I think the LS rocker conversion is brilliant, and I'm a die hard mopar guy. One thing most folks hatin are not considering, is the original intent for the build was a burn out car. With the stock shaft rockers, if you held the engine at 6krpm for 2-3minutes, all the oil would get pumped into the valve covers and spit out the bottom end. There are a couple of ways to prevent that, and this is a cool one. I dig it!
What you did with this engine is exactly what hot rodders have been doing for 70+ years. This engine is unique and I hope it performs well and is durable.
I've found over the years of me doing custom work that the more people hate, the closer you are to success. I really found this out when I started my RU-vid channel. Great job on this one!
Advancement never happens unless you try. Most trolls cant do, so they hide behind a keyboard and pretend they know what there talking about. F them, move forward!
I love this type of thing. How boring would the world be if no one did anything different and tried new things. You inspired me to go out and buy an ls rocker stand and rockers to see how they look on magnum heads. May be a waste of time and money but only one way to find out..
Brother, the social media couch potatos know it all. This is badd azz!!! They don't think, just because they wouldn't do it. Does it make it wrong?. I would. Bad azz!!!
I remember reading articles in hotrod magazine and carcraft where guys filled holes in heads and re drilled them to use on engines that they weren't ment for , and I believe Steve D , from MotorTrend don't remember how to spell his last name , but he has done some things like that. What you did was cool and it works .
The Mopar community has a hard core Mopar think happening. I wonder how well LS rockers would work on Magnum heads that are pedestal mounted? There are a ton of LS engines out there so 1.7:1 ratio should be an inexpensive lift upgrade.
I was seriously impressed by the entire build. The rocker setup is awesome and innovative. You doing this build with VGG caught my attention and gained you a new subscriber. More than that, a new fan. Keep up the great work. You're doin' it, everyone else is just talking.
I loved your engineering for the rockers. Having to swap an older Mopar shaft rocker on the side of the road took 3 times longer than any Ford or Chevy. Also finding those parts readily available in some little town parts store is slim to none. I for one would swap in your design every time.
I'm a Buick guy. The Edelbrock heads get hate for using Chevy rockers instead of the shaft mount rockers. I like it. Yes with a huge can you will need a stud girdle but it is adjustable and affordable. P.S. the Edelbrock heads don't flow well either but different topic😂
Yes shaft rockers are ultimately better, but they can also be a major PITA when you start having to move shafts around to try and correct valve tip to rocker misalignment. I personally liked the idea and engineering you put into it and it does give another option to the factory style system.
You can buy shim kits to align the rocker tips with the valve stem tips which is always recommended when going roller rockers on the bar system by raising them if needed plus they make shims that go between the rocker arms to align the rocker arms so they stay where they are supposed to. Rocker alignment is crucial because if not done correctly you will get what's called rocker arm tip scrubbing where the tip is pushing up or down on the valve stem tips instead of straight down on it which causes more friction and also will eventually wear out the valve guides if not corrected . Most times when using the roller rockers on the bar system you also will have to check for the correct push rod lengths and order custom push rods so your getting full lift of the cam . Had to do this on a 451 big block stroker engine I built a few years ago with a friend of mine who didn't want to go with a more modern grind flat tappet hydraulic cam and I told him then go full roller rockers but use a 1.6 ratio rather than the standard 1.5 to try and get a little more lift which he did but just by going to the 1.6 ratio the lift is only about 30 thousands more which the heads were done up for this so the old Direct connection Mopar 509 purple shaft that he had the first design which was designed more for the stick cars that took the lift to 539 lift on both intake and exhaust with 290 duration at .050 which has a fast ramp speed . Ratio doesn't effect duration or LSA but does change the lift of the valve and as long as the heads are done up to flow better the lift helps with making more power . The Chrysler engines from those years small and big block that use the bar system where the power is made is from using good aftermarket roller rockers where each rocker arm is lets say exactly at 1.5 or1.6 ratio so as long as the cam lobes aren't worn out each valve will open the same lift unless it's a split pattern cam where as with the stock rockers those ratios can be all over the place so you have some that are lets say 1.5 but others are 1.4 1.6 all over the place which causes a power loss over 16 valves. The bar system also has less friction than the old ball and stud system that was used mainly on the old SBC and BBC because even though the HP version balls had grooves cut into them to help lubricate the balls better so they wouldn't gall up from the heat and spring pressures at high RPMs this