View Poll Results: Are roller rockers worth the money for a bolt on application?
Yes
5
23.81%
No
16
76.19%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll
School me on Roller Rockers (in a bolt on car)
something like these would only gain about 3 horse with some better valve springs as we used to only see 5-7 on gen I small blocks going from the ball and fulcrum stamped crap to a full roller http://www.competitionproducts.com/H.../#.VZ1tNmfbL4g
If the OP puts on some 1.8s and kicks the stock .551/.547 Z-cam lift up to .583/.579 I could see a legitimate 8-10 rear ponies......
If it were me and I planned to stay with the stock cam but needed the 7000 shift point and out the back door in third gear to avoid the fourth gear drop; I'd put on some PSI max life springs with Ti retainers and the SLP 1.85 factory style rockers. The final lift would be .599"/.595" and a quality 5/16"/.080" pushrod should coax enough stability from the 204/218 duration LS6 cam to IMO gain about 13-15 rear wheel horsepower....obviously tuning the rev limit up from 6600 or whatever stock is on the C5Z.
Sure it's a lot of money for about half what a small cam would gain but could still be a pretty effective bolt on type mod when in conjunction with a FAST 92 and some LG Pros would top 400 rear wheel with ease and in a 3060 pound coupe should trap120-122 on drag radials......pretty cool
If the OP puts on some 1.8s and kicks the stock .551/.547 Z-cam lift up to .583/.579 I could see a legitimate 8-10 rear ponies......
If it were me and I planned to stay with the stock cam but needed the 7000 shift point and out the back door in third gear to avoid the fourth gear drop; I'd put on some PSI max life springs with Ti retainers and the SLP 1.85 factory style rockers. The final lift would be .599"/.595" and a quality 5/16"/.080" pushrod should coax enough stability from the 204/218 duration LS6 cam to IMO gain about 13-15 rear wheel horsepower....obviously tuning the rev limit up from 6600 or whatever stock is on the C5Z.
Sure it's a lot of money for about half what a small cam would gain but could still be a pretty effective bolt on type mod when in conjunction with a FAST 92 and some LG Pros would top 400 rear wheel with ease and in a 3060 pound coupe should trap120-122 on drag radials......pretty cool
TECH Resident
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 752
Likes: 2
From: Leander TX
It does get down to a reliability issue. I deal with broken Yella Terra and Harland Sharp rockers regularly. Not much experience with the SLP rockers but nothing but problems with other brands.
has anyone run those Howards ones with any success...???? I'm certain that some other company makes them for them as they even look like the black Jeg's branded ones, however they appear slender and possibly light at the valve side.......heck; next time I chase to Oshkosh I'll have my guy bring one out to me to look at and feel....perhaps I can report back. Wonder if I could take one of my factory rockers and do a tip weight comparison on a gram scale just for curiosity sake.
Roller rockers are only going to fail if the seat pressure of the valve spring is greater then what the RR can handle. Some of the Aluminum Harland Sharps and what not were not designed for 400lb + seat pressures. It's no different then that link you posted of a broken 918. 918 springs are fine when used correctly in the right application. I would not use a 918 with a XER lobe but it would work great with a LS6 cam or a mild lobe.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 47
From: Saskatchewan, Canada - where arguing "DA" is for the slow and weak...
This...
And this...
Are spot on.
I know I am keeping an eye out for some gently used SLP 1.85s for our TBSS after it gets an LS9 cam and a Procharger later this Summer - not the typical or accepted approach - but, should keep the truck docile and emissions friendly.
LOL that's perfectly ok, no one really goes the max effort route. People usually just jump to a cam before anything else. Then wonder why it runs like ****, usually its because they skipped a lot of supporting mods and attention to small details.
A lot of the people here are bashing RR's but have never tried them much less even held them in their hands. On an ls engine I'll be the first to agree a 1.7 RR will not do anything for power, measurable power anyway maybe 3 hp however it will smooth out the valve action given things are kept in control.
I was challenged to produce graphs and I did. I'd like to see more than 1 example of someone doing 1.8 rockers and not gaining power....I'll wait. People believe just what they read, very few have actually tried it, this is where you get the sheeple effect, and it runs rampant here in certain ways.
