Richard you're the hardest working guy in the auto performance industry! You're a machine!

I would love to see 1.7 vs 1.8 rocker comparison on LS

Richard, you are one of the best sources for information on engines on KZfaq period!! This channel is like a non-commercialized version of Engine Masters! Thank you for doing what you are doing!!!! I am writing a bunch of this info down. I have a 4.8 in my Silverado, I am going to build another 4.8 and my 16 year old and I are going to start going to the local drag strip strictly off of the information I have learned here! Thank you!!!

These dyno videos are one of my favorite things on KZfaq. Thanks for doing what you do.

Holly cow. Someone just gave me a set of LS roller rockers lol. Your super right on time lol

I want to see the same test with a cam upgrade

I would love to see a max effort cam shootout on stock or semi modified ls1/6.0. Would love to see how old cams like T-REX, Ms3/4,G5x. Compare to newer grinds like summit stage 4, or even Tick, Btr and Comp max effort cams. Also loving the high quality technical content.

Richard you missed talking about one of the greatest benefits to a roller rocker, and that is the decreased wear on the valve tip and valve stems / guide through reducing side load. Especially important on high lift cams.

please keep making these kinds of videos, you are doing the car community a great service!!!!

I work at the post office just starting out, it's pretty rough your first while till you make regular. When I watch these videos I think about the LS motor I'm going to build with all this overtime and it makes it feel more worth it plus I get to learn about them while I'm delivering the mail. Thanks dude.

A very thorough and honest test. Thanks very much for this one Richard!!

the data you give us is a gift to man kind,thank you for doing what we cant and showing us the way,iv learned more from you then i have anyone else/

I’ve heard that “full” roller rockers solve another issue, valve guide wear. The RPM guys are constantly fixing LS7s with head problems particularly associated with that design. Also, Trick Flow recommends roller rockers for their heads, I believe. Still, the addition of 1.72 rockers to the stock 4.8 adding 13hp was a surprise to me. Another super video, thanks!

Another thing an older engine with stamped rockers (gen 1-2 SBC, gen 1-2 SBF, gen 1-7 BBC, etc) benefits from with roller rockers is a more accurate ratio. The stamped steel rockers aren't wearproof and unlike LS rockers, they have 2 wear points, tip and the fulcrum because they're both sliding friction surfaces. I had a stock 100+K mile 327 impala a few years ago with 275/60 tires and it wouldn't do a burnout. I put roller rockers (same 1.5 ratio as stock mind you) on there and it was actually able to spin em.

Perfectly and thoroughly explained! Thanks!!

I wanna see this exact test ran, but with an aggressive cam in the motor and actually wringing it out. You skipped over some of the biggest reasons for going to roller rockers- the factory rocker nose geometry starts to "scrub" above about .586" lift, causing a big increase in friction and sideloading the valve stem, both coating power AND killing valve guides over time. Something like an MS4 from TSP would be a great example in a little 4.8, and would really illustrate an application where they fit nicely. I'd like to see the test with factory rockers, followed by a set of rollers bolted on "out of the box", and then again after taking the time setting proper wipe pattern. Something that would be GREAT to see after the last test mentioned above would be pushrods, and testing the extent to which pushrod deflection can hurt output. Test first with the ubiquitous 5/16", .080" wall pushrods that everyone uses, then test a set of Trend double-tapers... The MS4 has nice aggressive lobes and was designed around being a "high-effort" cam capable of taking advantage of stock cathedral heads; that grind coupled with the RPM that combo would want should make for a very interesting test! The only ancillary thing you might have to change would be to throw in a set of adequate lifters to eliminate that variable during testing, assuming they weren't already replaced while the heads were off. A set of CTSVR's, drop-in Morel or Johnson, or even genuine Delphi's or Eaton "LS7/LSA/LS-whatever people call 'em now" are cheap and up to the task, ran at .090-.110" preload. Please please pretty PWEEEAAAASE? I got a bone to pick regarding the subject. You could even make a series out of it- finding and extracting NA power out of a "junkyard" LS, one step at a time, including "free" stuff, tips and tricks, ect... You could also do stuff like: -test if an ATI dampener actually picks up -electric water pump (could even test if there's a difference between one with an idler pulley vs without) -crank scraper and windage tray -better factory intake/throttlebody -throttle body spacer- snake oil or free power? -removing casting flash from ports -gasket-matching intake and exhaust -Polishing the combustion chamber up using mag polish and a little wheel detail buffer- "old wives tale", or is there something to it? -Indexing spark plugs? -porting and radiusing oil pump housing/lapping side faces of gerotors, and "centering" during install- does less suction and discharge head and less friction make a difference? -comverting "PCV" over to exhaust venturies- does a lil' bit of vacuum in the bang box do anything noticeable? -Phenolic intske gaskets: Do they really do anything for IAT's, especially with a plastic intake? -all the other small things we've heard about over the years

