350 SBC Build / considering Roller ROckers - what Ratio? - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2010, 05:48 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: glen carbon, il
Posts: 4
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
350 SBC Build / considering Roller ROckers - what Ratio?

I'm considering upgrading my Rockers and Pushrods and wondering how to decide which
Ratio rockers to go with? 1.52 vs 1.6

currently running GM Stamped steel self aligning rockers and stock pushrods.

Thanks in advance for your comments!..

below are my current Small Block specs:

small block 350 chev +30 4 bolt mains - casting # 3970010.
GM forged steel crankshaft - Balanced Rotating assembly.

Piston to deck clearance 0225" / Fel Pro Headgasket .039 compressed thickness
H345NCP Speed Pro cast Pistons - somewhere around 10 to 1 CR.

Comp Cams camshaft p/n 12-242-2 grind XE268H-10 : 224 I / 230 E Duration @ .050 110 LS .470/.480 Lift .

GMPP Fast Burn Heads 62CC chambers p/n 12464298,
GM Rockers stamped steel self Aligning 1.5 ratio.
GM Pushrods P/N 14044874
A/C MR43LTS Spark Plugs.

Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold.

Sanderson Cast Iron street rod headers, 2 1/2" exhaust into Pacesetter mufflers.

Holley carb p/n 0-80783-1 4 bbl, 650 CFM Vac Secondaries, 67 x 73 jets, Black Spring.

HEI tach drive distributor w adjustable Vaccum advance can - 12' initial timing w 34' total timing.

1968 Corvette, 4 speed m20 gearbox, 3:36 Positrac rear end gears,
standard BFG Radial T/A 225/70/R15" wheel/tire.

Manual Steering & Brakes.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2010, 07:15 PM
F-BIRD'88's Avatar
Yada Yada Yada
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,547
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 331 Times in 328 Posts
You will not see more than 8hp gain from going to a 1.6 rocker or a roller rocker on this mild combo.

But they look pretty. If you feel the need to spend the money, go ahead.

The intake side responds to extra rocker ratio/net valve lift, the exhaust side not so much. 1.6in 1.5 ex

The biggest power gains on this combo will be realized by long tube headers and a bigger better carb. 750cfm HP style carb or proform 750center body upgrade.
You are giving up a lot of power and torque without the tube headers.

The black sec spring is way too stiff. Try a purple spring and a 76-77 sec jet.

The fast burn heads have big ports and like to rev. ( more cam lift and duration, more rpm)
these heads really rock with some carefull hand porting. There is a ton of power to be had there compared to out of the box.

Then you need a comp mechanical street roller that will allow you a short duration 236@.050" and big net valve lift .550" so the ported fastburns can work. like the comp cs 280Ar-10 magnum.

Now you got a setup that will love a 1.6RR roller rocker arm.

Last edited by F-BIRD'88; 07-20-2010 at 07:32 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2010, 09:11 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: glen carbon, il
Posts: 4
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@ F-BIRD'88

I agree the Rockers might not add much HP, I didnt think so when I first built this engine
so I didnt put them in originally.

I recently slightly rounded a pushrod while running it down the highway, ended up with a loose
tapping rocker and a rounded pushrod, after checking the lifters and replacing the pushrod
I was thinking I should do something to help the valvetrain.

Maybe I'll just put in a better set of pushrods at this time.

The Sanderson cast Iron headers as well as the mufflers are probably holding back some HP
as you mention.

with the 3:36 rear end In place I didnt want to over cam at the time of build either.

As for the Purple Spring and carb tune, I'm still tweaking so I'll try that next as I can tell
the secondarys aren't kicking in as I expect them to.

It pulls hard but I can tell there is more to be had.

Thanks much for your feedback, and I'll be sure to post results.

cheers.. earlyj
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2010, 10:01 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,564
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 697
Thanked 877 Times in 745 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by early68
Comp Cams camshaft p/n 12-242-2 grind XE268H-10 : 224 I / 230 E Duration @ .050 110 LS .470/.480 Lift
It's nothing I can refer you to that's written down anywhere, it's just a feeling of mine based on 50+ years of hot rodding and observing how things work. The Extreme Energy cams are ground at the extreme of valve lifting capability and are right at the edge of working and not working. In other words, the acceleration is so rapid that the lifter is just this side of digging into the lobe of the camshaft as the lobe attempts to lift the lifter off the base circle of the lobe.

