hbvette07

Have you guys seen this article in Vette Mag. about roller rockers? I thought it was interesting that they were getting greater power gains using 1.5 ratio rockers vs the 1.6, and they explain the reason for it. Most of the threads I read addressing rockers, people are going with 1.7 to 1.8 ratios.



Westech Performance Group loaned us their 383-cid mule for the abusing. It has Trick Flow heads, a Comp Cams 292H, Performer RPM intake, MSD ignition, and a 750 Demon drinking 92-octane Unocal 76 pump gas.



Since the factory stamped-steel rocker arms are notoriously out of whack, we installed Comp Cams High Energy stamped rockers for our baseline because they're built much closer to a true 1.52:1 ratio. These rockers surprised us by making over 465 hp.



The next logical test was Comp Cams Magnum roller-tip rockers in a 1.52:1 ratio. They add power by eliminating the friction at the valve tip, and since they're made from chrome-moly steel, they're much stronger than stamped rockers, so flex is no longer a power limiter.



Time was short and we needed to test the full-roller rockers next. But instead of going with an aluminum rocker, we installed Comp's top-of-the-line Hi Tech stainless rockers with a 1.5 ratio.
Power Multipliers
How To Add Power To A Small-Block With The Right-Ratio Rocker Arms


By Mike Petralia

Photography: Mike Petralia

Get a FREE Price Quote Find a Local Car Dealer

The debate over the optimum rocker arm ratio to use has dragged on probably since the invention of the pushrod V-8. Even though Chevrolet made the decision easy for us when it engineered the original 265ci small-block as well as its successors up through the '96-only LT4, to run what GM refers to as a "nominal" 1.5:1 ratio (Comp Cams says most stock rockers are actually about 1.46:1), it's well known that the inconsistencies of stock rockers and the friction and heat they create mean there's power lost with them. By simply equalizing all rocker arms to a consistent 1.52:1 ratio we've found there's much power to be gained. And by increasing, or more precisely, optimizing rocker ratios to alter the opening and closing events of your cam, you can build even more power. Team VETTE wanted to find out what really is the best ratio, but didn't have time to debate the issue. So we thought we'd just test it instead.
ROCKER DECISIONS
There's actually much more to determining which rocker arms are best for your Vette's engine besides finding just the right ratio. Stock rockers flex and make heat, but there are roller rockers made out of chrome-moly and stainless steel as well as the familiar aluminum versions engineered to cure those problems, and then there's shaft rockers to consider, too. There are also some trick new rockers available with unique designs, like Crane Cams' ingenious variable ratio Radi-Arc rocker arms, and Crower Cams has been working on rocker arms that fix many of the problems associated with increasing the ratio and/or lengthening your valves. There's even new electronically-controlled, variable-ratio shaft rocker conversion kit called Hot Rockers for street small-blocks that we'll tell you more about in a bit. And one of the great things about many of these rockers is that, for the "resto" crowd, they will fit out of sight under stock valve covers. But we wanted to cover the basics for this test. So we strapped a small-block to Westech Performance Group's Superflow 901 dyno in hopes of learning all we could from a set of rockers.

Since there's no point in always testing stuff that is way above many readers' budgets, we chose a mild 383-cid stroker for our pulls. The engine is one of Westech's test mules, and they were willing to lend it to us for a day. The engine consists of a cast crank, stock 5.7rods, and Speed Pro 9.5:1 forged pistons. Trick Flow aluminum cylinder heads with large 1.46-inch diameter springs and an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, wearing a 750-cfm Road Demon double pumper, round out the breathing package. Westech installed a Comp Cams' 292H Magnum hydraulic single-pattern camshaft to make sure that dual-pattern lobe profiles would not affect our results. Hooker 1 3/4-inch "roadster" (street rod) headers were also used.

