LS ROLLER ROCKER TEST-DO THEY WORK?

FULL RESULTS. LS ROLLER ROCKER TEST. WHAT IS A ROLLER ROCKER? HOW DO THEY WORK? IS THE POWER WORTH THE PRICE? DO YOU NEED MORE SPRING RATE? CHECK OUT THIS TEST ON A 4.8L WHERE WE COMPARE THE STOCK LS ROCKERS TO A SET OF COMP 1.72:1 ROLLER ROCKERS. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VALVE SPRING.

[@Shane-Singleton]

Richard you're the hardest working guy in the auto performance industry! You're a machine!

[@timothybolden9955]

I stand by that too!

[@Inviting1word]

Hes off his rocker, and I glad.

[@smithjohn3080]

Richard you really need to get a good editor, and a lavalier Bluetooth mic so you don't have to yell at the camera and sound like Billy Mayes

[@garretth177]

Big facts

[@philofab]

These dyno videos are one of my favorite things on KZbin. Thanks for doing what you do.

[@lowkd5465]

philofab straight knowledge

[@miketavenermedia7853]

Richard, you are one of the best sources for information on engines on KZbin period!! This channel is like a non-commercialized version of Engine Masters! Thank you for doing what you are doing!!!! I am writing a bunch of this info down. I have a 4.8 in my Silverado, I am going to build another 4.8 and my 16 year old and I are going to start going to the local drag strip strictly off of the information I have learned here! Thank you!!!

[@animaltbss9439]

I would love to see 1.7 vs 1.8 rocker comparison on LS

[@bennyboyy7]

More lift so more power, just multiply the cam lift by the ratio and you'll get your lift.

[@dylanspencer3662]

@@bennyboyy7the power of more lift will only come if the heads can flow enough.

[@dennisrobinson8008]

Aftermarket and ported LS heads usually DO FLOW more after .500" and .600" lift.@@dylanspencer3662

[@Artoconnell]

I thought that was the video was about. somehow the 1.8 dropped off the back. unsure.

[@bryanleverett2830]

Holly cow. Someone just gave me a set of LS roller rockers lol. Your super right on time lol

[@justkp1]

I want to see the same test with a cam upgrade

[@crw3673]

I just asked you about a comparison of roller rockers yesterday! What the hell man. How did you get this video done so quickly?

[@Nicholas-im8bd]

He’s already done all these tests he makes videos from. He’s got 20++ years of dynoing combos

[@bdugle1]

I’ve heard that “full” roller rockers solve another issue, valve guide wear. The RPM guys are constantly fixing LS7s with head problems particularly associated with that design. Also, Trick Flow recommends roller rockers for their heads, I believe. Still, the addition of 1.72 rockers to the stock 4.8 adding 13hp was a surprise to me. Another super video, thanks!

[@brianwilson3076]

I have high lift slow ramp(ish) EPS lobes on my custom Geoff Skinner cam in my 6.2 ls3. Love the lobes. Very quiet and great with my vvt very easy on my valvetrain.

[@dennisrobinson8008]

Another video they showed stock rocker arm ratios are usually short and not consistent. So a Chevy 1.5 rocker arm might be 1.35 ratio and a 1.6 might be 1.45 or 1.50, so going to a true 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8 ratio rocker arm gives you the increase over the factory ratio and also the increase in the ratio. So the 1.72 over the stock arms giving 13hp is not too suprising. That stock arm i believe ratio was 1.7 but the actual ratio may have been 1.55 or 1.60 due to quality control. So the true 1.72 gives a gain of almost .15 or .1 increase in rocker ratio.

[@jeffdughman9741]

the data you give us is a gift to man kind,thank you for doing what we cant and showing us the way,iv learned more from you then i have anyone else/

[@originalscottfree]

I learned something new, good way to spend 12:11 of my day. Thanks to the OP!

[@Kevs442]

While I appreciate and like that you don't make recommendations, you could do a $/hp statement. That way guys like me know where to get the most bang for the buck. Thanks for all your videos! You are my favorite LS channel!

[@congstrong221]

I would love to see a max effort cam shootout on stock or semi modified ls1/6.0. Would love to see how old cams like T-REX, Ms3/4,G5x. Compare to newer grinds like summit stage 4, or even Tick, Btr and Comp max effort cams. Also loving the high quality technical content.

[@atf0013]

I had valve float with stock cam, stock springs on my LS2 with the Comp 1.8 rockers at 6000-6200rpms. Replace your springs at the same time guys save yourself the trouble later.

[@TaylorParks87]

correct, when you do a cam swap, do a spring swap!!!

[@Turbo_Todd]

@@TaylorParks87 apparently, even when only doing a rocker swap.