I feel that asking the lobe to suffer additional stress through the use of an even higher ratio rocker than what was originally specified with that particular grind is simply asking for trouble. I would never use a ratio higher than the design ratio for the motor I was building if I were going to use an extreme energy grind type of cam. That's just my opinion and how I feel about the whole mess. Maybe by the time you're my age, you will have developed some limits yourself.

As far as roller rockers, a rocker designed with a roller bearing fulcrum makes sense to me, because it will not only reduce friction but will also lower operating oil temperatures. A rocker such as the Comp unit with the ball and socket fulcrum and roller tip is just about the most worthless piece of dung that has ever been foisted onto the hot rodding public in my opinion. It needs to be the other way around, conventional tip and roller fulcrum.

Legendary cam grinder Racer Brown did extensive high-speed-film observations with the roller tips when these roller rockers first came out and determined that the roller was of insufficient diameter to cause a mechanical couple with the tip of the valve and that the roller tip simply "slides" across the tip of the valve. So, I have no love for the roller tip, but have considerable respect for a good rocker with a roller fulcrum. Scorpion makes an affordable unit that is of good quality.

Last edited by techinspector1; 07-20-2010 at 10:11 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 02:56 AM
F-BIRD'88's Avatar
Yada Yada Yada
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,547
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 331 Times in 328 Posts
In a roller rocker arm I like Scorpion Rocker arms.

In a good stock style ball stud rocker I like my Crane.
Mine happen to have a roller tip. It ain't slowing the car down any.

I also have no use for the Comp Magnum Ball stud rockers.
Wouldn't take them even if free.

You realize, you could just replace the one worn rocker and pushrod
and probabily run another 100,000 miles without further issue.
These parts usually do not give problems on mild street motors.
These metal on metal parts do depend on Zinc phospherous anti wear anti gall oil additives exactly the same as all flat tappet cams/lifters for long life.

If you are running modern EPA Nazi compliant motor oil in your car, you will see increased cam lifter, rocker pushrod wear.
Switch motor oils to one with a high Zinc content (often marked "racing oil") and or add a Zinc additive ( ZDDP, GM EOS, GM break in additive Crane super lube etc etc) . Try some Moly Slip in the oil too.
www.molyslip.com
it works.

Last edited by F-BIRD'88; 07-21-2010 at 03:04 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 07:16 AM
topwrench's Avatar
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: fish carb
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: lillian al.
Age: 67
Posts: 290
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
engine will always breathe better with a higher ratio rocker arm providing you can get rid of exhaust, before higher ratio rocker arms were made we used to use b.b. =1.7:1 rocker arms at the shop I worked at,we had to make a die deal to bump out the s.b.stock valve covers so the rockers didnt interfere.
Roller rockers will decrese friction (nominal) cam u r using as far as lift and duration is perfect for street app. s.b.loves 1/2" lift at the valve,but u have to get rid of exhaust,I recommend u use 1.6 for both in & x and get u a good set of headers if u cant get long tubes get tri ys.
Back in the day in Nascar we ran flat tappet mushroom lifter cam, real agressive lift & duration & turned the motors 6500 to 7 gs with no roller rockers just 1.7 :1 b.b.long slots
I hope this helps,try reading a little bout entropy and youll start to understand how all this works together.
Good Luck!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 07:24 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: At Speed
Age: 51
Posts: 1,333
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 2
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
For endurance use, I would recommend the CC steel arms in 1.6 ratio. They never break, never fatigue and get sloppy, and they dont cost much more than aluminum arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 07:59 AM
302 Z28's Avatar  
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: North Texas
Posts: 10,837
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 86 Times in 73 Posts
Your build indicates your intent is perhaps not all out drag racing (Sanderson cast manifolds). In that respect I would advise you to stay with the designed ratio rockers as a move to 1.6 ratio probably will not be significant.

Vince
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 12:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: utah
Posts: 416
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-BIRD'88
In a roller rocker arm I like Scorpion Rocker arms.

In a good stock style ball stud rocker I like my Crane.
Mine happen to have a roller tip. It ain't slowing the car down any.

I also have no use for the Comp Magnum Ball stud rockers.
Wouldn't take them even if free.