For the actual tests we planned to baseline the engine with stock stamped-steel rockers arms first. But Comp advised us that stock rockers are so bad, we'd probably never get a consistent pull with the relatively strong valve springs we were running, so we opted for Comp's High Energy stamped steel rockers for the baseline pulls. Then we switched to Comp Cams Magnum roller-tip chrome-moly rocker arms with a true 1.52:1 ratio. Last, we tried Comp's full roller Hi Tech stainless steel rocker arms in both 1.5:1 and 1.6:1 ratios. We even tried a 1.5-intake-and-1.6-exhaust-rockers combo and then planned to swap the intake and exhaust ratios to see what effect that would have. You'll have to read on a bit to find out about the trouble we ran into and what we learned there. The best power-per-dollar gains came from switching the stock rockers to the roller-tip Magnum rockers with the 1.52:1 ratio. The power we gained made their under-$150 price tag worth it. The full roller 1.5s did an excellent job of pumping even more horsepower, and the reduction in oil temp that comes along with the reduced friction these rockers offer make them an easy choice for any Corvette's street small-block.

HOW ROCKERS ADD POWER
The rocker arm mechanically multiplies the cam's lobe lift. It does this by moving the pushrod closer to the fulcrum pivot point than the valve stem tip is. A simple example would be: If the valve tip centerline is located 0.750-inch away from the rocker fulcrum pivot centerline, then a 1.5:1-ratio rocker would have the pushrod cup located 0.500 inch from the pivot centerline (.750/1.5 = .500). When you increase the ratio to 1.6, yet obviously can't move the valve or rocker arm stud, you have to move the pushrod cup closer to the pivot centerline. So now the math (.750/1.6 = 0.470) tells us that the pushrod centerline is roughly 0.030-inch closer to the fulcrum pivot. This arrangement does more than just multiply cam lift. It also multiplies the loads on the pushrod and rocker arms, making the proper ratio critical. Too much ratio will open the valves too quickly and can cause valve float at high rpm. It also multiplies the spring pressure seen on the cam lobes, so running too much ratio can wipe out a flat-tappet cam in no time. Thankfully, the cam manufacturers have studied these problems and most won't even sell you too much ratio unless they feel you've really got your act together. Since an increase in ratio also increases the loads on the rocker and its mounting stud, you should stiffen the whole assembly up in order to keep the rockers from wobbling all over the place. That's what stud girdles are for and why shaft rockers are so much better, even yet. A stud girdle ties all rocker arms together distributing the loads from any one to all eight. Shaft rockers transmit the loads directly to the cylinder head without using any rocker studs at all.

That's why companies like Comp, Crane, Jesel, Crower, and T&D can offer shaft rocker ratios up to 2:1 but won't go any bigger than about 1.8:1 with normal stud-mounted roller rockersrods, and Speed Pro 9.5:1 forged pistons. Trick Flow aluminum cylinder heads with large 1.46-inch diameter springs and an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, wearing a 750-cfm Road Demon double pumper, round out the breathing package. Westech installed a Comp Cams' 292H Magnum hydraulic single-pattern camshaft to make sure that dual-pattern lobe profiles would not affect our results. Hooker 1 3/4-inch "roadster" (street rod) headers were also used.

For the actual tests we planned to baseline the engine with stock stamped-steel rockers arms first. But Comp advised us that stock rockers are so bad, we'd probably never get a consistent pull with the relatively strong valve springs we were running, so we opted for Comp's High Energy stamped steel rockers for the baseline pulls. Then we switched to Comp Cams Magnum roller-tip chrome-moly rocker arms with a true 1.52:1 ratio. Last, we tried Comp's full roller Hi Tech stainless steel rocker arms in both 1.5:1 and 1.6:1 ratios. We even tried a 1.5-intake-and-1.6-exhaust-rockers combo and then planned to swap the intake and exhaust ratios to see what effect that would have. You'll have to read on a bit to find out about the trouble we ran into and what we learned there. The best power-per-dollar gains came from switching the stock rockers to the roller-tip Magnum rockers with the 1.52:1 ratio. The power we gained made their under-$150 price tag worth it. The full roller 1.5s did an excellent job of pumping even more horsepower, and the reduction in oil temp that comes along with the reduced friction these rockers offer make them an easy choice for any Corvette's street small-block.

