Roller Rockers in Stock - Page 2

Jesse Knapp · 05-28-2008, 11:37 PM

This thread has been an exceptional read. I really enjoyed it. From my background in class racing (superstock), I see stock going too modified. Each new allowance (rule change) creates new weak links. My first engine had independent or stud mounted roller rockers. As I learned I went with larger cams, spring pressures approaching 300 on seats and started breaking the roller rockers. Ended up with a Jesel shaft system, then the 350 plus seats were cool. All I worried about then was the lifters and springs going away. Stockers are going rpms that my engine went. I think it's gone a little too far. Although the times they go is mighty impressive the cost factor is going to end up like superstock maybe with more breakage though. We, in superstock, could lighten some things in the rotating assembly. For what it's worth, and one who wants to build for stock, I vote stock to not allow the roller rockers and maybe for the eliminator to regress somewhat. Reduce the spring pressures, go back to stock size pushrods, etc. Superstock costs are high and I hate to see stock go there as well. Just my opinion.......

Dwight Southerland · 05-29-2008, 08:32 AM

Jesse-
I wish it could happen.

Steve Calabro · 05-30-2008, 11:29 PM

I have a question. Is it not true that both Ford and Chrysler motors with hydraulic lifters came with stamped steel rocker arms NOT the iron ones that most racers use that came on the solid lifter motors only?

View Poll Results: Should roller rockers be allowed on all stockers?
Yes	113	53.81%
No	97	46.19%
Voters: 210. You may not vote on this poll

05-28-2008, 11:37 PM	#1
Jesse Knapp Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 109 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Roller Rockers in Stock This thread has been an exceptional read. I really enjoyed it. From my background in class racing (superstock), I see stock going too modified. Each new allowance (rule change) creates new weak links. My first engine had independent or stud mounted roller rockers. As I learned I went with larger cams, spring pressures approaching 300 on seats and started breaking the roller rockers. Ended up with a Jesel shaft system, then the 350 plus seats were cool. All I worried about then was the lifters and springs going away. Stockers are going rpms that my engine went. I think it's gone a little too far. Although the times they go is mighty impressive the cost factor is going to end up like superstock maybe with more breakage though. We, in superstock, could lighten some things in the rotating assembly. For what it's worth, and one who wants to build for stock, I vote stock to not allow the roller rockers and maybe for the eliminator to regress somewhat. Reduce the spring pressures, go back to stock size pushrods, etc. Superstock costs are high and I hate to see stock go there as well. Just my opinion....... __________________ Jesse Knapp 4899 STK, SS

05-29-2008, 08:32 AM	#2
Dwight Southerland VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything. Posts: 2,002 Likes: 64 Liked 783 Times in 195 Posts	Re: Roller Rockers in Stock Jesse- I wish it could happen.

05-30-2008, 11:29 PM	#3
Steve Calabro Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 198 Likes: 226 Liked 43 Times in 12 Posts	Re: Roller Rockers in Stock I have a question. Is it not true that both Ford and Chrysler motors with hydraulic lifters came with stamped steel rocker arms NOT the iron ones that most racers use that came on the solid lifter motors only? __________________ Steve Calabro 1199 STK, SS