I think a split of the old header would sound better, giving you dual-exhaust like the classic Hotrodders used to do to both Fords & Chevys. No reason a split couldn't be done to an AMC-sixer.
@@jackdale9831 if you buy a aftermarket WJ or TJ you’ll have a true dual at the manifold…well let me rephrase that the factory ones are dual outlets as well but they make less torque then the aftermarket ones from thorley or banks…the clone ones for 100-150 bucks work pretty good as well if they’re checked for a flat flange and good welds before installing it
Not much of a surprise but the 10% increase is more than I would have predicted. Another advantage to rollers, I believe, is that the engine has better throttle response in addition to more total torque and hp.
Basically there was another show that tested actual ratio of factory rockers on old and new vehicles alike... A 1.5 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.3-1.4 and a 1.6 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.35-1.5... So even going to a roller rocker 1.6 from a reputable rocker manufacter where 1.6==1.6 ratio you will gain over a factory 1.6 so it's not due to friction losses. And in the case of going from a factory 1.5 ratio which might be 1.34 or something to a true 1.60 you just gained .26 in rocker ratio or 15% more lift at the valve! This is where the power is, and in this 10+HP situation where the torque curve is elevated throughout this is exactly what is going on.
Collin Hoagland How about building a torque monster 5 liter striker. You bore the block to take sleeves sized to fit chevy pistons. Great for off road and towing.
@@oneselmo what rods or wrist pins do you use? I imagine Chevy wrist pins, but are those the same diameter as the Jeep wrist pins? I could do the homework, but i'm being lazy.
In Argentina we have a heavily developed Cherokee engine (with less stroke and more bore), that we use to power the Torinos and GTXs in our top racing series: TC (Turismo Carretera). It uses a dry sump lubrication system, 2 Weber IDF 48-48 carbs, and develops 460 BHP, revving until it gets to 9000 rpm.
The Horsepower Monster search a couple of onboards and you will see what I’m talking about. It used to rev to 9500 rpm to make the same power but now it takes only to 9000 rpm. It uses a 14 mm cam and altough the head doesn’t flow that much, they use a lot of luz de leva or cam light (the thin layer of oil) (I don’t know the translation) so the cam opens way faster.
I wish I would've seen this before I replaced my valve cover gasket. I'm sure the difference in power and torque is insignificant on a stock engine, but the other benefits are worth the price. Can you test 1.7:1 roller rockers with a stock camshaft?
Good video! You just talked me out of roller rockers for my Corvair. The ones I was considering only had a roller tip, but still had a half ball pivot, which is where most of the friction losses are.. Not enough power gain to justify the cost. TYVM!
These engine builders at Newcomer are so damn good i am gonna buy a Jeep! These motors are bad to the bone smooth torque monsters. Bring back the straight 8
Test the bronze bushing trunnion vs the needle bearing trunnion. I've heard stories of the needles coming out the rocker arms and doing bad things to the internals.
That would be a fun test, but I doubt we'd see much difference. I've heard those horror stories too, but it's always a friend of a friend, or a drag racer with a really violent valvetrain. You never really hear of it on a street engine with a well-sorted valvetrain setup. Thanks for watching!
Yeah it happens especially if you use cheap junk China made roller rockers so don't use them & pay the price & buy good ones like Sharps or some of the comp cams or old crane golds . It happens mostly on all out drag race engines or high rpm race engines & most of those guys also have the engine blocks oil returns screened off so those nasty little needle bearings don't fall to the bottom of the engine & get sucked up into the oil sump & chewed up in the oil pump !
What about doing common jeep things like rock crawling and off roading? High heat, high strain, is be interested in a test on longevity of roller rockers
Basically there was another show that tested actual ratio of factory rockers on old and new vehicles alike... A 1.5 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.3-1.4 and a 1.6 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.35-1.5... So even going to a roller rocker 1.6 from a reputable rocker manufacter where 1.6==1.6 ratio you will gain over a factory 1.6 so it's not due to friction losses. And in the case of going from a factory 1.5 ratio which might be 1.34 or something to a true 1.60 you just gained .26 in rocker ratio or 15% more lift at the valve! This is where the power is, and in this 10% increase situation where the torque curve is elevated throughout this is exactly what is going on.
Swapped some on an old small block build and I figured about 15HP , good video I have been thinking of adding them to my stroker TJ . Thanks for the amazing work!!!
As far as I can tell they only make the engine run smoother and respond better to throttle input. This small power bump will be unnoticeable but it may feel faster because it's responding faster
When I'm 5 hours from pavement in Death Valley NP. A place where water is much easier to find than gasoline. "If you know what you are looking for." A place where there is only 4 gas stations, to cover more than 3.4 million acres. With nearly 1000 miles of mostly unpaved roads. Not to mention all the BLM and Forest Service Land that surrounds it, that also have no gas stations. I will be happy to install anything that conserves fuel. 10 horse power, that's fuel that didn't go out the tailpipe! $350 doesn't seem like a lot of money to me.
I would love to see the turbo Jeep Six dyno test, I bet it's wicked. Also watch the Long Rod VS Short Rod test on Engine Masters that just came out. There is so little difference that it makes no difference.
That's stunning, I always thought rocker deflection didn't happen until higher revs! This is the most surprising lesson learned I've ever had. And exactly what he Said, it's money well spent!