Once again a great video. There are upgraded trunion kits to replace the actual needle bearings which have been problematic with increased HP, spring pressure load, and higher RPMs. That's the route I would take and if that proves insufficient go all the way to rocker arms linked by a through bar to reduce flexing of the mount.

I had valve float with stock cam, stock springs on my LS2 with the Comp 1.8 rockers at 6000-6200rpms. Replace your springs at the same time guys save yourself the trouble later.

I learned something new, good way to spend 12:11 of my day. Thanks to the OP!

I thank you for running this test. I'm currently building a 355 and the cam I have is Crane Energizer, .480/.480. I want to add a set of 1.6 roller rockers to get a little more cam. The heads are a L98 2.02/1.6 valves ported to the max. Springs will handle up to a .575 lift. 👍👍 and thanks again.

That was a great explanation of rocker arms I think I’ve owned every early variety of roller rocker

Thanks for the Great info as always... Didn't know about the lost of cam lift in between.... Great info

I had this very weird thing happen to me. When I decided to upgrade to trunnions, I noticed the wear pattern on one of the rockers was to the side instead of straight in the middle of the tip. I've had the engine since new and I have never had it apart before so it wasn't from some incorrect torquing down or reinstallation or whatever. Straight from the factory. I wonder if anyone else saw this. Anyways, while I wasn't thrilled about paying so much for roller rocker tips, the cool thing is that they came on a shaft that mounts two of them together. Stock ls rockers are individually. I'm guessing this will eliminate any tendency of rocker arms wanting to twist to the side or so. A little side benefit to the roller rocker tips I bought I guess.

Another great informative video. I have been looking for this exact info ! Thanks

While I appreciate and like that you don't make recommendations, you could do a $/hp statement. That way guys like me know where to get the most bang for the buck. Thanks for all your videos! You are my favorite LS channel!

Excellent video, narration and conclusion. TYVM!

Dam dude, slow down! You are rocking the videos out. I’m a Pontiac guy (yes I saw it) but I thoroughly enjoy every video. Such a wealth of knowledge and experience and expertise.

Toyota actually went away form a roller tip in their Nascar motors as they determined the reduction in weight and complecity of a slider vs roller asembly was better for thier application.

Best channel on KZfaq to date!! Not even kiddin

Good test. I ran roller rockers for years on a bolt on ls6. Every little bit counts.

Good explanation Richard, Happy New Years✅ Lot involved once you start changing what engineers have in place✅

Richard look into the GSR (Godbold Stiffness Rating) with the stock pushrods vs comp .080 Vs X-DA and a .600+ camshaft. I tested it this weekend but dont have back to back data. As always thanks for all you do one of my favorite KZfaq channels!

Excellently explained. Thanks.

Not the first engine I put roller rockers on , but the first stock engine was a 97 z28 LT1. I installed crane 1.6 gold self aligning rocker. The difference was noticable from 4 to 5500 rpm. The problem, factory rev limit was 5500. Durp Back then those were $300. I think they were worth it because horse power that doesn't consume more fuel is today's priority.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge .

