Adjustable rockers adjusters problem?..

-
Bewy said:
YR,
Pressed the wrong key before adding I clearly stated in post # 57 the BHs were for spring CLEARANCE, not to fix geometry.
And speaking of 'geometry', I do not see anywhere that the OP was unhappy with the rocker contact on the valve tip, only that he was having issues finding suitable adjusters for the rockers.

And you have probably got it wrong with your statement 'the shafts are too close to the valve'. If you meant the rockers are too close to the valve, & hence spring contact with the rocker, it is quite possible the spring OD is a tad too large. There will be a limit with some engines as to how large the OD of the spring can be.
Click to expand...


What you are doing is telling someone to bandaid an issue rather than fix it. His springs are not too big, so that rules that out. And the rockers he has aren’t made with an oversize body so that can’t be it. So what IS his issue?

It’s ROCKER ARM GEOMETRY. Why can’t YOU read and comprehend what I’m saying?

You aren’t helping the OP one damn bit. In fact, you are screwing him.

And yes sir, the shafts are too damn low and too damn close to the valve. Which is EXACTLY why the rockers are hitting the springs. A grinder or different springs are NOT the answer.

So I’ll ask you this since you have such a hard on about a correct fix. Why are you so opposed to getting the geometry correct? Are you saying it’s not wrong? Because I don’t need to to see the OP’s swipe pattern to tell you if the rockers hit the spring the geometry is wrong. Dead wrong.

You don’t have to like it. But stop telling people to fix a geometry issue with a spring, because that is never right. Ever.

Rather than telling people the wrong way to fix something, I suggest you go to b3racingengines.com and actually READ all four of his teach articles on geometry? Then you may get a grasp on why what you are telling people is so wrong.


As far as the OP is concerned, I don’t care what he does. If he follows your pitiful advice that’s on him. But someone else will certainly come along and read this thread and LEARN what correct geometry is and why it needs to be correct. And they will benefit from Mike at B3 and his knowledge and not make the mistake of running garbage rocker arm geometry.

There is no reason not to fix the geometry on these engines any more. Ever. It’s very inexpensive and Mike’s system is easy to use.

It’s just bullheaded dumbassery to keep telling people to not fix their geometry when they clearly have an issue.
 
YR,
I cannot comprehend what you are saying because it is WROOOOOOOOOONG. Get it.
Nobody except YOU on this thread is talking about rocker arm geometry. And nobody is talking about it because....because they do not see an issue. Just you, one you invented.
The OPs problem was two fold [a] getting the correct adjusters to use with HIS rockers & in a passing mention having to grind the rockers for spring clearance.
That would be because the springs are TOO BIG.

And someone ELSE, not me, mentions 'bigger springs' in post 13. Are they wrong too??????
 
Bewy said:
YR,
I cannot comprehend what you are saying because it is WROOOOOOOOOONG. Get it.
Nobody except YOU on this thread is talking about rocker arm geometry. And nobody is talking about it because....because they do not see an issue. Just you, one you invented.
The OPs problem was two fold [a] getting the correct adjusters to use with HIS rockers & in a passing mention having to grind the rockers for spring clearance.
That would be because the springs are TOO BIG.

And someone ELSE, not me, mentions 'bigger springs' in post 13. Are they wrong too??????
Click to expand...


Damn dude, you are too dumb to learn. It’s not that his spring is too big. The rocker hits the spring because the geometry is WRONG. So using a BH or a smaller spring may get the engine running but it doesn’t fit the root cause of the problem.

Stop and think it through. Unless he is running a 1.550 spring or bigger (and if the geometry is correct he may be able to get a 1.550 in there) the diameter of the spring isn’t the issue.

Stop shitting yourself. YOU are missing the point. The point is his geometry is off. Fix that and he won’t have to change springs, grind on a rocker or any other crap and the valve train will be much more stable.

ITS NOT A VALVE SPRING DIAMETER ISSUE. So stop giving out bad advice.

EDIT: I just went back and looked and it’s a STREET CAR. The chances of him having a CLEARANCE issue from spring diameter is ZERO.

The CLEARANCE issue is because the geometry is WRONG, not because the spring is too big.

Go back and read ALL the posts about grinding on rockers in this thread. Phreakish went out of way to educate you, but you either blew it off or you can’t learn.

