What Size Rockers?
If you went with the Crane 1.80 rockers (1.82), your valve lift would be .611/.613. That's higher than I would be interested in going, but it's an option you could look into, but you'd definitely have to be sure of PTV clearance.
Last edited by XTrooper; May 10, 2005 at 07:07 AM.
If your cam was designed for a 1.7 rocker then going to more of a ratio is not always a good thing.
I do not think the valve train can control it as well as a stock rocker.
If your cam was designed for a 1.7 rocker then going to more of a ratio is not always a good thing.
I do not think the valve train can control it as well as a stock rocker.
The cranes will start at 1.79> at .200/.300 go to 1.72 till max lift> back down to .300/.200 where they go back up to 1.79. (variable lifts)
So the low lift ranges benefit from extra lifts (and a minimal increase in duration), which translates into more power.
All of that while keeping proper arc geometry (if installed at specs of course, and rocker tip is well centered on the valve stem end)
But as a rule of common sense, higher ratio rockers are used mainly to obtain more power on low lift cams. the same can be achieved just by increasing the size of the cam a bit, without adding stress on the valvetrain.
Trending Topics
Higher ratio rocker arms open the valve faster, higher, and hold it open for a longer period of time as compared to lower ratio units.
There will be more pressure on the cam lobes due to the friction and pressure caused by the higher lift and result in a greater spring load.
If a cam lobe is very aggressive that would need heavier springs to keep the lifter from lifting off the lobe.
Radical lobes will also add more side stress on the lifters and the bores and could possibly cause lifter and/or bore failure.
Also the added pressure on the studs from either higher ratio rockers, or more radical lobe has to have proper studs speced for that particular purpose.
So basically, while high ratio rockers do increase power benefits on smaller lift cams, these are somewhat limited to a certain ramp rate and amount of cam lift, before the forces and pressures induced overcome the parameters for which they are designed for.
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
The open and closing points are the same, but the effective duration at
each lift point increases as the rocker ratio increases.
Therefore, the valve is held open longer on the nose of the lobe to take
advantage of the head flow.
IE:
Take 0.150" lift on the lobe and multiply by 1.7
Take 0.150" lift on the lobe and multiply by 1.8
You can see the effects of rocker ratio in this diagram:

You can see the extended durations where the blue, red and purple lines intersect at 0.400" lift,
yet the open and close points remain the same.
X-Trooper,
When using a higher ratio rocker, due to the increased valve action, the
rocker studs tend to flex more. It is good practice to install stud girdles on
high RPM engines which use higher ratio rockers.
In addition, the valve stem will flex more under higher lift and faster
acceleration which will wear down the valve guides.
Last edited by Adrenaline_Z; May 11, 2005 at 06:56 AM.
If it was me, I would stick with the 1.7 ratio. If you are desperate (and have $$$) you could go with CRANE 1.7 Gold rockers. Those will not affect your PTV and still make more power down low and a little more at peak.
I wouldn't put 1.8/1.85 rockers on this lobe profile for those lifts.
If we're talking about effective duration at any lift point above 0.000",
then Pred_Z is correct.
So, you're both correct in your own respect.
When using a higher ratio rocker, due to the increased valve action, the
rocker studs tend to flex more. It is good practice to install stud girdles on
high RPM engines which use higher ratio rockers.
In addition, the valve stem will flex more under higher lift and faster
acceleration which will wear down the valve guides.
Also, keep in mind, that everything you mentioned above can occur when using a cam with high lift and/or aggressive ramp rates and is not exclusive to higher ratio rocker arms.
Lobes with fast ramps are not good to pair with high ratio rockers.
The valve velocity increase from the combined rocker ratio and
aggressive lobe ramp is a recipe for disaster. The valve train parts
wont like that very much.
Easier to float valves too.