Just curious why you feel that way about the comp mag's. ?? Ive got some and they seem pretty solid. I think the roller tip is more snake oil than functional, but they are good for a bit higher ratio than stock rockers. I wouldnt pay full price for them, but I wouldnt turn them down for free either..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 07:09 PM
F-BIRD'88's Avatar
Yada Yada Yada
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,547
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 331 Times in 328 Posts
The ones I have seen all ran hot. Many burned out ball,socket.
Seen the advertizment showing the rocker snapped in half saying they are good up to 350psi. A stock style quality made rocker ( crane other) will never do that. Just like a flat tappet cam there are limits to open spring pressure.

Roller rockers are good for high pressure and high valve lift short term extreme environment. (roller cams, racey solid cams. The good stamped steel rockers are good for long service life adjustability to account for normal wear.
But these type rocker require break in just like a new flat tappet cam.
During the break in period the unit loading is a bit high but once a seat is established for the ball, friction and heat stabilze.
This is where zinc and moly anti wear additives come in in you roil.
Can also benefit form reduced spring pressure during engine break in until the ball gets friendly with the seat.

Roller rockers require no break in but once the rollers start wearing, slack and slop cannot be adjusted out. nothing lasts forever. especially on a race motor.

rollers do not like to stop, reverse direction and start again.
That wears them.
Both types have their purpose and application.
I like quality stock stamped steel for mild moderate street stuff.

Many of the cheap bargain stamped steel rockers are cheap metal and cheap hardening process these days. Same with flat tappet lifters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 07:47 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,149
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 101 Times in 93 Posts
Roller rockers

My 4.3L V6 is equipped with a Comp Cams 09-412-08 computer compliant roller camshaft. The camshaft has .500" valve lift with Comp Cams 1317-12 Pro Magnum, self-aligning, 1.52:1, full roller stainless steel rocker arms. I used Comp Cams 26981-12 beehive/ovate valve springs that are rated at 310 lb. open preessure @ 0.500" valve lift and 110 lb. seat pressure @ 1.700" and coil bind at 0.550" valve lift. You wiil read why I used 1.52:1 ratio rockers.

Check the valve cover clearances if you are using stock valve covers, especially SBC center-bolt valve covers. My stock Chevy 4.3L V6 1986-1994 center bolt valve covers fit with just a little clearancing of the internal center-bolt supports. I used short Elgin screw-in rocker studs with 3/8"-24 adj. thread x 7/16"-14 base thread x 1.725" high screw-in rocker studs and Crane #99795 3/8"-24, 0.860" overall height x 0.550" OD short poly-locks for more valve cover clearance. The rocker arms would contact the valve covers at full valve lift if I used 1.6:1 ratio rocker arms, with a camshaft having 0.500" valve lift.

Be advised, the higher ratio rocker studs increase the side-load on the rocker studs and could break rocker studs with 3/8"-24 adjustment threads. If you choose to use 1.6:1 ratio rockers, no matter what type, you should consider it mandatory to use BB Chevy type screw in 7/16" rocker studs and Comp Cams (or equal) 0.080" wall x 5/16" chromemoly pushrods. Stock GM plain mild steel pushrods would fold up like wet spagetti. It is better to buy a camshaft with the valve lift you want rather than installing higher ratio rocker arms. The higher ratio rockers are for providing an additional 3 degrees duration and 10% more valve lift to an engine that was under-cammed to begin with.

Last edited by MouseFink; 07-21-2010 at 08:07 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2010, 11:04 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,564
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 697
Thanked 877 Times in 745 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MouseFink
The higher ratio rockers are for providing an additional 3 degrees duration and 10% more valve lift to an engine that was under-cammed to begin with.
Please stop passing this bogus information on to other people. Higher ratio rockers add zero duration to a cam because duration is measured at the lobe/lifter interface, not at the valve. Furthermore, going from a 1.5 rocker to a 1.6 will increase the lift by 6 2/3 %, not 10%.

And while I'm on the subject of bogus information, will you guys please stop ratcheting up the max lift for stock L31 Vortec heads. Design limit is 0.430", leaving 0.050" to 0.060" of free play between the bottom of the retainer and the top of the valve seal. I have seen guys say that 0.450" is ok, 0.460" is ok, 0.470" is ok, all with stock components. PLEASE STOP. You have to leave some play in the system, so the design limit for valve lift with stock components on L31 heads is 0.430".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2010, 03:26 PM
cobalt327's Avatar
WFO
 
Last wiki edit: Intake manifold
Last journal entry: 1980 Malibu Wagon
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Atlanta
Age: 59
Posts: 5,037
Wiki Edits: 1616

Thanks: 128
Thanked 597 Times in 546 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
Please stop passing this bogus information on to other people.
----------

OP, here's yet another opinion:

It has been explained that in the case of the XE cam you have, asking the valve train to absorb yet more load (some might even say abuse) by using 1.6 ratio rockers, is ill advised.