system causes a lot more heat and friction and that why on these engines when converting to a full roller rocker they make more power because it gets rid of a lot of heat and friction besides all 16 rocker arms being exactly at 1.5 or 1.6 ratio and on a Mopar bar system you don't see as much of a HP increase because of less heat and friction because the pressure is spread out more than in just 1 small area like the Chevrolet ball and stud system uses . I have a buddy that does truck pulling in the super modified class and he runs a all aluminum BBC and he uses those jesel bar rocker mounted shafts on his 50,000 race engine and has everything locked down so it can turn 7,500-8,000 RPMs and he's had really good luck with using them and would never been able to make the power he does using even the HP version of the old ball and stud system that those engines used for many years . I do know that the small block Chrysler engine the push rod angles aren't the best and that always used to cause issues with valve train instability and the lack of high rpm especially when using a factory stock iron head but Chrysler did do some improvements on the 340 race heads but often times on those the larger push rods needed because of the high spring pressures some guys had to actually clearance the push rod holes so they wouldn't touch and that often times caused the hole to go right I to the intake ports and would have to be epoxied closed then blended in which isn't ideal so from what I see here using the LS roller rockers this is not only adding more lift but it also helps alleviate this push rod angle that these engines are known to have stock from the factory so it can RPM better plus cost wise it's much cheaper. There is a guy on RU-vid here that took 2 5.3 LS heads and cut them off and welded them together to make basically a all aluminum LS head to bolt on and work for a Ford 300 6 cylinder engine with fuel Injection and a turbo on it that I watched probably a year or more ago but haven't looked lately to see if he's got it up and running or not but I thought that's pretty cool seeing someone who is trying this to see what kind of power can be made using this head he built because often times with building a HP 6 cylinder engine the power limit is often the cylinder head just doesn't flow very good . I've always wanted to build a HP 6 cylinder engine but the prices for speed parts are expensive and for the money your better off building a V-8 for less money and making more power after looking on Clifford 6=8 web site and seeing how expensive 6 cylinder engines are to build .
@@peteloomis8456 all I have to say is 🤯. I probably couldn’t teach you 1/100 of what you could teach me but here’s a fun fact you might not know. A 6.2 hemi head as cast will outflow a bbc head with a 2.25”intake valve on a 4.310 bore. I do have a sweet spot for my 4.0 jeeps though 🤷♂️ I’m a mopar nut even if 6 in a row might not really be “good to go”. Would love to hurricane swap a wj Jeep.
Same haters whined when someone came out with a way to mount sbc rockers on a small block Buick. The haters that criticized your setup are either mad because they spent the big bucks on the T&D rockers or they're just ignorant purists. You guys did a great job with this conversion don't let the nay sayers get you down, odds are seeing how they can't beat you they'll become customers.😁👍
I've loved this build since I saw it in your shop. You sir approach issues with an open mind and as a machinist you find out what can be done not just what has been done. Like i said in your shop, I have another engine coming that is going to need some of your engineering as I try some different things. I intend to push boundaries within my pocketbook limits and with my wife not divorcing me. She's very forgiving, but I've pushed my luck a lot and intend to keep on pushing. Keep up the awesome work!
I was so excited when i first heard of this engine build from vvg the advantage of running a readily available part that could be cheaper than the expensive aftermarket stock set up plus running a longer valve better springs. i say keep the ideas coming.
To me the biggest drawback with playing with the LA based engines is no one stopped to develop an Aluminum race poly head for them. The flow on them would have to be far superior to any LA head even the famed W2 head. I've played with a lot of small block Mopars. Never had a problem getting them to go past 5500 RPM or even 7000 RPM using the shaft mount rocker setup. Over 7000 rpm they were 1.6 ratio rollers. I've also worked on switching a poly block to run LA J heads. It was a total off the wall experiment and the Poly motor won't fit into a pre-1966 A body. Not even sure if it would fit into a 1967 up one. The old poly block can be taken 120 over from stock without needing to sonic test. My thing against pedestal mounted rockers is the deflection. Even with shaft mounted rockers you can run into that issue. With the shaft mounted rockers though you can shim them. Over all the shaft mounted rockers also tend to be stronger and less likely to break. In my lifetime I've only seen one shaft broken. It was in a 318 that jumped time. It still ran with that broken shaft on the passenger side. I am far from against using other manufacturer style parts in an engine build. The poly block to LA head build was at 90 over and Chevy Pistons wouldn't work due to dome height. Custom made JE pistons went into it.
