I was just pointing out some inconsistancies.

If I was making a bomb proof race motor I would go roller. For a warmed over 350 I dont really think they justify the cost.....

 

You are probably right on that, unless you have a roller cam, which probably is also overkill on a warmed-over 350, unless you also have to pass emissions.

 

Since my change over to twin Saturn V liquid fueled F-1 rocket engines, I find no need for rocker arms at all. In fact, big blocks are no problems either with 7.5 million pounds of thrust for each engine. There was a rare interview with Zora about a factory F-1 engined 1969 'Vette, dubbed the ZF-1, but I lost it. Only one was ever produced. :crazy:

 

Guru, I knew someone would make that totally rediculous comparison. I just figured it would be Dep.

2 years before they didn't have the smog requirements they do now. Talk about apples and oranges. That comparison is pure ignorance trying to justify itself.

The Nissan V6 I made comparison to produces a fraction of the pollution, on unleaded fuel of lower grade and gets 3X the gas mileage.

Yet again you make my point. Trying to use old technology to disprove modern technology.

I have a book here somewhere that predicts that a computer may someday fit in just one room and may cost less than $100,000 to produce!!!

In 1980 Bill Gates said no computer should need more than 1 meg of ram!

Get with the program guys!

 

Funny the 8.1L engine from GM only makes 340hp.....

 

yes, I once talked to the guy that owned it. He was a real jerk though. What octane is the fuel? My L88 uses liquid fuel too. I think some of the posters are also sucking down a bit of liquid fuel!! :cheers:

Chuck

 

:lolg: :lolg:

 

Looking at these posts, my computer is full of this spam post. I may change my mind on the recommendation of not using roller rocker arms. One positive post felt that it was necessary because of a 540 lift on his cam. Maybe, but the stock 1967 427 L88 cam was taller and wilder. The 454 LS7`s are also above those specs. Both of those engines are all solid lifter HIGH reving engines. Also both used stamped rocker arms and either 3/8 or 7/16 push rods. I know, your going to say those are 12.5-1 engines. Sure but I drive them on the street. But even a small block Chevy with a V8 can go 7000 plus also. Which is exactly to my point. A low HP hydraulic cammed engine will stop pulling around 5500 and not put the strain on the rockers that 7000+ does with either a BB or a SB.
An all out Race engine constantly maintained and torn apart after every race I could accept the rollers, but where it`s driven and not checked my advice is to forget the rollers. They do and will come apart with junk all through the engine. Another thought is the nuts and hex wrenches necessary to adjust them. True as several posts suggest, the late models have them as stock equipment but they are really not for high reving street engines. For those of you insisting on them, the absolute best are Vanovers and made from light weight magnesium to lighten the valve train. Those I have used in one of my L88`s with great success over 8000. We had a tattel tail tach in one of my drag boats driven off the V Drive, in fact it was stopped at 8500 RPM`s and to our amazement the engine stayed together. Another note was the V Drive was 22% overdrive and the prop was spinning close to 11,000.
So I guess those of you that want them, go ahead :D :cheers:

 

Ironcross,

Tell me more about your L88.

Chuck

 

I think fuel of choice 'round here is 190 proof! :rofl:

 

Sure Chuck. The 1967 L88 was taken from the crate torn apart and blueprinted, magnafluxed, and balanced. We found several of the L88 rods were cracked. The dealer ordered several more and we finally found 8 good ones. The early L88`s were only 3/8 rod bolts and the 68`s were 7/16`s but both were hard chromed on the pin end with full floating pistons. A fantistic engine for it`s day with 12.5 compression and aluminum heads. The only thing better would have been a ZL1 because of the block but were not available until the 69 model year. All this with one 4 barrel intake. I selected a Holley 950 cfm 3 barrel however, which fit the open plenum of the L88 intake and the SOB easily beat the 427 dual quad Fords and the cross ram 426 Hemi powered canoes and all with only one carb. This is the engine that I used ther Vanover rockers on. I dont know if your familiar with my site, but it`s http://www.nitroalley.net try it out, I think you may enjoy it. :D
[Modified by Ironcross, 9:16 PM 10/28/2003]

 

Your're craking me up Dep. :lolg: That ZL-1 cam was nasty. Also a little further in the literature you are quoting they said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the roller rockers were not suitable and essentially considered a "use once" throw away type item. I'll be using the severe duty ones from Competition Products.

