Rockers,Steel Or Alloy??????

john 215 · Post by **john 215** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:41 pm

I am part way building a 4.6,just wondered what opinon you Ladies and Gents have on standard alloy rockers or steel

? In my case going to be running a Viper Typhoon camshaft with Real Steel stage 3 heads fitted with there DW 550 valve springs.Going into my TR7 with the odd RWYB in mind.What experience has anyone had with steel rockers? Can these be used with standard or large pushrods as my heads have been modified for larger diameter push rods.Would like roller rocker but a bit too pricey

ian.stewart · Post by **ian.stewart** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:47 pm

I am running standard rockers, double valve springs and a silly european touring car mechanical cam, and rev the engine to 7k, had no problems at all.
Ian

john 215 · Post by **john 215** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:54 pm

Thanks for reply Ian,a friend circuit races a TR8,and does the same just thought would ask opinons before parting with the 'Hard Earned'
Once again cheers and Happy New Year, John.

Post by **katanaman** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:55 pm

alloy is lighter so should be better on a high revving engine, less mass so it can be controlled better. That said Rover used steel rockers on their competition engines. At the end of the day steel rockers were cheaper so that's what I got.

ihatesissycars · Post by **ihatesissycars** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:57 pm

I have steel but i would've thought ally would be better for higher revs as they're alot light than my steel ones.

john 215 · Post by **john 215** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:00 pm

Hi Marki,had'nt thought of the weight thing,was wondering about the steel on steel action are they bushed or just plain?
Happy New Year To You.

ian.stewart · Post by **ian.stewart** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:02 pm

katanaman wrote:alloy is lighter so should be better on a high revving engine, less mass so it can be controlled better. That said Rover used steel rockers on their competition engines. At the end of the day steel rockers were cheaper so that's what I got.

Rover used Volvo rocker arms, certainly cheaper to buy than tooling up for a production run, and if my memory serves me right the works cars were docked points in the ETCC for running non homologated parts, evedently a scruteneer looked down the oil filler hole as saw the word VOLVO on top of the rocker arm, WHOOPS

Post by **katanaman** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:15 pm

Your right Ian but my point was that steel is fine from an engines point of view.

John they are cast so have less friction steel to steel as cast has a self lubricating property than alloy to steel has. The alloy rockers also have a nasty habit of picking up fine particles from the oil which embeds in the soft alloy and grinds away at the shafts. That's why usually the rockers measure up fine but the shafts have worn. Its also another reason why you shouldn't use old alloy rockers on new shafts as the shafts will just get torn up again.

I wouldn't worry about it and just use what you fancy or can afford, your engine isn't going to be revving to huge figures with that cam anyway so the extra weight wont mean a lot. Just as an aside I have never seen a failed alloy rocker so they are plenty strong enough.

ian.stewart · Post by **ian.stewart** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:52 pm

katanaman wrote:Your right Ian but my point was that steel is fine from an engines point of view.

John they are cast so have less friction steel to steel as cast has a self lubricating property than alloy to steel has. The alloy rockers also have a nasty habit of picking up fine particles from the oil which embeds in the soft alloy and grinds away at the shafts. That's why usually the rockers measure up fine but the shafts have worn. Its also another reason why you shouldn't use old alloy rockers on new shafts as the shafts will just get torn up again.

I wouldn't worry about it and just use what you fancy or can afford, your engine isn't going to be revving to huge figures with that cam anyway so the extra weight wont mean a lot. Just as an aside I have never seen a failed alloy rocker so they are plenty strong enough.

I quite agree, Cast steel rockers are fine in most applications, I think Edelbrock now make investmant cast stainless steel, quite light too, Stock Ford X flow rocker arms will go way beyond 9k with a little bit of fettling [deburring bassically] while we are talking rocker arms, why are most roller rockers so heavy, they may gain a bit in lost friction, but what about all the power lost accellerating all that mass. do they counteract themselves

HairbearTE · Post by **HairbearTE** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:00 pm

Ian i think it more a case of the standard rv8 rocker gear being so light. Dont forget many roller set-ups for the rv8 have been put together using pieces that may have originally been intended for chevy applications. In comparison to the weighty stamped steel arms of a stock chevy engine they are in fact lightweight. Also it is worth noting that while some nice aftermarket set-ups can appear to look bulky the most important issue is weight at distance from rockershaft centerline (for obvious reasons). I expect that when that is taken into account there is probably not a lot in it between a big ally rocker arm and a stock steel one.

Boosted LS1 · Post by **Boosted LS1** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:52 pm

That was the point I was about to make:) weight around the shaft isn't really the issue. It's weight at the nose which is important.

The volvo rockers were also adjustable iirc.

Boosted.