Now you need roller lifters. Test engines were built with them circa 89 or 90 iirc. As far as the stock rocker arms go. Prior to 1988 or 89 they were stamped in house with a very meticulous die maintenance program. There was one die maker who's full time responsibility was working on the parts for the transfer die used in these parts. Particularly the punches used to form the seat for the rocker arm bearing. Prior to '73 or '74 the AMC six used a shaft mounted rocker arm assembly. After the press room at Kenosha was shut down these parts were out sourced. In terms of the roller rockers. Would it help of the pushrod end had the seat closer to the cam. This would allow a shorter pushrod which should always be a good thing in an OHV engine. Or would it cause an issue with pushrod angles. The 4.0 could really benefit from a better head design. It might be a question of market* size but with modern ignition technology it sould be possible to design and build a good flowing cross flow head with the intake on the distributor side of the block. Development of their inline sixes is something the US manufactures really dropped the ball on. Built as standard economy engines I suppose V-8s were the easy way out. Pontiac tried but the bean counters shut that down. It is my understanding that OHC experimental versions of the 232 were built in the 60s. But didnt go anywhere do to cost issues. The test mules or mule most likely used a camshaft assembly simply bolted to the top of the head. *Edlebrock's aluminum head really couldn't stay too far due to CARB requirements for aftermarket parts intended for street use.
I've been running Sharp's rollers for over 40 years now on a lot of different type engines with absolutely no failures & always saw HP gains. I also use them on my BBC Chevy motor home in the 1.8 ratio to provide .040 inch increased lift. Yes you CAN feel the difference!
I am curious, what is the delta in heat generated in the engine between the stock sheetmetal rockers and the rollers? I mean, you say it helps in the video, and other commentators have also said as such, but...what is that difference? I don't think I have ever seen anyone demonstrate the difference with actually measured results.
Hey men great channel and great presentation I am a ford guy and would like and love to see a video on a street able ford 300 6 cylinder with a mild turbo
Engine masters did this but they used roller rockers with a greater ratio than the stockers which means the valves got more lift. I always knew less friction means more power can be put to useful work but the question is, how much? The engine Masters test did not answer that question. Yes, they got more power but how much of it was by the valves getting more lift? Your test was was genuine and answered the question as asked, not with an unknown factor thrown in. Well done.
The reduced friction is a given, overall stiffness gain I am not so sure about when using low pressure valve springs......I have done some testing on rockers plotting the lift curve vs. crank rotation and the stamped rockers can have an exaggerated progressive/degressive ratio if you will and the roller rockers can provide a lift curve cycle that provides more valve open area/time. I suspect that is part of what is happening here......1.6 ratio rockers can be many different ratios throughout the lift curve......only way to know what you have is to degree and plot out the lift curve cycle to compare them. Very nice job on the build on this engine ....It is making really good power, more than I thought it would. Good work guys. Are there any flow numbers from the head?
I'd be interested in a way to convert to a roller cam along with roller rockers. Modern oil doesn't have the zinc content these engines were designed for with flat tappet. I'm sure my 4.0 has a worn cam as a result of running with regular oil for the past 5+ years at it being over 220k miles.
@@Zapablast05 Because I didn't know it was a flat tappet cam when I got it. And I didn't have it for that long. Nor do I know if the previous owner knew.
@@flatheadfletch Are you suggesting I just regularly replace the cam and lifters? Or even consider where the metal shavings go as the surfaces are worn down? This is why I decided I'm just doing away with the 4.0 all together. Chrysler should have updated the engine like Ford did with their flat tappet engines vs doing nothing about it.
@Zapablast05 Rotella has to pass the new oil standards, and shell reduced the zddp levels to standard motor oil levels. T6 meets the new ck4 emissions standards so it doesn't have the same zddp as it used to. Valvoline vr1 has high zddp levels, though.
So...there's no need for a stiffer spring "upgrade" for sub 400 Hp inline six's? Seems like anything under 5k rpm's, there's less worry about valve float?
From testing an average of five HP. Anything that reduces friction and increases valve train accuracy is worth it. I imagine GM went to a roller rocker type system on the LS engines for a reason.
GM LS engines use roller lifters but not rockers. They keep weight off the tip using non roller cast rockers. The trunion is a bearing but not the tip.
When you use roller rocker arms with the correct Geometry it reduces side load on the valves it requires extra work. That looks like a cool jeep engine also.
More consistent then stamped. Someone did a comparison of stock 1.5 ratio chevy rockers and seen a variance of +/- .03. Also less drag and free up power.
@@tristanabell2117 engine master Dyno tested Stock stamp rockers vs roller tips vs full rollers to 7,000 rpm. The stock stamp and the full roller made basically the same power and the roller tips were down on power.
Great video and I have personally done similar dyno tests. The end result is always the same. Great job guys. The hard part is convincing the customer.
stock stamped to full roller is an easy test because stock stamped are so inconsistent on the ratio. what we need is a test of roller tip vs full roller.
Those same gains can be had on a modified 5.7L SBC engine that runs street or strip. Mine did on the dyno. Extensive Head porting , a good set of competition shorty headers and a good camshaft profile can all work together to free up a bunch of extra horsepower and torque. It ended up being a lot of extra bang for the buck. Also running your pistons to zero deck height seems to really wake up engines since it greatly affects the quench area in the combustion chamber. The head gasket is then the only thing that determines what your piston to head clearance will end up being.
This test has been done many many times, the results are always about the same, and people continue to think roller rockers are a waste of money. As mentioned below, much comes down to stamped rockers being very inconsistent in size, not simply reduced friction.
Much easier on the valve train, less debris getting into oil, cooler temps, less friction, more power, better economy. Yeah such a bad investment :S But of course they'll burn all their money converting to horseshoe and boring out the TB and putting spacers everywhere with messed up intakes...
How are roller rockers on holding up to many miles? I have never understood why LS engines don't use them. I always figured they don't have as long of a life, but that seems counter intuitive because of less friction.
