Thread: 327 Ready to fire

Tweet

There’s a lot of hype and myth surrounding 1.5 versus 1.6 rocker arms in small block Chevy engines. What a lot of folks may not realize is that the stock rockers are mass produced and the quality control allows a variance of +/- .075 which means a bone stock engine can have rockers between 1.425 and 1.575 and still be within tolerances. Stock camshafts are, for the most pretty tame and the differences in rocker arms are not perceptible. Exceptions to these tolerances have been the GM sponsored and built high performance variants of production small blocks with the ideal ratio actually being 1.52:1.

Stock rockers flex and generate heat which eventually results in warping and distortion. After 100,000 miles, it is not uncommon to find rocker arms in the 1.4:1 range. This is not a problem in most stock engines and you’d probably not notice such when driving a 350 powered Chevy Caprice.

I have personally used roller tip 1.52:1 and would attest to their and claim to reduce friction and heat. They have been a part of a total rebuild so it’s impossible to verify that the rocker added any significant horsepower to the build, but the reduction in heat and friction was reason to justify the slight increase in cost over stock replacements.

GM actually has made roller rockers out of chrome-moly and hardened steel. GM made aluminum roller versions engineered to address the heat and friction issues in certain small blocks. Aftermarket cam companies have a virtual plethora of rocker arms in ratios ranging from 1.2:1 (break in rockers) up to 1.8:1 for extreme applications that have been tightly engineered for higher ratios.

Physics tells us that larger ratios will open the valves a bit sooner and close the valves a little later. The increase is symmetrical in relationship to the cam lobe centerline so a higher ratio will lengthen the overall valve timing, i.e., as the ratio is increased the valve timing increases. Swapping from factory stock (especially if old and worn) rocker arm to a true 1.60:1 may increase your total valve duration by up to 20 degrees.

In simple terms, the rocker arm mechanically multiplies the camshaft’s lobe lift by moving the pushrod closer to the fulcrum pivot point than the valve stem tip is. If the centerline of the valve is located 0.750 inch away from the rocker fulcrum pivot centerline, a 1.5:1 rocker would have the pushrod cup located 0.500 inch from the pivot centerline (.750/1.5= .500). An increase in the ratio from 1.5:1 to 1.6:1 moves the pushrod closer to the fulcrum pivot centerline by .030 inches (.750/1.6= 0.470). This not only multiplies the cam lift; it also increases the load on the pushrod and rocker arms. As such the proper ratio is critical. If the ratio is increased too much, the valves open prematurely and “valve float” will occur at at high rpms.

As the ratio increases it multiplies the spring pressure on the cam lobes and can lead to lobe failure in a flat tappet cam. It also increases the load on rocker arm stud – making screw in or pinned studs a must with increased ratios. As rocker ratio is increased, so, too, is valve timing. Changing from the stock ratio, which may be closer to 1.46:1, to a true 1.60:1 will increase your total valve duration by almost 20 degrees.

A common issue with installation of larger ratio rocker arms is the clearance between the pushrod and the head. The hole might need to be elongated to prevent the pushrod from scraping against the head which can lead to pushrod failure and loss of the oil passage within the pushrod causing lubrication problems at the tip.

Very little knowledge is “net-new” and such can be said of this post. I have had some rocker arm and pushrod challenges and learned the hard way (read broken parts!!) I tend to pay real close attention to experts like Pat McCarthy (who make his living building engines), Jerry Clayton, Tech and others here who have been doing this stuff a long time. I’ve only been building for about 50 years and learn things from many here that are far more knowledgeable than I am. Last thing I want to do is tick these guys off ‘cause I may need a favor from them someday. And if GM says 1.52:1 is ideal for most street driven small block Chevys, I tend to agree with them as it’s based on a lot of research and years of engineering expertise that’s far beyond me.

Regards All,
Glenn

Originally Posted by techinspector1

OK Ray, I can see that I'm gonna have trouble with you on most everything I post and that you are either F-BIRD-88 or you are cozy with him. Most of these fellows who ask for help here are building a mild to moderate street motor, they're on a budget and cannot afford to replace parts regularly like a dedicated racer can. Therefore, there is no reason to build a motor for them right up against the wall at the risk of fraggin' something. If you want to use 1.6 rockers on a SBC motor and you're spending your own money, knock yourself out, but I will continue to err on the side of caution for these younguns who ask for our help. 10-12 hp is not something that a fellow would feel in the seat of his pants anyway in a street motor, and there are no time slips to compare. Get a grip.

.

Ha, Just realized you the same person from the other thread. No wonder you think I'm "after" you. I don't know f88.

What I do know is a little better rocker ration is better than a bigger lobe any day of the week when it comes to valve train stability. I'm not looking for an argument if you can't trust cam designers.

Take care. I got my grip

Originally Posted by glennsexton

There’s a lot of hype and myth surrounding 1.5 versus 1.6 rocker arms in small block Chevy engines. What a lot of folks may not realize is that the stock rockers are mass produced and the quality control allows a variance of +/- .075 which means a bone stock engine can have rockers between 1.425 and 1.575 and still be within tolerances. Stock camshafts are, for the most pretty tame and the differences in rocker arms are not perceptible. Exceptions to these tolerances have been the GM sponsored and built high performance variants of production small blocks with the ideal ratio actually being 1.52:1.

Stock rockers flex and generate heat which eventually results in warping and distortion. After 100,000 miles, it is not uncommon to find rocker arms in the 1.4:1 range. This is not a problem in most stock engines and you’d probably not notice such when driving a 350 powered Chevy Caprice.

