quote Originally posted by nosrac: Does it have > 750HP now? If so in a lil azz Fiero that would be wicked insane x2^10 on roids fast?

It would be about the same being that GP probally weighs less than a Fiero.....

quote Originally posted by MstangsBware: It would be about the same being that GP probally weighs less than a Fiero.....

Its a full 700lbs less than my fiero.

Also, the ONLY part on that entire drivetrain setup different from my fiero is the ported stock casting aluminum heads (GM prototypes), a slightly different cam and obviously turbos.

I already have a Troll in my house I can't get rid of I realy do not need one here. I knew this build would cause some confussion with the nay sayers but it is a good thing it is mine and I can build it any way I want.
as far as the pictures of the heads they are not done yet in those pics he still had about 1/4" to go on the ports still he was working on the floor of the port. the end result will be a D shaped port. this is not my first rodeo, I have done this a few times before.

on to the good stuff..... I got the new pulleys yesterday and they look fantastic. abd because we also work on LS engines as well I may have found a way to build something very cool with this motor.

I will keep it to myself for now but once I find out if it will work I will share. it may be something that we can do on others as well.

Looking forward to your results and how you go about it!

There are some misconceptions provided in the beginning of your post by other members that need to be addressed about Cryo treatment and connecting rods, this is based on my background in metallurgy,

First off you will not get 50% increase in strength by Cryo treating. In fact the scientific jury is still out whether Cryo treatment does anything at all but it certainly does not increase strength 50% let alone change the yield strength at all, it may affect the ultimate tensile strength which is typically a useless design parameter. I was discussing this with a PhD in metallurgy at Caterpillar while trying to understand the process and he said after studying the issue at Cat they concluded leaving a newly formed steel on the shelf for 6 months does the same thing as Cryo treating, very minimal changes that are hard to measure. There is nothing wrong with Cryo treatment, it mayl help slightly but it will not hurt (unless you Cryo aluminum with the steel the differences in thermal expansion can cause problems only do it on steels).

Powder rods verses forged rods, now I am no expert on performance so there may be products I am not aware of but a powder metallurgy rod is typically forged, they can be consolidated to a solid using hot isostatic pressing which would make them even stronger but it is very expensive. You can also forge an already cast (or already solid) part, the reason for forging an already cast part is you reduce what we in this field call the grain size of the material, when you reduce the grain size you increase the strength of a material. In powder forging, the forging is used to consolidate the powder into a solid. This powder forging (one needs to measure the grain size to be sure) provides an even finer grain size and hence more strength. However, defects can be introduced in this technique and it can cause the material to be a bit more brittle than solid forged materials and they can break a bit easier so I can see the claim that powder forged rods may do less damage. Since the grain size is important to strength as previously mentioned if you find hot isostatic pressed powder rods they could be even stronger. Now this of course assumes no heat treatment differences because this can dramatically change everything.

Okay off my soap box, back to popcorn!!

quote Originally posted by whodeanie: I already have a Troll in my house I can't get rid of I realy do not need one here. I knew this build would cause some confussion with the nay sayers but it is a good thing it is mine and I can build it any way I want. as far as the pictures of the heads they are not done yet in those pics he still had about 1/4" to go on the ports still he was working on the floor of the port. the end result will be a D shaped port. this is not my first rodeo, I have done this a few times before. on to the good stuff..... I got the new pulleys yesterday and they look fantastic. abd because we also work on LS engines as well I may have found a way to build something very cool with this motor. I will keep it to myself for now but once I find out if it will work I will share. it may be something that we can do on others as well.

Please do share, I like these automotive debates wayyy better than the politics in the OT. Anyway it goes I am still rooting for a successful and very Purdy build.
I got nothing but love for the Fiero and 3800 in any flava you choose to build it

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: Roller rockers decrease horsepower in every situation I and zzp have run across.

Oh really? LOL I move to Colorado and you forget everything I taught you.

Great thread Who!!! Thanks for posting. Keep up the good work.

------------------
Steve AT 88GTP DOT com
88 GT\3800 SC\L67\L26\4T65E-HD
NIC Cam\Comp Cam Hi-Tech 1.8 rockers\Rhoads XL Lifters
eBay Headers\Magnaflow Camaro muffler, 3.4 pulley
DH Tune

Wanna go faster?

quote Originally posted by Steve25: Oh really? LOL I move to Colorado and you forget everything I taught you. Great thread Who!!! Thanks for posting. Keep up the good work.