Pretty interesting test results. I wouldn't have expected just a .02 increase in rocker ratio to add 13 hp. Maybe most of the increase is due to total overall dynamic valve lift because of less deflection. I did expect the power to fall off at high rpm due to insufficient spring load. Once the higher load springs were installed, there was a slight loss in torque across the rev range, which I attribute to higher friction from the spring load. I've always been a fan of the GM investment cast steel roller fulcrum rocker arm. They are light and stiff, and because of the simple radius tip, put less mass at the valve. Aluminum rocker arms are basically forced to have the roller valve tip because Aluminum cannot stand up to the high contact stresses if they were machined with radius tips. The roller tip inevitably adds mass at the valve, and most of them are just a simple pin riding on the ID of the roller. If a full needle roller tip is desired, that adds even more mass.

Thank you Richard again! Lots of info to learn even from modifications I didn't think of. When are we going to see your car and what all you have done to it on a video?

On 1st gen SBC a rocker upgrade is a must, I've seen too many broken stock rockers resulting from little more than a set of heads that received a valve job and had better springs installed. Not to forget the inconsistent pivot ratios of the stock pieces.

The biggest gains will come with a roller fulcrum. The biggest issue with ball pivot rockers is friction goes up proportionally to pushrod load. Big lift and bigger valve springs will burn a stock rockers and sometimes they will even push through. For stock cam guys, there isn't too much to be gained even with cheapo replacement rockers. A tiny bit of power way out at red line and maybe 2hp at 3000rpm. Nice test man, this is some good info.

It's like you are psychic. I just bought a 6.0 to rebuild from the bottom up. That day you released 6.0 head tests haha

A roller rocker is a roller pivot and roller tip. Having used rollers for near 50 years. The main reason is a roller tip that gives true duration and lift. And uses less power to do so. And you can use a LOT less oil up top. I find 20 -30 thou more lift with standard ratio. More rocker ratio however loads up lifters and push rods exponentially. As well as rocker studs and or bosses.

Someday, it'd be cool to see gapless rings tested against traditional file-fit rings. Difficult test to perform, though.

Richard is a "YT Content Stallion" everyday pumping fresh content new content. 👌🏻😏🤣👍🏻

The crazy short pivot length on LS rockers, with the big lift, seems it would have a lot of sweep and thus guide/stem load and wear.

I would love to see a high rpm test with stock rockers, roller, and shaft (all the same ratio) I would think the higher rpm would emphasize the deflection.

Great test! Your awesome! Wish you would have tested a 1.8 ratio rocker also...

Great videos as always! Keep them coming... I am currently planning on keeping the factory rockers with a trunnion bearing upgrade and changing the cam and upgrading springs. If I use a 54-454-11 comp cams cam that has over .600 lift, will it require new length pushrods? 🤔

Cool I had 1.9 rockers on my l67 3.8 series ii and it was great.

You gotta consider the deflection on top of the friction of the rockers. Just having friction or just deflection wouldn't be too bad but together they create a lot more resistance.

Well I was dismantling my stock LS6 rockers and found the tip wear was pushing the valves crooked. So for the service to true these and a trunnions upgrade, I mind as well get new rockers. Doing my winter rebuild heads cam and exhaust. 😎😎😎

I just asked you about a comparison of roller rockers yesterday! What the hell man. How did you get this video done so quickly?

Wow good stuff man! I’d love to see a video comparing different lifter preloads and how it effects power and stock vs short travel lifters.

Ive heard to just upgraded the stock rocker trunnion, mainly the press on caps on each side that hold the bearings in place cause at high rpms the vibrations work the caps off and now you have little roller bearings inside your engine.

I dont know how much youtube add revenue you bring in but I know its not enough for the amount of information you put out. THANK YOU!

I felt a big improvement on my bbc with comps 1.8 ratio stainless steel and 911-16 springs.

These vids are the best!

On an sbc, I've seen magazine articles say 1.6 roller rockers are worth 24hp over stock stamped steel 1.5s. I like running them in an sbc regardless, I like the lower friction. Ls, I've heard the stockers are good. For 13hp, I'd rather upgrade the springs and run rollers.

