Rocker arm recommendations?

-

dukeboy440

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
57,098
Reaction score
34,323
Location
No
Finishing my order list tonight, just curious before I pull the trigger, besides Comp or Harland Sharp roller rockers, 1.5s, is there any other brands I should consider for reliability and durability? 440 with roller cam and RPM heads.
 
^^^^^^^^^ what he said ^^^^^^^^^
 
I bought Hughes for my stroker motor. I dont like all the little needle bearings.
 
I have just bought Comp rockers, steel. Look strong, haven't used them yet.

I would think twice about advice from B3 racing. There is a glaring fault in Part 2 of the rocker tech. Third paragraph, first line. He claims the rocker ratio [ on the valve/roller tip side ] remains constant through out the rocker's travel. It does not. If that basic premise is wrong, then I wonder about the rest of the advice....
 
Finishing my order list tonight, just curious before I pull the trigger, besides Comp or Harland Sharp roller rockers, 1.5s, is there any other brands I should consider for reliability and durability? 440 with roller cam and RPM heads.

I have had excellant service out og Hughs engines rocker arms so far----
 
The bushed PRW stainless or Crane/Hughes (aluminum on shaft "bearing") work great and maintain oil pressure within the shaft better than the bleed-off you get with needle-bearing fulcrum rockers. This is very important if you have full time rocker oiling, which would need to be regulated/restricted with an orifice when using the needle-bearing rockers.
 
I have just bought Comp rockers, steel. Look strong, haven't used them yet.

I would think twice about advice from B3 racing. There is a glaring fault in Part 2 of the rocker tech. Third paragraph, first line. He claims the rocker ratio [ on the valve/roller tip side ] remains constant through out the rocker's travel. It does not. If that basic premise is wrong, then I wonder about the rest of the advice....


I was going to add my .02 cents but I figured you have it all figured out. A simple phone call will clear up any misunderstanding but that would require effort.
 
I bought the Hughes rockers BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE the needle bearings. Sorry for the confusion
 
Finishing my order list tonight, just curious before I pull the trigger, besides Comp or Harland Sharp roller rockers, 1.5s, is there any other brands I should consider for reliability and durability? 440 with roller cam and RPM heads.

A steel rocker arm is the best for reliability and durability. Not a lot of steel rockers on the market though. Comp makes a good set, RAS are great rockers if you can find them. The factory nodular rockers work fine if you can find them or old Isky nodulars if they haven't been abused. I run RAS on my engines but they are hard to come by.
DSC_3433 (Large).JPG
 
A steel rocker arm is the best for reliability and durability. Not a lot of steel rockers on the market though. Comp makes a good set, RAS are great rockers if you can find them. The factory nodular rockers work fine if you can find them or old Isky nodulars if they haven't been abused. I run RAS on my engines but they are hard to come by.
View attachment 1715732051

THANKS , but I run .650 offset intakes ----
 
Lifter failure. Cam failure. Rocker arm failure. On multiple motors during break in on the dyno. My machinist had two sets of their roll rockers fail during break in on the dyno on two different motors. I know of several different people including myself that have had many problems with Comp products. Call their customer service and they pretty much call you an idiot.
comp cam problems - Google Search

comp cam rocker problems - Google Search
 
I have just bought Comp rockers, steel. Look strong, haven't used them yet.

I would think twice about advice from B3 racing. There is a glaring fault in Part 2 of the rocker tech. Third paragraph, first line. He claims the rocker ratio [ on the valve/roller tip side ] remains constant through out the rocker's travel. It does not. If that basic premise is wrong, then I wonder about the rest of the advice....
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but from an engineering perspective, a PROPERLY DESIGNED roller rocker will have a constant ratio. The effective fulcrum length does not change. But, good luck finding an off the shelf rocker that is properly designed. The only way to get that is a custom rocker. If the pushrod side is not designed with proper valve side geometry in mind, then the ratios will not necessarily be constant because the lobe lift inputs will be inaccurate and skew the results at the valve.

