Is anybody running the self aligning Crane roller rockers for
centerbolt valve covers?

Are they worth the $300.00 is what I want to know?

 

I am running them and no they are not worth $300........

 

I am running the Crane Gold roller rockers, the narrow self-aligning ones for centrebolt valve covers. So far I am very happy with them.

Slow89 what don't you like about them?

 

Nice avatar. Maybe I should have copyrighted it.

Just messing with ya

David

 

Do yall know of any cheaper 1.6's that are self aligning?

 

I have them, so far so good.

 

alumnin will break over time. not really for extended use on the street. look at comps 1318s, better and lighter than cranes

 

If you buy the cheapest thing you can find, you get ..... the cheapest thing you can find. It's not really very wise to buy parts for something you want to be able to depend on that way. That doesn't mean you automatically have to spend the most money possible eiother, that won't always get you even the right part, let alone the best part. Buy good parts, but look for a good price.

I second the Comp recommendation. They're lighter, stronger, and will last into the hundreds of thousands of miles, where aluminum won't; and then even if you wear them out, they can be rebuilt. And they cost about the same as te inferior aluminum ones.

Proform ones are "cheaper", and less expensive to purchase too, if you don't mind walking once in a while at unpredictable times.

 

gm used the crane gold race rockers in the lt4 motors..... they were just a different color from what i am told..... so i ask, if they won't last then why would gm use it????

 

For the same reason they sell 1.25" valve springs in the same kit that don't last... it's because they have no experience in that area and no knowledge of it, their racing operations have always used aftermarket valve train parts, and they botched it. Those rockers don't last any better when bought from GM than they do when bought from anybody else; aluminum still fatigues when used as a moving part. The GM extra price difference doesn't change the fundamental physical properties of the material.

If they always make the right decisions, then why did they put LG4s and L03s in their flagship F cars marketed as "fast", the IROC and TA?

Just because GM does something doesn't make it gospel. If it was, none of us would ever mod anything, because it would already be as good as it could get.

 

I am pretty sure GM would not have put clones of the Crane Gold rockers in the LT4's if there was a chance they would fail during the warranty period. That would not be a smart business decision and GM is not stupid or that company would not have grown to the size it is today.

 

Right... and just how long is the warranty? And how many of those do you suppose they've had to replace? Kind of like the campaign or TSB or whatever (it's not a recall .... yet) that's going on right now on LS1s, where "if small needle bearings are observed draining from the oil pan during an oil change, find the defective rocker..."

You can do what you want and believe who you want; but I'm not putting aluminum in a place where it can fail as a moving part. I've been doing this too long, and seen entirely too many of those rockers just up and break in half while driving down the road, to swallow GM's claims that the same parts they buy from Crane are going to act any different when they come out of a GM box than they do when they come out of a Crane box.

And let's not get started about GM's smart business decision making; we could go on for hours about examples of that, not the least of which is why these very cars right here were so grossly underpowered for so long as compared to their target competition.

 

hell yeah i'd run out and buy some aluminum rockers. it's pretty plain to see i don't know jack about them. i won't comment on rb's lack of knowledge in this area, but you can figure if he says not to do it he's never ran any. if you believe that i got a bridge i want to sell you.

 

thank you for taking the time to explain dude!!!! i understand that aluminum would wear out over time, but the part that actually touches the spring and pushrod is steel.......

all the aluminum body does is pivot....... i really don't see how they wear out but unfortunantly i guess they do.....

i think mine has a liftime warranty so i'll send em back if they mess up!!! lol....

p.s. i'd got the comp magnums but i heard they wouldn't fit under the centerbolt covers......

 

Maybe the Crane Golds wouldn't be the best choice for someone planning on putting 200,000 miles on the engine. In my case they only get about 50 miles a year in quarter mile segments. I still think GM is a pretty strong company and I will stick by that. Just check out all the businesses under that corporate umbrella and see how big they are.

 

BadGTA: Let me know what you think of the Comp Magnum roller rockers. I also have the Vortec heads with centerbolt valve covers, and was looking to get the crane gold rocker's, but if the comp steel rocker's are more efficient and more reliable, and not to mention $120 cheaper, than that's sounding a lot better to me. Let me konw what you think of those, and wether they would fit under the centerbolt covers or not. Anyone else have experience or comments on the comp magnum roller rockers, or know if they'll fit under the centerbolt VC's?? Thanks

 

Yall are talking about these ones right?

1.6 - 3/8" Comp Cams 87-Up SBC Magnum Roller Tip Rocker Arms
Price: $194.95
Part # CC1418-16


Type: Self Aligning
Ratio: 1.6

Magnum roller Tip Rockers offer performance and dependability. The stiffer design produces accurate rocker ratios without flex for maximum lift and performance. The reduced flex and roller tip create a long-lived rocker with less valvetrain wear.

http://www.sdpc2000.com/cart.asp?ac...=1957&pid=29814

Magnum Roller Rocker Arms are:
STRONG: Magnum Roller Rocker Arms are made from 8620 chromemoly steel. This makes them stronger than die cast aluminum or stamped steel rockers. This superior material, along with the Magnum’s super stiff design, assures maximum lift because this rocker arm will not flex.

 

hold up there dude....

i have the crane gold race rockers..... i was saying if they mess up i would send'em back....... i was told they would fit between the baffles on the stock centerbolts..........

i think the comps are the better deal all around.... the magnums are a steel so 200 thousand is easily attainable, also they say them lighten em so they would weigh the same as aluminum for weight reduction benifents.........

but, if your stuck with centerbolts like me, i think your stuck with a narrow body aluminum rocker also.......

to me crane is as good as comp... in some areas..... this just happens to be one of them....

the price for the crane is about the same in jegs for comp for magnums so do your shooping and you might just get a great deal dude!!!!!!

p.s let me know what decision you make......

