Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
#1596266
03/21/14 05:49 PM
03/21/14 05:49 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 464 KY
Telvis
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 464
KY
|
What rockers would you use for a set of aluminum Edelbrock heads 6017's and a mild Voodoo cam in a 340? The eddies recommend roller rockers and I am still working to diagnose a valve train noise issue with the stock rockers. So, I am considering going ahead and popping for some adjustable rockers. Are there any adjustable rockers that will work with the Edelbrock heads that will use my stock hydraulic lifters? I thought about 273 rockers but have heard conflicting info on their use with hydraulic lifters. I just built the motor and the lifters are new. Plus I really don't wan't to yank my intake if I don't have to. I'm just skittish about the stock rockers ability to hold up.
Last edited by Telvis; 03/21/14 06:18 PM.
That's King Weenie to you!
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: ahy]
#1596269
03/22/14 01:09 AM
03/22/14 01:09 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,826 las vegas
70AARcuda
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,826
las vegas
|
Drove my 73 340 duster with eddy heads and stock non adjustable rockers for several years with no problem...also used crane ductile iron rockers too...
Hughes sells quality roller rockers...
Tony
70 AARCuda Vitamin C 71 Dart Swinger 360 10.318 @ 128.22(10-04-14 Bakersfield) 71 Demon 360 10.666 @122.41 (01-29-17 @ Las Vegas) 71 Duster 408 (10.29 @ 127.86 3/16/19 Las Vegas)
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: Telvis]
#1596270
03/22/14 10:07 AM
03/22/14 10:07 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,074 Niles , Ohio
therocks
oh wait.but hey.lets see.oh yeah.
|
oh wait.but hey.lets see.oh yeah.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,074
Niles , Ohio
|
My opinion rollers on a mild cam are a waste of $$$$.Ive had guys run both BBs and SBs that were mild with stock rockers.The iron adjustables are better though.I run irons on my 440 with almost .600 lift.Been on for 5 years.Rocky
Chrysler Firepower
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: ahy]
#1596273
03/23/14 12:05 PM
03/23/14 12:05 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,544 Syracuse,NY
CompWedgeEngines
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,544
Syracuse,NY
|
Rockers with needle bearings on the shaft are not needed on a MOPAR - even a pretty hot one. The shaft roller bearings are expensive and subject to failure. This statement is simply not true. I've been buidling Mopar engines for 27 years, and I have used a lot of different rockers. Within that period, I have used many many sets of roller bearing rockers, and on some pretty stout pieces, without failure.Internet folklore loves to scare people off with roller bearing rocker failures. 99.5% of the time, if one DOES fail, there is another reason that should have been addressed or corrected to begin with. But to make a general statement , they are failure prone, is misinformation. Now, on to your next statement: Just stay away from the low cost/cheapie aluminum rockers as they can fail early. This IS true. This is the only reason that a roller bearing rocker arm typically fails. The offshore rocker arms are garbage. Just to be clear, I am NOT busting your chops, merely sharing many years of experience and subsequent engine diagnosing from stock drivers to blown alcohol engines.
RIP Monte Smith
Your work is a reflection of yourself, autograph it with quality.
WD for Diamond Pistons,Sidewinder cylinder heads, Wiseco, K1 rods and cranks,BAM lifters, Morel lifters, Molnar Technologies, Harland Sharp, Pro Gear, Cometic, King Engine Bearings and many others.
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: CompWedgeEngines]
#1596274
03/23/14 01:28 PM
03/23/14 01:28 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889 up yours
Supercuda
About to go away
|
About to go away
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
|
Quote:
This statement is simply not true. I've been buidling Mopar engines for 27 years, and I have used a lot of different rockers. Within that period, I have used many many sets of roller bearing rockers, and on some pretty stout pieces, without failure.Internet folklore loves to scare people off with roller bearing rocker failures. 99.5% of the time, if one DOES fail, there is another reason that should have been addressed or corrected to begin with. But to make a general statement , they are failure prone, is misinformation.
Question, have you seen any improvement in power with a plain bearing rocker vs a roller bearing rocker on any Mopar engine?
Plain bearing, shaft mounted rockers are fairly low friction setups to begin with and wonder if there is really any documented proof going to a roller bearing in this application is a benefit in power production.
They say there are no such thing as a stupid question. They say there is always the exception that proves the rule. Don't be the exception.
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: Supercuda]
#1596275
03/23/14 01:44 PM
03/23/14 01:44 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,544 Syracuse,NY
CompWedgeEngines
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,544
Syracuse,NY
|
That is a debate that will go on long after we're dead and gone....lol...the manufacters will tell you yes, personal proof of JUST the friction aspect...no. ( to be fair, I've never JUST taken a set if ductiles for example, and then swapped JUST for a roller rocker set on the dyno) That being said, what typically happens, is you get a better rocker, with better RATIO and then the answer is yes. Sometimes substantial. When you play with stock eliminator stuff, class engines etc, it really becomes apparent, as well as bigger inch motors where the higher ratio camshafts are used. I'm going to end my answer there, because everytime this comes up, there are 9,000 naysayers that have some sort of negative comment to make about " better " rockers, and they lack of value. Simply not the case, but I'm tired of arguing it for 25 years....lol...there is also reasonable argument, as to WHEN do you need a better rocker arm. Most street cars simply dont care. When a guys says " Iv e been running them for 15 years without a problem", that means nothing to me.How many miles has it ran, how many passes has it made, how many RPMS has it sustained, how much spring pressure does it endure and so forth. Years mean nothing unless there is data behind it. What most good rocker arms DO do, that many others dont, is keep the valve guides and valves from side loading, and wearing out the valve guides, which in trun makes the valve job worse, which hinders valve seal etc. Thats what many forget. Also, there is a huge difference between older rockers, and some newer designs, as far as rocker tip, and roller tip centering over the valves. Some of the older ones are just WRONG for the newer heads.
