1.6:1 roller rockers can add 15 to 25 HP. For the money that's not a bad investment. I like the quality of roller rockers and they can be reused and are more versatile.

Dep, save your comments for another post. I could care less what you think of my opinion.

 

Heck....I heard the K&N filter will boost you 0-100HP!!!
And Splitfire spark plugs add another 10HP.
And a smooth flowing chrome air cleaner housing has to be good for an easy 5HP.
And if you inflate your tires to 80 pounds you'll have less rolling resistance, so that'll make you faster.

So many tricks...so much :bs :D

Dep

 

:_dupe:

 

:lolg: Wait I thought I was on the ricer forum for a min. :lol: Don't forget about the Tornado, Dep. I put one on my Snapper tractor and picked up at least 20 HP on a 12HP engine. :rofl:

 

And while your fixing your broken roller rocker arms on the side of the road, I`ll still be bogying down the road with my stamped steel ones getting 20 mpg with my old Rochester FI at 4000 RPMs and 70 mph. :lol: :lol: :thumbs:

 

I am sure that is why GM uses roller rockers in new engines.

 

Ok, everyone take a deep breath.......................... :yesnod: I think that the opinions on this subject are going very as much as everyone's engine combo's. I plan on running rollers. However I don't expect that to increase my HP. I did not purchase a complete engine so I am having to peice together everything. My take on this is if I can get a decent set of rollers for not much more than a set of stamped then what is the harm? Proform makes a 1.7 set for BB that are $169. My engine will rarely se over 6k but for the price again what does it hurt. Just another opinion. :D

 

But this is not where the new Vettes live, :lol:

 

Why did you switch from horse and buggey if new tech is so bad? :confused:

Just :p: ya, sweet ride BTW. :thumbs:

 

Why did you switch from horse and buggey if new tech is so bad? :confused:

Just :p: ya, sweet ride BTW. :thumbs: [/QUOTE]

I never switched, I still have them. I just recieved 250 bales of alphafa :lol: :cheers: :thumbs:

 

jaggeedfire - IMO !!!!!!!!!!!! Why would anyone ever want to put those stock junk stamped rockers back on any "Performance" motor. They are are just a weak link friction device.

Harland Sharp are Okay.

 

At least switch out the stock rockers if you stay with stamped steel:

http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...148_0207_rock/

 

1970 Stingray: I got that Tornado on ALL my vehicles! Gives me 100 MPG and I can do wheelies with my V6 Monte Carlo. I also got that lube that you pour in your engine and then empty out the oil and it still keeps on running. I save a fortune on oil changes that way. :)
I pour 30 bottles of octane booster in my gas tank and now I have 105 octane gas in my car. Even though it only raises it .10 :D
I waxed my car with that special wax that lets you pour gasoline on the hood and light it on fire. But I did it on my buddy's Vette and it melted the hood :(

Oh yeah...and while I don't want to crank up the rat motor vs mouse motor debate again, I do notice that the major proponents of roller rockers seem to be those folks using the rather enemic engines. Considering the ZL-1 put out over 600 RELIABLE horsepower using stock Chevy stamped rockers, one has to wonder if people aren't being led around by Ron Popeil.

Oh yeah, I got a pocket fisherman too ;)
I caught a 50 pound Musky with it....and then I went on a date with Jennifer Annsiton...yeah...that's the ticket...and then I went out with Morgan Fairchild...yeah...and then...then she asked me to MARRY her!
ROFL.

Okay...how about SAYING you got Crane Gold whiz-bang roller rockers that you bought from Summit for $300, and put the decal in the window, but USE stamped rockers and save a bundle and go just as fast? Nahhhh...that makes too much sense. :lolg:

Dep

 

No comprende, Senor.

If you are saying that roller rockers only make more horsepower int he upper RPM ranges, you are right.

However the newer Vette motors are not especially rev-happy. So why did GM go through the added expense of building engines with roller rockers? Because engines with roller cams work much better when combined with roller rockers.

That said, roller rockers are not inherently less reliable than stamped steel rockers. If anything, design is more reliable.

 

For Dep and all I've seen broken stamped rockers over the years. So to protect my investment I went with Comp Cams roller tips 1.6's. Very heavy duty steel construction compared to stamped. I wasn't conviced that my solid flat lifter needed full rollers and I wanted something that lasted for years in the up to 7000 rpm range. Well that was 12 years ago and they are still running strong.

I don't think that stamped rockers would keep up with my larger springs and .520/.540 lift on a solid cam.

So it's back to why pay $75 for something that might go bang when for $60 more you never have to worry. 12 years ago I didn't have faith in aluminum rockers. Now I do. Actually I'd even spend more and go with chromemoly steel full roller rockers.

**************************************** ********************
:conehead Years ago we had this fellow on the forum that swore up and down that balancing a motor was a pure waste of money and effort. He was a mechanic by trade. Been building motors for years. probably 100's of motors. Mix and match rods out of different blown motors. It didn't matter. Some people your never going to convince!

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

And this link says it all http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...148_0207_rock/

Not only do stock rockers break, but the push rod can wear through the rocker as happened on mine.

Needle bearings simply make more sense than 2 pieces of metal rubbing together very hard. The microscopic metal particles produced and dispersed in the oil even speed the wear on other items.

Unfortunately, some people will never let the facts get in the way of their opinions.

 

Lt1er: Let me just WHIP THIS OUT! :D
(Dep takes out his well worn copy of "How To Hot Rod Big Block Chevys")

Let's see let's see...ZL-1 cam specs...know it's here somewhere. AH!
Here we go.
.600/.600 lift and 322/334 duration.
And you are talking about .520/.540 lift???? Pfft! Gimme a break homey!
:lolg:

But let me read on...page 67 of the bible reads...
"Stock piece represents the simple, direct and EXTREMELY RELIABLE approach used throughout all Chevrolet engines. Correctly installed stock rockers are adequate for almost ALL types of racing. Their use can help to reduce your engine building costs drastically. They are lighter than any trick replacements that you can buy, cheap, and they SELDOM FAIL IF YOU LUBRICATE THE GROOVED ***** WHEN YOU INSTALL THEM."

Hmmm...interesting. :)

Dep

 

Well worn because it was written 32 years ago. In 1971.

You prove my point well. You are using OLD technology in a modern world.
the year after that book came out a 454 made 270HP. Today a V6 in a Nissan makes more than that--- WITH ROLLER ROCKERS!

You can't use a 32 year old book to disprove modern technology. Get with the times.

 

Yes but 2 years before that 427s were making 550+

 

Guru: all that proves is that roller rockers are not necessary to make 550+ hp. Noone disputes that point. Those horsepower levels and more are attainable.

What is at issue is whether you will make more horsepower with roller rockers than stamped steel. You will, and reliablity will be improved over stamped steel.

Now if you want to ask whether the gains are worth the increased cost, that is another matter.


[Modified by Kevin Mason, 6:30 PM 10/28/2003]