Write-Up: Installing Rockers, Valve Springs, & Push Rods

or you can get just the modded 1.9 rockers from somewhere like clubgp sale section. (there is a set right now for $225 shipped)
they always pop up for around this price too. no need for springs then...

Really, I thought all the reading suggested that I replace the springs with 1.9 rockers but the 1.8 didn't need them?

There's not an absolute answer on this. Like a lot of things, you have to prioritize what's important to you. We can say the "safe" option is to run 90# or 105# valve springs with 1.9s. Safe meaning: lasting many tens of thousands of miles with little or no risk, even at very high engine speed (6kRPM).

Running stock springs with 1.9s, you may see valve float above 6k RPM (not possible with stock PCM program). But being that there is power to be made at or above 6kRPM with rockers, many choose to upgrade their valvetrain to approach or exceed this threshold. You might be okay with stock rockers, or 1.8s - but 1.9s pack just enough inertia that they require the spring upgrade to run in the higher RPM band.

Another thing to consider is how many miles are on your OEM springs already. Valve springs lose a bit of their "spring" after many miles, so it's not a bad idea to replace the springs anyway with a rocker upgrade. Might as well be 90# or 105# if you're going that far. Added insurance in case you push that 6kRPM threshold.

But it is technically possible that you can get away with 1.9s on stock valve springs, especially if you: A) don't touch 6kRPM, and B) have low miles. Your decision depends on whether or not you want to take that chance. FYI, modified rockers are a bang-for-the-buck mod, so people buying them don't really want to mess with springs and such, and they probably won't be spending the time or money to tune higher RPMs, imo.

In my experience, I believe I've floated valves on occasion at extreme RPM, even with the 90# LS6 springs installed, probably because they are so old (over 120k miles on them). There's no way I'd ever consider using stock springs with 1.9s, no matter what I might "technically" be able to get away with. For that reason, I would recommend against running the 1.9s with OEM valve springs.

Ok, I understand what's being said here. Thank you for the info again.

My car has 118k on it and I tend to get on the gas here and there and I'd like to do that without worry.

Besides those two factors I believe if your going to do it, do it the right/safe way. With that said, if I ever do this mod it will be done the right way and the springs will be replaced with the rockers and the push rods.

There is no sense in doing the work and spending the money to half a$$ it and risk other potential problems.

the 1.9's i was referring to are the "modded" 1.9s zzp sells. you can run these on stock springs because they deflect making them essentially 1.8 or 1.84 rockers. if you are going to do spring then you should opt for actual roller rockers to keep the friction down at 6k rpm.
otherwise you can get 1.8/1.84 roller rockers or the zzp 1.9 modd'd ones.
again some people might disagree, but i am going based on what the vendor sites tell.

Whatever you do end up doing, in whatever combination of springs and retainers---DO NOT USE ZZP MODIFIED RETAINERS.
They will not allow enough clearance between the rocker arm and their retainer, thus causing them to hit during operation.
Buy the LS type or the Manley' Retainer's from Intense, they are smaller in diameter and are meant to fit the beehive spring.

There is another thread on here with pic's if you need visual proof. I just installed the Manley's because the ZZP' have too large of a diameter and are machined in such a way that they hit the rocker arms.

Mr.Riviera wrote:

the 1.9's i was referring to are the "modded" 1.9s zzp sells. you can run these on stock springs because they deflect making them essentially 1.8 or 1.84 rockers. if you are going to do spring then you should opt for actual roller rockers to keep the friction down at 6k rpm.
otherwise you can get 1.8/1.84 roller rockers or the zzp 1.9 modd'd ones.
again some people might disagree, but i am going based on what the vendor sites tell.

Okay so just to clarify, there are two types of rockers. Modded 1.9's and just normal 1.9's? The modded ones do not require springs but the true 1.9's do? I wasn't away there was a difference so thank you for bringing that up.

Rickw wrote:

Whatever you do end up doing, in whatever combination of springs and retainers---DO NOT USE ZZP MODIFIED RETAINERS.
They will not allow enough clearance between the rocker arm and their retainer, thus causing them to hit during operation.
Buy the LS type or the Manley' Retainer's from Intense, they are smaller in diameter and are meant to fit the beehive spring.

There is another thread on here with pic's if you need visual proof. I just installed the Manley's because the ZZP' have too large of a diameter and are machined in such a way that they hit the rocker arms.

Thanks for the heads up on this. I would have used the LS stock retainers either way but still good info. I'll check out your thread. Thanks.

Our stock rockers are just plain old 1.6 ratio rocker arms.
The modded 1.9 rockers are stock arms that have been reworked to a ratio of 1.9.
The roller rockers are the more expensive ones that come in a variety of ratios from 1.6 to 1.95. these are different in that the tips have a roller on them to reduce wear/friction. they are normally made of a higher quality metal to reduce deflection too.
if you are building a street car on a budget and do not plan on going too far then modded 1.9 rockers are a good choice.

i personally went with 1.84 roller rockers because i like the idea of less friction at high rpm and replacing internals with higher quality parts. i used 1.84's because i did not want the extra hassle/risk involved with replacing the springs.

