I'm using SS PRWs since Jan, daily driver car, and I haven't advertised anything bad.




I was scared about them because have known the CAT rockers getting premature failures on bushings. These PRWs looks EXACTLY the same pieces than CATs... maybe same casting but diff assembly and pieces quality ? dunno.

note is A DRIVER and I travel around the country ( I have driven 10 continues hours twice last month on a small vacation trip )

lifters have failed twice before the rockers. Today will be installing my new HLJ lifters and can check for any weird play on rockers bushings if you care

My report:

I could feel some rocker play, so removed some of them... conclusion: rocker bushings are begining to fail BUT, not everyone, just front ones ( pistons 1 and 2 ). I can notice burnt oil layer around, everything dark there. Including on bushing top area and rocker

Some oiling failure ?

dunno, but I have allways got oil gauge between half and top reading, never less than that, which is better than any average reading. I got half gauge reading just when got lifters failure, but the rest of the new engine life gauge has got 2/3 and top readings.

So W7's reporterd valve lifts work out to:
.480 / .344 = 1.395 True ratio stock rocker, paper ratio 1.5
.512 / .344 = 1.488 True ratio with the 1.6 paper ratio rocker

Here's where the LA lifter orientation bites us. The lifter doesn't point at the rocker end, and the result is you get less lift than you think you should. The factor is the cosine of the included angle.
I remember a few years ago RobbMcC was a board member and he asked the question should he make his design for the new Erson rockers for LA be the ratio of just the rocker, paper ratio, or should he make the ratio larger than advertised to take into account the weird geometry. He had to go past 1.65 to get a 1.6 ratio between valve lift and lobe lift.

One thing that the stamped rockers have over their sexier brothers is less rotating mass. The extra inertia of the beefier rockers requires more valvespring to maintain the same max rpm. This has been noted by Steve Dulcich and others, a set of stainless roller rockers subtracted about 500 rpm from the stock flimsy rockers' redline.

So what we need is a 1.65 paper ratio stamped rocker with the top over the shaft closed in to give the rocker some more stiffness with little added moment of inertia.

R.

Some great info here........Thanks!

I'm currently pricing around for a set of budget adjustable rockers for a big block Mopar. Don't really want overseas built stuff that has bad metallurgy (see it enough in the airsoft guns my sons buy). And have had enough cheap bearings fall apart from lawn equipment.

The bronze bushings, at the fulcrum, with a single large roller at the tip, seem like a good fit for my needs and with good oiling should last a long time.

Nobody has mentioned yet...........the trouble with non-adjustable rockers is what to do with a new combo that has had block decking, head milling, several valvejobs and the 509 MP has a smaller basecircle too.

Did someone say the Harlen Sharp adjusters fit the PRW's??? An American made replacement part???

Mine look more polished compared to the other pics...



I bought a set because I have a small base circle cam that left the

rockers @ zero lash with no preload. I went with 1.6s because they

were the same $ and I have pistons with decent valve reliefs.


So far so good...knock on wood.

One caveot with aftermarket rockers not addressed so far.....

These have to be shimmed one cylinder at a time to center the roller

over the valve tip...very tedious and way more difficult if the motor

is already installed.