I never saw that for the polyblock. I know they made a kit though to mount 426 Hemi heads on the RB block. The only difference between the Polyblock and LA heads was water port locations. The machine shop threaded the stock ports and plugged them with pipe plugs and then milled them flat to the head. Then just redrilled the water ports to line up with the polyblock. I imagine it would just be the reverse of it to put a polyhead onto an LA block. Then you have to run the respective Intake and exhaust manifolds/headers, cam and rocker setup for the head you are using. Cylinder bore spacing and head bolt pattern is the same. The big difference between Hemi heads and non-hemi heads I believe is the number of head bolts per cylinder. Non-hemis are four head bolts per cylinder and hemis are 5. @@peteloomis8456
J, X and I believe its the 508 casting if I remember right with the closed chamber heart shaped combustion chamber are all good factory heads for a high performance application. Just not up to what a good race purpose built head is. Still with the Poly to LA head we built it ran against and either came close to or beat a lot of cars and engines people wouldn't have thought it would. They weren't stock either. The engine had a real nice flat torque curve and pulled the whole 1/4. It wasn't just an engine build. It was the whole drive train matched to run. 3000 stall converter, manual reverse valve body, and 4:30 gears. Add to that a well designed exhaust. Then tire dimension even factors into it. @@paragonengines1924
Considering the factory 318 rockers are a sloppy setup its easy to see having a stable rocker arm like the LS is a improvement. The stock is really only in the low 1.4 range. But now this is just talking for a mild HYD lifter engines. The extra ratio with a mild cam can and would be beneficial. But on the other hand with a more agressive cam say .570 lift with even mildly ported heads that may still stall under. 600 then go turbulent that extra ratio may and aren't always a benefit. The ls does have much better heads so can use all the extra lift. It takes a properly fully worked stock head or basic non offset rocker worked aftermarket LA head to be stable to over .650 lift. Let's talk about what would actually be the more cost effective and a improvement for a stock LA engine. Having a stable rocker is better but having stable and adjustability is another big gain. I dont think people are noticing the fact that the LS rocker have "no adjustment" which can be another huge benefit that is needed over a stock 318 rocker. Even a stock SBC you can set preload on each lifter. Just being able to adjust the rockers to have perfect lifter preload set on a hyd lifter deal can be worth 20hp. The most cost effective is just using a set of 100$ 273 rockers for a big gain over stock 318/360. For the amature to just bolt this LS setup on without getting the proper length pushrods and checking everything throughly for the specific application may be a bit more involved vs effectiveness that can be comfortably handled. It would be cool to see a back to back test to 6500rpm to see the gains between the 3 setups and add a aftermarket one shaft 1.6 adjustable rocker as well.. Also need to point out the misconception that factory rockers can't really handle over 4800rpm is false. The factory can handle 6200rpm no problem. It's when having worn rocker arms with over around 340lbs spring pressures that can pop the them through. I did on a 6800rpm engine. And a client's Big block that regularly spun 6000rpm. I'm all for ingenuity and trying different things since that's what hot rodding is about! But we also need to be fair and point out the specific draws backs as well as the applications they won't work for (any mechanical lifter application) for those that may not fully understand engines.
You said it yourself, you were out to do something different and show your skills and capabilities. You've done that no question 👏 you succeeded to adapt an individual shaft type rocker to an LA Chrysler head. The problem is you didn't need to. Sbc rockers are available in 1.7 and they bolt straight onto Chrysler magnum heads, no modification required. Magnum heads bolt straight onto an LA block, no modification required. All high quality off the shelf parts, no milling or clearancing. So people are telling you it's a waste of time because they have different goals.
You are correct the Magnum heads have a similar rocker set up as the L S but weren’t used due to their limited airflow - they could have been used if ported but even then, cost aside, they would not have met the targets of flow desired.
@@smokeysghost4759 Nah, Edelbrocks magnum head has the same port as their LA head, intake bolt pattern and rocker stands are the only difference. Oh and sbc rockers fit magnum heads not Ls.