[@vengeanceizmine9878]

@@Turbo_Todd ESPECIALLY when doing a rocker swap.

[@vengeanceizmine9878]

@@TaylorParks87 Yes, IF you alter timing events beyond the capacity of the springs, which is mainly when you're swapping out a stock cam with stock springs. Not needed if they have already been replaced and can handle a bit more cam.

[@daveoneal5544]

@@Turbo_Todd putting a rocker with more mass, the spring cant support

[@victordahn2150]

Richard look into the GSR (Godbold Stiffness Rating) with the stock pushrods vs comp .080 Vs X-DA and a .600+ camshaft. I tested it this weekend but dont have back to back data. As always thanks for all you do one of my favorite KZbin channels!

[@Wolf462]

Nah not worth it for ls. Cam, springs, lt headers and tune for el cheapos. Go FI when funds available

[@manitoublack]

Toyota actually went away form a roller tip in their Nascar motors as they determined the reduction in weight and complecity of a slider vs roller asembly was better for thier application.

[@hotrodray6802]

5-600 miles life. Power is the 9nly consideration.

[@manitoublack]

@osp80 about 1-2 mm across the tip of the valve.

[@brianwilson3076]

Yes. Geometry say it has to.

[@baby-sharkgto4902]

@@manitoublack that is great information! But yeah their heads get rebuilt ever race. No roller tip on high lift cams puts more pressure on the valve guides and will possibly wear out valve guides sooner per every head manufacture.

[@DodgyBrothersEngineering]

Richard you missed talking about one of the greatest benefits to a roller rocker, and that is the decreased wear on the valve tip and valve stems / guide through reducing side load. Especially important on high lift cams.

[@Robert_Paulson1360]

And this is EXACTLY why guys eat valve guides and valve stems with aggressive cams. No one seems to understand this especially with the LS7 stuff.

[@richardholdener1727]

good point

[@LeKelsor]

​@richardholdener1727 what size lift spring did you use to compensate for the weight

[@datasailor8132]

Once again a great video. There are upgraded trunion kits to replace the actual needle bearings which have been problematic with increased HP, spring pressure load, and higher RPMs. That's the route I would take and if that proves insufficient go all the way to rocker arms linked by a through bar to reduce flexing of the mount.

[@CampCatch]

I dont know how much youtube add revenue you bring in but I know its not enough for the amount of information you put out. THANK YOU!

[@frankirvine316]

Good explanation Richard, Happy New Years✅ Lot involved once you start changing what engineers have in place✅

[@twiztid1fiddy]

Best channel on KZbin to date!! Not even kiddin

[@35057]

Well I was dismantling my stock LS6 rockers and found the tip wear was pushing the valves crooked. So for the service to true these and a trunnions upgrade, I mind as well get new rockers. Doing my winter rebuild heads cam and exhaust. 😎😎😎

[@GIGABACHI]

Richard is a "YT Content Stallion" everyday pumping fresh content new content. 👌🏻😏🤣👍🏻

[@LSXvoodoo]

Waiting for the 93 Pump Gas Big Bang. Keep them coming.

[@richardholdener1727]

there will never be a pump gas Big Bang-that's just detonation

[@sean5comet]

Would be nice to see a test of an engine ran with something like a "stage 2" truck cam with lift specs using the stock 1.7 rocker ratio. Run it again now with 1.8 rocker ratio and see what kind of power gains it will have and what it might do to the cam timing and power curve in general. IE: will it extend the power, will it come on earlier, ect.

[@MrAPCProductions]

I've always wondered why not a high lobe lift vs higher rocker ratio. Example, 0.300 lobe lift with 1.8 rockers is 0.540 at the valve VS 0.337 lobe lift with 1.6 rockers is 0.540 at the valve.

[@kraftzion]

There is a guy on here that builds drift cars that claims the factory rockers are a weak point for that application. Says the needle bearing caps are press fit and back out. Taylor Ray I believe is his channel.

[@rodneyrael3024]

@@hendo337 you're incorrect, when the rocker arm ratio is changed it doesn't affect the duration...

[@baby-sharkgto4902]

@@hendo337hey just a heads up rocker ratio does not affect duration. It will affect lift though.

[@baby-sharkgto4902]

@@hendo337 actually the cam lobe is the only part of the valvetrain that dictates duration. I do not have to read any articles, it is something I have known since I was 10 years old. Rockers arms can change LIFT though. Think about it..... it all starts with the cam lobe. Only when the cam lobe approaches and touches the lifter does it begin to push the pushrod which ONLY then pushes the rocker arm. You would have to change the cam lobe design to change duration. Duration is how LONG the valve is open (measured in crankshaft degrees though)

[@fmanion24]

Hey Richard holdener, have you ever tested a ls underdrive pulley?