You do NOT fix a geometry issue by grinding on the rockers or using a BH spring.

Internet God jpar said he ground on his rockers. That’s because his geometry isn’t correct either. But he took the grinder out and made them fit.

That is bad practice. Never grind on the rocker to get spring clearance. Ever.
 
Last edited:
Bewy said:
YR,
Pressed the wrong key before adding I clearly stated in post # 57 the BHs were for spring CLEARANCE, not to fix geometry.
And speaking of 'geometry', I do not see anywhere that the OP was unhappy with the rocker contact on the valve tip, only that he was having issues finding suitable adjusters for the rockers.

And you have probably got it wrong with your statement 'the shafts are too close to the valve'. If you meant the rockers are too close to the valve, & hence spring contact with the rocker, it is quite possible the spring OD is a tad too large. There will be a limit with some engines as to how large the OD of the spring can be.
Click to expand...

Geometry isn't just about contact patch. It's also about the relationship of the rocker to the amount of lift the valve will see. The stock rocker location is almost always wrong, especially with aftermarket cams. The shafts always need to move up toward the intake side of the head. How much depends on the rocker and the cam.

BH's may gain clearance, but would be an expensive bandaid fix vs rocker arm shims which put the shafts in the proper location for the cam. The proper location would negate the need to grind rockers for clearance AND ensure better valvetrain control. Win-win.
 
yellow rose said:
Exactly my point. You suggested a bad fix for a geometry problem. The shafts are too low and too close to the valve. So why not fix it correctly instead of using a different spring? That makes ZERO sense.

If you fix the geometry he won’t have to grind the rockers, change springs or anything else, AND he will fix the real issue.
Click to expand...

I guess we need our heads read.
 
Phreakish said:
Geometry isn't just about contact patch. It's also about the relationship of the rocker to the amount of lift the valve will see. The stock rocker location is almost always wrong, especially with aftermarket cams. The shafts always need to move up toward the intake side of the head. How much depends on the rocker and the cam.

BH's may gain clearance, but would be an expensive bandaid fix vs rocker arm shims which put the shafts in the proper location for the cam. The proper location would negate the need to grind rockers for clearance AND ensure better valvetrain control. Win-win.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why, when you get serious about geometry and involve Mike at B3 Racing engines, he throws a series of questions at you including net (after lash, if any) cam lift. Because even when changing cams with different lifts, you'e changing geometry......although maybe just a little, it's still changing. It's all part of the equation.
 
Wow, lets keep in mind unless we are talking about engines that are being raced this is all moot point.

With my 273 the new springs were larger diameter than the original ones, they rubbed the stock rockers. Nothing with the geometry CHANGED from the factory specs, is it perfect? who knows, who cares, it is factory and it is a street engine.

Grinding the surface of the rocker to give the stud lock nut needed to be good not absolutely flawless.

Grinding the armpit of the rocker (mostly just the casting line) for clearance isn't going to hurt the rocker or create a week point on a street engine.

The problem with the springs was that the diameter was different not the height and has zero impact on changing geometry. If this isn't clear people need to go back to school and take geometry again. It is the same geometry that is applied to valves.


Alan
 
Cuda Al said:
Wow, lets keep in mind unless we are talking about engines that are being raced this is all moot point.

With my 273 the new springs were larger diameter than the original ones, they rubbed the stock rockers. Nothing with the geometry CHANGED from the factory specs, is it perfect? who knows, who cares, it is factory and it is a street engine.

Grinding the surface of the rocker to give the stud lock nut needed to be good not absolutely flawless.

Grinding the armpit of the rocker (mostly just the casting line) for clearance isn't going to hurt the rocker or create a week point on a street engine.

The problem with the springs was that the diameter was different not the height and has zero impact on changing geometry. If this isn't clear people need to go back to school and take geometry again. It is the same geometry that is applied to valves.


Alan
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't say moot unless it's a race engine. Perhaps moot unless a person wants geometry PERFECT, which there's nothing wrong with.
 


Ralph Johnson talking about rocker geometry... he might know a thing or 2 about this topic that YR is beating to death...

 
Last edited:
Scody21 said:


Ralph Johnson talking about rocker geometry... he might know a thing or 2 about this topic that YR is beating to death...

