Put on your thinking caps here fellas...I need opinions!

[Razor]

Rollers are great if you have the supporting valvetrain to handle the increased spring pressures. Our rockers are marginal at best with 100 lb springs. Move up to 135's.. you just added a whole world of issue. You'll beat the hell out of the fulcrums.. Not as easy as it sounds. Look at any TTA rocker subjected to high rate springs.. theyre a mess in no time. So converting to roller rockers is another can of worms.

But yes.. roller would be the way to go..

 

[postal]

Do you guys know who the guy was who put roller rockers on his TTA. I dont think it was that big of a deal and would be interested in what all was involved with doing it.

Maybe you might want to talk to Nick Micale about a nodular iron roller. People seam to be having good luck with those.

Jason

 

[turbov6joe]

The TTA's have a good ratio rocker already (1.67), and aluminum rockers are not all they're cracked up to be. Aluminum has a shorter "life" span due to its flexability and tends to loose its rigidity after some time...versus that of steel. High spring rates over 100lbs are not a good idea as it is VERY hard on the lobes and cam bearings....especially with fast ramp cam profiles which most of the aftermarkets cams are for these motors. I have 100 pounders on my heads now and have a set of cam bearings that are worn on the bottom sides only that prove the high spring rates cause premature wear. I cannot say for sure that the high spring rates caused my lobes to fail, but I will not dismiss it either.
Razor, I was using the Comp lifters and now am back to OE GM lifters which are much quieter and seem not to loose their pump as quick. I will never use another aftermarket cam profile unless I go to a full roller set up. The cams out there for these cars are just not as durable as I would like. If you want any kind of longevity out of a cam I would steer away from anything other than the stocker or a roller. I would be willing to bet that if a person measured the lift with the stock ratio TTA rockers and an OE cam versus that of a 212-212 with the 1.55 TR rockers, one would find that the lift is very close. The fact that the TTA's have this ratio rocker is one good reason why the TTA motors made more stock HP over that of a TR set up....basically more lift in a stock combo. Another reason why the TTA's made more HP could also be attributed to the TTA heads being a much cleaner casting from the factory. I compared my stock TTA heads to the 8445 castings and came to the conclusion that the TTA heads are smoother, have a better combustion chamber, better placed spark plug, have very little slag in the runners, and are dang near port matched perfectly to the Felpro intake and exhaust gaskets. We have a guy here locally that does wonders with the V6 heads. I'm pretty sure that the ported 8445's are not much better than the stock TTA castings as far as smoothness and port size is concerned. I will say that this guy does miracles with the bowls which is prolly worth some extra HP/efficiency, but not worth the money spent IMO. Lastly, the valve work this guy does I'm certain makes a difference, but again, is it worth the money??? I was going to have my TTA heads ported this go around but had to pass because the budget/momma wouldn't allow it I put a set of the 9441's on this time in hopes of some longevity....time will tell that tale I'm sure. If the 9441's blow easily I might try the RJC set if I can get a girdle to work with the TTA. If I can get a full season out of this motor the budget might allow for a set of those polly motor mounts which may give the extra needed space for the girdle....an aftermarket "K" member is not an option for me.

 

[mark b]

>Do you guys know who the guy was who put roller rockers on his TTA. I dont think it was that big of a deal and would be interested in what all was involved with doing it.


Do you mean the project Frank Weeks is working on with GTP in Texas?

Frank's not a member of this forum....

 

[RobR]

Maybe this guy?
http://www.chiseledperformance.net/TURBOTA.html

 

[Razor]

Actually I gave the batton to Frank for him to run with.

See My reasearch into this.. boy have I spent time, is the following.

The chiseled piece was using a 1.7 ratio roller rocker. Problem is those fulcrums are are set much deeper than the TTA fulcrums. By the time you take into account the shank on the stud, the guideplate, and the height of the pedestal, you have a lot of room taken up. So on the 1.7 rollers, what was done is mill the pedestals, drill and tap for a 7/16 stud, use isky adj guide plates, and then use 6 BBC 7/16 studs, and 6 BBC stud girdle studs. Mind you one question was if the stock VC's would clear the aftermarket arms, hence why that car has the custom fab'd ones. All aftermarket roller rockers have the fulcrums in the same depth. Our TTA rockers are more squished. Hence the problem.

