Thread: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27
  1. #1 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Donating Users
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Deerfield, MA
    Posts
    552
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    I tried searching and couldn't find what I was looking for. I was ready to order the Yella Terra 1.95 rockers and then read a post recommending 1.9 modified rockers. Which one is better with a 3.4 setup and why? I was going under the assumption that the 1.95's were the better option but thought I would put the question out and see what people had to say. Thanks.

    2002 GTP: GMPP Sway Bars, BMR trailing arms, KYB AGX/Vogtlands, 12" brake upgrade
    Modified SSAC headers, K&N Intake, 3.4 MPS, S1X, Gen V, 104's, HPTuned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Awaiting Confirmation
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    aowdnawi
    Posts
    23,292
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    1.95's give you more lift, and since they're roller rockers theres less stress on your valvetrain. Something you might wanna minimize considering you're going to be asking the valves to open up quite a bit more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    GTP Level Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    568
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    03 GTP - 13.8 @ 100 2.160ft
    99 GTP - DD
    *Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn Veteran*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Donating Users
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Deerfield, MA
    Posts
    552
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Thanks AmericanSoldier. I'm on my phone right now and it was really slowing the search down. I guess I should have been more patient and waited until I was at my comp. Maybe I would have found that.

    2002 GTP: GMPP Sway Bars, BMR trailing arms, KYB AGX/Vogtlands, 12" brake upgrade
    Modified SSAC headers, K&N Intake, 3.4 MPS, S1X, Gen V, 104's, HPTuned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    GTP Level Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    568
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    no worries..that thread helped guide me in which rocker direction i wanted to go in..if i didnt get my yella terras cheap from a member iwould have gone with the modified due to price..let us know how it goes bud
    03 GTP - 13.8 @ 100 2.160ft
    99 GTP - DD
    *Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn Veteran*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    The Blue One blueguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dirtyzville, Missery
    Posts
    31,287
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    And don't skimp...get stronger valve springs too...and get the car tuned afterwards...only way to fully benefit from them.
    Sold WBody's: '03 Blue GTP/'98 Green GTP/'98 Silver GT/'05 GXP
    '99 Chevrolet Silverado Classic Z71 4x4 - K&N Intake/Gibson Exhaust #TRUCKTHINGS
    '12 Buick Regal Turbo - ZZP CAI/20% Tint/HID's
    '89 Ford Mustang LX Notchback - LM7 5.3, 4L80, 9", HX40
    '04 Chevrolet Corvette MRM A4/LS1 - TSP LT's, 3"O/R X, AFE S2 CAI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Donating Users
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Deerfield, MA
    Posts
    552
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bluegtp91 View Post
    And don't skimp...get stronger valve springs too...and get the car tuned afterwards...only way to fully benefit from them.
    Thanks for the extra advice to make sure I do it right. I'm planning on Crow 105's to go with them based on all the posts I've read here about them. I'll get the tune done when I drop to a 3.4. Hopefully, all my mods will be done by the end of summer.

    My car has 64,000 miles on it. How long should the timing chain last with the 105# springs?

    2002 GTP: GMPP Sway Bars, BMR trailing arms, KYB AGX/Vogtlands, 12" brake upgrade
    Modified SSAC headers, K&N Intake, 3.4 MPS, S1X, Gen V, 104's, HPTuned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    GTP Level Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    628
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    i would NOT do the 105 springs.

    the general consensus is to go with the GM L76 (G8 GT) springs. They are the replacement for the LS6 spring
    2003 SSEi,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Donating Users
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Deerfield, MA
    Posts
    552
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Hmmmm..... I guess I need to do more reading on this issue. I thought the 105's put the least stress on the stock timing chain and was the way to go. Can you help to educate me on this issue? Why are these springs better and what are the pros/cons of them? Thanks.

    2002 GTP: GMPP Sway Bars, BMR trailing arms, KYB AGX/Vogtlands, 12" brake upgrade
    Modified SSAC headers, K&N Intake, 3.4 MPS, S1X, Gen V, 104's, HPTuned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    GTP Level Member Scimmia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    QCA, IA
    Posts
    1,054
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    There's nothing wrong with the Crow 105s. It's the Comp Cams 105s that you need to stay away from.

    The L76 springs are good for low lift applications like this. 90 lb seat pressure, but stock spring rates instead of the high spring rate used on the LS6 springs. They will put no more stress on the timing chain than the 105s and they're cheaper. They do have less seat pressure, though.
    2001 Buick Regal LS - Almost Stock
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    The Blue One blueguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dirtyzville, Missery
    Posts
    31,287
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003 SSEi View Post
    i would NOT do the 105 springs.

    the general consensus is to go with the GM L76 (G8 GT) springs. They are the replacement for the LS6 spring
    Still, Like stated below...its the Comp 105's that break, not the Crow springs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scimmia View Post
    There's nothing wrong with the Crow 105s. It's the Comp Cams 105s that you need to stay away from.