[@crw3673]

That would be good video! I personally felt a improvement, through the seat of the pants dyno. SLP under drive pulley. But would like to see something on a graph!

[@richardholdener1727]

back in the 5.0L Ford days

[@crw3673]

@@richardholdener1727 so does that means you have video on deck for us to watch In the near future?

[@hotrodray6802]

OK.... I'm still building Fox cars... after all these years. Affordable performance.

[@pospc2]

I currently have a under drive pulley and light weight alternator pulley on my engine. I felt a little more vibration from the engine but it seems more willing to rev. I don't have any dyno runs but know it's not a night and day difference. I saved it for the last possible NA mod i could do.

[@lacboiatl]

Cool I had 1.9 rockers on my l67 3.8 series ii and it was great.

[@timothybayliss6680]

The biggest gains will come with a roller fulcrum. The biggest issue with ball pivot rockers is friction goes up proportionally to pushrod load. Big lift and bigger valve springs will burn a stock rockers and sometimes they will even push through. For stock cam guys, there isn't too much to be gained even with cheapo replacement rockers. A tiny bit of power way out at red line and maybe 2hp at 3000rpm. Nice test man, this is some good info.

[@98integraGSR]

I wanna see this exact test ran, but with an aggressive cam in the motor and actually wringing it out. You skipped over some of the biggest reasons for going to roller rockers- the factory rocker nose geometry starts to "scrub" above about .586" lift, causing a big increase in friction and sideloading the valve stem, both coating power AND killing valve guides over time. Something like an MS4 from TSP would be a great example in a little 4.8, and would really illustrate an application where they fit nicely. I'd like to see the test with factory rockers, followed by a set of rollers bolted on "out of the box", and then again after taking the time setting proper wipe pattern. Something that would be GREAT to see after the last test mentioned above would be pushrods, and testing the extent to which pushrod deflection can hurt output. Test first with the ubiquitous 5/16", .080" wall pushrods that everyone uses, then test a set of Trend double-tapers... The MS4 has nice aggressive lobes and was designed around being a "high-effort" cam capable of taking advantage of stock cathedral heads; that grind coupled with the RPM that combo would want should make for a very interesting test! The only ancillary thing you might have to change would be to throw in a set of adequate lifters to eliminate that variable during testing, assuming they weren't already replaced while the heads were off. A set of CTSVR's, drop-in Morel or Johnson, or even genuine Delphi's or Eaton "LS7/LSA/LS-whatever people call 'em now" are cheap and up to the task, ran at .090-.110" preload. Please please pretty PWEEEAAAASE? I got a bone to pick regarding the subject. You could even make a series out of it- finding and extracting NA power out of a "junkyard" LS, one step at a time, including "free" stuff, tips and tricks, ect... You could also do stuff like: -test if an ATI dampener actually picks up -electric water pump (could even test if there's a difference between one with an idler pulley vs without) -crank scraper and windage tray -better factory intake/throttlebody -throttle body spacer- snake oil or free power? -removing casting flash from ports -gasket-matching intake and exhaust -Polishing the combustion chamber up using mag polish and a little wheel detail buffer- "old wives tale", or is there something to it? -Indexing spark plugs? -porting and radiusing oil pump housing/lapping side faces of gerotors, and "centering" during install- does less suction and discharge head and less friction make a difference? -comverting "PCV" over to exhaust venturies- does a lil' bit of vacuum in the bang box do anything noticeable? -Phenolic intske gaskets: Do they really do anything for IAT's, especially with a plastic intake? -all the other small things we've heard about over the years

[@EricErnst]

On an sbc, I've seen magazine articles say 1.6 roller rockers are worth 24hp over stock stamped steel 1.5s. I like running them in an sbc regardless, I like the lower friction. Ls, I've heard the stockers are good. For 13hp, I'd rather upgrade the springs and run rollers.

[@kellybaye9794]

My oil temp dropped 15° on sbc... less friction

[@josephanders6052]

Engine masters did a baunch of different rockers on sbc.

[@vengeanceizmine9878]

Gains are solely based on if the wngine needs the added valve events the bigger ratio offers. However, that is when you compare 2 different rockers of the same quality. Factory stamped steel 1.5 rockers, in all actuality, measure anywhere fro. 1.25 to 1.4. So even swapping to a newer rocker at same 1.5 ratio, would net a big difference. Magazine tests like that can be misleading. Always compare apples to other apples...

[@lukestrasser]

For my money, I would rather spend $400 on a cam and springs (since springs will likely be needed with rockers anyway), and pick up 50-70 HP than spend the same money on rockers and pick up 10. Also, you have a TON of laps on that poor little 4.8 by now, that's been a great test mule. Thanks as always Richard.

