One as most people know is porting the exhaust manifolds, and that is good for 8HP dyno proven by Herb Adams, (on a 2.8L) you don't need the do the weld reinforcement as his article says. If you look in two of the ports you will see the obvious restrictions. But this is not what this thread is about, just FYI that is also cheap to do. Plus you can use exhaust gaskets from a 62 bug, (you need 6) and they are super cheap.
For the threads intended purpose. I did some research. I asked around, and didn't get a definite response, so I tried it, and this WORKED WELL. Background On my 3.4 I have the 1.6 ratio roller tipped rocker arms. The Camaro forum claims 15 HP upgrade from them, just the math alone says 11HP I would guess the other 4 is the reduced friction. I was working on another 3.4L I had and wanted to add them too but without the high cost.
Now, the 94-95 3100 engines have 1.6 stamped rockers stock, But I couldn't find anyone who tried them, so I tried them. They work GREAT with no problems, probably even better than stock as they put oil where it should go and not against the valve covers, but onto the fulcrum point of the rocker. So by math alone they should be worth 11 HP. (on a 3.4, 9HP on a 2.8L) Pick-a-part here only charges $2.75 each so that's $33 plus tax, = cheap HP upgrade.
The cars to look for have the black plastic valve covers, the easy way to get all 12 is pull 6 from the front valve cover from one car, and another 6 from another, so you don't have to mess with the back, makes it real easy to pull all 12.
So if you do both you can get around a 17-19HP (2.8L-3.4L) upgrade for $35, the cost of gaskets (you can reuse the intake gaskets) and some labor.
Here is a pic of what they look like. You can see the little tab that directs oil too. Enjoy.
Great write-up.....Amazing what you can find/accomplish if you spend time digging around in the junkyard. Only question I have is would changing to the 1.6 rockers have any affect on smog testing?
Nice find though. Are these plain-tipped? I will try to estimate the power loss of non-roller tips at some point.
I might actually go for the 1.6 rockers as a way to increase lift without getting too much overlap on a turbo car.
If I go for this mod, I will attempt to do a before/after dragstrip run to measure the change in trap speed.
A horsepower change of this magnitude should be easily measurable in trap speed. Unfortunately, what will hurt the A-B comparison is that it will take some time (maybe 2 weeks) for me to re-calibrate my fuel injection map for the new rockers.
Very cool thanks for posting. Other than swapping the rockers what else is required to be changed with the 1.6 rocker swap, anything?
No, a direct bolt in.
quote
Originally posted by cvxjet:
Great write-up.....Amazing what you can find/accomplish if you spend time digging around in the junkyard. Only question I have is would changing to the 1.6 rockers have any affect on smog testing?
It shouldn't, but your are in Cali, they may just pull off your valve covers to check, (kidding)
quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle:
The pic doesn't work.
Nice find though. Are these plain-tipped? I will try to estimate the power loss of non-roller tips at some point.
The pic should work as I use PIP and it works on my phone too.
I forgot to add, if you loop the lines for the throttle body coolant, it may be worth some HP, as cooler air is denser air. The whole Fiero intake gets hot enough as it is. Totally free. Just get the long hose and loop it back to the thermostat housing. At that point you can even break off the MAP sensor bracket and remove the hard lines and clean up the engine bay a bit.
Like Sardonyx247 mentioned, these stamped 1.6:1 rockers come in the early 3100 engines. The later 3100 and 3400 engines use pedestal-mount rockers, which will not work in the 2.8 or 3.4 without modification. Just FYI.
Like Sardonyx247 mentioned, these stamped 1.6:1 rockers come in the early 3100 engines. The later 3100 and 3400 engines use pedestal-mount rockers, which will not work in the 2.8 or 3.4 without modification. Just FYI.