Click to expand...


That's good stuff, thanks. The way I see it, either it's right or it's not. Probably for 75% or more street cars, it's not critical.....although if everybody got it "right" they'd realize a little more ability to burn rubber.
 
Cuda Al said:
Wow, lets keep in mind unless we are talking about engines that are being raced this is all moot point.

With my 273 the new springs were larger diameter than the original ones, they rubbed the stock rockers. Nothing with the geometry CHANGED from the factory specs, is it perfect? who knows, who cares, it is factory and it is a street engine.

Grinding the surface of the rocker to give the stud lock nut needed to be good not absolutely flawless.

Grinding the armpit of the rocker (mostly just the casting line) for clearance isn't going to hurt the rocker or create a week point on a street engine.

The problem with the springs was that the diameter was different not the height and has zero impact on changing geometry. If this isn't clear people need to go back to school and take geometry again. It is the same geometry that is applied to valves.


Alan
Click to expand...


It’s a BIG DEAL unless you like junk. Correct is correct. How big of spring are you running? I don’t ever grind on a rocker. So...if you increased the lift (and nothing else) from the factory .430 lift or whatever they were, you have changed the geometry.

Chrysler put the shafts where they are for very low lift and there isn’t much room to increase the stem height and not have issues.

Again, if you are running anything less than a 1.550 spring you don’t need to grind the rockers. If you are running a spring bigger than that, you need to at least move the shaft away from the valve. You don’t grind the rocker.
 
I don't recall the particulars on the springs, had a note that they were measured at 1.41
Mopar Performance Purple Camshaft Kits P4452757AE

This is after clearing
2018-04-21_003.jpg



Alan
 
Just to be clear, I passed geometry with a 3.5 GPA in 1979.
 
This is why I'm near done with this forum.. people bringing up arguments about geometry on a thread where I was asking about the correct locking adjusters...
Here's the entire story...
When my Stroker motor was at the machine shop first being built I had some 596 heads.. I have them completely rebuilt with new k line guides hardened seats and so forth.. given the pretty big Cam that I wanted some Crower Springs were put in... I gave them a set of banana grooves 273 rockers and when the motor was ready to fire they said a couple of the adjusters were not holding tight and suggested I get locking ones... I noticed they had clearanced the armpit of the rockers to clear the larger Springs.. with a suggestion from triple r I took a file and cleaned up the cast area on top of where the adjuster nut were locked down to smooth machine type pad.. I used locking adjusters... Since then I bought Hughes roller rockers.. sold my old rockers (I still regret that and especially now).. I bought new aluminum heads and put those on the duster as well...
NOW... I'm going to build a low compression daily driver 408 for a power wagon truck that I'm building and since I still have those heads and they're in great shape I'm going to put those on and I want to build another set of those same rockers with blocking adjusters and knowing the springs that are on there I'll have to clearance the armpit of the rockers no big deal...
I never asked anybody about geometry...
Or did I bring it up... and for the record I don't give a rats crap *** about geometry for my daily driver... I'm not trying to get that kind of performance peaks from it again it's just a daily driver... I have my duster for performance...
 
j par said:
This is why I'm near done with this forum.. people bringing up arguments about geometry on a thread where I was asking about the correct locking adjusters...
Here's the entire story...
When my Stroker motor was at the machine shop first being built I had some 596 heads.. I have them completely rebuilt with new k line guides hardened seats and so forth.. given the pretty big Cam that I wanted some Crower Springs were put in... I gave them a set of banana grooves 273 rockers and when the motor was ready to fire they said a couple of the adjusters were not holding tight and suggested I get locking ones... I noticed they had clearanced the armpit of the rockers to clear the larger Springs.. with a suggestion from triple r I took a file and cleaned up the cast area on top of where the adjuster nut were locked down to smooth machine type pad.. I used locking adjusters... Since then I bought Hughes roller rockers.. sold my old rockers (I still regret that and especially now).. I bought new aluminum heads and put those on the duster as well...
NOW... I'm going to build a low compression daily driver 408 for a power wagon truck that I'm building and since I still have those heads and they're in great shape I'm going to put those on and I want to build another set of those same rockers with blocking adjusters and knowing the springs that are on there I'll have to clearance the armpit of the rockers no big deal...
I never asked anybody about geometry...
Or did I bring it up... and for the record I don't give a rats crap *** about geometry for my daily driver... I'm not trying to get that kind of performance peaks from it again it's just a daily driver... I have my duster for performance...
Click to expand...


