what rocker arms for my lt1 build?
04-20-2013, 08:05 AM
#1
what rocker arms for my lt1 build? i am finishing up my 383 Lt1 build and need to upgrade my 3/8 stud comp pro magnums to something with a 7/16 stud. i have ported stock heads with 2.02/1.6 valves and comp 918 beehive springs. should i go with another set of pro magnums? or are there better choices for my application? i want to use the lightest rocker arms i can, so i didnt know if aluminum would be a better choice.
i originally planned on using my existing rocker arms and purchasing a stud girdle and a set of perimeter valve cover adapters. but after reading up, it appears the valve cover adapters are not a good idea because they tend to have problems sealing. i need opinions on which route to go. btw, my goals are mid to high 10's on nitrous. thanks
i originally planned on using my existing rocker arms and purchasing a stud girdle and a set of perimeter valve cover adapters. but after reading up, it appears the valve cover adapters are not a good idea because they tend to have problems sealing. i need opinions on which route to go. btw, my goals are mid to high 10's on nitrous. thanks
04-20-2013, 08:42 AM
#3
If your goals are mid-high 10s on nitrous I would look at changing a few other parts as well. There's no reason a properly built 383 shouldn't be able to touch the 10s assuming the engine/suspension is set up properly.
Having said that I have been using Crane aluminums on my 383 since 2004 and they work great. Alot of people will tell you that using aluminum rockers is a bad idea but I haven't seen any failures personally.
Having said that I have been using Crane aluminums on my 383 since 2004 and they work great. Alot of people will tell you that using aluminum rockers is a bad idea but I haven't seen any failures personally.
04-20-2013, 02:06 PM
#5
this just wreaks of stupid 2.02/1.6 valves in LT1 heads, cheap beehives rather something nicer, thinking about perimeter bolt valvecovers. Let me guess some brilliance like the XFI292 cam to?
The only thing that makes sense is the slow goal to go with the bad plan. Now if you did this well it would do 10s NA and 9s on a mild shot.
What cam have you selected? Asking because of 2.02 valves and 918 springs......................................
The only thing that makes sense is the slow goal to go with the bad plan. Now if you did this well it would do 10s NA and 9s on a mild shot.
What cam have you selected? Asking because of 2.02 valves and 918 springs......................................
Trending Topics
04-20-2013, 04:48 PM
#8
I other words you agree with my assessment but would have found a way to say it while kissing his ***
.................................2.02/1.6 valves have not been shown to be worth the substantial effort to do right in these castings. Choosing those is an expression of ignorance they take a LOT of extra effort to make properly fit this casting yet the fastest LT1 casting cars overwhelmingly use 2.00/1.56 that fit stock seats.
the larger valves weight a little more which will tax a spring that is going to be marginal for most modern cams, particularly if the cam is aggressive enough to consider a girdle and fit in the with "bigger is better" mentality applied to the heads.
04-20-2013, 06:04 PM
#11
Joe: Maybe so but I had a question about rocker arms, don't remember asking for anybody's opinion about my stuff. Don't know why he had to start off by being a dick about it. I've been on this site a long time and know of both of u guys. He may be smart but I can't stand him and choose to ignore him. U along with a few other specific people, have answered many of my questions in the past and are always cool and knowledgable about things. That's how it's supposed to be...but to me his abrasive personality far outweighs any knowledge he may have to offer
04-21-2013, 07:48 AM
#12
I would keep the 3/8" stud setup long as the studs themselves are good and put the savings towards resolving the other stuff.
The valvetrain and engines are systems and us helping you with one part ignoring the rest of the system is not helpful. Each component needs to be considered as part of the whole.
The valvetrain and engines are systems and us helping you with one part ignoring the rest of the system is not helpful. Each component needs to be considered as part of the whole.
04-21-2013, 12:32 PM
#15
I didn't mean to say the 918s have no place, but what I was getting at is given the rest of what we see I doubt this guy is picking a cam mild enough for them to work.
A stroker that he felt needed the substantial extra cost of new valveseats to run bigger valves for and is considering a stud girdle. Doesn't sound like a mild cam that would match the 918s.
But what the hell would I know I just read what he wrote and was not looking for some way to kiss his ***.
A stroker that he felt needed the substantial extra cost of new valveseats to run bigger valves for and is considering a stud girdle. Doesn't sound like a mild cam that would match the 918s.
But what the hell would I know I just read what he wrote and was not looking for some way to kiss his ***.
04-21-2013, 08:19 PM
#17
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: N. Richland Hills
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I other words you agree with my assessment but would have found a way to say it while kissing his ***.................................
2.02/1.6 valves have not been shown to be worth the substantial effort to do right in these castings. Choosing those is an expression of ignorance they take a LOT of extra effort to make properly fit this casting yet the fastest LT1 casting cars overwhelmingly use 2.00/1.56 that fit stock seats.
the larger valves weight a little more which will tax a spring that is going to be marginal for most modern cams, particularly if the cam is aggressive enough to consider a girdle and fit in the with "bigger is better" mentality applied to the heads.
.................................2.02/1.6 valves have not been shown to be worth the substantial effort to do right in these castings. Choosing those is an expression of ignorance they take a LOT of extra effort to make properly fit this casting yet the fastest LT1 casting cars overwhelmingly use 2.00/1.56 that fit stock seats.
the larger valves weight a little more which will tax a spring that is going to be marginal for most modern cams, particularly if the cam is aggressive enough to consider a girdle and fit in the with "bigger is better" mentality applied to the heads.
04-21-2013, 08:52 PM
#18
Comp pro mags or Crane Gold. Comp 918's aren't going to stress any rocker arm out there. That being said I wouldn't be looking to rev much over 6500 with heavy 2.02 1.60 valves and the 918 springs.
04-22-2013, 07:44 AM
#19
Joe: Maybe so but I had a question about rocker arms, don't remember asking for anybody's opinion about my stuff. Don't know why he had to start off by being a dick about it. I've been on this site a long time and know of both of u guys. He may be smart but I can't stand him and choose to ignore him. U along with a few other specific people, have answered many of my questions in the past and are always cool and knowledgable about things. That's how it's supposed to be...but to me his abrasive personality far outweighs any knowledge he may have to offer
Anyways, The aluminum rockers should be fine. I WOULD run a 7/16" stud though, just MHO.
04-22-2013, 11:10 AM
#20
I'd leave what you have, ARP 3/8 is stiff enough and the cost to go to 7/16 would be better spent on dual springs. What is your cam? Those 918s are happy on a cc503 and that's about as high as most would go with stock valves, less with bigger heavier valves. How high do you spin? Do you have float issues already? Or are you running a hotcam? Also the extra material needed to make aluminum rockers stiff enough over steel often creates the same or more mass at the tip, if you look at the design of the pro mags vs the cranes, you can see this.