Has someone checked out the Trick Flow heads for this? They seem better in every other aspect, you'd think they would have improved the rocker shaft location, too.
Speedmaster Stainless Rocker Arm Issues
- Thread starter mshred
- Start date
-
mshred
The Green Manalishi
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,242
- Reaction score
- 128
Please don't apologize for the long post, this ends the thread and actually answers the question I was asking instead of talking in circles about how rocker geometry is affected by multiple things lol. This is exactly the information I was looking for, all in one post. I was under the impression that the Speedmaster stuff was a copy of the Edelbrock stuff, but was not aware of the rockers.
Since I don't have access to the website, I will have to find Mike's email, since I don't usually find time to call. I will go from there. Thank you!
According to Mike- B3 - IIRC - for the TT heads the Harlandsharps need no correction and the PRW could use a minor one just to dead nuts on.
Bobzilla
Well-Known Member
B3 Racing Engines LLC
PH: 717.497.6572
Email: [email protected]
Alt Email: [email protected]
Business Hours (EST):
Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm
Saturday, by Appointment
mopowers
Well-Known Member
Great photos. Did you have to open up the holes in the rocker shaft for that amount of rocker shaft relocation?
Bobzilla
Well-Known Member
Here are some other threads.
Post 20 in this one shows Edelbrock heads with PRW stainless rockers and same retainer interference:
Correcting Mopar Valvetrain Geometry
Post 34 in this one shows how one of the measurements is taken for this kit, then in post 43 you can see how thick and how offset this particular combo needed the spacers (spacers visible under shaft):
Valve train geometry
This thread shows pushrod interference in post 1 and clearance added in post 19:
Pushrod Rub (Intake side of head)
Post 20 in this one shows Edelbrock heads with PRW stainless rockers and same retainer interference:
Correcting Mopar Valvetrain Geometry
Post 34 in this one shows how one of the measurements is taken for this kit, then in post 43 you can see how thick and how offset this particular combo needed the spacers (spacers visible under shaft):
Valve train geometry
This thread shows pushrod interference in post 1 and clearance added in post 19:
Pushrod Rub (Intake side of head)
I didn't think it was talking in circles at all. In fact, there's some great information being shared from members who seem to care about a job being done correctly. I know I for one can easily stop doing any of that on your threads in the future, if that's what you'd rather.
No, I did not have to do anything to B3's partial correction kit. The trick flow heads have some corrections engineered in. Valve stem wear or contact marks are spot on with the partial correction kit.
I thought I had read elsewhere the Trick Flows were better about geometry.
Haven't read all the posts.
Comment:
- the rocker geometry can be correct...& still have rocker to retainer contact. More likely with the SBM because the rocker is so short.
- use beehive or conical springs! Problem solved.
Comment:
- the rocker geometry can be correct...& still have rocker to retainer contact. More likely with the SBM because the rocker is so short.
- use beehive or conical springs! Problem solved.
I mentioned that and got dissed. It's a fix.
Mike is in the process of finalizing my 340/416 Stroker build- can’t wait, should have it back this week fingers crossed!
Regarding heads- I had originally gone with SM using the 1.6 Hughes rockers before I contact Mike to do the build. I had him do a correction kit, still had to grind the inside of the Hughes rockers to clear SM valve springs that came with them.
Since Mike had had the motor and soing
The build, had nothing but issues with the SM heads and luckily he had a set of Trickflow 190’s. It only needed a very rocker shaft small correction for the 1.6 Hughes rockers- running hyd roller cam custom ground based on his specs, can’t recall but def not more .530 I think.
I rambled here but my point is- I wish listened to all the guys on here that said “GO TRICKFLOW” with the money I thought I’d saved going SM I ended paying more for port work and rework and ended up still not using them. Seems like some guys get lucky with SM but that wasn’t me.
Regarding heads- I had originally gone with SM using the 1.6 Hughes rockers before I contact Mike to do the build. I had him do a correction kit, still had to grind the inside of the Hughes rockers to clear SM valve springs that came with them.
Since Mike had had the motor and soing
The build, had nothing but issues with the SM heads and luckily he had a set of Trickflow 190’s. It only needed a very rocker shaft small correction for the 1.6 Hughes rockers- running hyd roller cam custom ground based on his specs, can’t recall but def not more .530 I think.
I rambled here but my point is- I wish listened to all the guys on here that said “GO TRICKFLOW” with the money I thought I’d saved going SM I ended paying more for port work and rework and ended up still not using them. Seems like some guys get lucky with SM but that wasn’t me.
That is incorrect, Rob. The Harland Sharp rockers need more correction than most, even on the TF heads. Throw a set of T&D 8130 rockers on a TF head, and run .700" net lift, and you won't need any correction. Outside of that scenario, it will need adjustment, just not as extreme as other "factory copy" type heads.
To address other comments as well, the factory engineers did very well at the stock rocker geometry. Once us performance nuts start putting aftermarket parts on the motor, things get sideways in a hurry. Has anyone ever seen a factory motor with roller rockers and say, .550" lift"? No? Well, that's why the issues start when we do it to our engines.
Oh crud! Thanks for popping in for the correction.
Excellent update. So if I can remember that down the road….
Instead of screwing up the info …..
But that’s why I also tagged you. This is what you do and I do not. Obviously I’m a hobbiest. Not a professional.
I have to call you up for help on a project.
We again will be speaking shortly.
You didn't get dissed, Mike. You don't know if clearance will be an issue until you know the shaft is at the right place. Then you can rightfully determine whether the beehive springs need to be used. I call that being informed. There was no disrespect given, at least not from me.
Yes it can. But again, if you don't know whether the shaft is at the right place, you don't know for certain why there isn't enough clearance. If the geometry is truly correct, not just centered on the valve tip, and you still have clearance issues, by all means, use a different spring if that fixes the issue. FWIW, I haven't had to grind on a rocker for over 15 years, and I rarely run a beehive spring.
On the madhatta360 motor, I did go with a smaller spring (not beehive) because even with the geometry correct, his was one of the rare occasions that there was still a minor clearance issue. It rarely happens, yet you hear about this issue all the time and the rocker gets blamed. Fix the geometry and the odds are that you solve the clearance issue as well.
-
