Could use some help identifying some roller rockers

[DionR]

Awhile back I was able to pick up a pair of EQ CH318A heads that I believe to be the "good" ones.

I knew they were a set of the earlier ones from seeing them on the car, but bought them unseen other than that. So when they showed up with a set of roller rockers and ARP head bolts, I was pretty pleased. I did notice that one of the poly-locks was missing, but figured maybe it was in the the bucket of head bolts, and was glad that the rocker itself wasn't missing too. I didn't have any plans for them, so I just stuffed them in a corner and went on with things.

I don't have any plans for them now, but figured I should make sure I have a complete set of everything in case something comes up. And I got curious about the rockers.

Here is one of the rockers. Other than the 1.6 etched on the pushrod side, nothing else I can find.

Looks very close to the Hughes Stainless ones, but their note says:

Plus, the kit seems to include pushrod guides, but the studs look to be press in??

Yikes! Just noticed that valve has dropped, probably why the rocker was removed. Guess I will have to investigate that more.

Maybe this is a earlier Hughes kit or something? Anyone recognize them?

 

[DionR]

And the ARP head bolts are missing one of the longer bolts and three washers. At least those can be bought singly, I think?

 

[DionR]

Also got the MP valve covers later on. They thought they were cracking, but I think it is casting flash. And they have been welded on the corners and to remove one of the holes.

Anyone know if those are supposed to have baffles?

 

[DionR]

I swear I did some research on this before asking. Well, on the rockers anyways. The rocker studs were a revelation to me so I didn't look into them before asking here.

I am pretty well convinced the rockers are just generic SBC rockers. Found plenty that look similar from places like Jegs, but they had different markings. Either way, I think they are just a standard roller rocker.

The rocker studs appear to be a match for the Crane conversion kit:

Crane Cams 36655-16 Crane Rocker Arm Guideplate Conversion Kits | Summit Racing

The valve appears to not have dropped and instead is missing a lash cap or something similar. There are 4 missing on that head, no idea why. Just one more thing to add to the list of parts.

 

[DionR]

Oh, and the valve covers appear to have been pretty heavily reworked. Best I can tell, someone machined or ground off the ribs, I just thought there was an option for ones without the ribs. The welded up hole was due to how the casting would have had an opening after removing the ribs and boss there. And the corners were welded and machined to add material so the gasket would seal. All in all, a whole bunch of work.

 

[408 swinger]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about running the Chevy 1.6 on the Magnum heads. I experimented with this once, geometry was horrible. Lost quite a bit of lift. Well aware of loss with lifter angle, also messed around a lot with push rod length. This is why Hughes sells the 1.65, compensation for the loss of lift. They are indeed the New Zealand casting, awesome score!

 

[DionR]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about running the Chevy 1.6 on the Magnum heads. I experimented with this once, geometry was horrible. Lost quite a bit of lift. Well aware of loss with lifter angle, also messed around a lot with push rod length. This is why Hughes sells the 1.65, compensation for the loss of lift.

So I should probably just pull them off the heads and sell them to a Chevy guy instead of running them.

 

[408 swinger]

So I should probably just pull them off the heads and sell them to a Chevy guy instead of running them.

That's what I did, lol.

 

[Michael Harrington]

The good news about buying new rocker arms for Magnum heads is that they are SIGNIFICANTLY less $ than for an LA head. I just bough Harland Sharp Adjustable RAs from Jegs for $500. HS non adjustable rockers are about $100 less. Much cheaper than the LA $1000 plus price for rocker arms and shafts.

https://www.jegs.com/i/Harland-Sharp/851/S70036A/10002/-1

 

[RustyRatRod]

I'll say this and then leave it for yall to argue, but there are plenty of people running Chevy and Ford style rockers with no issue and with good geometry. Just because something is specifically made for another engine doesn't mean it cannot work. Just like the Crane screw in stud kit in this thread. They were marketed to work with BOTH Ford and Chrysler.

 

[RustyRatRod]

There are 4 missing on that head, no idea why.

Because they are small and very easily misplaced if you're not careful.

 

[Illahe]

Awhile back I was able to pick up a pair of EQ CH318A heads that I believe to be the "good" ones.

View attachment 1716485690

I knew they were a set of the earlier ones from seeing them on the car, but bought them unseen other than that. So when they showed up with a set of roller rockers and ARP head bolts, I was pretty pleased. I did notice that one of the poly-locks was missing, but figured maybe it was in the the bucket of head bolts, and was glad that the rocker itself wasn't missing too. I didn't have any plans for them, so I just stuffed them in a corner and went on with things.

I don't have any plans for them now, but figured I should make sure I have a complete set of everything in case something comes up. And I got curious about the rockers.