Thinking about getting some roller rockers for my tired 3.1 v6 buick century. If they do less wear and stress on the motor then sounds like a good way to get more life out of it. At 233k now.
This has opened my eyes big time. I currently working on a K20a all motor. I'm looking for aftermarket roller rockers that will make my engine rev to 10K safely. I did not know it could possibly gain power out of it as well. Problem is, all after market rollers eliminates Vtec which is what I'm not trying to do. Anyway, keep the videos coming. Love them.
This test at best is inconclusive, you need to measure the lift at the valve with both rockers to verify that they both produce the same lift, often times stock rockers don't live up to their advertised ratio
I have a 2004 i6 w/ 145,000 mi. It runs good but the tick is getting louder. If I was to spend $6000 on motor rebuild, wouldn’t it be smarter to put a small V8 in it ?
@@clasvirhodes4969 it depends on what state you're in and the emission laws of that state, if you were to do it though and stay compliant you would have to use an engine of the same year or later model you cannot use them earlier engine and get it certified to comply with emission laws
@@clasvirhodes4969 -For a Jeep. The Ultimate is a Cummins R2.8 crate engine. Has lots of power down low. Could save money on larger tires. Because you might not need a gear ratio change.
@@clasvirhodes4969 6k rebuild lol what are you rebuilding a 12 cyl Ferrari ? @ 145k your due for a timing chain set are you sure your tick requires a rebuild? Checked flexplate bolts? You thinking piston slap? You been using high zinc oil or an additive? You can get master rebuild kit under 1200 depending on if you need pistons, 200-400 machining costs, plus labor if you cannot do yourself. These rockers in the video are way to costly HP to dollar for a mere 9hp. The head itself for all those runs is the bottleneck that's why none of the manifolds had any gains. If you was to do just the cam swap, port matching, small header, and some tuning bring your 191hp stocker to around 250hp they got the other 60hp from the overbore and stroke increasing displacement of which they cannot take full advantage of due to the head. Depending on the V8 you was going to pick to put in you could be looking at around 190-240hp in stock form and have all the disadvantages of a unknown v8 90degree engine versus a reliable I6. Then you have to mod the V8 to work in the jeep... Where you could have just cammed the 4.0L and called it a day. Oh and that V8 swap is gonna cost you MPGs even at the same power output. GL with your decision. If it was me I would celebrate having one of the best looking body styles and the last year model of the GC with that body, the last year for the highest output of the 4.0L and having a full size spare under the back floor out of the way/weather. We will just have to look passed the lack of radiator protection, bumpers, tow hooks, and hope we don't ditch it or try to tackle a deer with it.
Maybe you should consider investegating how the rocker arm ratio varies throug the lift range? A 1.6:1 rocker arm does not increase lobelift 1.6 times from 0.006 lifter rise to peak lift. More people should talk way more about this. :)
I'm at 46 seconds in and i acknowledge that Truth in fact is YES roller rockers associate the geometric adaptations intercourse longer push-rod and freeing up most frictionless assembly.. (in my humble opinion)
That was perfect, excellent intro, narrating and testing... then as I wondered what the cost for the gain in performance was, you gave it. You guys rock.
I know you guys are talking about horsepower and torque on the little 4.0 would you guys be willing to do a comparison a four barrel TBI versus a two barrel TBI. I’m curious to with the horse Power and torque curve would be
I’ve worked at Harland Sharp for 20+ years. I’m bias but our stuff is the best. 100% domestic materials and manufacturing right here in the USA 🇺🇸 Thanks for making this video.
I believe the power gain from the rollers is from the adjustable feature more than the friction aspect with these light beehives. In fact the way to disprove my contention would be to use adjustable pushrods on the stamped rockers. Almost all other vids I've ever seen bar this one, show rollers make hardly any difference. Of course rollers are so much better it is ridiculous esp when using aftermarket camshafts and you'd never ever use stamped in a .575"+ lift camshaft but yeah... I'd like to see a bit of user dialled preload on those stamped arms. There is always the possibility that stock Jeep rockers are worse than any other brand for flex but they look more sturdy than Chevy stamped to my eye.
We used a different set of pushrods with the correct length for the stamped rockers. Newcomer set the preload at a half turn for both. Thanks for watching
The Harland sharp rockers are also much lighter than comparable aluminum rr's, I saw a comparison where they weighed several different ones and the Harland Sharp one's weighed up to 60 grams less EACH.
Always interesting with tests like these. Some other tests show no improvement with roller rockers. So it seems it too is case specific just like with exhaust headers..
The power loss is ONLY from the less accurate amount of rocker ratio. Stamped rockers never measure there full ratio. So if 1.6 stock. If you check the ratio I'd bet you'd find the stamped ones less than that around 1.55 or so. Not a friction loss. I've seen a few others tests like this. One using a stamped rocker and then machined to the right ratio check against roller rockers and there was no power gain
That's because the ratios were corrected & all the same after it was done which probably cost more to have a machine shop correct this plus the fact that a stamped rocker will flex a lot especially if used with a very stiff valve spring opening at high rpms verses a billet aluminum or stainless steel roller rocker. Most of the power coming back is from the ratios being all the same because it's keeping all of the cylinders compression balanced being they are all opening at the same time & amounts & not all over the place . The other thing a guy can do is go a bigger ratio if it's offered let's say from a 1.5 to a 1.6 or 1.7 to increase the lift of the cam which can make more power provided the heads will flow enough with more lift & the valve guides are cut enough to allow more lift with out the valve spring caps bottoming on the tip of the valve guides but the ratio change won't affect duration or how long the valve stays open or the LSA of the cam ! They are worth it if it's a engine that you want more power out of plus a smoother easier starting engine as well . Just did a set of 1.6 ratio roller rockers on a Chrysler 451 stroker a iron headed 9.1 compression ratio street pump gas engine & it made almost 500 HP & 530 ftlbs of torque at 4,200 rpms on the dyno & if we were to stick with the stock 1.5 stamped I am sure it would have probably made 30 HP or more less HP than it did .
