Bob, I agree with all of your comments. They also reduce heat in the engine,
less friction, and give the correct ratio for the rockers. Studies by the hot
rod mags have shown that the ratio is off by 10-15% of what spec is with
stamped rockers.
The 1990 5.0L has a roller cam, and I installed roller rockers, and the engine
is as smooth as glass, and revs way beyond the cam range, and very stable, and
no valve float. Of course good springs.
Larry
Bob Palmer wrote:
> Larry, Steve,
>
> This summer I finally replaced the Crane Gold Race roller rockers I first
> purchased in 1979. I had them rebuilt in 1986, but this time they were too
> far gone - at least in my opinion, I didn't ask Crane. I was appalled at how
> expensive the new set was - about $350. The next big surprise when I got
> them was they were way bigger than the old ones. It looked hopeless to get
> them all stuffed inside the stock steel valve covers. However, using double
> gaskets and a few tricks I finally got them in - and without lowering the
> engine. They would fit even better if I grind some off the outside edges of
> the first and last one on each side; that's where the main interference
> point is and, of course, this would make them easier to get off and on and
> require a less thick gasket.
>
> I'm sold on roller rockers for a number of reasons. Among them is oil
> control, which means that, as Larry notes, there is no need for the oil
> baffles when you use roller rockers because there is a lot less oil flying
> around inside the covers. The more important reasons are less friction and
> less wear and, with the poly locks, that means you don't have to readjust
> solid lifters nearly as often. But the main reason I first bought them was
> the high lift cam broke the studs because the stock rockers didn't have
> enough range of motion. (BTW, I know there are stock style rockers with
> increased slot clearance.)
>
> Bob
|