I forgot to add, if you loop the lines for the throttle body coolant, it may be worth some HP, as cooler air is denser air. The whole Fiero intake gets hot enough as it is. Totally free. Just get the long hose and loop it back to the thermostat housing. At that point you can even break off the MAP sensor bracket and remove the hard lines and clean up the engine bay a bit.
it is also a "trick" to run water through it from a holding tank.. or what was once used on carb'd cars a fuel cooler and ice pack.. the cooler water running through it gives you a few.. free h/p
bluepringing the oil pump and porting the outlet, and the engine inlet.. the less power it takes to pump the oil through the more to the wheels.. syn oil.. and a good flowing oil filter.. many of the oil filters that claim to catch the smallest of crap don't flow, and tho it sounds better to have it filter more/better.. it doesn't as these engine families are not set up for it, and it only opens the bypass and the oil goes back un-filtered.. you can loose hp try'n to force the oil through these ultra filters.. I'll take a little less tiny micro filtering and having to change the oil and filter at 3.5-4k over 6-7+k and oil bypassing the filter..
Are these the correct ones. Also do they have part numbers on them? Not saying I will buy new just want to make sure these are them so I can try to find some in the junk yard. Also, are you saying you "Don't" need to change out the guide plates, springs or push rods? Just want to make sure this is all correct information. Tate
[This message has been edited by PontiacTate (edited 08-23-2016).]
Are these the correct ones. Also do they have part numbers on them? Not saying I will buy new just want to make sure these are them so I can try to find some in the junk yard. Also, are you saying you "Don't" need to change out the guide plates, springs or push rods? Just want to make sure this is all correct information. Tate
From a back-of-the-envelope calculation, roller tips are worth an engine torque loss of about one quarter of a pound foot. Though that's just from the scrubbing of the rocker across the tip of the valve. I didn't bother to consider if the side load would cause additional friction in the valve guide.
So other than supposed valve guide wear, the Comp Cams Magnum 1.6 roller-tipped rockers have no real advantage over the junkyard 1.6 rockers.
Furthermore, when in doubt, simply copy the best. The best in pushrod engines are the GM V8s, and nowadays they have plain tips, with bearing fulcrums.
So if there's anything to gain, it's by bearings at the fulcrum, not the tips.
From a back-of-the-envelope calculation, roller tips are worth an engine torque loss of about one quarter of a pound foot. Though that's just from the scrubbing of the rocker across the tip of the valve. I didn't bother to consider if the side load would cause additional friction in the valve guide.
So other than supposed valve guide wear, the Comp Cams Magnum 1.6 roller-tipped rockers have no real advantage over the junkyard 1.6 rockers.
Furthermore, when in doubt, simply copy the best. The best in pushrod engines are the GM V8s, and nowadays they have plain tips, with bearing fulcrums.
So if there's anything to gain, it's by bearings at the fulcrum, not the tips.
the oem bearing in the fulcrum is more because of todays oils than anything else.. the rocker ball and socket, has metal sliding on metal with no pressurized oil. just like flat tappet lifters.. both need the minerials that the epa has forced out of todays oils.. so the sockets/balls tend to burn (turn blue) and fail.. The roller tip.. well in the oem world it's another moving part that can fail.. and cost more, and requires guide plates . the oem rockers are slotted, so no guide plate needed..= cheaper and bean counter love that, and less moving parts to fail. that they would have to warranty.. the side loading saving valve guides, now, I doubt the ls/etc engine valve train moves/slides the rocker across the valve tip as much as the old adjustable set up did..
First, to establish a base line, I started with a1980s vintage "Pennzoil" 10W/40 it contained 547 PPM Phosphorus and 716 PPM Zinc. This was one of the popular oils widely available and used in the 80s. It had adequate ZDDP content for flat tappet engines.
g.m. already did it 105 hp at flywheel 160 hp flywheel
Wonder how many Hp can be gained on a Fiero 2.8 with just the rocker swap. I too would like clarification that nothing else needs changed.. "guide plates, springs or push rods", no adjustments to anything else, etc.