If that is the sole reason to discredit my work, then I guess there are a lot of companies that shouldn't be believed due to the sketchy info they promote. Ever read the Harland Sharp website on rocker geometry? How about Comp Cams info on rocker geometry? If you want to read or watch videos on something that doesn't make sense, you might want to start there, and you can find a whole lot more. In the end, I stand by my assertion that a properly designed roller rocker will have a constant ratio, and you will never achieve that with a shoe type rocker. Even a poorly designed roller rocker will do a better job than a shoe rocker, or there would be no point in having a roller.

I'm not afraid to admit I can, and do, make mistakes, and I have been wrong before. But, to discount everything I have learned over the years, over one thing you happen to disagree with, seems a bit over the top, imo.
 
Last edited:
Evryone is entitled to their opinion, but from an engineering perspective, a PROPERLY DESIGNED roller rocker will have a constant ratio. The effective fulcrum length does not change. But, good luck finding an off the shelf rocker that is properly designed. The only way to get that is a custom rocker. If the pushrod side is not designed with proper valve side geometry in mind, then the ratios will not necessarily be constant because the lobe lift inputs will be inaccurate and skew the results at the valve.

If that is the sole reason to discredit my work, then I guess there are a lot of companies that shouldn't be believed due to the sketchy info they promote. Ever read the Harland Sharp website on rocker geometry? How about Comp Cams info on rocker geometry? If you want to read or watch videos on something that doesn't make sense, you might want to start there, and you can find a whole lot more. In the end, I stand by my assertion that a properly designed roller rocker will have a constant ratio, and you will never achieve that with a shoe type rocker. Even a poorly designed roller rocker will do a better job than a shoe rocker, or there would be no point in having a roller.

I'm not afraid to admit I can, and do, make mistakes, and I have been wrong before. But, to discount everything I have learned over the years, over one thing you happen to disagree with, seems a bit over the top, imo.
Well said.
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but from an engineering perspective, a PROPERLY DESIGNED roller rocker will have a constant ratio. The effective fulcrum length does not change. But, good luck finding an off the shelf rocker that is properly designed. The only way to get that is a custom rocker. If the pushrod side is not designed with proper valve side geometry in mind, then the ratios will not necessarily be constant because the lobe lift inputs will be inaccurate and skew the results at the valve.

If that is the sole reason to discredit my work, then I guess there are a lot of companies that shouldn't be believed due to the sketchy info they promote. Ever read the Harland Sharp website on rocker geometry? How about Comp Cams info on rocker geometry? If you want to read or watch videos on something that doesn't make sense, you might want to start there, and you can find a whole lot more. In the end, I stand by my assertion that a properly designed roller rocker will have a constant ratio, and you will never achieve that with a shoe type rocker. Even a poorly designed roller rocker will do a better job than a shoe rocker, or there would be no point in having a roller.

I'm not afraid to admit I can, and do, make mistakes, and I have been wrong before. But, to discount everything I have learned over the years, over one thing you happen to disagree with, seems a bit over the top, imo.


Glad you found this. I was going to try and explain it, but no way can I do it like you do. And it wasn’t worth me jacking it up and then you needing to come back and correct me.

A simple phone call would have cleared it up, but that’s too hard for way too many.
 
THANKS , but I run .650 offset intakes ----
But you aren't the OP. Far as I can tell, the OP doesn't need anything fancy. A set of used Isky nodulars would probably work just fine for what he is trying to do. If he can't find them then the best alternative on the market these days is the Comp steel rocker arms. One of the cars I help tune has a set of Comp steel rockers on a 505 big block with a fairly big solid roller. Engine makes 750 hp and the car runs 9's every weekend at the track. That is probably pushing it for Comps but they have lived okay for several years on that engine so they'll handle anything the OP needs.
 
-
Back
Top