Roller rockers 1.6 no needle bearings affordable

-
dstemmerman said:
I thought about him and his geometry kit as well. Pretty sure he sells PRW.
Click to expand...
I have them in stock, and they are not old stock either. PRW just upgraded the roller axles on their most recent rockers, and those are in stock in 1.5 or 1.6 ratios for small blocks. Buying the rocker and geometry kit combo is the best deal, and will save you $55 off retail.

Fwiw, they are bushed, and PRW was bushing their rocker before Comp finally decided to do it. Properly applied and installed, they hold up very well.
 
pishta said:
you could bush any 1.6 needle bearing rocker with the right walled bushing, probably would wear better with a bronze bushing anyway instead of bare AL on a stock shaft. suppose you could go real high tech with sealed roller bearings. Thing is with needle bearings and the way they are spaced is that there is no where for a stray needle bearing to go. They are in fact sealed on both sides with either shims, spacers or rocker shaft hold down blocks. You just need the hardened shafts.
Im sure if you bust one in half, the cages may hold them, may not depending on the severity of the break.
Click to expand...
Personally, I am leery of needle bearings. If they break, they are hardened and can do a lot of damage. And if they break captivity, they can get in other places and cause more damage. Some newer engines have roller lifters, which have caged needle bearings, and like anything mechanical, they have a failure rate, too. I think good, bushed rockers are more foolproof, and are very dependable.
 
B3RE said:
I have them in stock, and they are not old stock either. PRW just upgraded the roller axles on their most recent rockers, and those are in stock in 1.5 or 1.6 ratios for small blocks. Buying the rocker and geometry kit combo is the best deal, and will save you $55 off retail.

Fwiw, they are bushed, and PRW was bushing their rocker before Comp finally decided to do it. Properly applied and installed, they hold up very well.
Click to expand...
Thank you Sir. I'll give you a call Monday.
 
B3RE said:
I have them in stock, and they are not old stock either. PRW just upgraded the roller axles on their most recent rockers, and those are in stock in 1.5 or 1.6 ratios for small blocks. Buying the rocker and geometry kit combo is the best deal, and will save you $55 off retail.

Fwiw, they are bushed, and PRW was bushing their rocker before Comp finally decided to do it. Properly applied and installed, they hold up very well.
Click to expand...
B3RE said:
I have them in stock, and they are not old stock either. PRW just upgraded the roller axles on their most recent rockers, and those are in stock in 1.5 or 1.6 ratios for small blocks. Buying the rocker and geometry kit combo is the best deal, and will save you $55 off retail.

Fwiw, they are bushed, and PRW was bushing their rocker before Comp finally decided to do it. Properly applied and installed, they hold up very well.
Click to expand...
Shot you an email at contact@b3racingengines.com. Look forward to hearing from you.
 
Michael at B3 is a awesome guy, he did my heads and intake and set up my rockers for my build.
 
Bought the bushed PRW 1.6 rockers and Geo kit from B3 to go on my Eddy heads and could not be any happier.
 
I did some reading on needle bearings and lubrication, and one of the worst applications was in oscillating motions, like the motion of rockers. Seems that the reversal of motion tends to disrupt the lubricating film around a needle. This does not happen, or happen as readily, with a sleeve bearing. You can find this in some of the online bearing application info.
 
nm9stheham said:
I did some reading on needle bearings and lubrication, and one of the worst applications was in oscillating motions, like the motion of rockers. Seems that the reversal of motion tends to disrupt the lubricating film around a needle. This does not happen, or happen as readily, with a sleeve bearing. You can find this in some of the online bearing application info.
Click to expand...
They have 'em in U-joints, same oscillating motion, but I think the reason is to have the smallest bearing available in there (so as to have more meat inn the axle) and to spread the load across the largest area. You couldnt run a floating (hydrodynamic) bearing in there as there is no pressurized oil as in a rocker arm. Roller bearings dont do that well but they include their own hardened races. I think the floating bearing in the rockers is the best for the job. Cranks live for 100s of thousands of miles on hydrodynamic wedge bearings.
 
pishta said:
They have 'em in U-joints, same oscillating motion, but I think the reason is to have the smallest bearing available in there (so as to have more meat inn the axle) and to spread the load across the largest area. You couldnt run a floating (hydrodynamic) bearing in there as there is no pressurized oil as in a rocker arm. Roller bearings dont do that well but they include their own hardened races. I think the floating bearing in the rockers is the best for the job. Cranks live for 100s of thousands of miles on hydrodynamic wedge bearings.
Click to expand...
You correct in the fact the smallest needle bearing provide the best load bearing surface on the rocker shaft. Most inexpensive rockers used large caged needle bearing because their cheaper. Bronze bushed rockers, in my opinion are the best option for most engines using adjustable rocker gear. Benefits include a long lasting wear surface and low initial cost which is a better option than aluminum or roller bearings on a steel shaft.
Ever wonder why roller tips are installed on rocker arms, Doesn't take a scientist to figure out that aluminum or non heat treated metal will wear out quickly. A roller bearing will provide a long lasting wear surface. But is the roller tip effective in increasing horsepower. The answer is NO. Mopar did a study years and years and determined that roller tip would be 6 inches in diameter to effectively reduce fiction.
So what's all the hype on roller rockers and horsepower increases.
Generally aftermarket rockers provide more accurate ratios and that provides the increase in horsepower and not because of roller bearings.
 