Steve... The key difference is we know what we are doing.

I tried explaining why in the past and the results were not pretty.

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: Steve... The key difference is we know what we are doing. I tried explaining why in the past and the results were not pretty.

I am curious as to the physics and theory as to why roller rockers would decrease horsepower. Less rolling resistance and lighter weight would think to free up a bit. If you don't want to post it here, pm me. I'm not trying to start anything, but if I'm throwing away $400 with no results, I'd like to know.

Dave

Montage, thanks for the Cryo info.

This is my thoughts behind my desision to do the Cryo and coatings, one of the Nascar teams I can not say what one had a motor Cryoed and coated and then ran the motor with no fluids for 45 min. and then toar it down to find no damage and it was also tested with fluids and it did gain HP over a non coated motor due to less friction.
this process is normaly expencive but the owner of the place is giving me a great deal on it for testing it on a street car.

[This message has been edited by whodeanie (edited 12-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by bmwguru: I am curious as to the physics and theory as to why roller rockers would decrease horsepower. Less rolling resistance and lighter weight would think to free up a bit. If you don't want to post it here, pm me. I'm not trying to start anything, but if I'm throwing away $400 with no results, I'd like to know. Dave

I've seen articles trying to explain why rollers are not better, but on the same engine on the same dyno.......


http://www.carcraft.com/tec...l.html#ixzz1faYESPWG

[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 12-04-2011).]

If your cryo the rocker will that keep the flex down?

------------------
Turbo 3800 E85 5spd spec5
11.54@132.7

so I got the new bearings and Dbl. roller timing set and droped them off at the cryo shop this morning. I plan to have the timing set cryo and RIM and the bearings will all be coated with the oil coat.

I can not wait to get the rest of the parts and start building the motor.
D.

quote Originally posted by weaselbeak: http://www.carcraft.com/tec...l.html#ixzz1faYESPWG

Excerpts from the above article:

quote First we ran the motor with a set of stock 1.5:1 stamped rockers with pivot-ball fulcrums, and averaged 389.9 hp and 407 lb-ft of torque at 6,000 rpm. With the baseline laid down, we moved on to a set of Comp Cams 1.5:1 roller rockers. At the same 6,000-rpm peak, we made 401.1 hp and 412.9 lb-ft of torque, a gain of 11.2 hp and 5.9 lb-ft of torque. Moving to the 1.6:1 rockers .... We were happy to see the average power levels increase again, this time by 12.5 hp and 9.9 lb-ft of torque. For the final test, we pulled out the 1.65:1 rockers, which effectively increased max lift to a still-safe 0.524/ 0.528 inch at the peak. While power went up 0.4 hp and 1.5 lb-ft, the average didn't show any real gain by going from the 1.6:1 to the 1.65:1 rockers because we'd exceeded the ability of the heads to flow more air. Overall, we gained 24.1 hp and 17.3 lb-ft of torque just by bolting on a set of rocker arms, which would make a noticeable difference at the track and in the seat of the pants.

Every time I've installed higher ratio roller rocker arms on 3800 SC (and Turbo) builds I've done, I've noticed a performance increase. So I would NOT say they are a waste of money. But you need to check to make sure you aren't using too high of a ratio of rocker for the cam, valve springs, or clearances your engine has. You also need to make sure the rockers you install have correct geometry and are correctly contacting the valve tips - because there are some known alignment and geometry issues with some of these aftermarket roller rocker arms sold for the 3800s. And installing something that doesn't match up with your particular engine can cost you power, and perhaps a whole lot more.

-ryan

------------------
OVERKILL IS UNDERRATED

Custom GM OBD1 & OBD2 Tuning | Engine Conversions & more | www.gmtuners.com

quote Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Every time I've installed higher ratio roller rocker arms on 3800 SC (and Turbo) builds I've done, I've noticed a performance increase. So I would NOT say they are a waste of money. But you need to check to make sure you aren't using too high of a ratio of rocker for the cam, valve springs, or clearances your engine has. You also need to make sure the rockers you install have correct geometry and are correctly contacting the valve tips - because there are some known alignment and geometry issues with some of these aftermarket roller rocker arms sold for the 3800s. And installing something that doesn't match up with your particular engine can cost you power, and perhaps a whole lot more. -ryan

Isn't the 3800 rocker underrated though? I would like to see stock 3800 1.6 compared to an aftermarket 1.6 roller.

