Quote:
Looking for opinions on the harland sharp 1.5 rockers or the comp cam 1.5 pro magnums. Is one better than the other and why? They will be installed on an eddy headed big block. Thx in advance btw, I know the pro magnums need matching push rods.
Quote:Quote:
Looking for opinions on the harland sharp 1.5 rockers or the comp cam 1.5 pro magnums. Is one better than the other and why? They will be installed on an eddy headed big block. Thx in advance btw, I know the pro magnums need matching push rods.
Ok, you asked for an opinion. Over priced and over rated. No matter which one you pick, the geometry will be way off.
Quote:
Depends a lot on how much spring pressure your running. Ive ran 525ish open pressure with Comps and no problems. I don't think aluminum rockers are best for high spring pressure anyway. Ive had a set of Crane Gold rockers break with hi spring pressure. Yes, you will need diff pushrods with Comp Pro Magnums, and they get direct oiling from the adjusters, which I think is a better setup. With the Harland Sharps if your off more than ~.030 you can burn up the pushrods. Who knows, you may need diff pushrods with the Harland Sharps too.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Looking for opinions on the harland sharp 1.5 rockers or the comp cam 1.5 pro magnums. Is one better than the other and why? They owill be installed on an eddy headed big block. Thx in advance btw, I know the pro magnums need matching push rods.
Ok, you asked for an opinion. Over priced and over rated. No matter which one you pick, the geometry will be way off.
So go with the stock stamped then ?
Quote:I ran 275 lbs on the seats and 680 lb open on my pump gas 518 C.I. motor with Harland Sharps 1.60 ratio rockers(.700 + lift), shifted it at or above 7000 RPM regulary with a lot of laps and 3000+ street miles with no problems
I don't think aluminum rockers are best for high spring pressure anyway. Ive had a set of Crane Gold rockers break with hi spring pressure. Yes, you will need diff pushrods with Comp Pro Magnums, and they get direct oiling from the adjusters, which I think is a better setup. With the Harland Sharps if your off more than ~.030 you can burn up the pushrods. Who knows, you may need diff pushrods with the Harland Sharps too.
As far as breaking Crane extruded aluminum rockers and then comparing them to full needle bearing Harland Sharp roller rockers is like comparing a brass hammer to a tool steel hammer, the results are based on the use 
As far as the length of the pushrods Harland Sharp reccommmends from zero to 2 full threads exposed on their 7/16 x 20 adjsuters, which is . 080 differences, if you burnt them up with .030 difference you have some other problem, like rubbing against the block or head not allowing oil to get to the pushrod tips Been there, done that 
OP, I have used more than one set of Harland Sharp roller rockers as well as T&D and a bunch of other brands and types of rocker on the street and race motors, but not any of the current stainless steel Comp so no comment on them. I am buying another set of full roller Harland Sharp right now to replace the Hughes aluminum rockers on my current 505 C.I. bracket motor Hopefully someone with personel experience on the Comp Stainless will chip in 
Quote:
I am buying another set of full roller Harland Sharp right now to replace the Hughes aluminum rockers on my current 505 C.I. bracket motor
Quote:Quote:
I am buying another set of full roller Harland Sharp right now to replace the Hughes aluminum rockers on my current 505 C.I. bracket motor
Quick question, Cab. What were your impressions like of the Hughes rocker arms? Quality, fit, geometry, any failure issues?
with Manton heat treated after the second one broke( it took some runs on them before they broke ) and then one of the original lock nuts backed off on the new adjusters and ruined that rocker arm and adjuster 
So three strikes and thier out of my motor. They bolted on and worked, Hughes exchanged them with me(even though I didn't buy them from them originally 
) from thier new 1.5 non cyro treated extruded aluminum rocker assemblys to thier 1.6 with cryo treating for the price of the cyro treating and shipping These are on a Eddy Victor Max wedge heads. I over stressed them, evidently I don't pay a lot of attention to scrub patterns, I use lash caps on all my builds, unless it is a low RPM hydraulic lifter motor with spring pressures under 350 lbs open.I have thought of trying to make them better but I would rather race and drive them instead of putting off the maintenance needed later 
I do have a set of CNC ported 440-1 with a set of Jesel paired shaft rocker arms on them, maybe I'll focus on getting them better on the rocker arm tip alignment to the valve stem center like all the guys with those type rocker do
Quote:
I've used the comp cam pro magnums for years. The only issue I had was getting the geometry right. I had to use lash caps after I had ordered what I thought were the correct length pushrods. Very durable.
Quote:Lash caps huh? Maybe Mopar should have put 1/2" valve stems in their motors so builders had enough contact area for all that sweep. Could that be why you over stressed them? Maybe that scrub pattern (sweep) might be something to look at after all. There are a lot of .800+ lift motors with 5/16 stemmed valves out there that don't use or need lash caps.Quote:Quote:
I am buying another set of full roller Harland Sharp right now to replace the Hughes aluminum rockers on my current 505 C.I. bracket motor
Quick question, Cab. What were your impressions like of the Hughes rocker arms? Quality, fit, geometry, any failure issues?
I over stressed them, evidently
Quote:I can't believe you don't have a ton of maintenance now.