[@atf0013]

Cam install is not comparable in time and money. 1.8's and valvesprings are easy to install and still cheaper. $340 for the rockers and $200ish for springs. Nowhere the same in power but it's a decent increase and if you do cam it, your springs are done. Have you ever done a cam install? If you have you know it requires at least 4x the labor Add in the cost of a dyno tune now.

[@stlchucko]

atf0013 $340 for rockers and $200 for springs that give minimal gains without a tune and about 10hp with a tune (like what Holdener did here as he optimizes the tune with every setup he tests) VS $260 Summit brand Sum-8718 cam (similar specs to a Stage 1 truck cam from BTR or TSP) that doesn’t need springs and adds about 50hp to a 5.3L and 35-45hp to a 6L (as demonstrated in his test with stage 1, 2, & 3 truck cams). Seems to me that a mild cam that reuses springs is about half the cost and about 3-5 times the power gains. Plus, spring changes can take just as long (and are arguably more difficult than) as swapping a LS cam when it’s in the vehicle... not to mention a spring change allows much larger cams that can gain 75+hp or more depending on setup; especially on a 6L. And really, what’s a few hours of work to increase your power drastically.

[@Forcefed2002]

What if you already have everything done except aftermarket rockers...are they worth it now?

[@lukestrasser]

@@Forcefed2002 probably not for 10 HP, not to me at least. At least not on a LS. On a BBC or SBC they would've been one of first purchases along with the camshaft upgrade.

[@atf0013]

ChuckO Are you including the actual costs in parts that go with a cam swap, like gaskets, oil pump, timing chain? Gonna reuse all that stuff? Dyno tunes cost around $500 for a cammed car too. And a cam swap requires a lot more than just springs and rockers. 1.72 Rockers alone are probably not worth it for the money to most as a stand alone mod, but if you want to run the stock cam, 1.8's pick up 15hp on average to the wheels, and this should be a easy final bolt on addition after LT headers, and FAST 102 etc. I don't think that baby Summitracing cam is worth swapping. 500 lift? Anything under 600 lift in a LSx is pointless my man. Except maybe on a 4.8 or 5.3? Most heads like the 706, 799/243 flow best at .600. Stock LSx valvesprings are only good to .550-570 realistically and even less with higher miles, so rockers or a cam worth a damn means new valvesprings.

[@anthonyborg5897]

please keep making these kinds of videos, you are doing the car community a great service!!!!

[@msgmonly]

Great test! Your awesome! Wish you would have tested a 1.8 ratio rocker also...

[@roykrossin8343]

Would really like to see a solid lifter cam test vs hyd lifters . Engine masters did something similar......

[@Knightmare-gz9ls]

Think he did a few days ago. I remember saying the constant lash adjustments weren't warranted. The power difference didn't seem to be enough to me.

[@FTsingos]

I had this very weird thing happen to me. When I decided to upgrade to trunnions, I noticed the wear pattern on one of the rockers was to the side instead of straight in the middle of the tip. I've had the engine since new and I have never had it apart before so it wasn't from some incorrect torquing down or reinstallation or whatever. Straight from the factory. I wonder if anyone else saw this. Anyways, while I wasn't thrilled about paying so much for roller rocker tips, the cool thing is that they came on a shaft that mounts two of them together. Stock ls rockers are individually. I'm guessing this will eliminate any tendency of rocker arms wanting to twist to the side or so. A little side benefit to the roller rocker tips I bought I guess.

[@RAWRMotorsports]

Be Interesting to record oil temp on this same test with high spring pressures

[@Ondatrack2]

I always assumed that with a higher lift cam and stronger valve springs losses from deflection would be greater with factory rockers so gains from the stronger aftermarket roller rocker might be a little more. Maybe this would be more of an issue with older style SBC and other stamped steel rockers. Any thoughts on that? Great job on the videos, I really enjoy them.

[@Forcefed2002]

I think you are correct

[@captnjoe40]

I broke a couple stamped sbc rockers after changing to a sig erson stage 2 with spring upgrade. The things just cracked in two. Definitely recommend a roller with a cam/spring upgrade on those old motors.

[@richardholdener1727]

not a lot of deflection on stock LS rockers, also this combo wanted more camshaft so it responded. If you give it more cam, might respond less to rocker ratio change

[@knucklestheechidna5718]

I work at the post office just starting out, it's pretty rough your first while till you make regular. When I watch these videos I think about the LS motor I'm going to build with all this overtime and it makes it feel more worth it plus I get to learn about them while I'm delivering the mail. Thanks dude.