------------------
Turbo 3800 E85 5spd spec5
11.54@132.7

quote Originally posted by Justinbart: Isn't the 3800 rocker underrated though? I would like to see stock 3800 1.6 compared to an aftermarket 1.6 roller.

Could be. I think I saw somewhere that the actual ratio of the stock 3800 rocker is 1.64 or 1.66. Can't remember. But like anything else, it is a mass produced part and I'm sure not all of the stock rockers you find on a given 3800 engine are all going to have the exact same ratio. Of course that's not saying the aftermarket rockers are perfect either. But given that, going from even a 1.66 ratio to a 1.8 ratio is a significant change.

quote Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Every time I've installed higher ratio roller rocker arms on 3800 SC (and Turbo) builds I've done, I've noticed a performance increase. So I would NOT say they are a waste of money. But you need to check to make sure you aren't using too high of a ratio of rocker for the cam, valve springs, or clearances your engine has. You also need to make sure the rockers you install have correct geometry and are correctly contacting the valve tips - because there are some known alignment and geometry issues with some of these aftermarket roller rocker arms sold for the 3800s. And installing something that doesn't match up with your particular engine can cost you power, and perhaps a whole lot more. -ryan

On my son's Vette, the geometry was a piece of cake. It really only required the right pushrod length. I just painted the stem tips with black marker, the rolled the engine over a few times to make sure the roller was wearing the marker off properly, in the middle of the stem. The AFR heads had their own guides.

How come you dont spend a little extra money while its apart amd install a dry sump oil system? Only makes sense if your going for big reliable hp to have a soild oil system. 700hp on the stock style oil system dosent seem to be a good idea. Pretty much any motor I see making alot of power gets a dry sump installed.

quote Originally posted by red85gt: How come you dont spend a little extra money while its apart amd install a dry sump oil system? Only makes sense if your going for big reliable hp to have a soild oil system. 700hp on the stock style oil system dosent seem to be a good idea. Pretty much any motor I see making alot of power gets a dry sump installed.

I have been planning on just running alot of negative crankcase vacuum. But a drysump would be a good upgrade.

As far as the rockers go... I have installed plenty of rockers... I know what increases power and what doesnt now... I also know what decreases valve float and what doesnt.

If I tried to explain why, you would all just start quoting hotrod mag again and not believe me. Zoomer and I already tried explaining it on cgp, and we just got trolled.

it is not necessary to quote HR magazine for anything. How many top engine builders do NOT use rollers? A simple search tells me that it seems the vast majority do. Men building 1500 HP and up are pretty picky about such things.

quote Originally posted by weaselbeak: it is not necessary to quote HR magazine for anything. How many top engine builders do NOT use rollers? A simple search tells me that it seems the vast majority do. Men building 1500 HP and up are pretty picky about such things.

Look, if Ryan wasnt on full out troll mode right now, I would be more than happy to explain.

I just dont care enough to get a 20 page rebuttle of stupid irrelivant crap then his nutswingers to come in here and start bashing me.

The roller rockers are not the problem, I have just proven them to suck alot more than the OEM rockers.... I dont see why everyone is under the thought that GM has no clue what they are doing when it comes to building an engine. I am willing to bet they put a bit more time and effort into seeing how well a rocker works on a 3800 series 2 than yella terra did in the land down under.

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: Look, if Ryan wasnt on full out troll mode right now, I would be more than happy to explain. I just dont care enough to get a 20 page rebuttle of stupid irrelivant crap then his nutswingers to come in here and start bashing me.

And you wonder why people bash you when you make comments like that??? Seems pretty obvious to me.

-ryan

"Rollers cannot produce the same lift and power as stock rockers. Stock rockers are in effect variable ratio and will product FAR better performance than any roller. The ratio of the stock rocker increases with cam size used as well. Some people are stuck in the mod mentality tho and have to run after market parts to feel like they're doing it right."

"A rocker works by amplifying the lift of the cam. If the pushrod cup is 1" from the rocker bolt and the 'tip' of the rocker is 2" from the rocker bolt, then your rocker is a 2.0 ratio rocker. If you cam had .300 lift, you would now get .600 valve lift.