I have thought of trying to make them better but I would rather race and drive them instead of putting off the maintenance needed later
Quote:Do they really? While they may align them to the center, that is only after the shaft height is correct. Centering the roller doesn't do anything to correct geometry.
I do have a set of CNC ported 440-1 with a set of Jesel paired shaft rocker arms on them, maybe I'll focus on getting them better on the rocker arm tip alignment to the valve stem center like all the guys with those type rocker do
Quote:
I've been running Hughes roller rockers on my small block for about 10 years with moderate spring pressure, 153 on the seat and 383 at 1.25". I had to grind the pi$$ out them to clear the od of the spring. They have a bunch of street miles and 1/8 mile passes on them with no issues.
.jpg "8453706-08(Large).jpg")
), at max lift is had moved back towards the rocker shafts on both valves, intakes and exhausts . Not the same results with other rocker arms, especially on Hemiroid motors I got tired of having to file or stone the ridges, edges, off the top of the mushroomed valve stems before removing them(to avoid ruining the valve guides) when I wanted to take them apart I have found that the valve stem finish can influence the amount of wear that occurs on our motors, a very smooth polished stem will not wear as fast as a unpolished, rough finished valve stem will I have a motor under construction now that I'm waiting on the heads and T&D single shaft rocker arms on, it will be interesting to see how they fit on those heads I'll think about posting the results, if the customer doesn't mind
Quote:
Depends on the lift. The HS rocker arms are a little long. I think they were designed for higher lift. For a street type engine the Comps work pretty well. I run them on my street motor.
Quote:
On the all of the motors I've built and used Harland Sharp aluminum roller rocker arms, both on OEM cast iron heads and several different sets of Eddy aluminum heads as well as one set of Indy 440-1 aluminum heads, the roller wheel contact at no lift was on the inside third(towards the rocker shafts) of the valve stem, at max lift it was close to the center of the stems( on 5/16,11/32 and 3/8 valve stems
I started using lash caps to avoid mushrooming the valve stem tips on solid lifter motors years ago, not to correct rocker arm deficits
I'm sure that if I was shooting for the moon(perfection) on all of my motors, RPM and HP output, I would focus on all the aspects of acheiving perfection, not accepting some things like less than perfect rocker arm geometry
Ductile iron rocker also. I do check the lift at the retainers with checking springs to see how close the rocker arm ratio is, I haven't checked all my motors after installing the race springs but I do know they make a difference on the net lift at the valve reatainers I do remember one motor picking up 8 hp and 300 RPM increase on the peak HP RPM the dyno by switching pushrods from a set of Smith Bros. 3/8x.083 to a set of Manton Serioes # 3/8 x.120 wall. I was charged by Smith Bros for .120 wall originally I had one break in two pieces in the middle 
It took the one next to it out and broke the top of the Crower Ultra roller lifter off and it ended up scoring the lifter bushing and damage the cam lobe also I took it back to Smith Bros, it had a visable defect where it broke in the wall, and they replaced both of the damaged pushrods but didn't offer to help on any of the other damamg parts The dyo results ended up making me decide to buy Mantons from then on 
I have seen a machine shop plug the original bolt holes on a 440 head and remachine the holes and stands to move the shafts back towards the cam to get the rocker tip to valve stem center better and correct the geometry(SP?) Maybe some day I will get all of this race stuff figured out, maybe not
Quote:
Nevermind I found the kit in the Hot Deals section.
Quote:
So ( on a smallblock) the rocker sweep the biggest loss in efficiency? I would think minimizing the arc between the pushrod and the rocker stud would do more overall to improve the net lift than the sweep over the valve. The fulcrum ratio ( c/l of the rocker shaft to the cl of the roller vs the net lift of the stud is fixed, but the net motion is effected by the sum of the losses from the lobe itself to the rocker body. Big losses just in the loss from the 59 degree poly geometry inherent in the Shortblock. The pushrods also move in an arc on both ends. With a good long guide in not really as concerned with roller sweep ( after all it is a roller) as I am with the sum of all the other lost motion issues in the valvetrain.!lets not even think about the losses from the pushrods lateral angle with an offset rocker like a W2.
So I guess to target the net lift and duration you need for optimum performance it's probably smarter add lift compensation to the lobe so you 'net' the desired lift.
Quote:
Good topic. Need to get Vic Bloomer in on this topic. He's studied the lobe to rocker geometry closer than anyone I know. I can see any way you can minimize the losses to the fulcrum point will naturally get a higher percentage of the lobes motion transferred to the lift side of the see-saw.
But it's hard for me to visualize how you can truly 'make-up' for the sum of those losses with the rocker itself ( without over-compensation ( ex: use a 1.6:1 'gross' just to 'net 1.5) ....and even then the 'degree by degree' motion of the lobe won't/can't be 'linear' even if the lobe to rocker were close to perfectly straight.
And in a way the factory stamped rockers allow the pushrods to move straighter in their range of motion up top....because the 'slop' in the factory rocker on the shaft allows the rocker to slide ( with some obvious 'slop') in lieu of the pushrod oscillating as it must in a tight clearence aftermarket rocker.
I always looked at some degree that valvetrain lost motion as kind of a 'necessary evil' present in any cam-in-block motor.