[@andrewwoitaszewski4961]

Hello Richard. Love your videos! Especially for us guys on a budget. I'm curious if you've ever done a 1.7 rocker vs 1.8 rocker on a stock 6.0l? Thanks! Andrew

[@richardholdener1727]

not on a 6.0L

[@budgetoutlaws9978]

What about chainging from a 1.7 ratio to a 1.8 ratio rocker arm. How does this change things??

[@atf0013]

It put me from 394hp/392tq at the wheels to 410hp/402tq with valve float. Not as good as a cam for power, but it had +15hp/20tq at points. I feel it's worth it in terms of time to money if you do the install yourself. I would do headers and a FAST 102 before 1.8 rockers. They were my last "bolt on" part with stock cam.

[@budgetoutlaws9978]

@@atf0013 Thanks, I'm more interested in finding out how the cam specs change by adding the 1.8 rocker arms. I've heard they change lift, but not duration.

[@atf0013]

@@budgetoutlaws9978 easy math. Take your stock cam lift and divide it by the stock rocker ratio. Take that number and multiply it by the new rocker ratio, say 1.8. On a LS2 GTO cam it's .520/.521 with 1.7 stockers. With 1.8's it's now .551

[@martybrozek7973]

@@budgetoutlaws9978 the duration will change because of the faster acceleration of the valve due to the increase of the rocker arm ratio. When you degree in your cam watch the opening and closings change.

[@budgetoutlaws9978]

@@martybrozek7973 Thanks, I can figure the lift, Is there a math calculation for the duration? Or the LSA? Or is a degree wheel the only way?

[@paulf9459]

Nice Job

[@cobalt0681]

Great Content as always. Tons of data. My question is, I remember reading an old Hot Rod magazine article about crank shafts and the material they are made from. It talked about crank flexing under the compression stroke and all things being equal, stroke and weight, a crank made of 4340 will show more power than a cast crank simply because it won't flex under the combustion stroke. Thoughts?

[@richardholdener1727]

not sure when (or if) that would become a reality

[@mpetersen6]

Nodular Cast Iron cranks are pretty tough. Not as tough as a forged or billet crankshaft that has been properly heat treated. But equal up to the power le else of what most drivers could adequately handle on the street. Admit it, we have all known somebody who was either too young, too inexperienced, lacking in skills, lacking in reflexes that have gotten themselves in trouble or worse killed themselves and maybe somebody else. Simply because they were driving more car than they could handle. In some ways I'm surprised that governments in general haven't come down on the manufacturers on the performance side of things. Or state governments on drivers licensing. When one takes flying lessons and gets their ticket to fly a Cessna 170 that does not mean you can hop in a P-51 and take it up. With carsit's different. Take your test driving a Honda Civic and then when you get home you can take off in 600 hp car. If the idea of some 16 year old kid behind the wheel of a car that has the potential to exceed double the legal limit most places (are there any states with prudent limits) does not scare the snot out you it does me. I'm lucky. I didnt kill myself or anyone else doing some of the idiotic things I did in the day. Others I knew weren't so lucky.

[@GroovesAndLands]

That claim does not make sense from a mechanical engineering material science point of view. Deflection (strain) as a function of load (stress) is well understood science. All materials will flex/strain under load, the question is how much - and at what point will it yield, fatigue or break. The slope of the "stress-strain" graph is called "modulus", and defines the elasticity of the material. The modulus of all iron-based alloys (including cast iron, nodular iron, 4340, 300M, Stainless steels, etc) ALWAYS hovers right around 30 million pounds per square inch. There is almost no difference in modulus for the various different alloys of iron. Therefore, you should not expect different flex characteristics from one iron alloy to another. Do not confuse modulus with strength, which is a totally different characteristic. I hope that helps.

[@tomcampbell4414]

Perfectly and thoroughly explained! Thanks!!

[@robtdougherty]

My wife agrees - The tip is the important part

[@jordantrujillo293]

Thank you Richard again! Lots of info to learn even from modifications I didn't think of. When are we going to see your car and what all you have done to it on a video?

[@richardholdener1727]

My 02 Silverado is stock

[@mynameis63]

@@richardholdener1727 gonna pretend you never said that. :0 ;)

[@theredgoatviking4686]

I’m so glad I just bought an ls, the mod potential is endless

[@rickmiller1425]

Would love to see the difference between stock and roller with the same ratio, betting the difference would be negligible.

[@Forcefed2002]

I'd bet gains would be 1/2

[@cookstcrew]

We’ve seen less lateral stress on the valves and steams with roller rockers. The factory rockers work great but seem to punish steam seals and guides more than rollers do. (Just my 2 cents).

[@richardholdener1727]

YES AT HIGH LIFTS

[@michaelmayer8618]

I wanna see a video testing 1.6 on intake n 1.7 on exhaust n see how it does maybe even do 1.7 on intake n 1.72 on exhaust n see if there’s any benefits

[@richardholdener1727]

WHY WOULD YOU GO SMALLER THAN STOCK?