I too would like clarification that nothing else needs changed.. "guide plates, springs or push rods", no adjustments to anything else, etc.
quote
Originally posted by sardonyx247:
so I tried it, and this WORKED WELL.
I did this mod and not only did I put over 1000 miles on the Fiero, I passed smog. No other changes. I grabbed everything in the first pic, The second pic was those exact same rockers installed. Look in my 3.4 swap thread, link in sig, it is on the last page. Thus I wrote this write up.
Be careful if you upgrade the cam though. Those 1.6 rockers caused a nasty metal to metal noise with my Comp 260H cam with stock valve springs. I did purchase the performance beehive springs from the Fiero Store that is supposed to allow the higher lift without binding. I haven't had a chance to test them yet.
sardonyx247: What cam are you running in your 3.4L?
I did this mod and not only did I put over 1000 miles on the Fiero, I passed smog. No other changes. I grabbed everything in the first pic, The second pic was those exact same rockers installed. Look in my 3.4 swap thread, link in sig, it is on the last page. Thus I wrote this write up.
We are looking for documented HP increase with just this change. I have no doubt that they fit.. but the question was if it was worth the effort, HP-wise.
people need to understand that power increases aren't linear... this change by itself might produce 3 hp increase another change, such as switching to the Fiero store's SSI valves might produce 3 hp by itself (they have narrower valve stems at the base)..
however together, they might produce a 8 hp gain...
using a 3400 block instead of a Camaro 3.4 block as a base for a 3.4 conversion using Camaro pistons produces an engine with a base hp between 145 and 150 rwhp instead of 135 rwhp for the Camaro base engine because you get a roller cam upgrade and a little more lift. (.436/.436) when used with 1.6 rockers (which are stock on Gen2+). In fact, when using 1.6 rockers on a Fiero stock cam, you'd end up with .416/.436 lift... So as you can see, using 1.6 rockers gives you the same exhaust lift as a stock 3X00 60 degree motor. Those motors have narrower valve stems so they flow more air however the Fiero store valves (SSI stainless) offer the same benefit. You can also have the stock Fiero valves "cut back" as it's known to machinists. Foreign engines use real skinny valve stems to increase airflow for a given valve diameter.
Most people here don't bother doing the 'little things' to increase performance and just believe the dogma that is professed. A simple 3.4 "rebuild" can yield 40 more hp when you do the little things all at the same time...
here you can see (a bit blurry) where the Fiero Store SSI valves were/are narrowed:
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 08-25-2016).]
There are a lot of myths out there, but the data doesn't lie....
oh, ya this b/s again..
This is why flat tappet cam makers and rockers makers with ball/fulcum will not warranty the parts unless... oh I guess their testing didn't make it to your listed studies.. sure smog motor cams and weak sauce springs they'll live. now add a higher ratio rocker that loads the ball/socket more, that many times comes with a new spring install, and the ball and socket turn blue. and the rockers fail.. g.m. would not be using rollerized/bushed fulcums as they cost much more than ball and socket rockers, if your data was honestly correct.. ONE thing that is a 100% given, beancounters will not spend money unless it was not needed, But I'm sure you'll tell us how it's just the zpp marketing .. lol
V8's and even the Tech4 4cyl have been roller design way before the v6/60 which didn't get a roller cam until GEN3... GEN3 also used roller fulcrum rockers. The roller design has eliminated the need for additives like you guys have been arguing about. So "some" engines needed it and "some" don't.
Heck, the Tech4 uses 1.7 rockers as does the 3.8... Quit whining about the extra wear of switching to 1.6...
The facts state that ZDDP ppm was LOWER in the 80s than in today's Mobil 1. So, in any stock Fiero, you can run Mobil 1 and not have to worry about ZDDP levels. If you modify your engine, then you need to follow that manufacturers recommendation. Just like GM won't warranty your engine if you change out the cam and rockers with non-OEM spec parts.
