Adjustable rockers adjusters problem?..

-
I don’t get why doing something wrong is ok because it’s been done wrong forever? I’ll never grasp that concept. The fix is easy, so why not do it?

It's not. What about BEFORE anyone even thought of ocker geometry? There were years that lots of people who now take that into consideration that didn't before they leaned about it.

Obviously, the factories didn't think it was important enough to get right as we all know millions were dead wrong right from the rip. I didn't say it was ok. I agree it's wrong. But I also agree that quite obviously, on a stock or even mild engine it just ain't critical. Much like camshaft timing. Some people don't give a rat's BUTT where the cam timing is and are perfectly happy stabbing in a cam dot to dot. Same kinda thing. Makes me wonder how many race only engines have the geometry off because either nobody knows to check o they just don't give a fig. While it might certainly be "wrong" they're still goin fast and having a good time, whether it makes sense to you or not. You don't have to keep hammerin on it. I think everybody gets you point. lol
 
It's not. What about BEFORE anyone even thought of ocker geometry?

Not to mention there's multiple schools of thought on 'proper' geometry too! B3 makes a great case for his logic, I've read other theories regarding where the rocker 'should' be at 'what point' in it's sweep.

I know one thing: I personally wouldn't make a decision on whether or not to correct without checking just how far off it is in the first place! In an all-stock motor with stock lifts, I might not even bother to check. But as soon as I change anything (heads, rockers, etc) I'd want to measure it all out.

That said, just changing the adjusters to a locking style probably wouldn't merit that much work or even a correction.
 
Not to mention there's multiple schools of thought on 'proper' geometry too! B3 makes a great case for his logic, I've read other theories regarding where the rocker 'should' be at 'what point' in it's sweep.

I know one thing: I personally wouldn't make a decision on whether or not to correct without checking just how far off it is in the first place! In an all-stock motor with stock lifts, I might not even bother to check. But as soon as I change anything (heads, rockers, etc) I'd want to measure it all out.

That said, just changing the adjusters to a locking style probably wouldn't merit that much work or even a correction.

Yeah and the same with deck heights. We all know how FAR off Chrysler's deck heights were....and crooked too, yet millions of them an and still run just fine like that.
 
Yeah and the same with deck heights. We all know how FAR off Chrysler's deck heights were....and crooked too, yet millions of them an and still run just fine like that.
That's why some cylinders make 45 HP and others only 40. lol
 
It's not. What about BEFORE anyone even thought of ocker geometry? There were years that lots of people who now take that into consideration that didn't before they leaned about it.

Obviously, the factories didn't think it was important enough to get right as we all know millions were dead wrong right from the rip. I didn't say it was ok. I agree it's wrong. But I also agree that quite obviously, on a stock or even mild engine it just ain't critical. Much like camshaft timing. Some people don't give a rat's BUTT where the cam timing is and are perfectly happy stabbing in a cam dot to dot. Same kinda thing. Makes me wonder how many race only engines have the geometry off because either nobody knows to check o they just don't give a fig. While it might certainly be "wrong" they're still goin fast and having a good time, whether it makes sense to you or not. You don't have to keep hammerin on it. I think everybody gets you point. lol


I agree 100%. My issue is that the geometry is far enough off that you have to grind on the rocker. That is a sure sign the geometry is THAT far off.

Again, unless he is using a 1.550 or larger spring there is no reason to grind on the rocker. I’m running 1.500 springs and I have at least .100 clearance.

That’s why I lose my mind. Someone has a verifiable issue that needs to be corrected and the answer is whip out the grinder or run a different spring. Both make the rocker not hit the spring, but neither one fixes the problem.

I try to convince people to get their cam timed and not guess. It’s easy to do. Putting crap together like it was done when we were younger is just silly. Learn the right way. I degreed my first cam at 15 because my dad taught me. I had to do it in high school shop to pass the class.

Same with deck heights. We know production decks are all over the place. It’s not very much to get the decks square, so why not do it? I’d rather let it sit than cut a corner like that.
 
Yeah and the same with deck heights. We all know how FAR off Chrysler's deck heights were....and crooked too, yet millions of them an and still run just fine like that.

And we wonder why LS (and most late-model) motors are such popular swaps... LOL
 
And we wonder why LS (and most late-model) motors are such popular swaps... LOL

Yup. I've never measured any of the geometry on them but I'm just guessing it's close.
 
