Announcement

**germ** · 05-16-2006, 02:49 PM

up to $720 for a set of rockers????

**smilinguy99** · 05-16-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by germ

up to $720 for a set of rockers????

Seems high doesn't it?

Keep in mind, when a large manufacturer makes a set of rockers they are making them by the pallet load. maybe 3600 at a time. This volume cuts their costs drastically and makes it possible to sell them at a reasonable price while making a satisfactory profit.

Also remember this would be a rocker specially made for your engine not a part made for something else and adapted to your application. This is a special piece.

This is likely to be a very low volume affair, perhaps 180 to 240 rockers tops. Low volumes do drive costs up. However, since this would be a cooperative group buy, there is no profit motive. So the cost to the end user is reduced.

One thing you overlooked, I said $30 to $60 each. That also means it could be as low as $360 per set if things work out. Who knows, maybe even lower. Perhaps a certain online store specializing in all things GM V660 would buy up a half dozen sets or so and keep them in stock thus lowering everyone's price and seizing an opportunity for making a profit on his own down the road.

Thanks for the reply,
sg99

**germ** · 05-16-2006, 04:00 PM

im fully aware of what is envolved with having stuff made, im no stranger to this.

$360 is a much better area to be in, but even then, spending that much money on a set of rockers that have no testing or real world r&d is my point.

even though your rockers are based on a hybrid of rocker styles, the main one you mentioned was harland sharp, and i would never trust a harland sharp rocker, as their design is poopy and they love to leave shavings and bearing material in many engines.

ive seen this many times with my own eyes.

and with something as important as rockers, i would only feel comfortable with a company that are experts on the subject of rockers.

im not saying you dont know your shit, you obviously know a good deal of info.

good luck with your project, i would love to see it get off the ground, but to get a group buy together with a lot of orders on a product that has not be tested on a car for reliablility is going to be a little hard.

just my .02

**john_V63400** · 05-16-2006, 04:19 PM

What good are these rockers anyways, If it doesnt add Horsepower I dont think anyone would buy them. If you could proove reliablitlty and HP gain I would buy a set for $700 now. I dont think you will have a problem getting people to buy since most V6/60 enthusiest are always despritly awaiting a new performance part for thier 3400. I know I am. I've almost baught every part I can buy. Proove reliablilty and HP gain and you will have a group buy guarenteed!

**DEI37** · 05-16-2006, 07:01 PM

If they made them in a higher ratio, think 1.75 or 1.8:1, that would add power. I'm sure they'd be lighter as well. That would relieve some stress on certain valvetrain components, and would work better for higher rev applications, I would think. For $600 or better, I'd not be interested. For $400, maybe. At $300, I'd almost assuredly be in.

The L36 and L67 guys are paying $400 for a set of rockers, in a higher ratio, and with a set of pushrods. So, if you could get 'em under $400, you'd be in good shape, I'd say.

BTW, what is the issue with Harland Sharp? That's who makes the Intense rockers, and while they've had some issues, I don't think any were really incapacitating. Not saying you're incorrect, I just want to be educated about these things.

**bszopi** · 05-16-2006, 07:08 PM

Even though sg99 didn't mention it, I'm sure there is a possibility of a increased ratio (1.7:1 or higher?) with these, which would mean a good potential for an increase in horsepower.

To comment on Jeremy's view on having a product that costs $XX and hasn't been tested, look at Milzy's cams when they first came about. People were jumping in for the initial group buy and paying $350-400 for no specs and a year wait before they were available. And then look at the cost to install a cam compared to a set of rockers? I could see several people getting in on this without any real world testing...

Back to my initial comment, rocker ratio I think would be the biggest unknown and potential draw for these. Now that Milzy has increased the pricing for his cams (isn't it up to $430-450 now?), and the added expense and downtime to get it installed, if a higher ratio would be available that could show final lifts compared to the cam, it would be hard not to lean towards something that could be installed in an afternoon...

And then there would always be the mismatching of ratios (if available) that would be tempting to some of us...

**IsaacHayes** · 05-16-2006, 07:49 PM

Would stronger springs be required with say a 1.8 ratio? Probably a good idea, but would it be nessasary to stop float at 1.8 ratio?

**DEI37** · 05-16-2006, 10:36 PM

For the 3.8's, I think they get away with stock springs on 1.8's, but highly recommend springs, 105# or heavier, for the 1.9's. Not sure how that translates to the 3100/3400 engines, but it's something.

**onefastV6** · 05-16-2006, 11:17 PM

I would be interested in a set if you could keep the price around $350.00.

So from the sounds of it, you are trying to develop self aliging rocker arms for the 3400, however any idea as to what ratio's that you might offer?

Another thing to note is that the 03+ heads use a 8mm stud where as the previous version used a 10mm stud. I will check to see if there are any differences between the actual rockers though as I have a set of 01 heads and a set of 03 heads.