So instead, stick w/the SA stamped rockers that you currently have unless you can justify a full roller set of SA rockers for the friction/heat reduction and ratio accuracy they offer. Just having a "true" 1.5 ratio is worth something over most OEM SBC rockers. Whether the SA rockers are better in that regard than the old style rockers, I haven't heard. But I suspect the new rockers might not be significantly better than the old.

I was told by a learned individual (post #17) that the roller would need to be something on the order of 1-1/4" diameter to emulate the tip of the stamped rocker! Add to that, that you're still saddled w/the absolute worst part of the rocker arm- the ball pivot- and it begins to become clear why the roller tip ball pivot rockers aren't the deal that they're advertised to be. One thing in their favor, however, is the accurate ratio. That alone is where the power increase could come from.

I believe that using a good set of 0.080" wall p-rods would do as much for valve train stability as anything, at this stage.

Good luck.

Last edited by cobalt327; 07-22-2010 at 03:53 PM. Reason: No need for me, yet again, to overstate the obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2010, 07:43 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 6,687
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 3
Thanked 403 Times in 348 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by early68
I'm considering upgrading my Rockers and Pushrods and wondering how to decide which
Ratio rockers to go with? 1.52 vs 1.6

currently running GM Stamped steel self aligning rockers and stock pushrods.

Thanks in advance for your comments!..

below are my current Small Block specs:

small block 350 chev +30 4 bolt mains - casting # 3970010.
GM forged steel crankshaft - Balanced Rotating assembly.

Piston to deck clearance 0225" / Fel Pro Headgasket .039 compressed thickness
H345NCP Speed Pro cast Pistons - somewhere around 10 to 1 CR.

Comp Cams camshaft p/n 12-242-2 grind XE268H-10 : 224 I / 230 E Duration @ .050 110 LS .470/.480 Lift .

GMPP Fast Burn Heads 62CC chambers p/n 12464298,
GM Rockers stamped steel self Aligning 1.5 ratio.
GM Pushrods P/N 14044874
A/C MR43LTS Spark Plugs.

Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold.

Sanderson Cast Iron street rod headers, 2 1/2" exhaust into Pacesetter mufflers.

Holley carb p/n 0-80783-1 4 bbl, 650 CFM Vac Secondaries, 67 x 73 jets, Black Spring.

HEI tach drive distributor w adjustable Vaccum advance can - 12' initial timing w 34' total timing.

1968 Corvette, 4 speed m20 gearbox, 3:36 Positrac rear end gears,
standard BFG Radial T/A 225/70/R15" wheel/tire.

Manual Steering & Brakes.
Roller rockers look cool, that's a point in their favor, you just gotta get some of those clear aluminum rocker covers off Scotty over there on the space ship USS Enterprise.

Increasing the rocker ratio from 1.5 to 1.6 adds measurable lift at all points on the lobe by a bit more than 6 percent. This does tend to make the engine cammier as if it had more duration because during the overlap and intake closing phases for any degree of lobe rotation except on the heel, the valve or valves involved are opened that 6-plus percent more. That increases the opportunity for flows to communicate in to out and back during overlap. It also slows the port velocity at low RPMs which allows the rising piston to push mixture back into the intake system at low RPMs, so you get a more cammy feel at and off idle. Once the revs get up around the torque peak and higher the opposite events begin to happen where flow velocity more easily fills the cylinder in-spite of the opposition from the rising piston because the available curtain area between the valve and its seat is larger. But the duration isn't changed anywhere.

One has to divide the effects of roller bearings from those of the rocker ratios. These are exclusive to each other and both bring benefits as well as potential problems.


Bearings:

Roller bearings in the trunnion are helpful with sustained high RPM operation with stiffer than production valve springs. The ball and socket design rocker really needs more oil than is afforded by hollow push rod oiling within the rocker box. When the combination of high RPMS, above 6000, while sustained there for more than a drag race and the effects of powerful valve springs are added in the loads on the ball and socket become so extreme that their only source of cooling, splashed engine oil is not sufficient so they burn up. A roller trunnion does not become nearly as hot in this situation and the dribbling oil from the push rod is sufficient to keep it cool enough so it doesn't self destruct till another couple thousand RPM, then an external oiling source needs to be added for the roller bearing.