You are also discounting oil studies that show newer oils offer increased protection against high pressure wear (which ZDDP was known for).
While it is convenient to tell us how the EPA is ruining motor oil for flat tappet engines, that is not true (backed up by the data). If you think old motor oil is better, then find some NOS oil and run it, or formulate your own and sell it. I doubt many, if any would buy it, unless you sold it on late night TV to those who believe anything.
Companies selling ZDDP bottles are about the same as those selling Slick 50.... good at marketing.
quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:
oh, ya this b/s again..
This is why flat tappet cam makers and rockers makers with ball/fulcum will not warranty the parts unless... oh I guess their testing didn't make it to your listed studies.. sure smog motor cams and weak sauce springs they'll live. now add a higher ratio rocker that loads the ball/socket more, that many times comes with a new spring install, and the ball and socket turn blue. and the rockers fail.. g.m. would not be using rollerized/bushed fulcums as they cost much more than ball and socket rockers, if your data was honestly correct.. ONE thing that is a 100% given, beancounters will not spend money unless it was not needed, But I'm sure you'll tell us how it's just the zpp marketing .. lol
The facts state that ZDDP ppm was LOWER in the 80s than in today's Mobil 1. So, in any stock Fiero, you can run Mobil 1 and not have to worry about ZDDP levels.
True, but a lot of folks don't run Mobil1, and many don't because their cars will leak. No I'm not saying mobil 1 causes leaks, but if you have old gaskets ready to leak but currently don't with conventional oil, if mobil 1 is run it can happen, will with other full syn oils too.
Is your point relevant to many more commonly used oils for 30 year old cars as well?
The facts state that ZDDP ppm was LOWER in the 80s than in today's Mobil 1. So, in any stock Fiero, you can run Mobil 1 and not have to worry about ZDDP levels. If you modify your engine, then you need to follow that manufacturers recommendation. Just like GM won't warranty your engine if you change out the cam and rockers with non-OEM spec parts.
You are also discounting oil studies that show newer oils offer increased protection against high pressure wear (which ZDDP was known for).
While it is convenient to tell us how the EPA is ruining motor oil for flat tappet engines, that is not true (backed up by the data). If you think old motor oil is better, then find some NOS oil and run it, or formulate your own and sell it. I doubt many, if any would buy it, unless you sold it on late night TV to those who believe anything.
Companies selling ZDDP bottles are about the same as those selling Slick 50.... good at marketing.
fun fact.. this can't be as the EPA required it reduced on all over the road oils.. mobil one is an over the road oil.. so um.. ya Are use stating that mobil 1 did not reformulate the oil like the ePA REG's required for on highway use, light truck and vehicle oils..??
Mobil 1 race oil is not the mobil 1 you get at the parts store or walmart.. so.. Please Please tell us more, There is a reason.. people had to move to large rig oils (hint mobil 1 had one) until the EPA reg's killed that option also.. So, please please tell us more..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 08-25-2016).]
What are you even talking about? LOOK at the ZDDP levels. Tell me where ZDDP PPM was higher in 80s pennzoil, than today's Mobil 1.
I am not talking racing oil. Come on... stay on topic and structure your responses in complete sentences for clarity.
As for today's oil... it is FAR better than oil from decades ago. It is better on all accounts, and yet you want to argue because you are wrong. Eh... data doesn't lie, but you do.
quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:
fun fact.. this can't be as the EPA required it reduced on all over the road oils.. mobil one is an over the road oil.. so um.. ya Are use stating that mobil 1 did not reformulate the oil like the ePA REG's required for on highway use, light truck and vehicle oils..??
Mobil 1 race oil is not the mobil 1 you get at the parts store or walmart.. so.. Please Please tell us more, There is a reason.. people had to move to large rig oils (hint mobil 1 had one) until the EPA reg's killed that option also.. So, please please tell us more..