RIP Monte Smith
Your work is a reflection of yourself, autograph it with quality.
WD for Diamond Pistons,Sidewinder cylinder heads, Wiseco, K1 rods and cranks,BAM lifters, Morel lifters, Molnar Technologies, Harland Sharp, Pro Gear, Cometic, King Engine Bearings and many others.
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: dezduster]
#1596277
03/23/14 02:55 PM
03/23/14 02:55 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889 up yours
Supercuda
About to go away
|
About to go away
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
|
Quote:
25 years worth of insight, that's useful right there.. Thank you for sharing.
Having said that I will say. I have had both roller fulcrum Harland Sharps, Crane and now Hughes. I believe the roller fulcrum uses more oil which takes more from the bottom end. This is only my opinion no proof. Any quality one will certainly perform better than stock. I have swapped from stock rockers to Crane rollers on a engine with a small cam and good springs, the results were surprising 500 plus useable RPM. It idled better and pulled harder on our up hill grade in top gear. Considering how bad stock stamped rocker ratios are or can be. I am certain the resulting improvements were a result of that and correct lifter preload.
Ah, but the question wasn't about rocker ratios, just was there any tangible benefit from a roller fulcrum on a shaft mounted rocker that was documented. Not interested in extrapolations based on observed data from stud mounted rockers, not interested in gains based on rocker ratios, whether do due improved accuracy or increased ratios. Just is there a tangible improvement using rollers at the fulcrum over the plain bearing design. Any by relationship is the cost benefit worth it? If I gain 5hp with roller fulcrum bearings but it cost me $200 more for them, not worth it in my book. But if I gain 200hp for an extra $5, then I'd be stupid not to use them. Extreme example but you get the point.
They say there are no such thing as a stupid question. They say there is always the exception that proves the rule. Don't be the exception.
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: Supercuda]
#1596278
03/24/14 03:35 PM
03/24/14 03:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
dogdays
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,376
|
To the OP:
You can run stock stamped rockers on your Edelbrock heads IF YOU GET THE PUSHROD LENGTHS RIGHT!
You can run 273 adjustable rockers on your Edelbrock heads IF THE PUSHROD ENDS ARE THE RIGHT SIZE AND SHAPE!
Speaking from a mechanical engineering standpoint, there is no advantage to using roller bearings in a rocker arm fulcrum, as long as the plain bearings are adequately sized and fed the proper amount of oil to provide the hydrodynamic wedge. Look at Isky's roller lifters that use plain bearings in the rollers.
Aftermarket rocker arms are much more likely to have a correct ratio than stamped steel rockers. I don't know why this is so, because it would take no more effort to stamp a correct ratio rocker, but nearly all of them are short on ratio, meaning real valve lift suffers. Now if the engine is overcammed, it probably doesn't hurt. But with a properly sized camshaft, the short ratio really does hurt power.
For any rocker that one uses, using the correct length pushrod with the correct ends is a necessity. It's that simple.
I believe the reason Edelbrock says to use adjustable rockers is to avoid problems with pushrod length.
You know, a customer buys the heads, installs them with stock pushrods that are the wrong length for the assembly, then blames the head manufacturer. Customer goes online and blasts the head manufacturer. They don't need this.
R.
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: cruzin]
#1596280
03/24/14 08:16 PM
03/24/14 08:16 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 28,312 Cincinnati, Ohio
Challenger 1
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 28,312
Cincinnati, Ohio
|
Quote:
Telvis,
I used Comp Cams, Pro Magnum P/N 1622-16 with E-Head 340/416 and a hyd. Voodoo Cam. They come with shafts and spacers. At the time I also order a set of Hughes P/N 15063 which are a 1.6 ratio.
The Comps are Chromoly steel the Hughes are aluminum. For me, after mocking them up the Comp rockers got the nod.
Good luck.
Edlebrock tech also highly recommend 1.5 ratio rocker arms on LA SB and BB heads. He said install the cam with the lift you want with 1.5 rockers which work the best with the least stress on the valve train/head clearance issues. IMO a 1.5 engine will have a more stable valve train than a 1.6 setup. In other words don't rely on 1.6 rockers to get you the lift/duration, get it from the cam.
|
|
|
Re: Recommended rockers for 340 with Edelbrock heads??
[Re: Challenger 1]
#1596281
03/24/14 08:33 PM
03/24/14 08:33 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 464 KY
Telvis
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 464
KY
|
Thanks for all the advice.
That's King Weenie to you!
|
|
|
|
|