[@mikeeagle2653]

Factory rockers or on a totally different geometry then true roller rockers. Stock rockers only work in an arch a supposed to roller rockers that Have full range of motion

[@timothybayliss6680]

Factory rockers have a different geometry than true roller rockers. Stock rockers only work in an arch as opposed to a true roller rocker that will have full range of motion. ...this is actually a great point, stock ls rockers really don't work well over .630 lift and don't work at all over about .675. The body of the rocker will bind on the trunion and the scrub at the tip will really start to accelerate guide wear. You can swap trunions for a low buck deal but even over about .650 lift the geometry at the valve interface has moved the loaded surface to the outer 1/3 of the valve and thing won't stay happy for long.

[@GroovesAndLands]

Someday, it'd be cool to see gapless rings tested against traditional file-fit rings. Difficult test to perform, though.

[@smithjohn3080]

Richard you really need to get a good editor and a lavalier Bluetooth mic so you don't have to yell at the camera and sound like Billy Mayes...

[@richardholdener1727]

I have all that and BILLY

[@TurboJohnRacing]

That's a good jump of power. How much do the stock rocker arms deflect? Was the power increase from the deflection decrease or increase ratio? Or a combination of both? Solid test, thanks.

[@grantadan]

On the term of deflection how are shaft mounted rockers particularly the Brian tooley shaft rocker arm kit and his New rocker arm design cause if I remember off the top of my head his rockers gained weight at the tip assuming it allows better spring harmonics but it's like 2.5g I guess to put it simply is how much does deflection affect power

[@johnpublic168]

How much hp do you lose with stronger valve spings. Your alway installing stronger valve springs can you do your std stock run and then only change valve springs

[@joe-hp4nk]

I felt a big improvement on my bbc with comps 1.8 ratio stainless steel and 911-16 springs.

[@remybrouwer8700]

Richard when can you do a Beehive spring vs OEM spring change on a old type stock engine all other things equal, so see how much spring weight reduction will influence that engine rpm in the curve, I think this will add a lot to you already interesting videos.

[@andyharman3022]

Pretty interesting test results. I wouldn't have expected just a .02 increase in rocker ratio to add 13 hp. Maybe most of the increase is due to total overall dynamic valve lift because of less deflection. I did expect the power to fall off at high rpm due to insufficient spring load. Once the higher load springs were installed, there was a slight loss in torque across the rev range, which I attribute to higher friction from the spring load. I've always been a fan of the GM investment cast steel roller fulcrum rocker arm. They are light and stiff, and because of the simple radius tip, put less mass at the valve. Aluminum rocker arms are basically forced to have the roller valve tip because Aluminum cannot stand up to the high contact stresses if they were machined with radius tips. The roller tip inevitably adds mass at the valve, and most of them are just a simple pin riding on the ID of the roller. If a full needle roller tip is desired, that adds even more mass.

[@ldnwholesale8552]

A roller rocker is a roller pivot and roller tip. Having used rollers for near 50 years. The main reason is a roller tip that gives true duration and lift. And uses less power to do so. And you can use a LOT less oil up top. I find 20 -30 thou more lift with standard ratio. More rocker ratio however loads up lifters and push rods exponentially. As well as rocker studs and or bosses.

[@rustysausage69]

Another thing an older engine with stamped rockers (gen 1-2 SBC, gen 1-2 SBF, gen 1-7 BBC, etc) benefits from with roller rockers is a more accurate ratio. The stamped steel rockers aren't wearproof and unlike LS rockers, they have 2 wear points, tip and the fulcrum because they're both sliding friction surfaces. I had a stock 100+K mile 327 impala a few years ago with 275/60 tires and it wouldn't do a burnout. I put roller rockers (same 1.5 ratio as stock mind you) on there and it was actually able to spin em.

[@jackkhol4251]

Richard I have a set of Johnson roller lifters and am planning on a roller cam upgrade for my 2001 LQ4 6 liter. Would you suggest re using the stock rockers with a spring upgrade or just get roller rockers?

[@witnesszer0]

Richard do you lift bro you could be like a little Mr. clean

[@genegalpin556]

Thanks again buddy. Keep up the good work!

[@jacksz28]

I would love to see a high rpm test with stock rockers, roller, and shaft (all the same ratio) I would think the higher rpm would emphasize the deflection.

[@randallslocum5252]

3 to 5 hp gang may or may not be cost-effective for the price but they damn do look cool.. but I’m here still waiting to see the 4.7 L dodge one day I will see if it!! He will or other people will start asking and he well do it!!!!