A roller rocker like this moves on top of the valve tip. So say at mid lift the 'tip' of the roller is centered on the valve. At valve close the rocker's roller tip will be further away from the center of the valve tip surface. At full open it will be closer. The distance from the center of the rocker (bolt) to the rocker tip (roller) is always the same. The rocker just changes its contact point on the valve tip but the distance from rocker center to roller tip never changes. Hence a 1.6 ratio rocker will always be exactly 1.6

A stock rocker is not like this.

Look at the tip of a used rocker. See the shiny part? You can see that the tip of the rocker is worn over maybe .250". This is because as the valve opens, the rocker changes contact point on the valve. And actually a stock rocker can be setup to be 'centered' on the valve through duration better than a roller. Anyway the rocker essentially gets longer the further you open the valve. So in my example above of 1" from pushrod cup to bolt and 2" from bolt to rocker tip. You may actually get 1.9" from bolt to tip with valve closed and 2.1" with the valve open.

Now that you understand this, how does this work in the real world? Well, the stock rocker is a low ratio when the valve is closed, this is easy on the valve springs and keeps valve float away. This is why you can run 1.9 mod'd rockers on stock springs to ~6000 but 1.9 rollers will float at ~5600rpm. It's also why cars with stock rockers make more power consistently than cars with rollers. Doesn't matter if you're talking about 1.9's on a stock cam or 1.6's, 1.7's on an aftermarket cam.

The change in ratio is actually about .3. So a stock rocker on 130# springs/cam is going to be ~1.5 ratio closed and ~1.8 open. You do lose lift from deflection tho. Probably 40+ thou on that setup which still isn't enough to be lower than a roller."

quote Originally posted by Tengis: Now that you understand this, how does this work in the real world? Well, the stock rocker is a low ratio when the valve is closed, this is easy on the valve springs and keeps valve float away. This is why you can run 1.9 mod'd rockers on stock springs to ~6000 but 1.9 rollers will float at ~5600rpm. It's also why cars with stock rockers make more power consistently than cars with rollers. Doesn't matter if you're talking about 1.9's on a stock cam or 1.6's, 1.7's on an aftermarket cam.

I'm not buying this. Valve float is the result of insufficient valve spring pressure - the springs cannot provide enough pushback against the rocker to close fast enough at high engine RPM's. While high ratio rocker arms will make this worse because they cause greater compression length of the valve springs, the choice of rocker (full roller vs non roller stamped steel) does not impact this.

quote While high ratio rocker arms will make this worse because they cause greater compression length of the valve springs,

Its getting deep here guys, look out!

I keep hearing people say to follow what other people have done and to do it just like that.
If everyone did that, you would never have anyone making more horsepower or anything else for that matter.
Also, some are so quick to point out that just because something didn`t work for them, then by gosh it`s not going to work period.
I applaud Whodeanie for trying other things that have worked on other types of engines.
I think the old saying "you can never stop learning" gets lost on some around here.

Boy, I should start a thread just for 3800 rockers

I understand why and how they both work but even though it seams to be a bit heated in here it is all good, I like feed back.

on this build I want to build a bulit proof motor that will hold up to what ever power adder I wish to throw at it and test the results of them as I go. the first will be just supercharged then twin charged then from their mabe turbo, twin turbo and NOS. who knows I would just like to know that the motor will handle it.

the only reason I wish to go with Roller rockers is this... I want the lift to be the same from idle to WOT because I will be setting the motor up with tight clearances from the valve to the piston. the motor will have about 9.5 : 1 when it is done. we will be blue printing the motor the whole way threw to check it.

I do not mind the heated debates here because all of you have good points and some are even from experance lets just not bash each other, after all we are all here to have fun talking about our cars

I will be posting up a few pics of some of the parts I now have for the build later today.
D.

[This message has been edited by whodeanie (edited 12-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Tengis: Well, the stock rocker is a low ratio when the valve is closed, this is easy on the valve springs and keeps valve float away. This is why you can run 1.9 mod'd rockers on stock springs to ~6000 but 1.9 rollers will float at ~5600rpm.

Moment of Inertia is more at play here than the transient ratio change. The stock rockers have the majority of their mass at the center and keep MOI low. The roller tip rockers have a steel roller at the extreme tip of the rocker, so while the rocker might be overall lighter due to use of an aluminum body, the MOI is still higher due to the concentration of steel at the tip. The higher MOI of the roller rocker will require more spring pressure at the same RPM to keep the valve train under control, or with the same spings the roller rocker will valve float at a lower RPM vs. stock rockers.

