Bent Pushrods on a rebuilt 318

yellow rose said
I don't really want to watch the video, but I'm not impressed with most of what those guys do.

Just to save me the pain of watching it...did they correct the geometry when they changed rockers? If not, that's where the power went. I can't think of a single reason why a stamped rocker would make more power than a good, quality rocker arm.

The other issue is slow ramps and low spring loads will show lower power gains with roller rockers that a fast ramp lobe.

Also, rocker arm weight is essentially a non factor when lift is low, spring loads are low and RPM is under 7500 or so, depending on the rocker system.

They were shaft mounted rockers and cheap ones at that. They had to use a smaller diameter stud than the aftermarket stamp steel arms because they couldn't find a roller tip arm made for the larger stud size. Obviously not an issue in my situation but that's the explanation.

This thread is getting derailed a bit, I'm not trying to claim that the stamp steel beats out Harland Sharp here. I'm just trying to defend my position here. I'm not crazy for going with FREE.99 over $700 when we're talking 3 horsepower at best here at the rpm ranges my motor is built for. Just for background I'm already over $25,000 into this car that's worth $12,000 at best.

nm9stheham said
The intro slide pictured above with the searchlights made me not watch it. Too many variables that I am 99% sure were never considered to make any hard conclusions. Only 1.6 rocker ratio result is sensible and probably repeatable. As above,t he rocker weight is not a factor.

But I can sure understand not wanting to spend $700 on rockers....

You could never conclude anything with any dyno comparison ever on those grounds. Not sure why it's not sensible. Anything gained in friction loss is lost in the weight difference. It's all a wash in the end for a street motor anyways.

What do I know though, I'm just some dumbass that can't install a rocker shaft correctly.