MAKES YOUR CAM BIGGER TOO!
An increase in rocker arm ratio nets more than additional lift. It will also change the cam's duration characteristics. Because the increased ratio effectively speeds up valve movement, that means the valve will reach any opening height sooner than it would with a lower ratio rocker arm. Higher ratios open the valves quicker and close the valves a little later. Since the increase is symmetrical on either side of the cam lobe centerline, a higher ratio will lengthen the overall valve timing, making your cam act bigger. The higher ratio also causes valve timing to increase proportionally as the valve opens further (see chart).

1.6 TROUBLE
We know from experience that a higher-ratio rocker makes more power in engines that would normally need a bigger (higher lift/more duration) cam. But we weren't able to prove it this time. After installing the 1.6s we were shocked when the engine dropped more than 40 hp! As we explained earlier, rocker arms increase the ratio by moving the pushrod cup closer to the rocker fulcrum pivot point. That's where our problem was. The pushrod was contacting the top of the clearance hole in the cylinder heads with the 1.6 rockers. So, you can see that swapping rocker arms involves more than just deciding what ratio to run. In fact, this problem is very hard to spot because it's typically hidden beneath the pushrod guideplate, which is why it took us a while to find it.

Westech came to our rescue, however, and dug up some old dyno tests comparing 1.5s to 1.6s on other small-blocks. Those results found the 1.6 rockers making more than 20 hp over the stock 1.5 rockers. But that engine was equipped with a smaller cam than this one, and it seemed to really need the additional lift and duration afforded by the higher ratio.

One cool thing we learned from this is that smaller cams really do make more low-end power. The pushrod binding caused by the 1.6 rockers bled the hydraulic lifters down and didn't offer full lift or duration of the cam.

So, in effect, we were running a much smaller cam. How small? We don't know, but torque at 3,500 rpm with the binding pushrods jumped by almost 30 lb-ft! How can you duplicate this low-end power increase, you ask? If you're running a very mild motor and are not worried about power above 4,500 rpm, you can REDUCE the rocker arm ratio instead.

That may not sound right to most of you, but it helps low-end power. You won't get the same peak power you would with a higher ratio rocker, but if your engine never sees that rpm, then why bother? This is a great idea for tow vehicles (plus 4x4s and boats) that never rev very high but need all the bottom end they can get. We know of at least one company making reduced ratio rockers that we might try. Crower Cams has 1.2:1-small-block and 1.5:1-big-block rockers that they use to "break-in" flat-tappet cams with stiff racing springs. Whichever rocker arms you choose, do a little research before you buy. Maybe you can borrow a higher-ratio set from a friend and try them out to see if they'll fit (especially if you're trying to run original, early valve covers) and, more importantly, if more ratio will make more power for you.

chemten

stock c6 are 1.7 and z06 are 1.8. slp and some others offer an upgrade to 1.85 for increased hp.

not sure what the basis for the article was.

fdxpilot

The article is about SBC engines, and has little or nothing to do with LSx engines.

hbvette07

Thanks, I did not know the ratio of the stock rockers. I found this while googling roller rockers for corvettes. The main factor I got out of it was not only choosing the correct ratio for the rockers but the diffence in heat produced from standard rockers vs roller rockers.

SpinMonster

Remember the old Saturday Night Live skit with Roseann Rosannadana











nevermind.

Flareside

The "stamped steel" stock SBC rockers in the article don't have any rollers at the fulcrum like a stock LS2 rocker does, they are WAY different. None of this applies to our cars at all.

The Clevite Kid

All the author was doing is admitting that he screwed up a basic principle:

check for interference and proper operation whenever you screw around with changing any geometry of any part. So the pushrods hung up and messed up the valve timing big time with the high ratio rockers. Duh . . .

As the other commentators have said - this has NOTHING to do with our LSX engines.