I get lots of questions from people asking how I made so much power with a cam only ls6 and then again with a bolt on ls3 and how I beat my buddies nasty H/C lq9 setup....The answer is simple. I did a lot of things most other people consider a waste of time/money.
Electric WP, Light clutch, Larger headers, true duals, Carbon Ds, Magnesium Wheels, Fast 102 as opposed to a 92. lighter parts where applicable. All the "little" stuff that people say doesn't do anything is usually what ends up costing them the race against someone who didn't listen to the masses. I find it much more satisfying to push the limits of a mild setup than just go all out to make a tad more power...
I'm getting ready to send my ls3 intake off to cbm to have it worked as well as doing a set of yt 1.85 rockers later on....I'll bet my bottom dollar those 2 mods pick up 20-25whp all day long. I'm sorry if that post sounded like I was tooting my own horn but I feel most of it is true lol.
A lot of the people here are bashing RR's but have never tried them much less even held them in their hands. On an ls engine I'll be the first to agree a 1.7 RR will not do anything for power, measurable power anyway maybe 3 hp however it will smooth out the valve action given things are kept in control.
I was challenged to produce graphs and I did. I'd like to see more than 1 example of someone doing 1.8 rockers and not gaining power....I'll wait. People believe just what they read, very few have actually tried it, this is where you get the sheeple effect, and it runs rampant here in certain ways.
I get lots of questions from people asking how I made so much power with a cam only ls6 and then again with a bolt on ls3 and how I beat my buddies nasty H/C lq9 setup....The answer is simple. I did a lot of things most other people consider a waste of time/money.
Electric WP, Light clutch, Larger headers, true duals, Carbon Ds, Magnesium Wheels, Fast 102 as opposed to a 92. lighter parts where applicable. All the "little" stuff that people say doesn't do anything is usually what ends up costing them the race against someone who didn't listen to the masses. I find it much more satisfying to push the limits of a mild setup than just go all out to make a tad more power...
I'm getting ready to send my ls3 intake off to cbm to have it worked as well as doing a set of yt 1.85 rockers later on....I'll bet my bottom dollar those 2 mods pick up 20-25whp all day long. I'm sorry if that post sounded like I was tooting my own horn but I feel most of it is true lol.
something like these would only gain about 3 horse with some better valve springs as we used to only see 5-7 on gen I small blocks going from the ball and fulcrum stamped crap to a full roller http://www.competitionproducts.com/H.../#.VZ1tNmfbL4g
If the OP puts on some 1.8s and kicks the stock .551/.547 Z-cam lift up to .583/.579 I could see a legitimate 8-10 rear ponies......
If it were me and I planned to stay with the stock cam but needed the 7000 shift point and out the back door in third gear to avoid the fourth gear drop; I'd put on some PSI max life springs with Ti retainers and the SLP 1.85 factory style rockers. The final lift would be .599"/.595" and a quality 5/16"/.080" pushrod should coax enough stability from the 204/218 duration LS6 cam to IMO gain about 13-15 rear wheel horsepower....obviously tuning the rev limit up from 6600 or whatever stock is on the C5Z.
Sure it's a lot of money for about half what a small cam would gain but could still be a pretty effective bolt on type mod when in conjunction with a FAST 92 and some LG Pros would top 400 rear wheel with ease and in a 3060 pound coupe should trap120-122 on drag radials......pretty cool
If the OP puts on some 1.8s and kicks the stock .551/.547 Z-cam lift up to .583/.579 I could see a legitimate 8-10 rear ponies......
If it were me and I planned to stay with the stock cam but needed the 7000 shift point and out the back door in third gear to avoid the fourth gear drop; I'd put on some PSI max life springs with Ti retainers and the SLP 1.85 factory style rockers. The final lift would be .599"/.595" and a quality 5/16"/.080" pushrod should coax enough stability from the 204/218 duration LS6 cam to IMO gain about 13-15 rear wheel horsepower....obviously tuning the rev limit up from 6600 or whatever stock is on the C5Z.
