Cam and Rocker options?

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:02 pm

Hey guys, looking at adding some more power to my 3.4 and 2.8, just looking for a good cam or rocker option that will give me some kick but will not screw with the low end.

Thanks

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:27 pm

for a 3.4 I would go with the Crane 272.

For your 2.8 I would go with the Crane 260

As far as porting your heads, if you think its something you can accomplish yourself then get the materials and go for it. It will take quite a few hours depending on how thorough you want to be.

I ported heads for several people but am not really doing that anymore. too much time and not enough interest. plenty of pics have been posted here

If you can't do it yourself, then have someone else do it but it will cost you. A good port job will cost you.

Not sure what Old Europe members will say but a good port job will add a good amount of power to both engines. Most people over there however do a gasket match on the intake ports and call it a full port job. Sorry but its not. Then they turn around and complain that the engine still makes no power and was a waste of time.

There are 2.8's making more power out there then "built" 3.4 engines over in Old Europe. Shows that most people choose the wrong parts or just dont' know what they are doing.

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:11 pm

I want to build both motors to a high level of performace while not jeopardizing the durability of the motor. Over on Old Europe I am told to go with the rockers rather than a cam, and told that porting is easy. I guess for the first time around the best thing to do is have a professional port and polish the motor, I will stick to what I know which is the rice mods like cold air units, mufflers and rims LOL.

Thanks

KissMySSFiero · Post by **KissMySSFiero** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:32 am

Don't be afraid to port your own heads. Do some research and get a spare set incase you mess up.

People on Old Europe say the rockers are better because they don't know how to change a cam. You need to have the motor out to change the cam.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:58 am

KissMySSFiero wrote:Don't be afraid to port your own heads. Do some research and get a spare set incase you mess up.

People on Old Europe say the rockers are better because they don't know how to change a cam. You need to have the motor out to change the cam.

actually I said I preffer rockers for flat tappet lifters because they allow you to create a more aggresive valve lift curve (more lift without causing excessive overlap like some cams do)

if you have a roller cam then cams are definately superior

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:08 pm

I guess it is a matter of opinion by the sounds of things.

I will have the motor out so, changing the cam shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for the input guys.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:35 pm

Oversteer wrote:I guess it is a matter of opinion by the sounds of things.

I will have the motor out so, changing the cam shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for the input guys.

just about everything having to do with how you build an engine is a matter of opinion - where you get the power, if the peak hp is more important to you or the area under the curve..

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:29 pm

I am not saying the cam is better, I am just saying that the motor will be out of the car, so if rockers are better just for convience, then I might as well go for the cam. Can't you get cams for the Fiero with the hydraulic lifters? I wanted to go with roller rockers as well, as I have heard nothing but praise from the result they provide (less friction). However, these are testimonials from guys with vehicles other than the boat anchor equipped Fiero.

Well anyways, here is what I am looking for. I want the engine to pull through the rpm's. I want a little more power in the mid to high, but I do not want to sacrifise the low end and driveability of the car.

I want this car (3.4) in the 200 hp range naturally aspirated. The car will have these parts as well to help with performance.

Borla Cat Back with high flow cat
Ported exhaust manifolds, possibly headers (WCF Shorty)
Underdrive Pulley
MSD 6A box with Torque master plugs, and Taylor 8mm wires
DarrellMorse bored throttle body and plenum
And yes, the ricer Cold Air Intake, which I must say is the stupidest mod I have ever done, but too lazy to go through all the work of removing it and putting on the stock one again. Not saying it doesn't work, just saying that I am not a big fan of the vaccum sound that gets wierd looks at intersections and drivethroughs. But the CAI came with the cool ass holley intake scoop hahaha.

These are some custom mods I am working on:

Stacked ported plenum, which is basically designed after the boat anchor upper plenum, but much bigger, and less restrictive. More work than gain most likely.

Ram Air roof scoop, and not one of the cheap ass looking ones people buy. This one has been designed by myself and an engineering buddy, and does not interfer with the deck lid vents. It runs along the sail panel and under the decklid. Should pick up good air flow at high speeds, well in theory anyways.