But Wth on my solid flat tapper 406 SBC with 11:45-1 it unfortunately gained 35 hp with 1.65 rollers over 1.5 ball rockers. Of course the 150 shot made more of a difference. It was 1991🤷🏻♂️🤣
Need help wit my engine I live in ATL ga ima young black Male wit a 1999 jeep Cherokee with this inline 6 I want bore stroke and clean it and make boost it I want it faster
..If the power would of shown up toward the end of the pull when friction is at the highest, but it didn't.. the power curve is parallel across the rpm range. the rollers have a higher Ratio than the stamp steel. Put a dial gauge on it.
I've got some Harland Sharp adjustable rollers, but haven't found any references on proper adjustment. if anyone has a link to setting them up on a 4.0, can you share? Thx
8:54 "A full roller rocker arm... is easier on the overall valvetrain." I would challenge that statement. Much heavier aluminum roller rocker arm requires heavier springs, increasing load, wear and parasitic drag. It's a vicious circle, everything is a compromise between power and engine life.
So sorry if I'm completely wrong but what's the benefit of a short 6to1 exhaust header in a stroker? Engine set for torque and exhaust set for power in high rpm range? I get its a dyno mule but...?
Here the thing i was told by some engine builders who no way more then me , if you were to take the stock stamped rockers and mic them they are all over the board factory imperfections , which throw all the # uneven ,causing most of the hp loss , this was on bbc and under 6000k ish rpm
![We Put All the Tricks into Newcomer Racing's Big Power Jeep Engine Build [Dyno Surprise]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YWcZMjA7ZgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![We Put All the Tricks into Newcomer Racing's Big Power Jeep Engine Build [Dyno Surprise]](/img/tr.png)
![We Test 5 Jeep Cylinder Heads [How Much is Porting Worth?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qPnC58wK6Lw/mqdefault.jpg)
This was one of those, "well... yeah." videos.
That six into one header really made that old Jeep motor sound good.
Well it was run open so...
@@Future-Preps35 4 bangers sound like ass😂😂😂
I think a split of the old header would sound better, giving you dual-exhaust like the classic Hotrodders used to do to both Fords & Chevys. No reason a split couldn't be done to an AMC-sixer.
@@jackdale9831 if you buy a aftermarket WJ or TJ you’ll have a true dual at the manifold…well let me rephrase that the factory ones are dual outlets as well but they make less torque then the aftermarket ones from thorley or banks…the clone ones for 100-150 bucks work pretty good as well if they’re checked for a flat flange and good welds before installing it
Not much of a surprise but the 10% increase is more than I would have predicted. Another advantage to rollers, I believe, is that the engine has better throttle response in addition to more total torque and hp.
Basically there was another show that tested actual ratio of factory rockers on old and new vehicles alike... A 1.5 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.3-1.4 and a 1.6 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.35-1.5... So even going to a roller rocker 1.6 from a reputable rocker manufacter where 1.6==1.6 ratio you will gain over a factory 1.6 so it's not due to friction losses. And in the case of going from a factory 1.5 ratio which might be 1.34 or something to a true 1.60 you just gained .26 in rocker ratio or 15% more lift at the valve! This is where the power is, and in this 10+HP situation where the torque curve is elevated throughout this is exactly what is going on.
I love big inline 6 cylinder engines, they just sound cool and that jeep motor sounded awesome. Super informational video,Thanks.
Thanks for watching!
ya, i love my stock 97 4.0
.
it just sounds so much better than my GM 3.1 v6...... but that GM makes a KILLER intake noise
"I love big inline 6 cylinder engines," - Me too!!!... they make great paper weights in the shop on windy days!!
Been waiting for this to come out, looking for more more ways to blow money on my I6
Thanks!
Hell if you want to spend money I've got one word for you...Billet :)
Collin Hoagland How about building a torque monster 5 liter striker. You bore the block to take sleeves sized to fit chevy pistons. Great for off road and towing.
@@oneselmo that’s an interesting setup…I got a spare block for my off road rig I think I’m gonna look into that!!
@@oneselmo what rods or wrist pins do you use? I imagine Chevy wrist pins, but are those the same diameter as the Jeep wrist pins? I could do the homework, but i'm being lazy.
In Argentina we have a heavily developed Cherokee engine (with less stroke and more bore), that we use to power the Torinos and GTXs in our top racing series: TC (Turismo Carretera). It uses a dry sump lubrication system, 2 Weber IDF 48-48 carbs, and develops 460 BHP, revving until it gets to 9000 rpm.
That sounds pretty cool
The Horsepower Monster search a couple of onboards and you will see what I’m talking about. It used to rev to 9500 rpm to make the same power but now it takes only to 9000 rpm. It uses a 14 mm cam and altough the head doesn’t flow that much, they use a lot of luz de leva or cam light (the thin layer of oil) (I don’t know the translation) so the cam opens way faster.
I wish I would've seen this before I replaced my valve cover gasket. I'm sure the difference in power and torque is insignificant on a stock engine, but the other benefits are worth the price.
Can you test 1.7:1 roller rockers with a stock camshaft?
1966 289-solid lifter, hipo cam, roller rockers! VERY NICE!
Good video! You just talked me out of roller rockers for my Corvair. The ones I was considering only had a roller tip, but still had a half ball pivot, which is where most of the friction losses are.. Not enough power gain to justify the cost. TYVM!
I'd love to see a stock 4.0 compared to a 1.65 or 1.7 roller rocker.
Yummy!😘
Agreed, I've been wondering this myself.
I have the 1.7 H&S roller rockers in my 2000 Xj. Yes, it gives exactly what the 4.0 lacks
@@mortenjohansen4120 did you need to add a 5/8" valve cover spacer? Or did the roller rockers clear your valve cover?
@ yes, I had to buy a aftermarket valve cover from Summit
Thats a beautiful valve cover spacer guys !
Yes rollers are are much better. No scrub or push on valve stem wearing out guides !
These engine builders at Newcomer are so damn good i am gonna buy a Jeep! These motors are bad to the bone smooth torque monsters. Bring back the straight 8
Test the bronze bushing trunnion vs the needle bearing trunnion. I've heard stories of the needles coming out the rocker arms and doing bad things to the internals.
That would be a fun test, but I doubt we'd see much difference. I've heard those horror stories too, but it's always a friend of a friend, or a drag racer with a really violent valvetrain. You never really hear of it on a street engine with a well-sorted valvetrain setup. Thanks for watching!
Yeah it happens especially if you use cheap junk China made roller rockers so don't use them & pay the price & buy good ones like Sharps or some of the comp cams or old crane golds . It happens mostly on all out drag race engines or high rpm race engines & most of those guys also have the engine blocks oil returns screened off so those nasty little needle bearings don't fall to the bottom of the engine & get sucked up into the oil sump & chewed up in the oil pump !
What about doing common jeep things like rock crawling and off roading? High heat, high strain, is be interested in a test on longevity of roller rockers
Good info. Putting theses on my 98 5.9 Cherokee this weekend
Basically there was another show that tested actual ratio of factory rockers on old and new vehicles alike... A 1.5 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.3-1.4 and a 1.6 ratio rocker usually had a ratio of 1.35-1.5... So even going to a roller rocker 1.6 from a reputable rocker manufacter where 1.6==1.6 ratio you will gain over a factory 1.6 so it's not due to friction losses. And in the case of going from a factory 1.5 ratio which might be 1.34 or something to a true 1.60 you just gained .26 in rocker ratio or 15% more lift at the valve! This is where the power is, and in this 10% increase situation where the torque curve is elevated throughout this is exactly what is going on.
Good timing, I'm going through the debate over this upgrade now. It's not snake oil. Efficiency is a good thing
I would say between the net gain in HP and torque and less heat, wear and stress it’s worth the extra $$$.
Swapped some on an old small block build and I figured about 15HP , good video I have been thinking of adding them to my stroker TJ . Thanks for the amazing work!!!
What are your thoughts on the 1.7 ratio Harland sharp roller rockers? Would be cool to see if those increase power over the 1.6.
The 1.7 I believe would increase more HP but depending on the camshaft they have I believe they 1.6 was best option for the camshaft 🤔
As far as I can tell they only make the engine run smoother and respond better to throttle input. This small power bump will be unnoticeable but it may feel faster because it's responding faster
When I'm 5 hours from pavement in Death Valley NP. A place where water is much easier to find than gasoline. "If you know what you are looking for." A place where there is only 4 gas stations, to cover more than 3.4 million acres. With nearly 1000 miles of mostly unpaved roads. Not to mention all the BLM and Forest Service Land that surrounds it, that also have no gas stations. I will be happy to install anything that conserves fuel. 10 horse power, that's fuel that didn't go out the tailpipe! $350 doesn't seem like a lot of money to me.
Thank you for the test. It would be nice if you could show the results of different rocker ratios.
This !!!
That's more than I would have thought.
Need more vids of comparing same kind of parts . People can see why some parts are more expensive than others . Great vid . 👍
Thanks! We've got a cylinder head test coming up soon. Should be fun. Thanks for watching!
You should have had them do that test with fuel injectors 30lb injectors instead of a carburetor
I would love to see the turbo Jeep Six dyno test, I bet it's wicked.
Also watch the Long Rod VS Short Rod test on Engine Masters that just came out. There is so little difference that it makes no difference.
@@Future-Preps35 even if it's a 90 degree V?
Great video, and really nice job narrating. 👍👍👍
Thanks very much! It is always nice to have your work appreciated. And thanks for watching!
That's stunning, I always thought rocker deflection didn't happen until higher revs!
This is the most surprising lesson learned I've ever had. And exactly what he Said, it's money well spent!
Now you need roller lifters. Test engines were built with them circa 89 or 90 iirc. As far as the stock rocker arms go. Prior to 1988 or 89 they were stamped in house with a very meticulous die maintenance program. There was one die maker who's full time responsibility was working on the parts for the transfer die used in these parts. Particularly the punches used to form the seat for the rocker arm bearing. Prior to '73 or '74 the AMC six used a shaft mounted rocker arm assembly. After the press room at Kenosha was shut down these parts were out sourced. In terms of the roller rockers. Would it help of the pushrod end had the seat closer to the cam. This would allow a shorter pushrod which should always be a good thing in an OHV engine. Or would it cause an issue with pushrod angles.
The 4.0 could really benefit from a better head design. It might be a question of market* size but with modern ignition technology it sould be possible to design and build a good flowing cross flow head with the intake on the distributor side of the block. Development of their inline sixes is something the US manufactures really dropped the ball on. Built as standard economy engines I suppose V-8s were the easy way out. Pontiac tried but the bean counters shut that down. It is my understanding that OHC experimental versions of the 232 were built in the 60s. But didnt go anywhere do to cost issues. The test mules or mule most likely used a camshaft assembly simply bolted to the top of the head.
*Edlebrock's aluminum head really couldn't stay too far due to CARB requirements for aftermarket parts intended for street use.
I've been running Sharp's rollers for over 40 years now on a lot of different type engines with absolutely no failures & always saw HP gains. I also use them on my BBC Chevy motor home in the 1.8 ratio to provide .040 inch increased lift. Yes you CAN feel the difference!
I’ve been thinking of putting some on my tow truck. Thanks for letting me know they’ll work on a heavy slow revving vehicle
I am curious, what is the delta in heat generated in the engine between the stock sheetmetal rockers and the rollers? I mean, you say it helps in the video, and other commentators have also said as such, but...what is that difference? I don't think I have ever seen anyone demonstrate the difference with actually measured results.
My 4.0 isn't running right currently. I'd love this in it's place!
Hey men great channel and great presentation I am a ford guy and would like and love to see a video on a street able ford 300 6 cylinder with a mild turbo
Thanks! And thanks for watching!
Nothing beats real world dyno testing!
Makes me wonder how much difference roller cam bearings would make.
Engine masters did this but they used roller rockers with a greater ratio than the stockers which means the valves got more lift. I always knew less friction means more power can be put to useful work but the question is, how much? The engine Masters test did not answer that question. Yes, they got more power but how much of it was by the valves getting more lift? Your test was was genuine and answered the question as asked, not with an unknown factor thrown in. Well done.
Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for watching!
1.6? Or 1.7 rockers is the question I was waiting to be answered
4:50 -- 1.6:1
@@TheHorsepowerMonster thanks
No problem.
Cool! Have you guys done a test comparing the stock 91'-98' 4.0 HO intake (log intake) vs the stock 99'-06' 4.0 HO intake (horseshoe intake)?
The reduced friction is a given, overall stiffness gain I am not so sure about when using low pressure valve springs......I have done some testing on rockers plotting the lift curve vs. crank rotation and the stamped rockers can have an exaggerated progressive/degressive ratio if you will and the roller rockers
can provide a lift curve cycle that provides more valve open area/time. I suspect that is part of what is happening here......1.6 ratio rockers can be many different ratios throughout the lift curve......only way to know what you have is to degree and plot out the lift curve cycle to compare them.
Very nice job on the build on this engine ....It is making really good power, more than I thought it would. Good work guys.
Are there any flow numbers from the head?
I'd be interested in a way to convert to a roller cam along with roller rockers. Modern oil doesn't have the zinc content these engines were designed for with flat tappet. I'm sure my 4.0 has a worn cam as a result of running with regular oil for the past 5+ years at it being over 220k miles.
Why didn’t you run Rotella T6 for the past 5+ years for higher ZDDP content?
Probably so ! However if you put new cam and lifters back in. You wouldn’t notice a difference !!!!! It’s that small a difference
@@Zapablast05 Because I didn't know it was a flat tappet cam when I got it. And I didn't have it for that long. Nor do I know if the previous owner knew.
@@flatheadfletch Are you suggesting I just regularly replace the cam and lifters? Or even consider where the metal shavings go as the surfaces are worn down?
This is why I decided I'm just doing away with the 4.0 all together. Chrysler should have updated the engine like Ford did with their flat tappet engines vs doing nothing about it.
@Zapablast05 Rotella has to pass the new oil standards, and shell reduced the zddp levels to standard motor oil levels. T6 meets the new ck4 emissions standards so it doesn't have the same zddp as it used to. Valvoline vr1 has high zddp levels, though.
need a test of roller tip vs full roller.
The tips don't roll...It's been tested
The Executioner And why should the tips roll? They should not move at the point of contact, for the duration of contact
So...there's no need for a stiffer spring "upgrade" for sub 400 Hp inline six's?
Seems like anything under 5k rpm's, there's less worry about valve float?
Stiffer springs if you run boost/high RPM or both.
From testing an average of five HP.
Anything that reduces friction and increases valve train accuracy is worth it.
I imagine GM went to a roller rocker type system on the LS engines for a reason.
GM LS engines use roller lifters but not rockers. They keep weight off the tip using non roller cast rockers. The trunion is a bearing but not the tip.
@@exidous6831
The roller tips on roller rockers do help slightly but the benefits are very slight.
The roller trunions make a big difference.
When you use roller rocker arms with the correct Geometry it reduces side load on the valves it requires extra work.
That looks like a cool jeep engine also.
Well done. That is a much bigger difference than I would have figured.
More consistent then stamped. Someone did a comparison of stock 1.5 ratio chevy rockers and seen a variance of +/- .03. Also less drag and free up power.
they need to test roller tip vs full roller
@@1flynlow I would like to see that there is a lot of controversy about that topic
@@tristanabell2117 engine master Dyno tested Stock stamp rockers vs roller tips vs full rollers to 7,000 rpm. The stock stamp and the full roller made basically the same power and the roller tips were down on power.
@@konnerkramer329 awesome thanks for the Info I'll have to check it out.
Please more videos covering these jeep stroker motors!
Flat lifters or roller lifters. How much power is gained?
surely you have a dial indicator. put it on a retainer and test the valve lift for deflection between steel and aluminum.
Great video and I have personally done similar dyno tests. The end result is always the same. Great job guys. The hard part is convincing the customer.
stock stamped to full roller is an easy test because stock stamped are so inconsistent on the ratio. what we need is a test of roller tip vs full roller.
Those same gains can be had on a modified 5.7L SBC engine that runs street or strip.