[@unclesquirrel6951]

Roller rockers don't really give power they simply free up hp from a more stable valve train . There also heavier then most factory rockers unless a person is using a high rpm deal they don't free much power

[@tunerdadtunerdad7927]

Wow...Impressive. 1.8 rockers on fleabay for 120 bucks...LOL

[@GroovesAndLands]

And they're worth what you paid.

[@PunisherDMT]

I think the trunion upgrade is all that is needed for most minor upgrades on the LS, but a roller rocker is a much bigger upgrade on a traditional small-block. The trunion is the upgrade, the roller tip isn't worth much, IMHO. In this comparison, the rocker ratio change is probably the difference. Richard, what are your thoughts on the LS shaft upgrade kits from Brian Tooley Racing? Again, probably not necessary for most applications, but seems like a very nice upgrade for those getting more aggressive with the RPM.

[@richardholdener1727]

SHAFT IS NOT REQUIRED UNLESS RPM

[@bcbloc02]

Too bad they weren’t the same ratio for a true comparison. Also since the ratio varies with valve lift would be good to measure and see what the openings really are. I assume since power gains are supposed to be from less friction loss you would not see a bigger power difference on say a 700hp boosted engine?

[@daleanderson7629]

Is the power loss below 4600 @ 8:55 showing work to overcome inertia of heavy rocker vs friction improvements or is the port happier with less lift at lower revs. the stiffer valve springs @ 9:48 would act like even more mass for the cam to work against but it made higher torque at same Lift/RPM so results seem to show opposite outcomes. Thanks for the amazing info as always. video suggestion, have you done a test that shows results of switch to roller pivot / roller tip VS stock non roller in the same ratio. mass vs stability vs friction.

[@shaneshane1379]

Not the first engine I put roller rockers on , but the first stock engine was a 97 z28 LT1. I installed crane 1.6 gold self aligning rocker. The difference was noticable from 4 to 5500 rpm. The problem, factory rev limit was 5500. Durp Back then those were $300. I think they were worth it because horse power that doesn't consume more fuel is today's priority.

[@ldnwholesale8552]

Back in the day some racecars turned 8500. With standard tin rockers. And yes they did fail. But not that often. But mushroomed valves? Very often. Looking at that pic with the rollers installed,, geometry does not look that good. And there may well be your rpm ceiling. And broken studs as well. And mushroomed valves.

[@richardholdener1727]

THE VALVE FLOAT ON THE ROCKER INSTALL IS WEIGHT

[@DrFiero]

Did you notice the roller rockers being noisier? The tips rattled basically. Used to be an issue in the old SBC days.

[@joe-hp4nk]

It boils down to, can I spend the money else where for more gain.

[@ryanwilliams3369]

I put some comp 1.6s on my stock lg4 over the winter. it's a low mile stand alone with intake and exhaust. I wonder if it was a good idea? Or if it's just gonna waste gas. With the low 8.6:1 compression.

[@Fljeff7]

Can I put LS rockers on a 4.3 MPI engine?

[@jakechimiak9626]

I have a lm7 and got the 227/238 cam kit with .660 lift dual springs and I’ve already put the trunnion upgrade on but now I want rollers I didn’t know they made power which ones do I need

[@richardholdener1727]

keep stock ones

[@fasnuf]

Nice one Richard!

[@enermaxstephens1051]

Looks like they don't start to shine until higher RPMs.

[@thewaldo1985]

I would like to see the same test but on a sbc

[@johnparrish9215]

Mr. Holdener, at what point do you consider a Push Rod upgrade???

[@richardholdener1727]

we do it when we upgrade springs-but lots of guys don't

[@LSturboguy]

have you tried 1.85 rockers on an LS 1st time I ran rollers I bent 6 push rods lol im tossing up rollers as an Australian im looking at Yella Terra's

[@richardholdener1727]

we ran 1.8 and 1.72

[@chrissantiago405]

What kind of rocker/trunnion I need for tsp stage 2 216/220, 550/550, 112 lsa and my motor is 4.8

[@richardholdener1727]

you can use stock-or and upgrade

[@regigilman2255]

I really don't see what's the big improvement with the so-called roller lifters in reality it's only an improvement and still not a solution,so why have they not Designed the lifter with a ball 🏀 style roller over a one-way roller regardless how the lifter changes it position it's still not going to cause damages... The concept of a ball type roller is to eliminate the roller bearings and stationary lifter failure

[@richardholdener1727]

the orientation of the cam lobe in relation to the roller lifter only needs to roll in 1 plane. there is no need for a complex capture mechanism to house a roller ball

[@johnjones928]

On 1st gen SBC a rocker upgrade is a must, I've seen too many broken stock rockers resulting from little more than a set of heads that received a valve job and had better springs installed. Not to forget the inconsistent pivot ratios of the stock pieces.