Well thats the story anyways

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:16 pm

the fiero is a hydraulic lifter engine - but its a flat lifter not a roller lifter - which limits how aggressive the cam can be without starting to create excessive valve overlap and ruin idle quality..

thats why I like rocker arms :thumbleft:

oh and I recommend getting the truleo intake if you really want to get to 200hp

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:30 pm

I see your point with the rockers. Sorry for the stupid hydrualic lifter question, I am learning :scratch: .

The only thing with the Truleo is that it's ugly as shit. This intake is being made to look similar to the original and perform more like the Truleo, not as well of course.

I will probably end up spending $600.00 on the unit I am trying to build and end up scraping it for the Truleo. But oh well, I was born to make mistakes.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:50 pm

Oversteer wrote:I see your point with the rockers. Sorry for the stupid hydrualic lifter question, I am learning :scratch: .

The only thing with the Truleo is that it's ugly as shit. This intake is being made to look similar to the original and perform more like the Truleo, not as well of course.

I will probably end up spending $600.00 on the unit I am trying to build and end up scraping it for the Truleo. But oh well, I was born to make mistakes.

true.. I have another option for you.. well I don't have it but i have pics of it..

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:04 pm

Since th emotor is out then do the cam. And if you want at the same time go with the 1.6 rockers as well.

The 272 with 1.6 rockers puts you ever .500 lift at least on the exh, not sure if it will on the intake but it will be close.

Thats good lift for a 3.4

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:23 pm

The Intake we are building is like the West Coast Fiero's polished one in your pics. I guess I could get the design drawings and put them in here.

Thanks for the input guys, I will probably go with the cam and rocker option, and if I don't like it, well I got 6 months of snow at my new place, so I think I will have time to do it again.

Shaun, I stumbled upon a site of yours, your still running preferred performance? Or is that old?

KissMySSFiero · Post by **KissMySSFiero** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:28 pm

Kohburn wrote:
actually I said I preffer rockers for flat tappet lifters because they allow you to create a more aggresive valve lift curve (more lift without causing excessive overlap like some cams do)

if you have a roller cam then cams are definately superior

but you're still limited on lift without changing the cam.

Roller cam's do kick ass

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:01 pm

KissMySSFiero wrote:
Kohburn wrote:
actually I said I preffer rockers for flat tappet lifters because they allow you to create a more aggresive valve lift curve (more lift without causing excessive overlap like some cams do)

if you have a roller cam then cams are definately superior
but you're still limited on lift without changing the cam.

Roller cam's do kick ass

rocker arm ratios go up to 1.9:1 - i think thats more than the stock valves have room to move

BigRedDeckSpoiler · Post by **BigRedDeckSpoiler** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:27 am

Oversteer wrote:The only thing with the Truleo is that it's ugly as shit.

Have you seen the long runner version of the Trueleo?
The plenum sits a little bit lower and the runners extend out a bit farther and come in to the plenum more from the top. It looks more like a TPI than the short runner version. Seems like most folks, so far (myself included) are going for the short runners. I'd be curious to see what the long runner version will do.
They have also come up with a redesigned TB tube that uses mandrel bends instead of angle-cut/welded straight sections. Drastically reduces the number of welded seams. It looks waaaay better, IMO.

Lots of good advice here. If mine ever gets disassembled, it's getting the heads and lower intake ported, and probably the 272 cam.
It has a stock Camaro cam (same specs as the L44) and 1.6 rockers.
As mentioned, the only reason I even went with the rockers is because I would have had to pull the engine to change the cam. That was way beyond the scope of what I was doing at the time.

Time will tell. Maybe I'll do this stuff when I pull the engine to swap in the 5 speed in place of the slushbox. I've gotta get the other Formula back together first. (I'm doing a bunch of body work and probably <ducking> swapping a tractor motor on that one. For my wife. Yeah, that's it.) Once it's road worthy, I'll tear into this one.

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:09 am

Will V-8 Roller Rockers work on the 3.4?