Roller bearing tips reduce the side thrust on the valve stem again more effective at high sustained RPM against stiff valve springs and with lifts at the valve running toward a half inch and more. For an ordinary street driven or mild rod engine the loads at this interface don't require more than a hardened tip on the valve stem and rocker to provide sufficient service. In these conditions it's doubtful that a roller tip is doing anything more than sliding on the stem tip as if it were not a roller at all. But when the lifts, spring pressures, and RPMs get high a roller tip greatly enhances part longevity.

None of this roller stuff intrinsically adds power, it is there to increase part life. But there is a down side when it comes to part life extension. While the guides and stems last longer and the trunnions run cooler, if those roller bearings ever fail, you're in a heap-o-trouble as all those little hard pieces scatter into the oil system. Sooo, the use of roller rockers, also, requires the use of catch screens over the oil return holes and a handful of powerful magnets scattered around the oil returns of the head and valley.

Ratio:
This difference as previously stated in the beginning is what changes power. The effect is simply the difference between the same cam duration ground onto lobes of differing lift, which is done by all the cam proprietors. The duration doesn't change though the engine will act some like it did, this is simply the effect of greater curtain area of the valve per degree of lift and the rate at which that area changes. For a greater ratio the area itself is greater per degree and the rate of change to that area is greater, which is to say the valve gets on and off the seat faster. Total lift is measurable larger 1.6/1.5 is all were talking about converted to a percent that's 6.7%rounded more lift. This gets into port flow which is to say an engine that is port restricted, which Fast Burns aren't to much, will not have as great an effect from more lift if the port is already maxed simply because the port can't feed the greater lift. In this case the engine either needs higher flowing ports and a longer duration cam to provide the existing ports with more time to flow. In your case at RPMs under 6500 the FB heads have plenty of port capacity and they will respond to more valve lift.

I should be charging you guys for this information. Understanding this crap is what separates engine builders between the winners circle and the also rans.

Anyway, the FB head is basically an aluminum LT4 with conventional cooling routing or an aluminum L31 with steroidal ports. You will note the LT4 used a 1.6 aluminum rocker stock with pretty decent result.

The Dynamic Backside:
In Physics/Mechanics there is no free lunch. Increasing the rocker from 1.5 to 1.6 places every part between the rockers tip and the camshaft under greater load. That is the cam, lifter, pushrod, and rocker have to work harder to shove that valve further and faster. Wear can become a problem especially with a flat tappet cam and modern low ZDDP oils. The RPM limit for a ball and fulcrum rocker comes down as the increased forces in the fulcrum manifest themselves as heat. The wear and tear on the rocker tip goes up as it has to push harder and further. This sounds like an endorsement for a full roller rocker if you go to 1.6 or parish the though 1.7; and it is. The power improvement isn't all that staggering, it will cost some below the torque peak and delay the peak a little because the extra open area at the valve reduces mixture velocity so bottom end cylinder fill suffers till enough speed builds in the ports to provide some ram effect to offset losses out the overlap and reverse pumping thru the late to close intake. This tends to be mild even with the GMPP FB head, it gets worse as the ports get bigger and better as they get smaller. On the top RPM range you will feel it from the torque peak up, with a climax maybe as much as 10-15 hp at red line. Not a lot, but enough to win races with if it's more than the other guy has.

Have fun

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2010, 08:18 PM
techinspector1's Avatar
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Last wiki edit: DynoSim combinations Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, California, USA
Age: 72
Posts: 12,564
Wiki Edits: 326

Thanks: 697
Thanked 877 Times in 745 Posts
As I've stated before, I always learn something when I read your stuff. Thank you very much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
350 SBC Build Bonhorst Engine 15 12-21-2012 09:50 PM
350 SBC build for Jeep. Need Help !!! Intake, carb, cam, efi and mileage. Icejeep Engine 53 12-18-2011 12:59 PM
Help With Budget 350 Build Sparx74 Engine 28 09-23-2007 11:30 AM
Rockers cutting studs on 350 sbc western star Engine 12 06-24-2004 05:09 PM
1.7 ratio roller rocker on a SBC 383vette Engine 1 10-15-2003 10:15 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.