I think this goes back to trying something different. Maybe I didn't need to, but if no one tried anything different, then how would the magnums end up with different rocker arms if the stock 318 system was so great? Improvement and innovation come with new ideas, and if you're always waiting for someone else to come up with the ideas, you might be disappointed!
People who cant think outside the box are skeptics until it works, I used to have a machinist that did my racing engines that loved pushing the envelope and doing thinks that people said wouldn't work, he enjoyed proving them wrong.
I've been interested in this build since the first episode was released. I'm a bit of a hater in a sense, but I can't say that I have hated on this project at all. I have been curious how the rocker stand would last when ran daily. Keep up the good work. Make something extraordinary.
Gm racing has spin trons with lasers that measure deflection on the rockers. The factory LS rockers had the least amount of deflection over all other aftermarket ones and were the lightest over the fulcrom by far.
I haven't read any of the comments on this video or the other one, I hope you are just putting content out and not actually concerned about what the trolls say, my opinion is, those trolls knocking your design are just most likely 20 year olds who have at one time stood next to someone who put a hot air intake on their Honda and now it makes them pro's. if no one tried anything we would still be rolling a square block with a stick.
I understand what you did and why you did it for serviceability, but what if one of the custom machines pedestals gets damaged? Then it wouldn't be easily available to replace. Trying new and different things is what started hot rodding, so keep it up. I do think there are some suitable off the shelf shaft mounted systems with roller tips out there that would have worked very well in the application, but may have been 1.6 to 1 ratio only, but changing cam profile to match the full system could have given similar performance results.
Valiant effort, pun intended. The harmonics of your pedestal is likely what caused the issues. The Jesel pedestals are beefier AND they use a shaft. It makes me wonder if you can maintain your pedestals and install that Comp shaft to stiffen everything back up and stop the harmonics.
So funny how there is always someone that can find something wrong with anything you do. I thought it was cool just because you were able to do it whether that was any advantage or not. I have a '68 B Body with a 383 in it and I run a 400 intake with a Quadrajet on it because I had one and it runs just fine. If I told MOPAR people I might get shot. I'm planning ot remove the MOPAR Electronic Ignition and put on a HEI module also. But you know what? My car always starts and it starts easily.
Guessing this video was made bc of the utg video, nothing he does works properly, his 318 runs 10's,... in the 1/8th,.... nothings ever an improvement over what was 60 years ago,... don't worry about it, do you/be you
That was one reason, and also the endless comments. I have seen his builds at the drag strip in person (when he still built stuff) and they were less than impressive.
I wonder if the base could be machined to improve the push rod angle created by the high lift so you don't have to drill out the push rod hole which can be daunting in some 318 heads.
I think the only way to fix that issue would be to straighten out the lifter angle. I wish there was enough material in the block to move them to a 45*, that would be a big help!
Does anyone make shaft roller rockers for the SBChrysler Magnum heads? That would be something I'd like to have. Simply for the longevity and friction reduction. Perhaps I'm wrong and the factory Magnum setup is just fine but, I don't like those "saddle straps" that keep the rockers aligned with the valve tip. I've seen too many of those break.
You are spot on.. I wish I could get that set up for my 1978 Volare. The stock rocker arms and shafts are junk!! Push rods bore through the rocker arms.. Spent 16 years in a wrecking yard.. Seen it all the time..
Okay, the lightweight LS rockers cure the symptom. Valve float. Guess what fellers, the underlying issue is cam lobes that are too aggressive for high rpm
@@paragonengines1924download comp cams lobe catalog. You will learn there are different lobe designs for different applications. And no, you don't use a "smaller" cam. Thanks for playing though
There are a lot of "company men" out there and some of the Mopar or no car crowd are the epitome of this. They are not upset you changed the rocker system, they are upset it is using non Morpar parts. They stand by the system as proof that Mopar was/is always better, and you threaten that thought process with innovation. Thank you for making these videos and for going out and innovating.
Not sure where youre getting info on LA's punching rocker arms. My original 318 rockers (not the later heavier ones) would, and did run routinely to 5800rpm shifts. Never punched one. In fact, the only ones I've ever seen punched were involved in a timing gear failure with one of those crappy nylon-toothed gears. I still think your LS adaptation is a great innovation.