Sure it's a lot of money for about half what a small cam would gain but could still be a pretty effective bolt on type mod when in conjunction with a FAST 92 and some LG Pros would top 400 rear wheel with ease and in a 3060 pound coupe should trap120-122 on drag radials......pretty cool
I know I am keeping an eye out for some gently used SLP 1.85s for our TBSS after it gets an LS9 cam and a Procharger later this Summer - not the typical or accepted approach - but, should keep the truck docile and emissions friendly.
has anyone run those Howards ones with any success...???? I'm certain that some other company makes them for them as they even look like the black Jeg's branded ones, however they appear slender and possibly light at the valve side.......heck; next time I chase to Oshkosh I'll have my guy bring one out to me to look at and feel....perhaps I can report back. Wonder if I could take one of my factory rockers and do a tip weight comparison on a gram scale just for curiosity sake.
Thread Starter
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 3
From: Roseville, CA
Roller rockers are only going to fail if the seat pressure of the valve spring is greater then what the RR can handle. Some of the Aluminum Harland Sharps and what not were not designed for 400lb + seat pressures. It's no different then that link you posted of a broken 918. 918 springs are fine when used correctly in the right application. I would not use a 918 with a XER lobe but it would work great with a LS6 cam or a mild lobe.
The info is out there. Ask a vendor such as BTR. For what you are looking to do I do not think any decent RR will give you trouble. That being said I would look for a set of used SLP 1.85's. Even if you decide to cam the car down the road there are plenty of cams out there designed for higher ratio rockers. So it is not like your at a dead end using a higher ratio rocker.
Last edited by kinglt-1; Jul 9, 2015 at 01:31 PM.
Thread Starter
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 3
From: Roseville, CA
The info is out there. Ask a vendor such as BTR. For what you are looking to do I do not think any decent RR will give you trouble. That being said I would look for a set of used SLP 1.85's. Even if you decide to cam the car down the road there are plenty of cams out there designed for higher ratio rockers. So it is not like your at a dead end using a higher ratio rocker.
So let me get this straight... Too much spring pressure could cause the rockers to fail and not enough can cause valve float?
Another option is to contact vinci performance. Roger is a nice guy, he is the YT distributor for the states and has spec'd his own springs to work within the yt's limits. For me it's either YT's or a full shaft system. The hs and scorpions are just fine but they are much heavier than the yt's and will require a bigger spring. As long as you have the proper spring setup you will not need to worry. Tony uses yt's exclusively in all his builds, and actually helped design the newest ultralite so that right there is worth something.
Another aspect of the yt's I like is that for a little more money than the scorpions you not only get a lighter rocker but also the rockers a bi-shafted together whereas the others are not.
Like I said look at where the number is stamped on the top of the rocker. 1st gen is on the left 2nd is in the middle and the newest one which is the bet to get is on the right
Thread Starter
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 3
From: Roseville, CA
Again, just ME, but I'd take the bit of additional weight, "beef" if you will, of the Scorpions over the YT's.
A lot depends on WHERE that extra weight is. If it's over the nose then yes, you need a better spring / PR to counter it.
Even YT's revision 3 have broken. I've yet to see a Scorpion Rev3 break. That, and I'm partial to USA made.
Shaft mount, T&D all day.
A lot depends on WHERE that extra weight is. If it's over the nose then yes, you need a better spring / PR to counter it.
Even YT's revision 3 have broken. I've yet to see a Scorpion Rev3 break. That, and I'm partial to USA made.
Shaft mount, T&D all day.
I'll go with Manton 11/32 PR's. 
These will actually help with the rocker breakage issue. A lot of times it is blamed on too much spring, but I would also suggest that valve bounce due to pushrod flex with heavy springs is a player as well since the rocker will see much higher impact loads.
Post your results if you get them.
Post your results if you get them.
Thread Starter
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 3
From: Roseville, CA
These will actually help with the rocker breakage issue. A lot of times it is blamed on too much spring, but I would also suggest that valve bounce due to pushrod flex with heavy springs is a player as well since the rocker will see much higher impact loads.
Post your results if you get them.
Post your results if you get them.
Just read this thread. There is one point I'd like to politely disagree with...