I hope you put the garden hose on your neighbors' hood! :rofl:

And the debate (fight) continues.




[Modified by 1970 Stingray, 9:43 PM 10/28/2003]

 

Thank you, well said. It's the small things that lead to .001 wins and losses, and stamped rocker arm flex has an undeniable contribution. A stronger AL or steel full roller rocker provides more accurate valve timing, and is therefore more predictable and will provide more power in the upper RPMs. A stamped steel rocker arm is more like the reverse of "variable valve timing" which the imports are using. Due to rocker arm flex the valve will tend to open and close at the wrong times at higher rpms.
These won't build power on their own, but if you are maxing out your setup you shoud consider a set.
If you're playing around or living in the past they are not required.
Jeff

 

One more thing everyone has failed to mention. Roller rockers reduce side loading of the valve against the guide, thereby extending vavle guide life. A stamped rocker pulls the valve stem towards it while a roller tipped rocker simply pushes it down.

Fact 2. The actual big block rocker arm ratio is supposed to be 1.72-1 Most actually measure about 1.69-1. True high quality roller rockers (yes and high quality stamped steel ones) give a more accurate ratio.

 

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

Hmmmm...what an INTERESTING statement coming from a guy that is driving a 30 YEAR OLD ANTIQUE!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Come back with a reply when you've traded in that behemouth for a 2003 Vette. :lolg: :lolg: :lolg: :lolg: :lolg:

The YEARS this book applies to the 454 was making 460 HP and the L-88 and ZL-1 were making over 550 and over 600HP. No current production motor has YET to come up with those numbers even with all your fancy roller this and computer-controlled that.

Dep :steering:

 

blunsford: "2 years before they didn't have the smog requirements they do now. Talk about apples and oranges. That comparison is pure ignorance trying to justify itself."

Wait a minute...are you talking about new cars or old cars? Smog issues have NOTHING to do with roller rockers on an old C3 Vette. Hell...my '72 doesn't even have to TAKE an emission test. I haven't seen any other antiques lining up at the smog test lanes either.

Nissan?????? Ohhhhh...you mean DATSUN! HA! Aren't you on the WRONG forum??? You need http://www.Japcrap.com :D

I still see you owning an old '73 Vette. Have you traded it in for a DATSUN yet? :lolg:

So now you are racing computers instead of cars. Well I got a souped up 2 gig Pentium that can blow off your mouse powered Apple! Oh man...I'm laughing so hard I am pissing all over a picture of a roller rocker DATSUN.
:lol: :lol: :lol:


Dep




[Modified by Dep, 8:00 AM 10/29/2003]

 

Ironcross: Great website! Love those old altereds and roadsters!
Seeing one go down the strip is WILD!
Takes some gigantic brass nads to drive one of those!!! :D

Dep

 

Dep

I have to admit I think you are on to something. In fact I think you should get into NASCAR eng building so you can use you secret stamped steel rocker arms instead of those silly shaft mounted rocker arms like these:




Man I can't wait to see the looks on all those stupid guy's faces using em now when you are hailed as the new eng building guru, maybe we should call you Smokey Dep.

All hail Smokey Dep! :hurray:

 

You are an arz, is your name George by chance?

What???? Us george's aren't even in this although we are firm believers in higher ratio steel roller rocker arms.

I haven't run stock arms on anything I cared about in years. I really don't think that you can run them on small block chevy's if you get much over .500 lift and larger than the stock 1.26 spring diameter. I don't think that the fulcrum and forarm will clear the spring retainer.

The reliability factor goes way up with even the first stage HD roller tips. I was down in the pits at one of the last nostalga road races. By rules they can't run modern roller anything arms. So they run Crane long slots which are much heavier duty than any OEM.

Quote from a engine builder - " These stamped arms which are much better than anything 30 years ago are still the limiting factor on the cams and springs that we can run. We run them on the edge with our solid roller lifter cams and they usually last a race or two!"

Now Dep compare that to a whole year of racing at higher rpm with modern steel roller rockers :flag

 

I think Dep runs nylon tires, too!!
:lolg: :rofl: :lolg: :rofl: