400 roller rockers

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 8, 2004 | 06:32 PM

#16

Bill_Beyer

Posting Guru

Joined: Aug 2000

Posts: 2,416

Likes: 4

From: PacNW

That's very true. I used the Comp Cams Magnums on my 400 only because they were actually cheaper than buying a whole new set of stock type rockers. Now using roller rockers as part of a complete roller valvetrain makes more sense for maximum performance but all by themselves it's not going to net much more power. They look cool tho'!

Feb 9, 2004 | 04:41 AM

#17

Torque1st

Posting Legend

Joined: Sep 2001

Posts: 30,255

Likes: 37

Piston and ring to cylinder wall friction is still the biggest power robbing point in the engine. They don't seem to be able to do a lot about it tho. My Ertel pistons have a special machined in surface finish that is supposed to help but I still wonder about long term performance gains. There are ceramic and teflon coatings also but how long do those last??? Racers use low tension oil rings but pay for it with increased oil consumption.

I have a complete roller valve train for my engine but I was patient and picked up the parts cheap. Buying the parts outright is big $$$.

Feb 9, 2004 | 11:19 AM

#18

There Goes The Neighborhood

Elder User

Joined: Apr 2003

Posts: 821

Likes: 0

From: Normal, IL

If you read literature from many Roller Rocker Arm manufacturers, they state minimum average gains of 15-40 hp, and I can honestly say these are very much true. They also lighten the valve train allowing increased rpm potential, and a more stable power curve, along with decreased oil temperature.

Feb 9, 2004 | 11:39 AM

#19

Bill_Beyer

Posting Guru

Joined: Aug 2000

Posts: 2,416

Likes: 4

From: PacNW

Comp Cams states that using their Magnum rockers can net a 15-30 HP gain despite the fact that they're not even a true roller system (they only have a roller tip not a roller fulcrum). They claim it's from reduced friction at the valve tip as well as a more precise valve lift.

Comp Cams catalog

I'm not sure I actually believe them however. Like I said before I bought them because they were cheaper than buying a new set of stock type rockers.

Feb 9, 2004 | 11:43 AM

#20

There Goes The Neighborhood

Elder User

Joined: Apr 2003

Posts: 821

Likes: 0

From: Normal, IL

That's fine, but Harland Sharp full roller rocker arms are worth upwards of 40 hp, and it is a difference you can truly feel. Factory rocker arms are not worth the money or time to locate and buy.

Feb 9, 2004 | 12:23 PM

#21

ranchero77

Senior User

Joined: Oct 2003

Posts: 347

Likes: 0

From: in a house

I have a set of FMS on my 400 I picked up at a car show(saved about 80 bucks)
I see lots of stuff here I agree with. yeah, I noticed a broader range of power, tighter tolerances and it was an easy bolt on.

but when you first start the engine after the swap you can really hear the engine running. its like you took off all the accessories and belts. anyone who spends the time fine tunning their engine can relate to that. they just make the engine run better. next engine I build for myself will be an All Roller Motor.

Feb 9, 2004 | 02:04 PM

#22

dogdays

More Turbo

Joined: Sep 2003

Posts: 514

Likes: 27

I bought a new set of stock-type rockers on the 'bay for 9.97 plus postage. Bill, want to trade for your rollers???
R.

Feb 10, 2004 | 12:42 AM

#23

Torque1st

Posting Legend

Joined: Sep 2001

Posts: 30,255

Likes: 37

All of those competing claims, charts, graphs, etc, etc, is why I use the 20 lb-ft of torque figure. It might be a little conservative but I like to error on the conservative side.