Mine did on the dyno. Extensive Head porting , a good set of competition shorty headers and a good camshaft profile can all work together to free up a bunch of extra horsepower and torque.
It ended up being a lot of extra bang for the buck. Also running your pistons to zero deck height seems to really wake up engines since it greatly affects the quench area in the combustion chamber.
The head gasket is then the only thing that determines what your piston to head clearance will end up being.
Another informative video, make one someday on a 2.5, keepum comin!!
This test has been done many many times, the results are always about the same, and people continue to think roller rockers are a waste of money. As mentioned below, much comes down to stamped rockers being very inconsistent in size, not simply reduced friction.
Much easier on the valve train, less debris getting into oil, cooler temps, less friction, more power, better economy. Yeah such a bad investment :S
But of course they'll burn all their money converting to horseshoe and boring out the TB and putting spacers everywhere with messed up intakes...
Came here to say that exact same thing. Just having consistent ratio will make a difference. Power has been made with just roller tips.
How are roller rockers on holding up to many miles? I have never understood why LS engines don't use them. I always figured they don't have as long of a life, but that seems counter intuitive because of less friction.
John Tate way more moving parts. Stamped piece of steel is virtually indestructible. Fiction is minimal in a stock well oiled engine
@@CanadaBud23 Horseshoe?
Thinking about getting some roller rockers for my tired 3.1 v6 buick century. If they do less wear and stress on the motor then sounds like a good way to get more life out of it. At 233k now.
This has opened my eyes big time. I currently working on a K20a all motor. I'm looking for aftermarket roller rockers that will make my engine rev to 10K safely. I did not know it could possibly gain power out of it as well. Problem is, all after market rollers eliminates Vtec which is what I'm not trying to do. Anyway, keep the videos coming. Love them.
Good luck, and thanks for watching!
Is it friction loss or inconsistency with the rockers?
This test at best is inconclusive, you need to measure the lift at the valve with both rockers to verify that they both produce the same lift, often times stock rockers don't live up to their advertised ratio
I have a 2004 i6 w/ 145,000 mi. It runs good but the tick is getting louder. If I was to spend $6000 on motor rebuild, wouldn’t it be smarter to put a small V8 in it ?
BTW- I use this Rubicon approximately 80% of the time off-road.
@@clasvirhodes4969 it depends on what state you're in and the emission laws of that state, if you were to do it though and stay compliant you would have to use an engine of the same year or later model you cannot use them earlier engine and get it certified to comply with emission laws
@@clasvirhodes4969 -For a Jeep. The Ultimate is a Cummins R2.8 crate engine. Has lots of power down low. Could save money on larger tires. Because you might not need a gear ratio change.
@@clasvirhodes4969 6k rebuild lol what are you rebuilding a 12 cyl Ferrari ? @ 145k your due for a timing chain set are you sure your tick requires a rebuild? Checked flexplate bolts? You thinking piston slap? You been using high zinc oil or an additive? You can get master rebuild kit under 1200 depending on if you need pistons, 200-400 machining costs, plus labor if you cannot do yourself. These rockers in the video are way to costly HP to dollar for a mere 9hp. The head itself for all those runs is the bottleneck that's why none of the manifolds had any gains. If you was to do just the cam swap, port matching, small header, and some tuning bring your 191hp stocker to around 250hp they got the other 60hp from the overbore and stroke increasing displacement of which they cannot take full advantage of due to the head. Depending on the V8 you was going to pick to put in you could be looking at around 190-240hp in stock form and have all the disadvantages of a unknown v8 90degree engine versus a reliable I6. Then you have to mod the V8 to work in the jeep... Where you could have just cammed the 4.0L and called it a day. Oh and that V8 swap is gonna cost you MPGs even at the same power output. GL with your decision. If it was me I would celebrate having one of the best looking body styles and the last year model of the GC with that body, the last year for the highest output of the 4.0L and having a full size spare under the back floor out of the way/weather. We will just have to look passed the lack of radiator protection, bumpers, tow hooks, and hope we don't ditch it or try to tackle a deer with it.
Maybe you should consider investegating how the rocker arm ratio varies throug the lift range? A 1.6:1 rocker arm does not increase lobelift 1.6 times from 0.006 lifter rise to peak lift. More people should talk way more about this. :)
One thing I have never understood about inline engines, why are the intake and exhaust ports on the same side? Instead of opposites like a V8?
Any idea what difference these would make on a stock 190hp 4.0 ?
Interesting video. Hopefully you build a dodge 3.9 V6 someday. Has potential.
hell.... the GM 3.1 3.4 3.5 and 3.9 also have a lot of potential
but no aftermarket....
.
the crank in the 3.1 is good for 8000 RPM IIRC
Great video!!! 🤟🤟
ARP rocker studs might not hurt, but a longer exhaust duration on the cam would definitely help the head breathe.
Agreed on more exhaust duration. Thanks for watching!
I'm at 46 seconds in and i acknowledge that Truth in fact is YES roller rockers associate the geometric adaptations intercourse longer push-rod and freeing up most frictionless assembly.. (in my humble opinion)
How about roller cam and flat tap with same lift and duration
That was perfect, excellent intro, narrating and testing... then as I wondered what the cost for the gain in performance was, you gave it. You guys rock.
Thanks for the kind words. And thanks for watching!
What kind of results would I get with these lifters on a 1998 stock 4.0?
What about the ENGINE QUEST HEAD?
Always like these comparison vid's
Excellent comparison video, thank you!
Looks like the H.O. is still a better head
I know you guys are talking about horsepower and torque on the little 4.0 would you guys be willing to do a comparison a four barrel TBI versus a two barrel TBI. I’m curious to with the horse Power and torque curve would be
I’ve worked at Harland Sharp for 20+ years. I’m bias but our stuff is the best. 100% domestic materials and manufacturing right here in the USA 🇺🇸 Thanks for making this video.
