[Scottch]

I am rebuilding a mostly stock 1969 400HO. The guys at Butler suggested that I use the Comp Cams Roller Tip 1.5 (CCA-1451-16) rockers. My machinist stated that these roller tips can be really noisy and I should use stock rocker arms.

Does anyone have any history with using the Comp Cams Roller Tip rockers? Any thoughts on noise and usability?

[6T5 Cat]

I've used them on a couple of engines and had no problems or excess rocker noise. I would not hesitate to use them again.

[grivera]

I have them in my NOM engine (now on stand) without any noise or issues otherwise. They were on engine when I bought the car and I kept them to use when I rebuilt it.

[GTOLou]

They are not noisy. That's a ridiculous statement to use the stock rockers because of noise.

Heck - I'd even consider going full roller w/ optimized rocker geometry, etc.

I might put stock, stamped rockers in a build I was going to sell...but not in something I drive.

[Scottch]

Thanks for the input on this! Looks like I will go with them.

[Schurkey]

Are those the rockers where you need to lap the rocker balls to the rocker body, 'cause otherwise they don't fit properly so they burn up?

Fairly sure Ruggles was suggesting that...but not positive.

[tooski]

Originally Posted by Schurkey

Are those the rockers where you need to lap the rocker balls to the rocker body, 'cause otherwise they don't fit properly so they burn up?

Fairly sure Ruggles was suggesting that...but not positive.

That sounds familiar to me.

[steve25]

Since your buying new rockers I would go up in ratio, and to really get the most out of any upgrade in rocker ratio you need to check the geometry and get different lenght push Rods since the cup in the rocker to locate the push rod moves some .060" with the ratio change.

Even if keeping stock rockers if the heads and or block has been milled, or if your running a hydro Cam at near zero lifter plunger travel by means of Poly Locks you should check the geometry and in all of these cases max out the lift while getting minimum contact point travel that's centered the best.

[Greg Reid]

Originally Posted by steve25

any upgrade in rocker ratio you need to check the geometry and get different lenght push Rods since the cup in the rocker to locate the push rod moves some .060" with the ratio change.

Is there a formula or something for that? That is, a way to determine pushrod length based on rocker ratio?
I had my heads machined for future increase way back when, from 1.5 to 1.6 but was wondering what else needed to be changed. That's why your comment got my attention.
Sorry for the brief hijack.

[1_Wild_Cat]

Is there a formula or something for that? That is, a way to determine pushrod length based on rocker ratio?

The only way I have ever done it is to use a pushrod gauge device (not sure the right name), like a threaded adjustable length pushrod. You have to do this with the engine long block assembled. Once to have the measurement from the gauge you order pushrods to length.

[Greg Reid]

Yeah, I know the device you're talking about, not sure of the name either. So, if we're talking a .060" difference in point of contact, that seems within possible range of adjustment for my standard pushrods...?..but maybe that lateral movement makes more difference that I realize.
I don't want to hijack this thread any further! Just something for me to look into until I understand it.

[DOC]

If you have normal stock valve springs and a normal mild cam, there is no harm in doing either one. Is one better than the other?? If you want to drive the car with the least amount of moving parts I would personally use the stamped rocker arms. However I have run both without any issues. On a mild street/ highway engine You will not see enough of a performance increase between roller tip rockers and stock rockers. Spend more effort ensuring the rocker arm and valve train geometry is perfect before worrying about a roller tipped rocker arm versus a stamped rocker arm. That’s just my two cents.

[1968GTO421]

Originally Posted by DOC

If you have normal stock valve springs and a normal mild cam, there is no harm in doing either one. Is one better than the other?? If you want to drive the car with the least amount of moving parts I would personally use the stamped rocker arms. However I have run both without any issues. On a mild street/ highway engine You will not see enough of a performance increase between roller tip rockers and stock rockers. Spend more effort ensuring the rocker arm and valve train geometry is perfect before worrying about a roller tipped rocker arm versus a stamped rocker arm. That’s just my two cents.

I would tend to agree with this except frequently I have heard on here and other forums that the ratio on stock rocker arms can vary from 1.4 to 1.5 and that is not for a set but for each individual rocker, making getting rocker arm geometry correct would have to be done for each rocker rather than for a quality set (ie-Crower) where the rockers are all the same and you only need to do one rocker to get geometry for all. FWIW

[Scottch]

All good information. As to lapping the ball in the rocker. Any known procedure for that? I know how to lap a valve, but not a rocker.

[HWYSTR455]

Couple points to make, OE and OE replacement rockers are all over the place when it comes to ratios, as well as the slots being all over the place. H-O racing back in the day called that out, and it's even worse now.

The CC roller tips are no different, and yes, the fulcrum doesn't 'fit' the rocket pocket well, there too tolerances are all over the place, and can not only cause excessive friction, but also hang. I personally have had to lap them so they fit and worked properly. The Sealed Power OE replacements with the rocker ball is better than trying to use them, and are some of the better ones out there.

Now when talking about increased lift, careful, because OE iron heads have about a .469 lift max before there's pushrod hole interference. Anything above that and you need to open the hole. Then of course there's rocker/spring contact as well as retainer/seal to worry about. Can't just go 'big' and not do your math.

If you plan on keeping the car, and you want reliability, just do some Harland Sharps or Scorpions, if it's not a 'performance' build especially, and doctor then if you want it to fit under OE covers. They are close to the cost of OE replacement and roller tips anyway, and much better tolerances.

.

[Speargun]

Post #39

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...=779295&page=2

[HWYSTR455]

The issues with Scorpions is only when you go over @320 spring psi. I know many that are not seeing issues with many miles on HFT setups.

.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by Schurkey

Are those the rockers where you need to lap the rocker balls to the rocker body, 'cause otherwise they don't fit properly so they burn up?

Fairly sure Ruggles was suggesting that...but not positive.

Yep, both Cliff and I have mentioned this issue, and I'm sure others have as well.

They've been this way for a very loooong time. Way back, probably been more than 25 years ago we discovered this with an engine on the dyno. Those things turned black and blue at the fulcrum with only 3 pulls on it. Turned out the balls ride up on the edges as viewed with witness marks, the bottom of the balls never touched the rocker at all. Comp was made aware of this back at that time too, yet they still produce them this way.

[Greg Reid]

From post #39 mentioned above-

Originally Posted by Cliff R

They can be made much better by getting solid rocker balls for them, clamping the bodies in a shop vise, then inserting a long tapered punch thru the rocker balls, and hand lapping them to the bodies with fine grit lapping compound.
.......Cliff

Any suggestions on sourcing the 'solid' rocker balls he references?

[64speed]

I used the Lunati voodoo rockers because everything is Lunati figured I would match up. Other than having to use BBC rocker arms to get the perfect resukts and patterns I was pleased with their quality to price ratio