AA wrote:

After cleaning the valve cover and installing the new gasket, align the cover and tighten the bolts evenly to 10 lb-ft 89 lb-in.

Aaron why do you have the 10 lbs-ft crossed out, the information I have is that 10 is the correct torque spec. value for the valve covers, can anyone verify this?

You're reading the spec in Newton Meters.

10 N-m = 89 lb-in

If you try tightening to 10 lb-ft, you'll find out why I crossed it out!

No thats OK , So for those of us not up on our conversions, what is that in lb-ft?

7.38 lb-ft, but most torque wrenches measuring lb-ft won't go that low accurately. I use a lb-in wrench for the small stuff like this. A while back, I did break one off using a torque wrench set to 10 lb-ft. My mistake!

AA wrote:

7.38 lb-ft, but most torque wrenches measuring lb-ft won't go that low accurately. I use a lb-in wrench for the small stuff like this. A while back, I did break one off using a torque wrench set to 10 lb-ft. My mistake!

I broke 2 Whatever you do dont overtighten....digging broken bolts out of the head sucks.

Ok, thanks guys. Without a lb - in wrench, is it safe to hand tight and then give it a quarter turn?

BMD wrote:

Ok, thanks guys. Without a lb - in wrench, is it safe to hand tight and then give it a quarter turn?

Yeah, the valve covers arent under a high degree of stress anyway so once they're on pretty tight they're not going anywhere.

I've had mine loosen up after a few thousand miles, as the gaskets settle. This can cause oil to leak from the covers. Whatever you do, check they are still snug after 5000 miles. Personally, I use my lb-in torque wrench quite a bit for lots of jobs - it also gets borrowed a lot.

AA wrote:

I've had mine loosen up after a few thousand miles, as the gaskets settle. This can cause oil to leak from the covers. Whatever you do, check they are still snug after 5000 miles. Personally, I use my lb-in torque wrench quite a bit for lots of jobs - it also gets borrowed a lot.

Really? So far mine have been fine after about 5000 miles but I guess it never hurts to check them....

I used a new set of cover gaskets. Might not be a problem if you are reusing the old ones. I don't check them regularly, just once after installation.

Would anyone recommend LS6 springs, or just skip them and go straight to a double roller and higher rate springs?

matt270avian wrote:

Would anyone recommend LS6 springs, or just skip them and go straight to a double roller and higher rate springs?

I've got LS6 springs in my Riv now. I didn't really notice much. It gave a little more oomph above 5300rpms, and the exhaust note changed a little. Other than that, you won't notice anything.

Abaddon wrote:

I've got LS6 springs in my Riv now. I didn't really notice much. It gave a little more oomph above 5300rpms, and the exhaust note changed a little. Other than that, you won't notice anything.

Did you need the modified retainers, or just reuse the stocks? Noticeable wear on timing chain/dampener? I'm thinking about grabbing a set for rockers or a mild cam in the far future... Any other things to get besides the springs?

LS6 springs are only to prevent valve float with 1.9s or 1.85s, and good insurance with stock rockers. There is no performance gain from swapping valve springs.

You need LS6 retainers to run LS6 springs. Reuse the OEM valve keepers.

I've put 166,000 miles on this set-up with 1.9:1 rockers and stock timing chain set. The chain dampener had zero wear according to the engine builder. Same set-up + roll master single roller, now with 24000 miles and counting. I have a fresh set of LS6 springs ready to swap in at 280000 (when the springs have 200k on them).

Yeah I just grabbed a set, I've got a ZZP credit that I'll use on the retainers and gaskets. Got the springs for 30 bucks off of a low mile engine which is pretty cool. Good prep for rockers or cam in the future.

The springs drop right in. You need to change NOTHING.

"GM manufactures these beehive shape valvesprings specifically for the LS6 engine found in the 405 horsepower Corvette Z06; however through extensive research we have found them to be a perfect match for the 3800 Series II and III engines for lower lift applications such as aftermarket rockers. These medium load springs can be used in high performance and racing applications up to .530" lift with the stock retainers. These valvesprings will fit stock L36, L26, L67, and L32 cylinder heads with no machining, and fit right into stock valvespring seats"

Right off of Intense' website.....it's the LS1 springs that require retainers.

That might be true according to INTENSE, but the LS6 and L67 retainers are different designs, resulting in different pre-loads on the valve springs when installed (compressing the spring .080" more when using L67 stock retainers), limiting maximum lift. We can scoot by using 1.9:1 rockers, but with cams offering higher lift, it becomes an obvious problem.

But according to ZZP, this difference is the reason for added timing chain dampener wear with LS6 springs:

"INTENSE currently lists the LS6 spring for use with a stock retainer. This changes the maximum lift from .550 to .470. This also destroys the stock timing chain dampener in 5-10k miles when using 1.9 rockers or a small cam. They have this information listed on their site and on each box of springs send out. It is very, very bad information."

Just saying, my dampeners were hardly worn after 166,000 miles using LS6 retainer caps.