There’s different mindsets at play here and in other topics related to this hobby and sometimes it’s just best not to mix the two or more mindsets, or one just needs to be aware more than what we usually see. It often does not work without attitudes, combativeness, mockery, disbelief, head shaking you name it and that can be from anyone. An engine builder typically is meticulous and precise about any aspect of an engine, as they rightfully should be. Then you have let’s say a shade tree type who throws **** together but somehow makes it all work. Then any number of types who fit somewhere in between the two, not forgetting those who can’t do it at all. It’s no different than serious racers who wrench on their own who typically see through a racers lens (hardcore mindset as an example) that are wired 100% vs. a casual street guy. Gotta keep things in perspective, and be aware of who’s who when absorbing all the posters and the content here. That my take.
 
Dont beat me up, I know this thread is months old. My question comes when you clean and install a set of rockers and some have ample clearance and some do not. Why ?

Tim
 
IMG_20210416_151137.jpg

I just noticed this thread on recent post..
I look back and I remember I pushed the unwatch button on this thread because of the silly arguments that were way off of what I was asking about...
It wasn't a few days later I made a deal on some parts and got these crane roller rockers for free...
 
Dont beat me up, I know this thread is months old. My question comes when you clean and install a set of rockers and some have ample clearance and some do not. Why ?

Tim

What clearance are you talking about? Where exactly?
 
Dont beat me up, I know this thread is months old. My question comes when you clean and install a set of rockers and some have ample clearance and some do not. Why ?

Tim
If you are talking about clearance from the rocker body to the spring/retainer, any variation is probably due the rocker being a cast part and the rocker shaft hole doesn't go perfectly into the same spot for each and every one. So there is wall thickness variation that could cause the gap to vary. The PRW rockers I have do this. Some clear and some don't. It is obvious that the castings are hand ground/polished on the outside and not identical from part to part. I would not expect to see this variation on a set of extruded rockers and would be very cautious if they did.
 
Clearance between the rockers and the spring. I,ve bolted the same rocker assy to the original 587 heads with similar results. I,ve read all the geometry stuff and think mopar has always been off a little

Tim
 
From head to head there can be variation in the center-line of the rocker shaft to the valve. Just depends on who was turning the handles on the machines back then and what the tolerances were. In the end, the stock stuff runs without many problems, but you start messing with the recipe you might have some work in front of you.
 
Clearance between the rockers and the spring. I,ve bolted the same rocker assy to the original 587 heads with similar results. I,ve read all the geometry stuff and think mopar has always been off a little

Tim
It's just the rough casting on the armpit...
Kind of the nature of the beast when casting stuff.. some are going to be a little different than others but the relationship between the adjuster the push pad and the massive hole for the shaft should be the same... (But I'm told they're not LOL..) again this problem generally happens when putting larger diameter Springs on...
And personally I couldn't give a flip trickle about perfect geometry.. I would rather enjoy my mopars driving them and racing them then letting them sit because of not perfect geometry.
 
Do I really want to answer a question about rocker arms without knowing what style of rockers I'm working with and how the clearance is being checked? Not!
 
Heres the run down, they are PRW aluminum rockers(0331811) with 1.5 ratio. My valve springs are 1.400 diameter with install height of 1.800. I have clearances from near zero to .020.

Tim
 
Because you are using an aluminum rocker that has a thicker body near the valve spring and the present installed height is approximately .110" more than the factory 1-11/16" (1.6875") installed height, you have created an interference problem.

Some will suggest grinding the rocker body for clearance. That is a dumb idea!

The real solution for your problem is the phone number at this site................

B3 Racing Engines LLC - Performance Engine Building and Mopar Valvetrains
 
Talked to Mike a while ago. Great guy, great info. He has shown me where to start looking to correct the problem. He also gave a couple of options to consider.

Thanks, Tim
 
Clearance between the rockers and the spring. I,ve bolted the same rocker assy to the original 587 heads with similar results. I,ve read all the geometry stuff and think mopar has always been off a little

Tim

Yes, that needs to be fixed by relocating the rocker shaft. That's the only real "correct" way. Contact Mike @B3RE and he will help you. Anybody that says different is blowin up your skirt. You don't grind on rockers to "fix" that issue.

.......although I do admit I kinda like the abrasive pad somebody used. That's much less invasive. Still, that does zero to correct the root of the problem, which is incorrect rocker shaft placement.
 
Talked to Mike a while ago. Great guy, great info. He has shown me where to start looking to correct the problem. He also gave a couple of options to consider.

Thanks, Tim
LOL You first talk to the guy that really does know what to do and then you what? Check with us dumb clucks to see if he is right? Ho-hum, Perfect!
 
-
Back
Top