**Syn** · 05-16-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by IsaacHayes

Would stronger springs be required with say a 1.8 ratio? Probably a good idea, but would it be nessasary to stop float at 1.8 ratio?

well that increases lift so i would say prolly

**smilinguy99** · 05-17-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by bszopi

Even though sg99 didn't mention it, I'm sure there is a possibility of a increased ratio (1.7:1 or higher?) with these, which would mean a good potential for an increase in horsepower.

There is a possibility of higher ratios, but beyond about 1.6:1 the adjustable pushrod cup would have to go. For most, this is not likely to be a problem. It would also reduce costs.

As far as all the comments about Harland Sharp: Well, everyone has had a bad experience with one reputable manufacturer or another. Besides, I referred to HS only to note that I took inspiration from their product. My experience has been that for some reason, most all aluminum rockers shed metal.

More general comments about reliability: The most common way of thinking about performance parts is in terms of immediate horsepower gain and secondarily about the immediate reliability of that part. You also need to think about the part's contribution to the overall effort. Heat is a killer. Sometimes it kills quickly and sometimes it kills slowly. All point sources of heat in an engine should be taken seriously if reliability is a priority.

Anything that produces less heat is worth looking at. Heat affects the temper of the metals around it: springs, bearings, pushrods. Remove heat sources and the heat-related problems that quietly develop over time will fade.

Where is all this friction I'm talking about? Next time you have the LIM off of a Gen3, look at the angle the pushods are layed over to connect with the rockers. Its about 8 degrees on the exhausts and around 3-4 degrees on the intake. Every time the pushrod comes under load, some of that load is transferred sideways into the guide. Just pure sliding friction. Now, add higher pressure springs and more lift and duration then think about what happens to that side load.

The Cranes were meant for the Gen1 head and the guides in that application only deal with incidental side loads. The lifter is nearly concentric with the pushrod. This is a good application of the Crane rocker.

The use of the Crane rocker arms and the Gen2 pushrod guides in a Gen3 motor is convenient, no question about it. But look at what is happening when you use them. The reason for going to the roller rocker in the first place is to eliminate sources of friction and heat. OK, so the sliding metal contact on the tip of the rocker is traded for a roller tip. Good! But the pedestal rocker that had no need for a pushrod guide is traded for a rocker with a guide. Bad. We reduce friction in one area and ignore the fact we are now accepting it in another area. To be sure, the heat is generated farther away from the valve spring, and that is a good thing, but the material--aluminum-- that is now between the heat source and the spring is a far better conductor of heat, not so good.

Reliability is a tough sell. More power is immediately apparent and well understood, while reliablity is on the surface easy to understand but less clear in all the ways it benefits us.

Having said all that, will this item I've shown you be more reliable? Good question. I suspect there will be teething problems, but while there are 10 parts that make up this item, it is quite simple and somewhat overbuilt. It is designed for more load and more lift than I see folks talking about here. It has larger bearings and roller tips than the Cranes and the hold down bolt is metric grade 12.9.

Thanks for all your replies,
sg99

**SappySE107** · 05-17-2006, 05:51 PM

If we can go with quality steel over aluminum, im very interested (of course, funding would be quite the issue for the number needed to make the price worthwhile). Most of these are daily drivers, and with that, you don't want aluminum rockers. Sure,they work, but they fatigue sooner and comp recommends replacing aluminum rockers over time vs steel rockers.

I have a couple more rockers to buy and test fit. If we can make a pedestal for an existing rocker, the costs would go down. Ive been looking for a lot of different parts pertaining to the pushrod heads for about 6 months now with very little luck. Bronze valve guides being the other major item along with the rockers.

They make anti friction coatings for pushrods, and they also make stronger pushrods that won't flex as much. We are lucky enough to have short pushrods which helps, so a thicker wall/larger OD pushrod is something worth looking into as well. Lightweight on that side of the rocker is nothing compared to strength.

for the record, my machine shop doesn't care for harland sharp either.

**DarksideGA** · 05-17-2006, 06:22 PM

I would definately be intrested if the pricerange was in the 300's. Get me some performance gains and I want to see how they wear and tear on a test motor before I send a payment. Also definately see if you can go with steel instead of aluminum.

**AaronGTR** · 05-19-2006, 07:40 PM

Just a few thought on this subject, based on my experience with installing the crane rockers on my engine...

1) having a pedestal would be great. Not only does it eliminate the guide plates, but it also would make them a set height so you don't have to set the valve lash like with the adjustable rockers. This would greatly reduce the amount of work involved to install/remove the rockers.

2) If they are lighter weight and more accurate than the stock rockers that would be reason enough to get them. The addition of the roller tip is basically an extra (although a nice one).

3) If they can make higher ratio rockers, even better yet. Perfect for people looking for a few extra ponies that don't want to do a cam. I think if these can be made for the right price they would really be worth it.

4) Most important point would be that they are designed to fit as a drop-in part without having to modify the lower intake mani. That is a major PITA! If so, I would consider buying some myself even though I already have the cranes (if the price was right).

Announcement

3X00 Pedestal Roller Rocker

3X00 Pedestal Roller Rocker

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment