Roller Rockers
09-22-2005, 08:26 PM
#2
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: glou,ma
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 02' hawk
Are Harland Sharp good roller rockers to run? I am putting in a comp cam tomorrow with 581 lift on the int.
09-23-2005, 01:12 AM
#5
On The Tree
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on most applications the stock rockers tend to be a better choice...the aftermarket pieces are heavier on the valve which will make you more prone to valvefloat. I believe LG or someone did a test quite awhile back about it, but more then once I have seen the reults positve in the way of stockers....my advice, save the coin and buy something else, or prepare to buy a better spring with them to add control. If you already have a high quality spring that can handle the additional weight then have at it...just a heads up.
12-03-2005, 06:03 AM
#7
TECH Senior Member
Keep your valvetrain as light as possible.Stockers are the lightest. Add hollow valves, 918's, titanium retainers and you have one of the best high reving setups.
Trending Topics
12-06-2005, 10:49 AM
#11
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
last year I got a set of new 2002+ Z06 valves from valvegod@aol.com for $225 shipped.
The retainers only save you about 3 or 4 grams and generally not worth the extra money over stock ones.
If you still want the titanium retainers look on summitracing.com & search comp titanium retainers for LS1. They are fairly expensive last I looked.
The retainers only save you about 3 or 4 grams and generally not worth the extra money over stock ones.
If you still want the titanium retainers look on summitracing.com & search comp titanium retainers for LS1. They are fairly expensive last I looked.
12-07-2005, 06:03 AM
#13
TECH Addict
iTrader: (61)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I run the HS Rockers with the #'s in my sig. Very nice and high quality. I understand that they are slightly heavier than stockers but I have the Hollow Valves, Ti retainers, Lunati Lifters, AFR Springs so the reduction in weight of these components more than makes up for the rockers.
Current cam is in the .580 lift range but new cam will be higher & I will retain the HS rockers but add a Rev Kit. Nate does have a good price on the HS rockers also (where I got mine).
-Jay-
Current cam is in the .580 lift range but new cam will be higher & I will retain the HS rockers but add a Rev Kit. Nate does have a good price on the HS rockers also (where I got mine).
-Jay-
12-09-2005, 03:31 PM
#15
12 Second Club
iTrader: (55)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raymore, MO
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a question has been completely missed here.
If his springs can handle the weight, how much horsepower stands to be freed up switching to the RR? He is already at 520 so I going to guess quite a bit.
Besides that, he is currently running a 1.8 rocker which I would personally change back to a 1.7 with the new cam (assuming fast ramp rate cam)
If his springs can handle the weight, how much horsepower stands to be freed up switching to the RR? He is already at 520 so I going to guess quite a bit.
Besides that, he is currently running a 1.8 rocker which I would personally change back to a 1.7 with the new cam (assuming fast ramp rate cam)
12-10-2005, 04:06 AM
#16
TECH Addict
iTrader: (61)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually he asked if they were 'good to run' which means to me are they a good mfg. to go with as far as reliability concerns go vs. the other roller rockers out there?
Some stated that they are heavier than some of the rockers available - while this is true, I think that not only my N/A #'s, but the TNT #'s as well, prove that they are reliable. As far as incremental hp increase by going with these vs. other rockers - couldn't tell you. Don't know if anyone has done in depth comparison with the various rockers available. If for only the frictional losses they negate over the stock rockers they are worth it - not to mention the reduced heat that less friction imparts and the fact that they are easier on the valve stem tip.
Some stated that they are heavier than some of the rockers available - while this is true, I think that not only my N/A #'s, but the TNT #'s as well, prove that they are reliable. As far as incremental hp increase by going with these vs. other rockers - couldn't tell you. Don't know if anyone has done in depth comparison with the various rockers available. If for only the frictional losses they negate over the stock rockers they are worth it - not to mention the reduced heat that less friction imparts and the fact that they are easier on the valve stem tip.
12-10-2005, 05:08 AM
#17
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am leaning towards these..
http://chevyhiperformance.com/techar...48_0506_crane/
Followed by HS stock..
http://chevyhiperformance.com/techar...48_0506_crane/
Followed by HS stock..
12-10-2005, 05:21 AM
#18
On Alcohol and Fuel motors (Big Block) they use non-rollerized rockers on the exhaust and roller tip on the intakes. The exhaust rockers are a whole lot longer than the intakes which is why they don't feel the need to use rollers on the tips. The LSX rockers are of equal length and are quite short when compared to what you'd see on a Keith Black motor so using a roller on a LSX head can't hurt. If reciprocating weight is a consideration then the hollow valves and OEM rockers does sound like the ticket as I don't believe you can get much lighter than the OEMs, altho I'd like to see a weight comparison chart showing all the different rockers currently being offered for the LSX. If the rollerized ones are relatively close in weight and your pocket can afford it I use the rollerized type. I bought two sets of 1.85 Comp Pro Mags. They're Grrrreat!!!