I also installed roller rockers on my small block to make my valve guides live a little longer. The roller tip prevents the valves from being pushed side to side .

I would say one of the best things of a roller tip under very high lift an high rpm it can help minimize valve guide wear.

Would have liked to seen this done on an sbc where there is alot of gains to be had over the oem rockers. The LS has one of the best factory rockers already.

Reminds me of a build where the guy removed the super trick LS9 rockers and replaced them with heavy ugly roller rockers. Rocker weight is super important. I doubt friction is much of an issue. Perhaps mocking up a head on the bench and try to measure the friction by using a load cell. I saw a video a long time ago where the guy measured the deflection difference between roller and stamped, especially with high spring pressures. If i remember right it was as much as 0.030 more lift.

Waiting for the 93 Pump Gas Big Bang. Keep them coming.

3 to 5 hp gang may or may not be cost-effective for the price but they damn do look cool.. but I’m here still waiting to see the 4.7 L dodge one day I will see if it!! He will or other people will start asking and he well do it!!!!

I recently went Comp roller on my LQ9 except I did the 1.8. Last year I did the Crane 210/218 on a 114 LSA.

Nice one Richard!

You give guys like me hope thank you so much

I 'd love to see some spintron testing

Hello Richard. Love your videos! Especially for us guys on a budget. I'm curious if you've ever done a 1.7 rocker vs 1.8 rocker on a stock 6.0l? Thanks! Andrew

Some roller rockers are so heavy over the nose you run into valve float where before you didn't with the stock rocker. Edit: I shoulf have watched the video first lol. Richard you're the first person to honestly point this out. Most guys are on the sales side of things and will never mention the weight. Top marks! Have you done a Solid roller cam vs Hydraulic test with the LS? The hydraulic are pretty good these days so the test would have to be two very large cams with close valve events, one solid one Hydraulic etc. Done this before? I know someone with a 2500hp LS and he says the power isnt possible with a hydraulic roller.

Thanks Richard!

Great video!!!

It'd be fun to see a comparison on reverse hung pistons . Too bad I'm so far away , I'd bring a refreshed high mile 5.0 over for you run .

Love this dude Super Nerdy Gearhead Looks like he gets busted up from fighting, excellent.... I wonder how tall Rich is...wonder if he’s in my weight class! Sweet Engineering

Would be nice to see a test of an engine ran with something like a "stage 2" truck cam with lift specs using the stock 1.7 rocker ratio. Run it again now with 1.8 rocker ratio and see what kind of power gains it will have and what it might do to the cam timing and power curve in general. IE: will it extend the power, will it come on earlier, ect.

All the big name parts suppliers in the LS world recommend stock rockers with upgraded trunions.

That's a good jump of power. How much do the stock rocker arms deflect? Was the power increase from the deflection decrease or increase ratio? Or a combination of both? Solid test, thanks.

Video suggestion in a related subject:pushrod length and/or deflection

Excellent video however I wish you had used full roller rockers with standard ratio so we could see the reduction in losses.

Is the power loss below 4600 @ 8:55 showing work to overcome inertia of heavy rocker vs friction improvements or is the port happier with less lift at lower revs. the stiffer valve springs @ 9:48 would act like even more mass for the cam to work against but it made higher torque at same Lift/RPM so results seem to show opposite outcomes. Thanks for the amazing info as always. video suggestion, have you done a test that shows results of switch to roller pivot / roller tip VS stock non roller in the same ratio. mass vs stability vs friction.

Great video

Thank you for this video!!! I can now give a clearer response to my customer's. Maybe you don't understand this more coming from somebody else.

Perhaps you could answer here a further idea of running split ratios on the intake verse exhaust to enhance or exaggerate the cams duruation especially to improve cylinder evacuation on exhaust stroke to gain volumetric efficiency related to adiabatic function.

great info and very well explained for a noob like me.

