with this crowd that, if they're pulling their cams to replace them with another, building the lifters so they'd withstand the greater force observed (The LN2/LT-1 lifter mod) would be a given. I'm thinking in terms learned from past efforts of others who've built OHV engines with cams that have radically fast ramps. And no folks, I don't mean the LN2.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
Chris wrote:TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:So I have a cam out of blown motor sitting next me. So can someone give me a laymans explanation of what I should get it reground to and why please.
Im a little new to custom building motors. Ive helped rebuild my friends 3800 a few times with him but a lot of this stuff is still hazy to me.
You need to give a lot more information in order for anyone to recommend a cam grind. You cam specs will depend on your compression ratio, valve size, head porting, TB size, intended RPM range, gear ratio, tire diameter, car weight, what trans you have, rocker arm ratio, NA or boosted, etc.
And power goals, driveablility goals, fuel grade possibilities, and budget (for valvetrain possibilities).
Nickelin Dimer wrote:OHV notec wrote:Nickelin Dimer wrote:Chris wrote:QWK LN2 (aka ImPhat0260) wrote:Need to make sure the rockers are narrow bodied... Other than that, OHV notec hit it on the head....
Well, there's a little more to it, but I think a boosted engine with a higher rocker ratio will benefit from a cam lobe that holds the peak lift a little bit longer. If you use a 1.6 rocker and want .500 lift the lobe will take a certain number of degrees to reach peak lift. If you build a lobe to use a 1.7 rocker and the same .500 lift, you can get there is fewer degrees of cam rotation and then have the lobe hold peak lift for the rotation of the cam that you would have used to reach peak lift with the lower ratio rocker. Engine builders use lobes designed like this for stock eliminator class drag racing or in certain classes of circle track racing where they are required to use stock lift, but can change the duration of the cam.
Well put, but if you start getting so quick (Too-quick, as the case would be... as you'll see) with the ramp on a short-duration cam with high lift, you run into lifter following problems. Not "skating" off the lobe over the tip, mind you... but just simply binding. As in: The roller or tappet-face diameter was too small to smoothly follow the lobe's ramp contour, so it bound-up.
Well, I think you gave the right answer, but for the wrong reason lol. Chris was saying (correctly) that with a given lobe ramp rate, a higher ratio rocker will achive a given lift more quickly (and therefore be at that lift longer). The ramp rate is constant, so it is not the reason binding could become an issue.
The possible binding would come from the variable--the rocker ratio. This is because a higher ratio rocker would exert a greater force on the lifter for a given spring pressure.
The benefit to the method Chris brought up is that it makes the duration more easily attainable when using a reground cam, since there is less material "lopped" off the lobe peak.
You are correct, Notec. But I think that with this crowd that, if they're pulling their cams to replace them with another, building the lifters so they'd withstand the greater force observed (The LN2/LT-1 lifter mod) would be a given. I'm thinking in terms learned from past efforts of others who've built OHV engines with cams that have radically fast ramps. And no folks, I don't mean the LN2.
Changing lifter springs won't prevent binding though, the force seen at the lobe-follower interface is the same no matter the lifter internals. The spring just helps to keep the lifter from collapsing with the increased force and speeds. I think the point you're trying to get across is simply that people should be weary of their ramp rates (mine is pretty extreme). Replying to Chris's post was just a bad choice of lead-in
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
OHV notec wrote:Changing lifter springs won't prevent binding though, the force seen at the lobe-follower interface is the same no matter the lifter internals. The spring just helps to keep the lifter from collapsing with the increased force and speeds. I think the point you're trying to get across is simply that people should be weary of their ramp rates (mine is pretty extreme). Replying to Chris's post was just a bad choice of lead-in
You are
correct, sir... In triplicate! Especially in the third sentence.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