[@thegdfp6447]

The crazy short pivot length on LS rockers, with the big lift, seems it would have a lot of sweep and thus guide/stem load and wear.

[@watrousmark401]

So what specification valve springs did you use? Comp cams, Isky, somebody else?

[@richardholdener1727]

we installed 26918s-but lots of good choices

[@SuperFuzzyman123]

Can you please do a shaft mounted rocker arm test, maybe on the destroked 6.0

[@richardholdener1727]

use stock ones

[@SuperFuzzyman123]

@@richardholdener1727 only the destroked would show the difference in minimizing deflection

[@SuperFuzzyman123]

At least on a scale that would make sense

[@jamest.5001]

You must be off your rockers! Haha

[@DBSSTEELER]

All the big name parts suppliers in the LS world recommend stock rockers with upgraded trunions.

[@jefflee8924]

Any idea what the comp rockers did from 2k-4k? Curious if they did nothing or continued to cost power over the stock rockers.

[@richardholdener1727]

gains would be most prevalent at higher engine speeds

[@vengeanceizmine9878]

It's been my experience doing this RnD, the power came from the rocker due to changes in valve events. You will see this with a change of ratio, which is what it is intended to do, hence the change in rpm peaks by about 300rpm on both in this scenario. OEM rockers were nowhere near their advertised ratio. That stock LS 1.7 could actually measure 1.5 for example. The newer 1.72 rocker probably measure closer to 1.8, as they do make up for deflection when running. Huge difference in valve timing and overall lift, which will also explain the valve float upstairs, not having enough spring for the big lift change. It wasn't the weight difference. Gains like this will only depend on if the engine wants or needs it, and are not typical. A bit more to it than just roller/not roller. More like a bigger measured ratio, regardless of advertised ratio, increase in duration @.050", faster ramp @.200" and through the lift range, and much more lift at the valve. When you see this comparison of same ratio, and see gains like this, just means the newer style rocker is giving actual valve timing events, where the older one is not. If you step to a 1.8 or 1.9, which is MORE than what the cam is designed for, you may not see any gains or possibly losses. Not hatin', just wanted to add that.

[@GroovesAndLands]

Excellent point

[@kevinwest3689]

It seems to me that your on the ball, but it kinda seems like your basically repeating everything that Richard is explaining, but you feel the added weight has no bearing whatsoever on spring choice. Are ya sure about that? I'm just a simpleton, extreme" but I wouldn't put Volkswagen shocks on my 1 ton. Ya know what I mean 🤔💡👍✌

[@ercost60]

Excellent video, narration and conclusion. TYVM!

[@bennyboyy7]

You gotta consider the deflection on top of the friction of the rockers. Just having friction or just deflection wouldn't be too bad but together they create a lot more resistance.

[@wsnapper3377]

How about dyno testing 1.7 vs 1.8 on a lm7 or lq4?

[@richardholdener1727]

it helps a little if you have the stock cam

[@wsnapper3377]

Absolutely just run the test on a stock engine just to see how much change if you only swap rockers.

[@KreatorOfDeath1985]

It's like you are psychic. I just bought a 6.0 to rebuild from the bottom up. That day you released 6.0 head tests haha

[@vernm6189]

Richard, have you done a video for SBF using this same style, newer Shaft mount roller rockers 1.6/ 1.7, 1.72 ratio on early 289/302/351W ?

[@richardholdener1727]

i HAVE DONE ROCKERS TESTS ON A SBF-JUST NOT SHAFT ROCKERS

[@vernm6189]

@@richardholdener1727 I'm going to run PCE261.1104.03 SBF- 289/302 W 1.6 Ratio Aluminum Shaft Mount Roller Rocker Arm Set. 1965 289/W eagle 302 3" crank , with world jr heads and DSS pistons 4.030 2 relief valve pockets (floating pin) & a retrofit Crower 15522 cam retro w/roller lifters. I hoping for 340 to 370 HP/TQ ? Happy Holidays Richard

[@Ka_Gg]

I'd like to see a test of a LS in complete stock form. Stock manifolds, fan, pulleys, etc. Then swap out headers, electric water pump, electric fan, maybe underdrive pulleys.....just the smaller things and see how much of a difference.

[@crw3673]

That would be a very good video! Always wonder about the benefits of a electric water pump and under drive pulley?

[@wwmaness]

Check his videos, that was posted already.

[@richardholdener1727]

please see the accessories video

[@Ka_Gg]

Will do. Thanks kiddos

[@joyroc885]

From what I understand if you switch to Trick flow heads you have to use roller rockers?

[@That_Rowdy_G8]

I wonder if you could use all exhaust rockers from a LS7 on a normal Cathedral/Rec port head

[@richardholdener1727]

NO