Small block Trickflow heads and PRW rocker arms ???

-
mopar65 said:
Yes I have the B3 kit from mike. I have the shims with the short side facing the valves. Yellow duster the problem I am having is if I get the roller rocker centerd on the valve, the push rod Rubs the side of push rod cut out. Now if I shim the rockers wear the push rod is centered in the cut out in the head, the roller moves over close to edge of the valve stem. Now I dont think the roller will come of the valve it's just closer than I have ever ran before. The heads have been torqued down, but the engine has never been started . But if I have to pull the heads to grind the push rod tunnels more. No big deal about buying some more head gaskets.
Click to expand...
Well this is an old thread and 'mopar65' I hope ya got it fingered out by now. I just noticed this part in the highlight above, and maybe it was just a type-O....but if that was true the spacers were in backwards. Mike's spacers typically set so the bigger side is toward the valves, as we need to move the shaft up and back toward the intake.
It's been awhile and I'm sure you're all good now but I figure a little clarity helps in case some other antique post reader stumbles across this later..
:usflag:
 
yellow rose said:
Im not sure. I’m sure Mike at B3 has a good idea what rocker TF used to develop their heads. Maybe they used an “average” rocker or maybe they use a specific brand. I do know they relocated the shafts so if the rocker is anywhere near to what TF designed for they need little if any correction.
Click to expand...
I would think (assume) it would be the Harland Sharps as those are the ones they recommend. But, how many are running those on the TF’s? I’m reading of people using the Mancini HS versions. Has anyone compared/measured the two versions as far as final geometry goes? There are a few posts of guys using the Mancini versions on the TF’s as well as on other brands with good geometry, or what we are told is good geometry.
 
12many said:
I would think (assume) it would be the Harland Sharps as those are the ones they recommend. But, how many are running those on the TF’s? I’m reading of people using the Mancini HS versions. Has anyone compared/measured the two versions as far as final geometry goes? There are a few posts of guys using the Mancini versions on the TF’s as well as on other brands with good geometry, or what we are told is good geometry.
Click to expand...
A member over on B-bods used the recommended 'E'-numbered Harlan Sharp rockers with his TF 240s and they weren't very good, geometry-wise. With their length I can't see the Mancini/HS being any better. Typical .100-ish wide swipe all happening in the outer 1/3 of the valve stem, he put on B3's kit yadda yadda all is right with the world. He was understandably bummed after spending almost 1K for the "recommended" parts.
Trick flow did indeed raise the pedestal height, by over .500" but they also run longer valves so it seems to be a wash as far as improving geometry is concerned...which seems crazy because the the valve heights are only maybe .125 taller? I suppose the angles and the whole layout of the head have an effect on final position.
 
beanhead said:
A member over on B-bods used the recommended 'E'-numbered Harlan Sharp rockers with his TF 240s and they weren't very good, geometry-wise. With their length I can't see the Mancini/HS being any better. Typical .100-ish wide swipe all happening in the outer 1/3 of the valve stem, he put on B3's kit yadda yadda all is right with the world. He was understandably bummed after spending almost 1K for the "recommended" parts.
Trick flow did indeed raise the pedestal height, by over .500" but they also run longer valves so it seems to be a wash as far as improving geometry is concerned...which seems crazy because the the valve heights are only maybe .125 taller? I suppose the angles and the whole layout of the head have an effect on final position.
Click to expand...


We are talking small block trick flows, not big block

The Mancini HS small block rockers work very well right out of the box on the small block Trick Flows.
 
beanhead said:
Well this is an old thread and 'mopar65' I hope ya got it fingered out by now. I just noticed this part in the highlight above, and maybe it was just a type-O....but if that was true the spacers were in backwards. Mike's spacers typically set so the bigger side is toward the valves, as we need to move the shaft up and back toward the intake.
It's been awhile and I'm sure you're all good now but I figure a little clarity helps in case some other antique post reader stumbles across this later..
:usflag:
Click to expand...
Yes I did. I called Mike after I made that post and he told me I had them in back wards.lol so I turned them around. But I was having side to side problems. I got the rockers and push rods to work now. But the next time I have the heads off I am going to have some more push rod Clarence ground on the heads.
 
B3422w5 said:
We are talking small block trick flows, not big block

The Mancini HS small block rockers work very well right out of the box on the small block Trick Flows.
Click to expand...
Okay...the discussion was on shaft mounted rockers so I chimed in. They can both have issues as far as geometry is concerned. Be cool to see some pictures of 'works very well right out of the box' for reference..
 
12many said:
I would think (assume) it would be the Harland Sharps as those are the ones they recommend. But, how many are running those on the TF’s? I’m reading of people using the Mancini HS versions. Has anyone compared/measured the two versions as far as final geometry goes? There are a few posts of guys using the Mancini versions on the TF’s as well as on other brands with good geometry, or what we are told is good geometry.
Click to expand...


@lead69 is running Mancini rockers on his TF’s and they work well.
 
mopar65 said:
Yes I did. I called Mike after I made that post and he told me I had them in back wards.lol so I turned them around. But I was having side to side problems. I got the rockers and push rods to work now. But the next time I have the heads off I am going to have some more push rod Clarence ground on the heads.
Click to expand...
Cool man! Glad you're all set. Mike's a good dude.
 
beanhead said:
Okay...the discussion was on shaft mounted rockers so I chimed in. They can both have issues as far as geometry is concerned. Be cool to see some pictures of 'works very well right out of the box' for reference..
Click to expand...

A buddy of mine has run them on his trickflows. I know how picky he is, and if he says they look good, i believe him.
Car has been 10.50’s with a flat tappet already with too much gear. Its also been street driven a good bit. Think once they get a chance to really get a handle on it, the car will dip in the 30’s in good air.
It should be noted the trick flows are designed with better geometry in mind right from the get go. The mountings are better designed
 
I’m using Erson 1.6 rollers with the correction kit on my TF’s (the Ersons are nice pieces but come up short on true ratio, more like a 1.5) but also now have the 1.6 Mancini HS assemblies that are for my sons 360 w/Speednasters we’re building. I dropped those on the TF’s on my motor and without any correction, had a very close to center and narrow sweep pattern. Also immediately gained close to .030” in lift at the valve over the corrected Ersons. Very likely the Mancini deliver close to actual ratio once precisely setup.
 
Using Crane aluminum rockers 1.6 on intake...1.5 on exhaust ..bolt directly to the heads...
 
Here are some close up picks of the PRW rockers on my heads.

20200702_130539.jpg


20200711_202158.jpg


20200609_173355.jpg
 
We really need to see posts that reveal actual lift at the valve (let’s say before lash to keep it simple) along with what brand of rocker are being used and whether any correction was done. I would say that having a general idea of how much angularity loss is typically seen and what specific rockers yield in actual ratio might could possibly help those trying to maximize their lift parameters when zeroing in on their cam choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top