pishta said:
They have 'em in U-joints, same oscillating motion, but I think the reason is to have the smallest bearing available in there (so as to have more meat inn the axle) and to spread the load across the largest area. You couldnt run a floating (hydrodynamic) bearing in there as there is no pressurized oil as in a rocker arm. Roller bearings dont do that well but they include their own hardened races. I think the floating bearing in the rockers is the best for the job. Cranks live for 100s of thousands of miles on hydrodynamic wedge bearings.
Click to expand...
I took all the needle bearings out of my PRW's aluminum rockers and the are something like only 1/8" or 3/16" long each, and are spaced apart bay a sort of internal cage. The U-joint needles are packed, side by side, 2 or 3 times more tightly and are many time longer and the angle of motion is relatively small.... So a lot lower loading.

And they are in grease, which may be a different lube situation than oil. So I don't really think they can be compared.

I was reading up on some of later LS engines which come with needle bearings on the rockers, and they suffer the same fretting failures. There are 'bushing and trunnion' kits out there to replace them.
 
B3RE said:
I have them in stock, and they are not old stock either. PRW just upgraded the roller axles on their most recent rockers, and those are in stock in 1.5 or 1.6 ratios for small blocks. Buying the rocker and geometry kit combo is the best deal, and will save you $55 off retail.

Fwiw, they are bushed, and PRW was bushing their rocker before Comp finally decided to do it. Properly applied and installed, they hold up very well.
Click to expand...
What input do You have regarding the all-Al-U-minimum sets unbushed, just honed from Mancini's?
 
I have a set of MP/Pro-Comps ( I dont know who's name is on em -MP- but they look like the blue and gold Pro-comps) that are unbushed AL, kinda ugly in there: looks like someone took a brake cylinder hone and scuffed 'em up? They fit fine, no sign of rocking movement. Even the T&D circle track rockers I had were thin caged (German INA) rollers.
 
Killer6 said:
What input do You have regarding the all-Al-U-minimum sets unbushed, just honed from Mancini's?
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan of aluminum directly on the steel shafts. I've seen too many with pretty substantial wear on the shafts from the aluminum galling under increased spring loads. The bronze bushing is much more forgiving in my opinion, although it can still happen if the bronze is pretty hard or the oil supply isn't adequate.

I've been told by a large manufacturer of valvetrain parts that a bronze bushing in an aluminum body does not retain well. Apparently, the increased distortion of the aluminum rocker under load, as well as the more malleable properties of the bushing, allows them to work loose over time. I can't confirm this from personal experience though.

Let's face it, aluminum rockers have a fatigue life that is much shorter than a steel rocker. Their place is on a regularly maintenanced or inspected engine, and that applies to the roller bearings as well. They are pretty much mandatory on engine with high spring loads, but that type of application also requires frequent maintenance. I prefer to use a bushed steel rocker for most anything less than a dedicated race engine.
 
B3RE said:
I'm not a big fan of aluminum directly on the steel shafts. I've seen too many with pretty substantial wear on the shafts from the aluminum galling under increased spring loads. The bronze bushing is much more forgiving in my opinion, although it can still happen if the bronze is pretty hard or the oil supply isn't adequate.

I've been told by a large manufacturer of valvetrain parts that a bronze bushing in an aluminum body does not retain well. Apparently, the increased distortion of the aluminum rocker under load, as well as the more malleable properties of the bushing, allows them to work loose over time. I can't confirm this from personal experience though.

Let's face it, aluminum rockers have a fatigue life that is much shorter than a steel rocker. Their place is on a regularly maintenanced or inspected engine, and that applies to the roller bearings as well. They are pretty much mandatory on engine with high spring loads, but that type of application also requires frequent maintenance. I prefer to use a bushed steel rocker for most anything less than a dedicated race engine.
Click to expand...

You gonna be around Monday? I need to chat with you about a project.
 
Don’t fear the needle bearing!

I’ve been running the PRW aluminum rollers for 4 years now on the street. Just disassembled them for inspection and absolutely no signs of wear on the shaft. Bearings still tight. Only have 105lbs on the seat though.
 
B3RE said:
Yes sir.
Click to expand...
Intended app is 440 w/452 heads, 2.18/1.81's Hughes 36/42 cam and recc'd springs, 10:1, & a dose of N2O, oil press. is definitely not one of this engines shortcomings. Haven't run a pattern on the stems yet, so........
 
bigcubesmallblock said:
I wanted to know if the PRW rockers use ball pushrods or the cup style, also are they made in the USA? Thanks
Click to expand...
The steel rockers use a cup style adjuster, and the aluminum ones use a ball adjuster. The cup adjuster is much better in most cases, in my opinion.

They are made offshore. If they were made in the USA, they would likely be an extra $2-400 more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top