The factory rocker is also a progressive ratio. It starts around a 1.5 and finishes at a 1.7

Richard, I always like your stuff. I gain knowledge everytime.. Now, please go to the other side on this issue. If you use the recommended spring, retainer and lock for a given cam, and then I "over spring it" what does the curve look like? I got to know.... please show us a engines response with recommendations springs, the upgrade springs... my theory, over spring rate makes up for underscoring rate everytime..

It's been my experience doing this RnD, the power came from the rocker due to changes in valve events. You will see this with a change of ratio, which is what it is intended to do, hence the change in rpm peaks by about 300rpm on both in this scenario. OEM rockers were nowhere near their advertised ratio. That stock LS 1.7 could actually measure 1.5 for example. The newer 1.72 rocker probably measure closer to 1.8, as they do make up for deflection when running. Huge difference in valve timing and overall lift, which will also explain the valve float upstairs, not having enough spring for the big lift change. It wasn't the weight difference. Gains like this will only depend on if the engine wants or needs it, and are not typical. A bit more to it than just roller/not roller. More like a bigger measured ratio, regardless of advertised ratio, increase in duration @.050", faster ramp @.200" and through the lift range, and much more lift at the valve. When you see this comparison of same ratio, and see gains like this, just means the newer style rocker is giving actual valve timing events, where the older one is not. If you step to a 1.8 or 1.9, which is MORE than what the cam is designed for, you may not see any gains or possibly losses. Not hatin', just wanted to add that.

I seem to recall stock LS heads max out their flow numbers around .600” lift. I wonder how much power increase roller rockers would yield with a cam that already has .600+” of lift. I’m guessing you’d see minor gains from a couple extra degrees of duration but not much from the added lift.

If my understanding here is correct, while the valve is "floating" the camshaft is still turning, and the valve stem might get smacked by the cam's lobes while it is trying to re-seat.

Thanks brother, is there a chance you may be able to do an LS test on different positive displacement blowers, like the Magnuson??? Pretty Please with sugar on top.

Very kool video, How about a Chrysler 383 10.5 to 1 compression with a Performer RPM heads and Intake test. You know, the not so popular Other Guys. Keep up the Awsome videos, Love your Channel.

I have a 5.3 with 315k on it. It was tapping. I tore it down to the block crank and pistons. Added a new high volume oil pump. Shimmed and ported it. I have 80lb cold 60lb hot. I installed a new cam new lifters and lifter cups new push rods new rockets and timing chain added studs in the heads. I started it and I have tapping still I replace knock sensors new spark plugs and wires and ideas

I'd like to see a test of a LS in complete stock form. Stock manifolds, fan, pulleys, etc. Then swap out headers, electric water pump, electric fan, maybe underdrive pulleys.....just the smaller things and see how much of a difference.

Nice Job

Richard when can you do a Beehive spring vs OEM spring change on a old type stock engine all other things equal, so see how much spring weight reduction will influence that engine rpm in the curve, I think this will add a lot to you already interesting videos.

great info roller only better with enough valve spring

A issue I find with older rockers that are cast is I've seen some badly cast factory rockers were there not the right ratio or off some other than that it's fairly cheap to replace

Didn't Comp Cams come out with their steel roller rockers years ago specifically with the argument that they had a lower moment of inertia (the "weight" equivalent when we're talking about rotational energy)? I wonder if low "I" rockers would've prevented the valve float. It really seems like the LS rockers and Comp steel rockers look very similar but the LS ones went one step further by removing the weight of the roller and bearings from the tip (where weight hurts moment of inertia worst).

My wife agrees - The tip is the important part

Hi Richard. Can you please do a video on beehive valve springs versus normal valve springs. Please

Some interesting information on LS vs 1.8 roller rockers... on a 550+ lift cam you'll see MORE ratio than 1.8 on a stock rocker at max lift because the length of the rocker gets "longer" as the solid tip extends through the range of motion. Deflection is significant on a stock rocker, but its still less than .05 on a standard "1218" or whatever 130# spring.