I think there is a window of benefit for the roller rockers where the reduced friction provides gains, but the RPM isn't high enough to start seeing the downside of the higher MOI.

When looking at older articles comparing stock to roller tips, it is important to notice what stock rocker they are starting with. The old SBC rockers were stamped steel and while they had an advertized ratio of 1.5, it was often only 1.4X due to manufacturing tolerances. Also, these rockers had a ball/cup pivot on the stud, vs. roller bearing pivots of the rollers and late model stockers. So going to a 1.6 roller rocker from a 1.4x stamped steel rocker will provide significant gains due to reduced friction and increased lift. The stamped steel body of these old SBC rockers also had a relatively high MOI, so it wasn't difficult for the roller tips to use lighter material and match or reduce MOI when compared to stock stamped steel rockers.

When you start talking about replacing stock late model rockers that already have roller bearing trunnions, already precisely designed to be stiff and have a low MOI, then the only real window for improvement by going to roller tip rockers is with a ratio increase (from 1.6 to 1.7 or 1.8), but you must also change the springs to keep the usable RPM range the stockers had. If you do not change the springs, the roller tip rockers will experience valve float at a lower RPM than the stockers, and depending on camshaft this could cost you a bunch of HP (but is fixed with stiffer springs).

I have never seen the comparison, but I would guess that on an old SBC build replacing the stamped steel rockers with stock 1.6 LS1 rockers would result in almost the same increase as installing 1.6 roller tip rockers. The late model rockers are that good...

I am curious what Dean comes up with on this build and if people will allow his car to validate the strength of the F40, since they disregard the 30+ LS1, LS2, LS3, LS7 swaps currently running the transmission.

[This message has been edited by fieroguru (edited 12-06-2011).]

the F40 will be tested to its limit that is for sure

here are a few pics of the parts I already have for the build. some are at the coater still.
D.



I know some of you might say it will not fit but I will work it out.







these are the new pullys we offer.

I like your pullies. Very nice! But that blower pulley looks pretty big?

[This message has been edited by 1fatcat (edited 12-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: Look, if Ryan wasnt on full out troll mode right now, I would be more than happy to explain. I just dont care enough to get a 20 page rebuttle of stupid irrelivant crap then his nutswingers to come in here and start bashing me. The roller rockers are not the problem, I have just proven them to suck alot more than the OEM rockers.... I dont see why everyone is under the thought that GM has no clue what they are doing when it comes to building an engine. I am willing to bet they put a bit more time and effort into seeing how well a rocker works on a 3800 series 2 than yella terra did in the land down under.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was speaking with God. I just assumed people making 1500 HP engines were competant.

[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 12-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 1fatcat: I like your pullies. Very nice! But that blower pulley looks pretty big?

Those pullies are da $h!t. I love purdy things.

Big pulley to keep the M90 heat to a minimum. The M90 is being used to compensate for Turbo lag before the big spool up.
It is meant to give the ultimate awe factor and win shows because from a performance standpoint; once the Turbo spools, it is pretty much irrelevant.

It's true that roller rockers will reduce the rpm limits, due to valve float, due to the heavy roller tip. You have to remember that at 6000 rpm, the valve is opening and closing 50 times per second. That's 100 strokes per second. At that speed, valve train weight plays a huge roll in valve float. Titanium valvetrain components are currently the best solution to reduce float, but they are very expensive and I don't even think they are available for this engine...yet...maybe never?

"these are the new pullys we offer."
http://www.smoothflowpulleys.com/3800_MPS.html

quote Originally posted by nosrac: Those pullies are da $h!t. I love purdy things.

Those pullies sure do..To bad once the motor is installed they cant be seen...But they look good for the build up.....

quote Originally posted by MstangsBware: U going to use the IC pictured along with an external IC?

Yep, that is the plan.

Yes they are smooth flow pulleys we will be selling them on our site at the same price.

the Super charger pulley is a 3.8 because of the turbo setup.

quote Originally posted by MstangsBware: U going to use the IC pictured along with an external IC?

I wanted to do that too with the Stattama intake on my upcomming Turbo. I thought double the cooling = 1/4 more Powah...

However, as we know I am going a different route now.

So, I went to pick up the headers for the yellow car today and got a few pics of what was in store for my motor.

first the cryo.





then the REM



and the coating center. they can fit a bus in the booth.



here is what some of the finished product will look like.