LS1LT1 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was just wondering what are some performance modifications that wont affect daily driveability too much or cost way too much but increase the power output my car would be? are 1.6 rocker arms worth it? how much power do they add and what does it do? could i install it or how hard would it be to install? i have a '96 Firebird Formula m6 all stock except for pacesetter headers with 3 inch ory and slp loudmouth 1 and an intake. I'm doing 4.10 gears next but afterwords I'm not sure what i could do? give me some ideas!

what are some other things that are considered bolt-ons?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
896 Posts
You're pretty much done with boltons, 1.6's would net you probably anywhere between 5-15 HP but it's not just changing rockers you need to change the springs too. If you feel comfortable doing that I'd say go for it, then get a tune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I am about to put the motor back in my '95 Trans Am and am seriously considering replacing the stock rockers with rollers.

My concern is whether to go for 1:6 or stay with 1:5? I have no worries about modding the valve covers, but would I really need to upgrade the valve springs when fitting 1:6s?

Thanks for your thoughts...

Toni
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
There are some rockers out there that you don't have to modify the valve covers, I think that COMP. has a set but they are pretty pricey.

If you are about to put the engine back into the car, Did you just rebuild it? And if so, Why not get the heads reworked and replace the springs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Hi!

Yes the motor has been rebuilt and the heads re-worked and the springs checked all OK. The decision to go to roller rockers is made on the grounds of efficiency. However, I am undecided as to 1:6 or 1:5. The latter will definitely not require any mod of the valve springs.

The question remains as to the benefits of 1:6?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
1.5's are stock. I have Crane 1.6's on mine and did not have to mod the stock covers at all. I don't see why you would need to upgrade the stock springs to switch over to 1.6's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Basically your adding lift within the same duration at the valve, along with speeding up the opening and closing cycle. Stock springs are marginal already, and with the extra stress "COULD" go into valve float at an RPM that they didn't used to float.

Also, since you are adding lift (ie: a previously 0.488 lift would now be 0.520) you could run into coil bind (spring becomes fully compressed and mechanically stops the valve), which can wipe out the cam and break other parts....

That's why everyone keeps saying "Replace the springs", it's almost like adding a bigger cam, but without all the work to change the cam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
i did some readin' before that 1.6 only put 3 to 5 rwhp and still have to invest in LT4 KM....damn expensive for 5 rwhp.........................BUT AGAIN....NOT A PRO HERE,THAT IS WHAT I RED
 

·
Admin
Joined
·
8,048 Posts
Just to add a bit, I once saw a test where they actually measured the ratio on a whole lot of factory stamped rocker arms and only some came close to 1.5. Most were b/t 1.3-1.4 IIRC.

Add to that less flex and a roller tip alone is worth it, a full roller (with bearing) is icing on the cake so to speak. No need for a tune on a 94+ MAF car either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Just to add a bit, I once saw a test where they actually measured the ratio on a whole lot of factory stamped rocker arms and only some came close to 1.5. Most were b/t 1.3-1.4 IIRC.

Add to that less flex and a roller tip alone is worth it, a full roller (with bearing) is icing on the cake so to speak. No need for a tune on a 94+ MAF car either.
i have read that article. basically what it was stating that the rocker arms flex/warp as the rpms increase and change the lift through the rpm range. so all thought at idle you have 1.5s as the rpms increase it would be equivalent to a 1.4 or 1.3. but a good rocker wont flex or warp. was a pretty interesting artical. i was cranes stamped 1.6 rockers i think chevy high performance did the artical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
i read somewhere that the 1.6's on dyno only netted like 11-13 rwh..but then again ive only been in the f body world about 9 months and im still learning.but yea def change the springs...
 

·
Admin
Joined
·
8,048 Posts
i read somewhere that the 1.6's on dyno only netted like 11-13 rwh..but then again ive only been in the f body world about 9 months and im still learning.but yea def change the springs...
Only 11-13 whp? Thats a good amount right there! Especially considering it has no real effect on gas mileage or drivablility.

It will vary from setup to setup, some heads (like stock) will benefit from the extra lift more than a setup that is already maxed out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
yea 11-13 isnt much..on all my gen 1 sbc motors i used cranes gold race 1.6 rr..and picked up anywhere from 20 to 30 at the mid range and top end..on a cammed motor...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
yea 11-13 isnt much..on all my gen 1 sbc motors i used cranes gold race 1.6 rr..and picked up anywhere from 20 to 30 at the mid range and top end..on a cammed motor...
Yeah on a CAMMED motor. To pick up 13 RWHP on a stock motor is very nice considering they don't change drivability or effect MPG at all.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top