I have personally used roller tip 1.52:1 and would attest to their and claim to reduce friction and heat. They have been a part of a total rebuild so it’s impossible to verify that the rocker added any significant horsepower to the build, but the reduction in heat and friction was reason to justify the slight increase in cost over stock replacements.

GM actually has made roller rockers out of chrome-moly and hardened steel. GM made aluminum roller versions engineered to address the heat and friction issues in certain small blocks. Aftermarket cam companies have a virtual plethora of rocker arms in ratios ranging from 1.2:1 (break in rockers) up to 1.8:1 for extreme applications that have been tightly engineered for higher ratios.

Physics tells us that larger ratios will open the valves a bit sooner and close the valves a little later. The increase is symmetrical in relationship to the cam lobe centerline so a higher ratio will lengthen the overall valve timing, i.e., as the ratio is increased the valve timing increases. Swapping from factory stock (especially if old and worn) rocker arm to a true 1.60:1 may increase your total valve duration by up to 20 degrees.

In simple terms, the rocker arm mechanically multiplies the camshaft’s lobe lift by moving the pushrod closer to the fulcrum pivot point than the valve stem tip is. If the centerline of the valve is located 0.750 inch away from the rocker fulcrum pivot centerline, a 1.5:1 rocker would have the pushrod cup located 0.500 inch from the pivot centerline (.750/1.5= .500). An increase in the ratio from 1.5:1 to 1.6:1 moves the pushrod closer to the fulcrum pivot centerline by .030 inches (.750/1.6= 0.470). This not only multiplies the cam lift; it also increases the load on the pushrod and rocker arms. As such the proper ratio is critical. If the ratio is increased too much, the valves open prematurely and “valve float” will occur at at high rpms.

As the ratio increases it multiplies the spring pressure on the cam lobes and can lead to lobe failure in a flat tappet cam. It also increases the load on rocker arm stud – making screw in or pinned studs a must with increased ratios. As rocker ratio is increased, so, too, is valve timing. Changing from the stock ratio, which may be closer to 1.46:1, to a true 1.60:1 will increase your total valve duration by almost 20 degrees.

A common issue with installation of larger ratio rocker arms is the clearance between the pushrod and the head. The hole might need to be elongated to prevent the pushrod from scraping against the head which can lead to pushrod failure and loss of the oil passage within the pushrod causing lubrication problems at the tip.

Very little knowledge is “net-new” and such can be said of this post. I have had some rocker arm and pushrod challenges and learned the hard way (read broken parts!!) I tend to pay real close attention to experts like Pat McCarthy (who make his living building engines), Jerry Clayton, Tech and others here who have been doing this stuff a long time. I’ve only been building for about 50 years and learn things from many here that are far more knowledgeable than I am. Last thing I want to do is tick these guys off ‘cause I may need a favor from them someday. And if GM says 1.52:1 is ideal for most street driven small block Chevys, I tend to agree with them as it’s based on a lot of research and years of engineering expertise that’s far beyond me.

Regards All,
Glenn

GM Hot Cam. They want it on a 1.6. What do they know???

Originally Posted by camaro_fever68

GM Hot Cam. They want it on a 1.6. What do they know???

Ray, it seems to me that Glenn is talking specifically about the Generation 1 SBC, and I believe that your "Hot Cam" reference applies to the Generation III/IV LS platform. In this thread the OP is asking about a 327, smack in the middle of the Generation 1 family, so engineering design features on the LT, LS, and LT/EcoTech likely don't apply, and can lead to confusion, IMO. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just pointing out what seems to me to be a questionable reference.

GM reuses its code numbers so this is confusing. I think the LT-1 and LT-4 referenced here is not the LS platform but the Gen 2 SBC used in Camaros and Corvettes after 1986. It's the f.i. engine that uses the reverse cooling system. Now Chevy has an LS engine designated LT-4. That aside, the guys on the Engine Tech Forum on Speed Talk: Interviews - Racing Books - Racing Forum discuss using 1.6 ratio rockers all the time, but they are building racing engines for the most part, and those rockers are commonly used. But for a daily driver or a car that sees a lot of highway miles, I would not want the added stress of 1.6 rockers in my Gen I sbc engine. But then, I run a gear drive, and some people have all sorts of problems with those as well.

Originally Posted by rspears

Ray, it seems to me that Glenn is talking specifically about the Generation 1 SBC, and I believe that your "Hot Cam" reference applies to the Generation III/IV LS platform. In this thread the OP is asking about a 327, smack in the middle of the Generation 1 family, so engineering design features on the LT, LS, and LT/EcoTech likely don't apply, and can lead to confusion, IMO. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just pointing out what seems to me to be a questionable reference.

My Hot Cam reference is is towards a Gen II platform which is nothing different than a Gen I except roller lifters. Gen III is totally different and not in this discussion.

LT is nothing special except the cooling, LS is a different engine. EcoTech is not in the discussion. Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by rumrumm

GM reuses its code numbers so this is confusing. I think the LT-1 and LT-4 referenced here is not the LS platform but the Gen 2 SBC used in Camaros and Corvettes after 1986. It's the f.i. engine that uses the reverse cooling system. Now Chevy has an LS engine designated LT-4. That aside, the guys on the Engine Tech Forum on Speed Talk: Interviews - Racing Books - Racing Forum discuss using 1.6 ratio rockers all the time, but they are building racing engines for the most part, and those rockers are commonly used. But for a daily driver or a car that sees a lot of highway miles, I would not want the added stress of 1.6 rockers in my Gen I sbc engine. But then, I run a gear drive, and some people have all sorts of problems with those as well.

1.6 rockers actually add performance without stress But I would never expect a guy that runs a gear drive to understand this, lol. I like the whine, not in my engines though.....