I may have found 1.7 Rockers

[geoffinbc]

http://go.mrgasket.com/pdf/ERSON.pdf

Go to page 85 and check out P/N E928062

They use a 3/8-24 stud and are listed for the 4.3L. All 4.3L's since the later 80's used centerbolt covers. So they should be narrow body

[tejohnson]

So buy 'em, install 'em, and let us know how they work out

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=ERS%2DE928062&N=115&autoview=sku

[geoffinbc]

Fine give me the funds...

I checked Summitracing but they have zero specs

[tejohnson]

That's not how it works... lol You brought the solution to the table, you get to fund the project

I am assuming you could stick to the same pushrod lengths, but the back of the rocker looks quite thick. I have been sitting on the fence wrt buying some full roller rockers or not. They are a bit cheaper than the crane gold...

[geoffinbc]

Yea they are cheeper. I e-mailed them to ask wether or not they are narrow body. If they are this is the ticket for 1.7 rockers.

The next best thing is Harland Sharp 1.65 ratio rockers which I know are narrow body.

[bszopi]

http://60degreev6.com/discussion/dload.php?action=file&file_id=92

For some odd reason the DWF doesn't open up automatically when you just DL it regularly, so try to save it somewhere then view it with a DWF viewer. Anyway, there is a scan of a stock 3x00 roller rocker (1.6) and a stock 4.3L stamped rocker (I'm assuming 1.6), imported into CAD and dimensioned.

You can all decide from there....

[tejohnson]

http://60degreev6.com/discussion/dload.php?action=file&file_id=92

For some odd reason the DWF doesn't open up automatically when you just DL it regularly, so try to save it somewhere then view it with a DWF viewer. Anyway, there is a scan of a stock 3x00 roller rocker (1.6) and a stock 4.3L stamped rocker (I'm assuming 1.6), imported into CAD and dimensioned.

You can all decide from there....

You always have to be the party pooper Well, I bought that double roller cloyes damn it

[onefastV6]

Judging from the pics and dimentions, they are only 0.0453" off. However if you take into account that factory GM rockers are not known for their preciseness the gap might open or close a little. These do look as if they might work, however being non self alinging the gen 3 guys would need to use guide plates and heat treated pushrods.

[geoffinbc]

http://60degreev6.com/discussion/dload.php?action=file&file_id=92

For some odd reason the DWF doesn't open up automatically when you just DL it regularly, so try to save it somewhere then view it with a DWF viewer. Anyway, there is a scan of a stock 3x00 roller rocker (1.6) and a stock 4.3L stamped rocker (I'm assuming 1.6), imported into CAD and dimensioned.

You can all decide from there....

Sorry Brad the 4.3L is 1.5 ratio.

[Syn]

i somewhat posted some info on this last year and poeple asked whats the point? its over kill pretty much

[El_Diablo]

the ratio is different....... hows that overkill?

[Doubt_Incarnate]

i think for the dollar id just get a cam, instead of 5hp i'd get a lot more from a cam for a hundred less. but then i bought the crane rockers and a cam so i guess i'm all about over kill.

[SappySE107]

Not everyone is going to want to pull their intake manifolds and cam to install a new one. Higher ratio will possibly be more than 5 hp too, hard to say right now. Im still waiting to hear back from thunder racing on the stock cam specs.

[Syn]

the ratio is different....... hows that overkill?

mybad i was saying is they told me whats the point, its over kill

but i agree with you

[geoffinbc]

Well herd back from Mr.Gasket. They are not narrow body rockers

Its dumb that they list them for an engine that uses centerbolt covers in stock form.

So far the best bet is still Harland Sharps 1.65 ratio. Thats as high as we're gonna get without going custom.