and i completely agree with your point. can't debate that at all. i only have a beef with those that stick to the go with a bigger cam mentality. not everyone wants to go through the motions and hassles of having a larger cam in their motor. some may want stock idle characteristics with a nice overall gain. after all, i put heads on the wife's car with a stock cam. idles and drives just like stock, but have 35 more rwhp. and on the stock PCM tune to boot.

 

i never tell peeps to go with some crazy sized cam. i like cars that are civil and daily driveable. thats the whole theme with my car even though its only a weekend toy.

 

and a different option each one is. you, i don't have a problem with. it's the ones that say you just can't do it, i have a problem with. and they know who they are.

 

1. Who's to say your minimal results weren't affected by the weather? That's why we all use SAE corrected numbers. No, they aren't perfect, but trying to discount someone's gains using the weather is weak in my book.

2. Roller rockers, like most things in life, are NOT all created equal. I swapped out a set of SLP 1.85 rockers for a set of Crane 1.80 roller rockers, lost ~.010" of valve lift in the process because of the slightly smaller ratio, and still gained 10 rwhp and 8 rwtq over the SLP's.

3. The idea that you can't use a high-lift cam with high-ratio rocker arms is a NON-ISSUE. The fact is, what would be a "low-lift" cam using the stock 1.7 ratio rockers becomes a "high-lift" cam with 1.80 rockers. Can't find a cam that will give you the exact valve lift you're looking for? Not a problem! You simply have a custom grind cam made to suit your needs and pay not a single penny more for it than you would an off-the-shelf cam. I'm on my third custom grind cam (2 Comps and 1 Cam Motion), all ground to work with higher-ratio rocker arms.

 

Here's an interesting write-up regarding the advantages of higher ratio rocker arms taken from the latest Crane Cams newsletter.

Advantages of Higher Rocker Arm Ratios

Since the introduction of our “Quick-Lift” rocker arm geometry, many pundits have debated the benefits of using higher ratio rockers as a means of increasing valve lift. Most of these debates have taken place on Internet websites where “everyone is an expert,” but there is no way to validate their credentials. Some of these people seem to think it is “unnatural” to use a rocker ratio higher than stock. They argue that if you want more lift, design it into the cam lobe. This argument has some merit to it as long as you have a big enough cam basecircle to begin with. However, on some special “stroker” grinds with small basecircles; increasing valve lift with a lobe change is not practical, as the basecircle gets so small that the strength of the camshaft (as well as resistance to torsional twist) is compromised.

Increasing rocker ratio as a means of increasing valve lift has several advantages; not the least of which is that it is unnecessary to remove the camshaft in order to reap the advantages of increased lift. Of even more importance, however, is the fact that when the lobe is changed to increase valve lift, everything else in the valve train changes in terns of acceleration and velocity (this includes lifters, pushrods, and the valve/valvespring assembly). This increases the operating stresses (due to the inertia of the mass of the components) imposed on the valvespring. Achieving increased lift by changing the rocker ratio does not change the acceleration and velocity of two very heavy components; the lifter and the pushrod. They continue to operate under the same conditions as the lower lift provided by lower ratio rockers. Only the valve/valvespring assembly increases in acceleration and velocity. This means that the valve spring has much less work to do controlling the valvetrain. Additionally, the extra leverage afforded by the increased rocker ratio allows the use of lower seat pressures to control the lifter as it returns to the basecircle and to control hydraulic pump-up of the lifter’s inner plunger. These advantages are significant and evident in the dyno testing we have done.

Certainly, you must be careful anytime valve lift is increased. Factors such as piston-to-valve clearance, retainer-to-seal clearance, spring seat and open pressures, and spring coil bind must be considered; but these are all issues that must be checked no matter how valve lift is increased. All of our testing at Crane has shown that increasing valve lift by changing rocker ratio (especially with any of our “Quick-Lift” rocker arms) is a very convenient and reliable way to increase the power level of an engine without changing the RPM band in which the power is made. For additional information on our “Quick-Lift” rocker arm geometry, please check our website at www.cranecams.com.

 

Steve please cite me some specific cases where guys are turning 9's, 10's, or even 11's for that matter are using 1.80 or 1.85 rockers. Unless they are using Comp R's or solids aftermarket rockers are not necessary and a waste of money. It just doesn't happen. I see no one from the top shops recommending these rockers save Vinci. None of the cars I've seen putting out say 440-450 rwhp+ have these listed in their mods. The guys that generally get conned into using these rockers are the newbies, who are gullible, and haven't really learned what works best yet.