@@paragonengines1924 I gotcha, and agree. I mean, just look at the cams of today. The lift is considerably more than the past. The rockers have to be stronger and more precise than they were then. So, anyway, anything you can do to make things better, I'm all for it. This brand loyalty biz is for the birds. If there was some quick and easy swap for some BB Chevy head for my 440, you can bet I'd do it. Low buck and instantly pick up the kind of flow increase they offer over the typical BB Mopar wedge head? In a hot second!
it's a great idea. Period Very innovative. If it keeps a stock 318 pushrod from typically going through its rocker arm, it's well worth it. LS arms are obviously way better than the ones designed for a 318 over at half century ago. Serviceability, reliability and performance have been met. paragon engines already said that they will support this engine! Who knows! It may very likely become a replacement production part for the 318. Great ingenuity on your part and lots of guts to put something out there that is different and works well. Long live the LS 318! Peter de Pilgrim :-)
I think better you bothered to make this than not , more options the better , the Chrysler fraternity doesn’t get that much love in the aftermarket world , what are the alternatives here 60 yo 273 adjustable rockers , Chinese jobbies, crane style roller rockers , inDy or T&D …… I think factory LS rockers are going to be hard to beat for longevity. How about making an offset version for the intakes ?
Ive heard the motor run and it sounds great. It revs like crazy and looks cool! No ones opinion matters but yours and Derricks. Keep up the good work and dont worry about any of this. If people dont like what you do just tell them to do better, if they can!
It seems like the focus of the video was comparing the LS conversions against each other and not against the factory or aftermarket factory Dodge LA style replacements. - a design Dodge themselves changed to individual rockers in the early 90's with the Magnum series heads. Both generations of Mopar heads have upgraded aftermarket direct replacement style rockers that work well up to the flow limits of the heads, at which point the aftermarket heads have their own valvetrain anyways. Much like the Viper rod conversion, it seems like an over complicated way to fix something that wasn't really broken or something that had already been fixed using an easier method before. I'm not saying that there is no merit to these changes - just that both the rockers and the Viper rods are better suited to a shop using up existing inventory and can control their labor costs for the machine work for these conversions than for someone paying full price for new parts and labor.
All valid points. It was easier for us than it would be for someone in their garage, with no equipment or parts. But, on the same hand, being that we are fortunate enough to have the resources, why not make something that is outside of the box and spark people's interest in thinking further than "what's already been done."
My question is y not just make factory style 1.7 rockers for the 318 and if this set up works what's the availability? U can't even get parts that are mass produced like from comp and is the advantage out way the cost? LS's don't impress me I see sbc's beating them every day
Steeping out of the box is always good trying new things! If if works it’s awesome! I am a Chef if we don’t try new things we would still be eating food from long ago!
It's so much simpler to be a critic than it is to be......... pretty much anything else. I never understood the whole trolling thing. Maybe people find it enjoyable? There's so many positive things to enjoy and compliment out there, that's what I'm into.
I've been racing and driving 340's since 1971. I've run roller cams and used both stock 273 mechanical rockers and Harlend Sharp rockers. Both ran up to 7,500 rpm in my Super Stock engines. As for street engines, I currently run the stock 360HD police rockers. Got them back in the 80s off a retired police car. They are noticeably thicker material than my 340 rockers, which are thicker than stock 318 rockers. I run a dual spring and run my street engine up to 6,500 rpm. I've never had a pushrod go through a stamped rocker. 340 or 360HD. Never built any 318s, so I guess it's possible, but was the damage caused by valve float and hitting the pistons? This concept is definitely interesting, but is it cost effective for a street engine?
Mopar LA engines with stock shaft mount rockers will handle any rpm that the heads will support the flow for.... Later LA heads have individual rockers and need guide slots for stability so are not as stable as shaft mount but they can flow better than the early heads, however to do all the work required for your system will only complicate the system with expensive machine work with very little return on investment....So, why don't you just put a Chevy engine in your Mopar.....
The ls rocker idea and your ingenuity is awesome! I dont have much repsect for uncle tony these days, enjoyed him when he started but hes just a stubborn boomer that figured out how to make a living on youtube preaching to other stubborn old boomers
I guess we should still have total loss oiling and exposed push rods to , eh ? The amount of "if it's not MY idea it's a BAD idea" asshats out there just amazes me , excuse the pun but I think your system "rocks" !
