LS ROLLER ROCKER TEST-DO THEY WORK? 

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

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

Richard, you are one of the best sources for information on engines on RU-vid 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!!!

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

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

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/

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

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

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.

Perfectly and thoroughly explained! Thanks!!

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

Best channel on RU-vid to date!! Not even kiddin

Excellent video, narration and conclusion. TYVM!

Thank you for sharing your knowledge .

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

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!

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 RU-vid channels!

Excellently explained. Thanks.

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

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

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.

These vids are the best!

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

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.

You give guys like me hope thank you so much

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?

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.

Nice one Richard!

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!

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.

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

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. 😎😎😎

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.

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.

great info roller only better with enough valve spring

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

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.

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

Great video!!!

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? 🤔

Great video

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

Thanks Richard!

Nice Job

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

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.

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.

I 'd love to see some spintron testing

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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

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.

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

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!!!!

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.

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.

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..

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

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.

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

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.

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 .

This makes me wanna do rockers in my stock ls1 instead of a small cam

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For a work van where swapping the cam is a total PITA, what're your thoughts on swapping rockers/springs (and a less awful intake) vs a very mild cam that'll still work well for towing etc?

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.

Richard I have a set of Johnson roller lifters and am planning on a roller cam upgrade for my 2001 LQ4 6 liter. Would you suggest re using the stock rockers with a spring upgrade or just get roller rockers?

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

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.

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 put some comp 1.6s on my stock lg4 over the winter. it's a low mile stand alone with intake and exhaust. I wonder if it was a good idea? Or if it's just gonna waste gas. With the low 8.6:1 compression.

Love the tests! Question: what are you doing with the MAF, plug, etc? See you're running open throttle body. Thanks

Impressive.

Hey Richard, can you tell us why an LS7 rocker won’t work on say an LS3/L92 Head? I thought maybe the exhaust rocker might fit since it’s not offset. like the LS1/6/2. Thanks. Love the videos!!!

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.

Like to see this on the sloppy stage 2 or similar cam.

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.