Now my thought was using the roller fulcrum rockers from a 3.8 series II motor. Those are a 1.6 factory ratio, but the fulcrums are full needle bearings. And the rocker is identical geometrically as the TTA one. The only problem I ran into was the hole in the fulcrum was 5/16, and our bolts are 3/8th. So the rockers would need to be drilled out to make work using 3/8 studs. this is where I passed the batton to frank since he killed a set of factory rocker arms. I havent heard news as to what happened.. i'll follow up. My motor is going on a stand the next few weeks to get ideas sorted.. So this is one area i'd like to address.

BTW, there is a company called Intense Racing that makes the series II rockers up to a 1.9 ratio.

Joe, the cometics require super smooth surfaces for them to seal. On a street car, careful what you ask for.I'll be doing the 9441's as well with the ARP's.

Now for thinking caps, how bout adding 4 degrees to the cam

hehehe

 

[RobR]

Are the stock head gaskets still available from GM? Reason is that they held up for so long and took a good amount of boost. Why wouldn't you use them? Just curious.

 

[Razor]

I was going to say no, then I remembered someone saying they got them. My guy at the dealer said GM was getting them made by ROL or another aftermarket MFG.

Dunno.. the 9441's have held up really nice given a nice deck surface. Plus I just ordered them. Thats a good reason

 

[RobR]

Originally posted by Razor
I was going to say no, then I remembered someone saying they got them. My guy at the dealer said GM was getting them made by ROL or another aftermarket MFG.

Dunno.. the 9441's have held up really nice given a nice deck surface. Plus I just ordered them. Thats a good reason

OK Then put a cam in and don't be skeered!

 

[Razor]

Rob as always I want to continue our experiment. So both cars that kind of ran the same number, now lets add heads and intake into the equation. Same 58 mm TB, RJC plate and dog house.

I ordered a 210/205 from Reed.. the only question since theyre going to cut it, is make it 110 LS or 112 LS. they recommended 110 unless I want to get aggressive with spray.

BTW, I asked about the exhuast lobes like from 1 & 3, they said ... we back cut the cam lobes on those to prevent the problem.." Old Ruggles trick".. So at least theyre trying to do something....so all I need some GM lifters and i'm good to go.

What ya thinks

 

[RobR]

I haven't had any problems with the 210/205 in my car. ~18K miles so far. I wish I did GM lifters as mine do bleed down and make a little noise on start up. Only for a second or so until they pump up. Nice and quiet after that.

Mine is on a 110 if that matters. Its very smooth, you couldn't even tell its in there. I was a little worried with it being that low but its not like a SBC

I'd be curious to see how much heads would do. You run the same times as me but you do it through more boost. The cam is probably worth a couple tenths, all things being equal. Heads would probably just be that much better with the cam. Should be interesting...

 

[Razor]

Interesting it should be.

The car the heads were on had a 210/205. It ran 11.9 at 114 on a 1.8x 60 foot... using my stock TTA turbo @ 16 PSI. So this is an indicator of sorts. your car cracked the 120 mark for trap speed. You just need to get the chip to lean it out some and be back at that level. So cam should pickup approx a couple MPH, and the heads will also do to help that. The tech at Reed recommended the 210 LS. So I'll stick with that.

Rob what chain are you using, I was going to get an OEM one. I already bought the dampner, and roller button. The specs look like .500 lift with our rockers

My buddy James has a 210/205 no problem. You've had no problem.. looks like a winner. I dont want to reinvent the wheel

I think your bleed down may be the higher rate springs.. I noticed this on my stock cam after doing the springs..sometimes..on cold starts..for a second.

Update soon..

 

[RobR]

The cam has been around awhile. Crisafulli actually talked me into it. Also put a Roll master double roller in. Contrary to popular belief, it works

You could be right about the lifters as its only for a second until they pump up.

As for the chip, Eric is coming up with some code changes that should be interesting. Hopefully get my MPH back.

As aside, I ran 12.15@111 on a 1.69 with the stock stuff running 18# of boost with that cam.