I was poking around on ebay and found lots of 1.6 aluminum roller rockers-that look pretty good-CHEAP.

Like $115 a set or something.

Is anybody here running these on an otherwise stock valvetrain? Just wonder if they'd hold up to wimpy/worn out stock valve springs, or if they would be a complete waste of cash.

Please let me know if you've had luck with these.

 

I wouldn't even waste my money with aluminum rockers any more. Comp Pro Magnums are the way to go. Mine have taken a lot of abuse and still work fine although a couple of them don't look like new. I broke a Crane Gold rocker in my SBC years ago. Didn't actually break the rocker but broke the trunnion.

A stock valve train doesn't care what rocker is being used. I'd be more concerned about the increased lift from a 1.6 rocker. Extra lift can cause problems such a spring bind or the bottom of the spring retainer hitting the top of the valve stem.

 

My stock springs probably aren't putting a lot of strain on the rockers. Maybe I could get away with low grade stuff as long the coils dont bind, which I doubt they would with the addtional .03-.04" lift provided by a 1.6 rocker.

Think I'll get a set and let everyone know how they work out.

 

Like Stephen said, I'd still stay away from the aluminum ones. Since you're browsing Ebay, go to Skip White's ebay store and buy the stainless steel roller rockers they sell. They're only about $130 for a set and FAR superior to the aluminum ones. Basically, they're a direct copy of Comp's $300 Pro-Magnums. I'm pretty sure they sell the self-aligning version too, if you need those.

 

Hot damn Pat, are you serious?!? Man that's a good price for full roller SS rockers!! Well, next time.

But yes, i'd avoid AL rockers either way. I have CNC's stamped steel roller tip ones. $80 or so, and I have SA rockers. Roller tip is a good bet for cheap rockers.

 

I have a set of those. I can't speak from experience since my engine isn't together yet, but they look solid. If I am not mistaken they are made by Wysco.

 

Yeah, here's a link to them. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SBC-C...mZ250220883512 They're even cheaper than I remembered, only $119.50. Also, after just reading the listing, apparently I now have the older, more inferior set compared to their new ones made by Wysco! Oh well, that just figures. Lol. I haven't ran mine yet either, since the new motor is still sitting on the engine stand out in the garage.

 

I have that older design as well. Looks like areal nice piece. I'm not sure if the "improvements" will be all that important. Maybe in an extreme high lift. Although the new design does look cleaner in appearance.

 

Oh yeah, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it or anything. Now if I'd have paid $330 for the Comp ones, and they turned around and came out with an improved design a week later or something, then I'd probably be pretty tweaked. Lol. I am glad I chose the regular style instead of the SA style though, since I've bought a set of AFR heads w/guideplates since then too. For that matter, the 083 heads I was going to use originally, had the narrow pushrod slots (old style) anyways. I was also stressing about them not being narrow bodied, until I picked up a used set of aluminum, aftermarket centerbolt valve covers for $40, and they drop right on with the regular width rockers. For those that do need the SA, narrow-bodied ones, CNC Motorsports carries those for about $130. The only downside to those is they're aluminum instead of stainless. I run the old school aluminum Harland Sharps on my 69 Camaro motor, but it's just a summer toy, so they've held up fine. I went with the stainless on the 89 since it gets driven daily, so durability is a definite concern.

 

I wouldnt use the aluminum ones either. A lot of guys that use them, use them for dirt track race cars. And they chuck em after a season. I got a set for free, checked them over, and ended up pretty much giving them away to someone else.

I also know a guy that has run the cheap aluminum ones and found a roller bearing in his oil. Not good.