 

Ok, I guess you meant to say I'd GET the comp magnums, but I thought u meant u had just got them. Ok, but yeah, I have the centerbolt covers as well, so I don't konw what i'm going to do. Do you drive your car daily, or just track stuff? And have you been satisfied with the crane gold's so far? Anyone else have any info on the comp magnums as far as performance or quality?

 

I put a set of the magnum 1.6's on my 305 TBI. Made it run about a tenth faster and gave it a higher powerband by about 150rpm. I was happy with them until I sold the car- I was even tempted to pull them out and keep them before I sold it, but, $150 was worth it if it helped me sell the car. Get the steel ones if you need the car to get you places. Just keep in mind, they arent "full" roller, they ae only roller tip.

 

Do you have a part number for those?....or are they the same ones that I posted about? If so, where did you get them for $150?

 

I looked back at the list of mods I made to my camaro, the rockers I used are (1418-16) for $191.95. I did them about 9 months ago so I had forgotten what I paid for them. It's my understanding that they are valve cover specific due to the roller. In other words, these are thinner then comp's regular ones, but, all standard non-roller rockers are the same width. If I had to do it over again I'd get the summit 1.6 non-roller rockers for half the price of the magnums. I don't think your stock redline warrents the use of roller rockers, plus, if you think about it, the non roller rockers would be lighter. If you do a search, someone explained how you can use the "pre-86" non-rollers without a problem.

 

I would not use the Summit non-roller rockers. IIRC they are stamped sheet metal, same garbage as stock. If you ever watch a set of sheet metal rockers in a running motor with a Strobotach (a dial-back timing light also works for this) you will never again put another one in a "performance" motor; they look like they're made out of rubber. You can literally watch them bend.

The Comp 1418s are ball-fulcrum, roller-tip, investment cast steel. The original post had to do with roller fulcrum rockers, which by their nature have a wide trunnion for the roller system; some are so wide there that the center bolt VC bolt boss thing won't fit down between them. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that GM may have been forced into their choice of rocker supplier (Crane - they're not clones of Crane, they are Crane product just private-labelled) by this simple fact, of whether they fit or not, regardless of whether the rockers themselves are better or worse than other rockers.

Aluminum suffers from a particular failure mode known as fatigue. Steel does not fail that way, its failure modes are different. Fatigue is the result of work-hardening the aluminum, causing its crystalline structure to change. It cannot be detected easily by any form of inspection. It results in sudden complete breakage with no advance warning; just out of the clear blue as it were, the part breaks. Anyone who has any experirnce delaing with aircraft knows about this; it's why alot of the scheduled maintenance on aircraft consists of simply replacing certain parts at some specified usage interval (hours, takeoff/landing cycles, whatever). These parts have reached a sufficient number of stress cycles that a fatigue failure has become a possibility.

Aluminum rockers are for racing, where the crew changes them after every race or however often. They are unsuited for the street because they are really only designed for a few thousand miles of stress cycles, and beyind that, a fatigue failure could occur without warning. The majority of them that I've seen break were not being particularly stressed at the time, and they have usually broken either right behind the roller tip, or where the beam of the rocker going toward the tip joins the center trunnion. I've even seen an instance where a car was running fine, the owner parked it, and when they next started it, it broke right at startup.

 

RB83 I second what you said about aluminum. I worked in a bicycle shop for four years through highschool, and I have seen the differences in fatigue resistance in aluminum vs. other alloys. In the bike industry, the advantage to aluminum tubing is that you can make it thicker, for more immediate strength, and not weigh a ton. But other alloys, such as chromoly or titanium can be made with thinner walls to achieve light weight. But thats tubing, not the issue here, but similar. Steel is far more resilient than aluminum, thats why springs are made with it. You take rigidity vs. longevity into question when using aluminum automotive parts. I do not think anything can be worse than the stamped OEM rockers, and they last forever. So if all you are doing is trying to achieve more lift in a motor that stops making power at 4500rpm, you can acomplish that by simply changing the ratio of the rockers. The only facts I know are that I achieved more lift than OEM 1.5's when I installed roller tip 1.6's and I feel that the ratio had more to do with it than the rollerized tip in my particular application. And non-roller tip rockers look to be all about the same width. Stamped or not, they are as good or better than what your car came with, and they will give you more lift. It makes sense the stiffness of the magnums would maintain more consistant valvetrain operation, so if you've got an extra hundred dollars to spend maybe they are worth getting, hell, spend another $30 and get hardened pushrods too.

 

weel the motor i'm building for my ta is going together in about a month so i expect to know soon......

it's going to be a street/strip vehicle like for crusing and stuff.......
and yes i plan to drive it whenever i feel the need.....

i agree some what on the aluminum fatigue factor but not as soon as a few thousand miles.....

if mine break, the just break..... i'll send em back to jegs and demand a refund that i will use for nother type that will last longer!!!

"if and when they break".........

as for your situation, a roller tip only roker will not give any real godawlful hp numbers, but a full roller rocker i feel will give somthing solid, even if it's only 10hp at 6000 rpm....... thats still 10hp more than you started with.....

thats how the pros do it, 5 here, 10 there etc.........

i'm sure whatever your chice will be you will have to give up somthing, duribility, fit etc.....

i ordered a set of valve cover from gm..... there badass and offer about a 1/4 inch taller clearence thn stock centerbolts.....

 

What's the part number on those beauties?

 

i got mine from gm where i live because i didn't have the cash right now......

you can get them from scoggin dickey or gm perfromance parts online........

there like 120 or somthing.... they come in black as shown, polished or crome.......

 

hey, just an offhand question going back to different steel alloys. How do you think heat treated, hardened steel rockers would fair as far as flexing too much? That process makes tools stronger.