    The L76 springs are good for low lift applications like this. 90 lb seat pressure, but stock spring rates instead of the high spring rate used on the LS6 springs. They will put no more stress on the timing chain than the 105s and they're cheaper. They do have less seat pressure, though.
    I did however use the LS6 springs/retainers when I did my XP...can't say I had any issues with them but that's just me. They are cheap though.
    Sold WBody's: '03 Blue GTP/'98 Green GTP/'98 Silver GT/'05 GXP
    '99 Chevrolet Silverado Classic Z71 4x4 - K&N Intake/Gibson Exhaust #TRUCKTHINGS
    '12 Buick Regal Turbo - ZZP CAI/20% Tint/HID's
    '89 Ford Mustang LX Notchback - LM7 5.3, 4L80, 9", HX40
    '04 Chevrolet Corvette MRM A4/LS1 - TSP LT's, 3"O/R X, AFE S2 CAI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Donating Users
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Deerfield, MA
    Posts
    552
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    After doing more searching and seeing your responses, it looks like the L76 springs are the way to go. The price is definitely nice too. Only $2.22 each on gmpartsdirect. I know I need the retainers, but what about the valve locks? Are they the same on the G8 and GP? They are cheap so I'm going to replace them and the valve seals while I'm there.

    To summarize, I need 1.95 Yella Terra rockers, L76 springs and retainers, L67 valve locks and L67 viton valve seals, correct?

    Thanks very much for the help guys!

    2002 GTP: GMPP Sway Bars, BMR trailing arms, KYB AGX/Vogtlands, 12" brake upgrade
    Modified SSAC headers, K&N Intake, 3.4 MPS, S1X, Gen V, 104's, HPTuned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Awaiting Confirmation
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    aowdnawi
    Posts
    23,292
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Just be sure to check your tensioner.

    If that nukes, it'll take out your chain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    The Blue One blueguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dirtyzville, Missery
    Posts
    31,287
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Well, checking the dampner requires removing the front cover...so he might as well cam it if he is in there IMO.

    Also, I'd get Comp Cams locks. You can get them from Intense cheap IIRC...along with the Viton seals. If you don't even plan on going cammed though...your doing the right thing...top of the line rockers with the highest ratio. Be sure to get it tuned afterwards though, to take full advantage of them. Rev it up a bit...those springs will allow it too
    Last edited by blueguy; 06-15-2010 at 12:55 PM.
    Sold WBody's: '03 Blue GTP/'98 Green GTP/'98 Silver GT/'05 GXP
    '99 Chevrolet Silverado Classic Z71 4x4 - K&N Intake/Gibson Exhaust #TRUCKTHINGS
    '12 Buick Regal Turbo - ZZP CAI/20% Tint/HID's
    '89 Ford Mustang LX Notchback - LM7 5.3, 4L80, 9", HX40
    '04 Chevrolet Corvette MRM A4/LS1 - TSP LT's, 3"O/R X, AFE S2 CAI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    GTP Level Member Scimmia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    QCA, IA
    Posts
    1,054
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    The locks are the same, just reuse them. Assuming you don't drop any, of course.
    2001 Buick Regal LS - Almost Stock
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    The Blue One blueguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dirtyzville, Missery
    Posts
    31,287
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    I just figured since they aren't THAT much that it wouldn't hurt putting new ones in. Comp or stock...I'd just do it since your there.
    Sold WBody's: '03 Blue GTP/'98 Green GTP/'98 Silver GT/'05 GXP
    '99 Chevrolet Silverado Classic Z71 4x4 - K&N Intake/Gibson Exhaust #TRUCKTHINGS
    '12 Buick Regal Turbo - ZZP CAI/20% Tint/HID's
    '89 Ford Mustang LX Notchback - LM7 5.3, 4L80, 9", HX40
    '04 Chevrolet Corvette MRM A4/LS1 - TSP LT's, 3"O/R X, AFE S2 CAI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    GTP Level Member Scimmia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    QCA, IA
    Posts
    1,054
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Yeah, nothing wrong with replacing them. Either way, they're the same so you can get locks for whatever engine.
    2001 Buick Regal LS - Almost Stock
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Donating Users Ibwrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    943
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    but once again if your going to dig into the cover to replace your tensioner or chain you might as well cam that thing.
    2000 GTP - Project
    2000 Mustang GT
    2006 Charger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    The Blue One blueguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dirtyzville, Missery
    Posts
    31,287
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Then he'd be wasting the money he spent on rockers.
    Sold WBody's: '03 Blue GTP/'98 Green GTP/'98 Silver GT/'05 GXP
    '99 Chevrolet Silverado Classic Z71 4x4 - K&N Intake/Gibson Exhaust #TRUCKTHINGS
    '12 Buick Regal Turbo - ZZP CAI/20% Tint/HID's
    '89 Ford Mustang LX Notchback - LM7 5.3, 4L80, 9", HX40
    '04 Chevrolet Corvette MRM A4/LS1 - TSP LT's, 3"O/R X, AFE S2 CAI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20 Re: 1.9 modified vs. 1.95 roller rockers 
    Donating Users Ibwrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    943
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Dislikes (Received)
    0
    Just saying... he could always resell them for close to what he paid.I understand that a cam is not for everyone.

    Keep us updated on the install..
    Last edited by Ibwrong; 06-15-2010 at 03:32 PM.
    2000 GTP - Project
    2000 Mustang GT
    2006 Charger
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ZZP Modified rockers
    By Lsick7 in forum 3.8L V6 Supercharged (L67)(L32)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 09:22 PM
  2. roller rockers ?
    By bayareagtp in forum 3.8L V6 Supercharged (L67)(L32)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 12:28 PM
  3. Roller Rockers
    By IndeedSS in forum 3.8L V6 Supercharged (L67)(L32)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-19-2008, 05:49 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •