I didnt read the whole thread, did OP start by giving us year, make and model?
I didnt read the whole thread, did OP start by giving us year, make and model?
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?
Just to be clear, I passed geometry with a 3.5 GPA in 1979.
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.
That's why some cylinders make 45 HP and others only 40. lolYeah 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.
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
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
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
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.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
It's just the rough casting on the armpit...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
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
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!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