I believe the power gain from the rollers is from the adjustable feature more than the friction aspect with these light beehives.
In fact the way to disprove my contention would be to use adjustable pushrods on the stamped rockers.
Almost all other vids I've ever seen bar this one, show rollers make hardly any difference.
Of course rollers are so much better it is ridiculous esp when using aftermarket camshafts and you'd never ever use stamped in a .575"+ lift camshaft but yeah... I'd like to see a bit of user dialled preload on those stamped arms.
There is always the possibility that stock Jeep rockers are worse than any other brand for flex but they look more sturdy than Chevy stamped to my eye.
We used a different set of pushrods with the correct length for the stamped rockers. Newcomer set the preload at a half turn for both. Thanks for watching
The header was FROM Ebay ... who was the brand for who sells their headers on ebay?
Great Info, plan to use it!! Thanks!
Glad you liked it, thanks for watching!
ok, now lets mix ratios between intake and exhaust
The Harland sharp rockers are also much lighter than comparable aluminum rr's, I saw a comparison where they weighed several different ones and the Harland Sharp one's weighed up to 60 grams less EACH.
Always interesting with tests like these.
Some other tests show no improvement with roller rockers. So it seems it too is case specific just like with exhaust headers..
Your videos always hold my attention. I’m interested in what kind of fuel is being used.
The power loss is ONLY from the less accurate amount of rocker ratio. Stamped rockers never measure there full ratio. So if 1.6 stock. If you check the ratio I'd bet you'd find the stamped ones less than that around 1.55 or so. Not a friction loss. I've seen a few others tests like this. One using a stamped rocker and then machined to the right ratio check against roller rockers and there was no power gain
Makes a lot more sense.
That's because the ratios were corrected & all the same after it was done which probably cost more to have a machine shop correct this plus the fact that a stamped rocker will flex a lot especially if used with a very stiff valve spring opening at high rpms verses a billet aluminum or stainless steel roller rocker. Most of the power coming back is from the ratios being all the same because it's keeping all of the cylinders compression balanced being they are all opening at the same time & amounts & not all over the place . The other thing a guy can do is go a bigger ratio if it's offered let's say from a 1.5 to a 1.6 or 1.7 to increase the lift of the cam which can make more power provided the heads will flow enough with more lift & the valve guides are cut enough to allow more lift with out the valve spring caps bottoming on the tip of the valve guides but the ratio change won't affect duration or how long the valve stays open or the LSA of the cam ! They are worth it if it's a engine that you want more power out of plus a smoother easier starting engine as well . Just did a set of 1.6 ratio roller rockers on a Chrysler 451 stroker a iron headed 9.1 compression ratio street pump gas engine & it made almost 500 HP & 530 ftlbs of torque at 4,200 rpms on the dyno & if we were to stick with the stock 1.5 stamped I am sure it would have probably made 30 HP or more less HP than it did .
But Wth on my solid flat tapper 406 SBC with 11:45-1 it unfortunately gained 35 hp with 1.65 rollers over 1.5 ball rockers. Of course the 150 shot made more of a difference. It was 1991🤷🏻♂️🤣
Need help wit my engine I live in ATL ga ima young black Male wit a 1999 jeep Cherokee with this inline 6 I want bore stroke and clean it and make boost it I want it faster
Thank you for an informative test.
Hey, thanks for watching!
I got a 90 yj.258 hard time finding a rvcamshaft will a 4.0 cam work???
EXCELLENT,USABLE INFO...thanks for great vid
Thank you! And thanks for watching
..If the power would of shown up toward the end of the pull when friction is at the highest,
but it didn't.. the power curve is parallel across the rpm range. the rollers have a higher Ratio than
the stamp steel. Put a dial gauge on it.
In the real world, $300 for roughly 10 lb/ft and 12 hp is a smokin' deal.
That's on a 300+ HP. What's it on a sticker ?
Not just 10hp, that's 10hp all thru the power range. Like, everywhere.
Not to mention the reliability benefits of reduced parasitic friction losses
Wow!!! What a lesson !! Thanks
do you have any dyno tests on diesel motors? Looking for 10,000 lbs farm tractor class. Thanks
dam i often wondered about roller rocks
Love Keiths input!
nice setup
Great job guys. Very good info.
I've got some Harland Sharp adjustable rollers, but haven't found any references on proper adjustment. if anyone has a link to setting them up on a 4.0, can you share? Thx
Can i use those rolller rocker on the 2.5 engine? 🤔
What CFM did the head flow?
8:54 "A full roller rocker arm... is easier on the overall valvetrain." I would challenge that statement. Much heavier aluminum roller rocker arm requires heavier springs, increasing load, wear and parasitic drag. It's a vicious circle, everything is a compromise between power and engine life.
Thanks for sharing !
Thanks for watching!
So sorry if I'm completely wrong but what's the benefit of a short 6to1 exhaust header in a stroker? Engine set for torque and exhaust set for power in high rpm range? I get its a dyno mule but...?
Good question. It was an aftermarket header that was available and Newcomer had tested just about every combo you can imagine. Thanks for watching
Not to mention valve guide wear
So are we recommending against 1.7:1 rockers?
Here the thing i was told by some engine builders who no way more then me , if you were to take the stock stamped rockers and mic them they are all over the board factory imperfections , which throw all the # uneven ,causing most of the hp loss , this was on bbc and under 6000k ish rpm
Your videos are freaking AWSOME!!! Thank you very much for your content. I’m like a sponge