I have to admit I fell into that trap once, I bought JBA headers. $600 for a couple of horsepower. They were well made and pleasing to the eye they just didn't work worth a damn.

I really hate to see young guys, most of which don't have a lot of spare money being sold a panacea of what these rockers will do when most likely it is little or nothing. Let them spend their limited funds on something that will do them some good.

 

above way is more expensive than just getting a bigger cam that will pump out the same numbers as above set up. as i stated before im just throwning out a different option.
and truthfully, its the more common option.

 

the reason why these so called top shops don't recommend using higher ratio rockers is because they build it into the cam to save money. and that is the only reason. if you want the most out of your motor, you'll put every part available. when your pocket book says no, then you go the cheap route. going cheaper doesn't make it right.

you keep saying the rockers don't work and are a waste of money. yet, you can't substantiate that claim. there have been countless others that have used them with just about the same success. even chevy high performance did the test in a 5.3L no less and still made the power.

is the only support you have is why don't the 9 second cars use them? maybe because they didn't design their motor to use them. or how about this, the class restrictions do not allow the use of aftermarket rockers. some classes even say you cannot use more than stock lift. come on, you can do better.

now for those producing 450+ rwhp how about tony mamo's car? go over to corvette forums and look up neptune bill ( wild bill faries) documented over 500 rwhp on both vinci's and, your favorite, norris' dyno. now, both of these cars are using 1.7 ratio. but they are the crane rockers.

you just don't get it when someone says i do not want a cam. i want to do something that will give me good results without putting a cam in. they want to retain the stock idle and driveability characteristics of the vehicle they own.

you do not see any of us telling the people wanting to do a cam before heads wasting their money, do you? the right way is to do everything else and leave the cam for last.

and let them spend their money on what they want to. if they want rockers, then by all means let them spend the money. instead of telling them it's a waste, how about being productive and say something like this:

while the rockers will produce a nice gain in overall power for about the same amount of money, or less, you can do a cam instead. but, if you are looking to get the most you can out of your motor, then use both.

i like that statement. because hell, i can counter your buy a cam because it's cheaper by saying buy a nitrous kit. there's no way you will ever get 150+ rwhp out of a cam for $600.00

 

mrr23, love the nitrous comparison, its a good point

 

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-internal-engine/352885-dyno-results-crane-gold-rockers-dual-springs-ti-retainers.html

Should have the leakdown test done tomorrow.

 

There are many in the motorsports field that utilize higher ratio rocker arms with good results (you can't succumb to "LS1 tunnel vision" when considering performance parts, it's a big world out there). Higher ratio rockers have been a way of life for racers and hotrodders since the first guy decided to "soup up" his car and they do provide gains. Your statement that these rockers will do "little or nothing" is just plain wrong. They do increase valve lift and we all know that increased valve lift does increase power. If this weren't true, none of us would bother with high-lift cams and we'd all be running with valve lifts in the .400"-.500" range.

P.S.- If you're looking for an example of a car running in the 11's, amigo, just give me another month and a half till we get some cooler weather and I should be there!

 

This is true only if you do your own cam installation. If you have to have a cam installed, then it will end up costing more. The beauty of a rocker arm swap is that anyone who knows one end of a wrench from the other can accomplish it.

 

Good luck and keep us posted.

 

well, technically we don't need to wait as i have the wife's car that runs 11s and does produce about 450 rwhp. but didn't want to bring it up as he would only say it's because i use nitrous. i'm sure he's refering to NA cars. so, in that case, we'll wait for your results.

 

you lost me with above statement.


buying rockers and a small cam will cost more than keeping stock rockers with a bigger cam. weather somebody installs it for you or not, you still need to buy rocker arms.
im not saying they(rocker arms) are usless, but they arent the cheapest way to go if youre gonna cam a car.

 

your are correct. may not be cheaper, but which one made more power overall?

comp cams 220/224 .581/.581 115 LSA with vinci/crane 1.7 accelerated lift rockers vs vinci 055 cam 216/224 .551/.551 (1.7) 113 LSA with vinci/crane 1.8 accelerated lift rockers (brings lift to .589/.589) it made more overall power throughout the entire rpm range. and with smaller duration on the intake side to boot.

 

this will be just another one of those 10 page debates over which way to go. either way is fine. if you have the money, then by all means go all out. if you don't, then do what you can.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your original statement. I was talking about swapping in higher ratio rockers for use with an existing cam. This would be cheaper than doing a cam install if you weren't doing the work yourself.

 

I guess the answer to my question is.......... it depends on who you talk too.

 

Yeah, no kidding!