Marina rocker arms

Post by **markattard** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:46 pm

I kindly need some info since I'm fitting a Marina rocker set onto a 1098 engine....Is anything different from the original rockers?

Post by **Stig** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:28 am

I doubt it. I've fitted 1275 Midget rockers to my 1098. As far as I know they're interchangeable between all the A-series engines.

Post by **rayofleamington** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:31 am

I've used the billet rockers from a 1275 (Mini 1275GT) and had no problems on a 1098. A certain person on here has mentioned before that you may need to switch parts around on the rocker assembly to et them to line up well on a Minor engine.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:33 pm

The fat sintered rockers are wide enough to cover the difference in the valve spacing (one of the reasons Rover used em) - but have a look at the pads - they may very well be worn to suit the old spacing and should then be 'stoned' flat before use. These rockers are the very worst/weakest rockers ever made for this engine. The older fabricated/welded rockers are just fine - but they need to be properly aligned above the valves because they are not 'fat'.
Maybe I should change my name to 'certainperson' !!

Post by **ian-s** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:07 am

In fact the old fabricated rockers are the best standard ones you can get , they are lighter, don't snap like the sintered ones do, and actually have very slightly higher lift ratio. I suspect the tips are also harder than the sintered . Later does not always = better , quite often just means cheaper to make.

Post by **bmcecosse** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:32 pm

And the cheap sintered rockers could be used on both 998 and 1275 engine without Rover bothering to align them over the valves. The older fabricated rockers had to be set-up for the different valve spacing on the two engines. I suspect the 'higher ratio' is just a story - it certainly won't be significant.