Who cares? Someone was going to grind on a rocker. That’s bad. Feel free to not participate in this discussion because you are wholly unqualified to say anything on the subject.
 
j par said:
This is why I'm near done with this forum.. people bringing up arguments about geometry on a thread where I was asking about the correct locking adjusters...
Here's the entire story...
When my Stroker motor was at the machine shop first being built I had some 596 heads.. I have them completely rebuilt with new k line guides hardened seats and so forth.. given the pretty big Cam that I wanted some Crower Springs were put in... I gave them a set of banana grooves 273 rockers and when the motor was ready to fire they said a couple of the adjusters were not holding tight and suggested I get locking ones... I noticed they had clearanced the armpit of the rockers to clear the larger Springs.. with a suggestion from triple r I took a file and cleaned up the cast area on top of where the adjuster nut were locked down to smooth machine type pad.. I used locking adjusters... Since then I bought Hughes roller rockers.. sold my old rockers (I still regret that and especially now).. I bought new aluminum heads and put those on the duster as well...
NOW... I'm going to build a low compression daily driver 408 for a power wagon truck that I'm building and since I still have those heads and they're in great shape I'm going to put those on and I want to build another set of those same rockers with blocking adjusters and knowing the springs that are on there I'll have to clearance the armpit of the rockers no big deal...
I never asked anybody about geometry...
Or did I bring it up... and for the record I don't give a rats crap *** about geometry for my daily driver... I'm not trying to get that kind of performance peaks from it again it's just a daily driver... I have my duster for performance...
Click to expand...

And certainly not a thing wrong with that. Millions of vehicles ran hundreds of thousands of miles with "bad geometry" so it's obviously not critical in a lot of circumstances.

Oh and if you leave the forum, that's your stupidity. Dummy.
 
RustyRatRod said:
And certainly not a thing wrong with that. Millions of vehicles ran hundreds of thousands of miles with "bad geometry" so it's obviously not critical in a lot of circumstances.

Oh and if you leave the forum, that's your stupidity. Dummy.
Click to expand...
I've already went down to a very limited basis and only came back to this thread because I started it and noticed it went on quite a ways without knowing why and then come to find out it's just the same old internet heroes beating their chest... I'll go ahead and hit the unwatch on this thread just so I don't get any notifications anymore... And who you calling dummy dummy lol...
 
J par,
I say amen to you. For clarifying what was very obvious from your first thread.

Yellow Rose, you fool, you might want to retract post #78.
 
Bewy said:
J par,
I say amen to you. For clarifying what was very obvious from your first thread.

Yellow Rose, you fool, you might want to retract post #78.
Click to expand...


No thanks. You might want to rethink your idea of fixing an issue. Again, you have piss poor advice and are too ignorant to learn.

The simple fact that Chrysler guys have been putting up with **** geometry for decades doesn’t make it right. The fix is simple and cheap now, but let’s be stupid and carry on.

This smacks of the MORONS who still tell people to set their Holley power valve opening based on idle vacuum. It’s wrong. Always was. Always will be. But idiots have been doing it forever so let’s keep doing it.

The fact that you think jpar has anything worthy to contribute just show how *** backwards you are. Go find his time slips. He has the slowest stroker in history. And yet, he is a gawd in his own mind.

Time to learn you are wrong.
 
j par said:
I've already went down to a very limited basis and only came back to this thread because I started it and noticed it went on quite a ways without knowing why and then come to find out it's just the same old internet heroes beating their chest... I'll go ahead and hit the unwatch on this thread just so I don't get any notifications anymore... And who you calling dummy dummy lol...
Click to expand...


Then LEAVE. Why keep running your mouth? Damn dude.
 
RustyRatRod said:
And certainly not a thing wrong with that. Millions of vehicles ran hundreds of thousands of miles with "bad geometry" so it's obviously not critical in a lot of circumstances.

Oh and if you leave the forum, that's your stupidity. Dummy.
Click to expand...


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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top