Just kinda curious if the lower priced roller rockers ($150-200 or less range) are worth the money from any standpoints.

I'm running out of places to look for power outside of better heads. So far I've got an edelbrock intake, holley 650 spreadbore, holley powershot filter (soon to be a taller one since the SS hood has more clearance), 268 cam, upgraded HEI ignition with MSD 8.5mm plug wires, headers/exhaust, high volume oil pump, ect.

The engine is a few months old and was built decently mild for MPG purposes (i'm getting 18 highway at 70 with 3.08 posi) but has some head port matching, balanced and blueprinted, stuff like that. My dad built it in a hurry, while I was away at school the old one killed a couple rings. Once apart we discovered a sloppy build with mildly cracked heads, 60 thousandths wear, ect.

In your power range, a good, accurate set of stamped steel rockers will be just fine.
You will realize NO performance gain by switching to roller/roller tipped rockers.
IMO, you'll see improved MPG gains by replacing that Holley with a properly setup Quadrajet carb.

Thanks for the quick reply, glad to have a place like this for ideas and opinions on this kinda stuff.

Glad to have some guidance that's saving me some serious $$$ but unfortunately it's becoming more clear that power that doesn't kill my daily drivability and my ability to jump in and drive 300 miles to college for less than a car payment :D

Maybe synthetic oil? lol I need something...

Only a gearhead looks to fix stuff that isn't broken.

On the carb, before the engine rebuild I had a 600 with vac secondaries and a small open spacer plate.

I've picked up a couple MPG since the engine build even with the new carb and lack of plate so I havent concerned myself with that too much. We've got the Holley tuned pretty good right now, cranks perfect and doesn't have any dead spots through a pull.

Lil lacking from a dead stop but 3.08 gears aren't exactly tire burners with a th350 and such a mild smallblock. From a nice 10-15 MPH roll on the other hand... :D

I tend to ride with other people when it's wet out, I've scared myself too many times even being pretty easy with it.

The most performance gain you can get for your money would be to swap out a higher than stock stall speed convertor if yours is currenly stockl,but then you won't get good gas mileage.
As Bill said,don't waste your money on roller rockers or especially,roller tipped ones..NO performance gain to be found there.

I have to disagree with BillsCamino. I have a test article on just the issue. The test engine was a 350 SBC with trick flow heads and a Comp XE268H cam (.477/.480 lift).

With stock 1.5 rockers, it made 390 hp and 407 ft-lbs of torque, and a 330 hp/387 tq average.

With 1.5 roller rockers, it made 401 hp, 413 ft-lbs, and a 335.6/393.4 average.

With 1.6 rollers it made 414 hp, 423 ft-lbs, and a 343 hp/402 tq average.

1.65 rollers was virtually no gain over the 1.6s.

That article is showing more gain than I would have expected.

I was expecting maybe at least a 5 horse gain (of course I would expect a less mild setup to get more from it)

My heads are normal GM, I foget what castings...but I looked it up and theyre rated by a performance book I have to be "intermediate" on a 4 point scale of "trash" "low" "intermediate" "high perf."

I wasn't looking for anything radical, just trying to squeeze as much as I can on a budget with economy in mind.

I am set to tweak airflow with a taller filter and some kinda of airflow aid to my cowl induction once i finish the SS dash install

I just looked at those numbers again...

My setup is a bit tamer than that. I have only guess to go on for now and I usually guess conservative so I dont overstep boundaries, but I seriously doubt I'm out of the 300-315 HP range

Hopefully I can get to the track soon and punch some numbers for a more accurate power rating...

All I have to say is don't believe everything you read. Mags are in business to sell their advertisers products nothing else. I put a set on a crate L-88 once and could find no difference except they didn't break like the stockers did.

Originally posted by -SS454-:
I have to disagree with BillsCamino. I have a test article on just the issue. The test engine was a 350 SBC with trick flow heads and a Comp XE268H cam (.477/.480 lift).
With stock 1.5 rockers, it made 390 hp and 407 ft-lbs of torque, and a 330 hp/387 tq average.
With 1.5 roller rockers, it made 401 hp, 413 ft-lbs, and a 335.6/393.4 average. First, we were comparing 1.5 ratio rockers only.

Secondly, IF there truely was an 11 hp/ 6 ft lb increase by using roller rockers as a replacement for stamped steel ones...I would have to question the quality and accuracy of the stock rockers tested. Were they a true 1.5 ratio? I would guess not. :rolleyes:
In that power range, you are NOT going to gain that much HP/TQ with a slight reduction of valve train friction.
Setting all this aside...it is hardly worth the $300 investment in roller rockers and see a minute 2% gain in performance.
And I'm not even going to argue the validity of a magazine article... ;)

If we actually got all the performance gains that are published, most of us would be running 1100 HP and getting 19 mpg in a daily driver.

A friends 66 SS clone was in Super Chevy a few years back talking about his 468 engine kit and rear suspension. The article claimed the car was a true SS .. it wasnt .. I owned it prior to him, His " 468 " was actually a 505 cid, the car was driving to the track .. it was actually drivin off the trailer. And that it ran something like 10.70's when it really went closer to 11.50's. I was at the track when SC got their info.

So as was said.. dont beleive all ya read

Yeah dyno tests are worthless compared to opinions and seat-of-pants results :rolleyes:

I disagree also... watch a set of stock rockers flap in the breeze with a Strobotach, you will never ever let any stamped sheet-metal garbage near your engine again.

I've never measured a big block set; but on several sets on various SBs a few years ago, measuring with a dial indicator, we observed an actual valve motion to lobe lift ratio of anything from 1.38 to 1.45, with most of them in the 1.42 to 1.43 range. That was with some mild stockish cams; 929s, seems like there was a Comp 260H, things like that. Some had stock springs, some had entry-level 1.25" replacements like Comp 981 or the like. We certainly weren't doing anything radical.

Somehow I don't think that big block ones have a superior rubber compound, or a better vulcanizing process, in their rubber.

Somehow I don't think that big block ones have a superior rubber compound, or a better vulcanizing process, in their rubber. :D I hear they use urethane. ;)

Performance gains are to be realized at the track,not by some article/dyno test..make a note of weather condtions,and run your car..now waste your money on roller or roller tip rockers,and go back to the track,and see what happens :D
..I predict you won't see a change.
10 HP might be 1 MPH...

You can usually tell a difference the first time you crank a car up after changing them, even before you drop it in gear or let out the clutch. Having all the valves open the same makes the motor run ALOT smoother and motr evenly.

As far as gains at the track, I couldn't say; I'd expect to see a little, not like a half-second or anything, probably tough to measure. The benefits are other than a pure power increase.