MountainMotor

iTrader: (2)

I was just wondering which roller rockers you guys suggest? You can see my combo in my sig.

vettenuts

iTrader: (4)

Most here will tell you to keep the stock ones. For roller rockers, Crane 1.7's.

XTrooper

Roller rockers? I suggest the Crane Gold Quick-Lift rockers. I've had great luck with mine.

CATCH ME

iTrader: (1)

im using the Jesel SS seires non-adjustable and love them

Tommy Tucker

I have the Crane 1.8's and they installed really well. It's super quiet too.

LSUxBlake

iTrader: (3)

There is absolutely no need for roller rockers unless you are running a monster cam (over .650) or turning 7500+rpm, nor will you see any gains from them.

XTrooper

I have dyno-confirmed proof to the contrary.

Besides, to make a blanket statement like that is naive at best.

LSUxBlake

iTrader: (3)

And I can find you 5 graphs of "dyno-confirmed proof" showing valve float from aftermarket rockers with a quick search. There's no need for them at all on a moderately cammed LS1, listen to the many sponsors and engine builders with dynos who have said so on here. But hey, it's your money.... go ahead and waste it.

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

yes. whatever you do, don't buy roller rockers. especially the vinci/crane ones. unless you want 17-20 rwhp even on a stock cam. and yes, there's this controversy over what people are calling the 'magical' valve float. amazing how all these people with this 'magically' confirmed valve float can rev right past it. and the 'magical' valve float only lasts 200 rpm at most. here's my graph with a stock cam. amazing that even on my stock cam, i've taken it to 6700 rpms with no valve float. even though you see the 'magical' valve float dip.

dyno 9 before
dyno 11 500 miles later
dyno 14 10 months later.

LSUxBlake

iTrader: (3)

I'll just post 2 quick examples I found in search.
A
B

Need I continue? Have you ever wondered why the people who set 346 records on this board like Jason and Rodney ran stock rockers?

And yes, the "magical" valve float is there on your graph. Your post saying that it shows up on the graph but it's not really there makes no sense whatsoever. If there's no dip in your stock graph at x RPM and there IS a dip in your rocker graph at x RPM....... there's valve float.

seadoo

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

yes, you'll just have to continue. not everyone is trying to set records. not everyone drag races their car. some drag racing classes limit you to stock lift at the cam. some racing classes limit you to stock rockers. some people that autocross need more power across the board. some people want more out of what they have already without having to tear into the engine. not everyone wants to rev to 7000 rpms to obtain more power.

if it's valve float, then why does it recover after about 200 rpms? if it is valve float, would you be able to rev through it? doesn't valve float make it sound like it's hitting a rev limiter? you know, the buzzing, backfiring noises associated with it? mark campbell himself has even said, it's most likely a harmonic issue, not valve float.

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

just because there's a dip, it doesn't mean it's valve float. here's one for you. what caused this dip? red line @ 5800 rpms? according to your last statement, it's valve float, right?

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

Any rocker will work as long as you have adequate spring pressure to keep the valvetrain under control. Do I think you will see 20rwhp, not in a million years. Maybe 8-9 if you increase the lift with a higher ratio. Under no circumstance would I ever place an item that is heavier into my valvetrain when the stock ones seem to be working flawlessly. I'm going to be swapping rockers to the Jesel "Mohawk" lightened series here shortly, but they are $1500 rockers. For the price of the other rockers out there, I'd reccomend keeping the stock ones untill you "need" something else.

LSUxBlake

iTrader: (3)

Look, I'll no longer try to argue with you, because it's obviously pointless I just read a similar thread in which you flat out told Brent@TEA and Mike@Rapid Motorsports that they were wrong for suggesting that aftermarket rocker arms were a problem. In addition to them, Allan@FMS and Jason Reibert all suggest stock rockers on a hydraulic roller 346 (provided it's not a huge amount of lift). Now am I to give these people or you more credibility?

And these people were not running stock rockers because they had to, nor was it a class requirement, it's because they know what works and what doesn't.

Edit: You may be correct about there being a harmonics issue, but you fail to understand that it is CAUSED BY THE AFTERMARKET ROCKER ARMS.

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

so, my 14rwhp isn't real then?

and when CHP tested the rockers, their 14 rwhp peak gain didn't happen either?
http://www.stealthram.com/reddogplan.htm

it is possible. with the right rockers.

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

didn't ask you to argue with me. what makes them any more credible than vinci or crane?


do the rockers work? i see they do. you tell everyone it's because of the rockers? but don't say why? speak dumb to me. just don't give an answer without an explanation.

i'll let you know something i found out today as well. and until roger vinci puts the graphs up, i can't show you. they just got through doing some testing on the newer springs on their C6 test car. the dip isn't there anymore. didn't gain anymore power either.

and why don't you answer my question in my last post? don't avoid it by saying you won't argue with me.

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

I don't doubt that you will gain power with the right springs and a higher ratio rocker swap, but one thing I don't believe is a magazine right up. GMHTP, which is an affiliate of the magazine you posted, has always posted up skewed results from the people who give them perks. Never believe a magazine unless you were there to witness the test.

mrr23

iTrader: (3)

so, is mine skewed because no one from this board was there to witness it? after all, my peak gain was the same. and it was done a year before Ro's truck was done.

LSUxBlake

iTrader: (3)

After doing a search, I found out that you'll argue with people for 5+ pages. To attribute a 14rwhp gain 500 miles after the baseline to rocker arms isn't proof for me. My car dynoed 9rwhp less than it did 4 days earlier when I showed up for my dyno tune on the same dyno. Chevy High Performance magazine testing? Asking why the people who make/market the rockers are less credible to me than the sponsors listed? I wont even waste my time commenting...
Finally, I'll tell you why I think they dont work. They're heavier overall, but more importantly over the valve. You see significant gains on traditional SBC's since you are going from a pivot ball to a needle bearing fulcrum, reducing a huge amount of friction. On these motors, we already have the advantage of a needle bearing fulcrum, and, although it has no roller tip, the majority of your friction is reduced while having a very lightweight rocker. I've never heard of anyone wanting to make their valvetrain heavier.
The dyno graph you showed earlier is not the same as your graph. There are dips all over it, and I would assumed you would see that........ All the aftermarket rocker graphs look the same, with the dip at the end. Just search like I told you to, you'll find countless graphs that look just like yours and worse. I, like you, had aftermarket rockers at one point. I had the dip. I changed to stock rockers, dip went away and it pulled on through the powerband.
I'm just going to sit back and read your replies for a while. By the way, add Louis @LGM to the list who suggested a swap back to stock rockers in another thread with the same problem, and you were back in there raving about your 14rwhp gain.