"higher ratio lift won't change duration"
I agree, it won't change seat to seat duration, but you will pick up a little bit of .050" duration and even more 0.200" duration. The higher ratio will increase the ramp rate at the valve, but not at the cam.
so, a .050" valve lift on a 1.7 rocker is .0294" on the cam lobe. On a 1.85, the same .050" valve lift is .0270" on the lobe. Since the cam isn't changing, the lobe will hit .0270" sooner on the open and later on the close vs .0294 on the lobe. With a 49 degree ramp rate, this works out to 3 degrees of added duration at .050". If you consider a cam with a gentler ramp rate, you actually gain even more duration at the valve, because there is more rotation between the two spots on the cam
The math can be repeated at 0.200" lift, where the lobe is at 0.1177" on a 1.7 and 0.1081" on a 1.85. This will work out to 6-9 degrees of 0.200" duration. Tough to do the math on an elipse.
Then, you get the added peak lift going from 0.525" to 0.571". Even stock heads can take advantage of this.
So, the added ratio should be like a minor cam upgrade, supporting Redbird's point about the 15 or so HP.
"higher ratio lift won't change duration"
I agree, it won't change seat to seat duration, but you will pick up a little bit of .050" duration and even more 0.200" duration. The higher ratio will increase the ramp rate at the valve, but not at the cam.
so, a .050" valve lift on a 1.7 rocker is .0294" on the cam lobe. On a 1.85, the same .050" valve lift is .0270" on the lobe. Since the cam isn't changing, the lobe will hit .0270" sooner on the open and later on the close vs .0294 on the lobe. With a 49 degree ramp rate, this works out to 3 degrees of added duration at .050". If you consider a cam with a gentler ramp rate, you actually gain even more duration at the valve, because there is more rotation between the two spots on the cam
The math can be repeated at 0.200" lift, where the lobe is at 0.1177" on a 1.7 and 0.1081" on a 1.85. This will work out to 6-9 degrees of 0.200" duration. Tough to do the math on an elipse.
Then, you get the added peak lift going from 0.525" to 0.571". Even stock heads can take advantage of this.
So, the added ratio should be like a minor cam upgrade, supporting Redbird's point about the 15 or so HP.
Just read this thread. There is one point I'd like to politely disagree with...
"higher ratio lift won't change duration"
I agree, it won't change seat to seat duration, but you will pick up a little bit of .050" duration and even more 0.200" duration. The higher ratio will increase the ramp rate at the valve, but not at the cam.
so, a .050" valve lift on a 1.7 rocker is .0294" on the cam lobe. On a 1.85, the same .050" valve lift is .0270" on the lobe. Since the cam isn't changing, the lobe will hit .0270" sooner on the open and later on the close vs .0294 on the lobe. With a 49 degree ramp rate, this works out to 3 degrees of added duration at .050". If you consider a cam with a gentler ramp rate, you actually gain even more duration at the valve, because there is more rotation between the two spots on the cam
The math can be repeated at 0.200" lift, where the lobe is at 0.1177" on a 1.7 and 0.1081" on a 1.85. This will work out to 6-9 degrees of 0.200" duration. Tough to do the math on an elipse.
Then, you get the added peak lift going from 0.525" to 0.571". Even stock heads can take advantage of this.
So, the added ratio should be like a minor cam upgrade, supporting Redbird's point about the 15 or so HP.
"higher ratio lift won't change duration"
I agree, it won't change seat to seat duration, but you will pick up a little bit of .050" duration and even more 0.200" duration. The higher ratio will increase the ramp rate at the valve, but not at the cam.
so, a .050" valve lift on a 1.7 rocker is .0294" on the cam lobe. On a 1.85, the same .050" valve lift is .0270" on the lobe. Since the cam isn't changing, the lobe will hit .0270" sooner on the open and later on the close vs .0294 on the lobe. With a 49 degree ramp rate, this works out to 3 degrees of added duration at .050". If you consider a cam with a gentler ramp rate, you actually gain even more duration at the valve, because there is more rotation between the two spots on the cam
The math can be repeated at 0.200" lift, where the lobe is at 0.1177" on a 1.7 and 0.1081" on a 1.85. This will work out to 6-9 degrees of 0.200" duration. Tough to do the math on an elipse.
Then, you get the added peak lift going from 0.525" to 0.571". Even stock heads can take advantage of this.
So, the added ratio should be like a minor cam upgrade, supporting Redbird's point about the 15 or so HP.