True, but a lot of folks don't run Mobil1, and many don't because their cars will leak. No I'm not saying mobil 1 causes leaks, but if you have old gaskets ready to leak but currently don't with conventional oil, if mobil 1 is run it can happen, will with other full syn oils too.
Is your point relevant to many more commonly used oils for 30 year old cars as well?
Mobil 1 high mileage is available for older cars and it contains additives to reduce leaks and such. Feel free to look up your favorite oil and list the ZDDP levels. I am simply pointing out that anyone can buy oil at walmart and that oil that has more ZDDP than 80s oil. There is no conspiracy to remove ZDDP from oils or to make them less functional for older engines. Frankly, I think that most backyard mechanics don't know what the correct ZDDP level is, but they think more is better, or they blame oil when it is really their lack of knowledge or ability to follow manufacturer's instructions when working on engines.
Originally posted by 2.5: No conspiracy no, I thought it was done to save cat converters.
Unless you're burning oil, it wouldn't really matter to the converter. And if you're burning oil, well, your converterr is getting screwed over anyway.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: fun fact.. this can't be as the EPA required it reduced on all over the road oils.. mobil one is an over the road oil.. so um.. ya Are use stating that mobil 1 did not reformulate the oil like the ePA REG's required for on highway use, light truck and vehicle oils..??
Mobil 1 race oil is not the mobil 1 you get at the parts store or walmart.. so.. Please Please tell us more, There is a reason.. people had to move to large rig oils (hint mobil 1 had one) until the EPA reg's killed that option also.. So, please please tell us more..
Can you point to the EPA web site where this regulation is documented so that we can verify whether your claim is validated or not? Where is the definition of an "over the road oil" and why wouldn't diesel trucks fall into that category?
Nothing you've said makes any sense. You're just shouting about the EPA because it's something to blame, rather than educating yourself.
Can you point to the EPA web site where this regulation is documented so that we can verify whether your claim is validated or not? Where is the definition of an "over the road oil" and why wouldn't diesel trucks fall into that category?
Nothing you've said makes any sense. You're just shouting about the EPA because it's something to blame, rather than educating yourself.
You know how to google.. Why was the materials ppm lowered?? oh that's right. the EPA requirement that emission controls last 100k under warranty.. (now 150k they want) and the materials they lowered the ppm harm those parts.. So, ya. EPA reg's .. I have to go to work, so google it..
Originally posted by E.Furgal: You know how to google.. Why was the materials ppm lowered?? oh that's right. the EPA requirement that emission controls last 100k under warranty.. (now 150k they want) and the materials they lowered the ppm harm those parts.. So, ya. EPA reg's .. I have to go to work, so google it..
Apparently not, because I can't find any documentation which supports your nonsense claim that the EPA regulated ZDDP to the point where manufacturers cannot produce motor oils with enough ZDDP content for older engines. As the links provided by jaskispyder show, the PPM count is plenty high enough for the flat tappet cam in the FIero.
He supported his argument with documentation (aka, facts). You are making an argument against his statements, and therefore the onus is on you to provide supporting documentation, not for us on the sidelines to do all the work for you. If you can't do that, then shut up and quit ranting about the EPA, because you're not providing a lick of help in this thread.
Back on topic, yes, 1.6 rockers will give a tiny bump in power across the whole torque curve, usually. If you really want to make use of them though, you need to port the heads and intake manifold, and remove the restriction in the neck of the upper plenum, as well as port the exhaust manifolds and remove the restrictions there as well. Even just doing the upper plenum and exhaust manifolds will help it breathe a little easier, if you don't want to remove the heads and lower intake portions, to dig into them.
The stock standard pushrods can be used, but you really should pull the ones from the 3.1 as well, as they should be the correct length; though since it's a street engine GM may have used the exact same pushrods in both engines (I don't have part #s, or sets of both, to compare). Since the fulcrum point has moved, the optimal pushrod length would have changed, but can be slightly made up for with valve lash adjustments.