Here is one of the rockers. Other than the 1.6 etched on the pushrod side, nothing else I can find.

View attachment 1716485691

Looks very close to the Hughes Stainless ones, but their note says:

View attachment 1716485692

Plus, the kit seems to include pushrod guides, but the studs look to be press in??

View attachment 1716485696

View attachment 1716485695

Yikes! Just noticed that valve has dropped, probably why the rocker was removed. Guess I will have to investigate that more.

Maybe this is a earlier Hughes kit or something? Anyone recognize them?

View attachment 1716485693

View attachment 1716485694

Your cylinder heads look to be the original E.Q. Heads. I have the "318B" castings and the cylinder head I.D. looks similar.

The valve spring retainer in your photo is missing a "lash cap." Take another look. Assuming the owner was attempting to use a 1.800" installed Hight spring on those heads. Note the +.050 keeper down in your spring retainer.

They may have needed that spring pressure for a roller cam. I run the Beehive springs with the same heads and I believe they are 1.800" installed. Much lighter if your running a SFT cam.

Missing head bolt. IIRC the head uses a different length head bolt up top. I recall calling ARP and purchasing the correct set up.

Fitment: The head bolt bores on the set I own were very tight in tolerance. One head went right on my 70's 360 LA and the other head had issues with the head bolts rubbing in their bores when all "ten" were installed and being had tightened.

 

[Demonracer]

We tried the Crane conversion on a Stock Eliminator 5.9 Magnum engine years back. We had nothing but problems after the installation and ended up going with Harland Sharp, with NO problems. Looking at the pictures posted, I would take the heads to a Machine shop and get the thoroughly checked out before running them. I hope it all turns out well for your build.

 

[DionR]

How much does the valve length play into the geometry with the Chevy rockers? Would the keepers with the lash caps and (maybe?) the taller overall valve height make things better?

Wondering if whomever assembled the heads used the funky valve spring keepers and lash caps to adjust some of that.

 

[DionR]

Because they are small and very easily misplaced if you're not careful.

I tried to pop one out using a magnet and they seemed pretty tight. The heads have been standing on their ends for more than a year now so they could have fallen off, but I would like to think I would have noticed them. And the other head isn't missing any. Ah well, just have to find replacements at some point.

 

[DionR]

Looking at the pictures posted, I would take the heads to a Machine shop and get the thoroughly checked out before running them. I hope it all turns out well for your build.

Absolutely they will get cleaned up and checked out before bolt them on anything.

No real build going on, right now they are just extra parts in case I need them. I have a 5.9 in my Dakota with a set of factory heads and I got that up and running not too longer before the guy approached me about buying these heads. I figured it made sense to stockpile them in case I needed to build another 5.9 for that truck or maybe even decided to turn it up a little. It's a '91 Dakota with a full SMPI OBD1 swapped 5.9, but the motor is completely stock and after looking at the springs and such, these heads would probably be overkill.

 

[PRH]

Just so you’re aware, running a lash cap on this valve & lock scenario is playing with fire.

The bottom edge of the sides of the lash cap are not supposed to come in contact with the locks.

In order to insure that doesn’t happen you have to have the distance from the tip of the valve to the top inner edge of the lock be greater than the inside depth of the lash cap.

There appears to be a wear mark on the locks where the lash cap was contacting them.
In that situation, the lash cap is basically trying to unseat the locks from the valve.

The lash cap should be pushing on the tip of the valve.

 

[DionR]

Here is FB Marketplace ad for the car the heads came off - For Sale

My neighbor worked on the car for the owner so I saw it around once in awhile. I don't remember much about the car, other than I think the owner bought it and then had my neighbor make upgrades like gears or a Dana, shifter, etc. I think the motor was build/bought by a previous owner.

If memory serves (risky to trust it), it was an LA based motor. Don't think it was even stroked. But the car sounded healthy. As I understand it, the owner wanted new heads so my neighbor pulled it apart and swapped heads and such for him. No idea why he wanted new heads. Note that the above picture (I think) is prior to the head swap since they decided the VC's need to be replaced as well. I haven't seen the car since the head swap so no idea what the new VC's look like, but I am betting they aren't smoothed like the ones I see on the motor in that picture.

The heads have one of those coin like things attached that are supposed to melt off if the motor overheats and says "void if removed". This makes me think this was a crate motor from someplace. But just a suspicion. I do wonder though that if it was a crate motor that whomever built it might have scienced out the valve train some?

 

[RustyRatRod]

I tried to pop one out using a magnet and they seemed pretty tight. The heads have been standing on their ends for more than a year now so they could have fallen off, but I would like to think I would have noticed them. And the other head isn't missing any. Ah well, just have to find replacements at some point.

They have oil between them and the valve tip kinda "suckin" um together.

 

[DionR]

Just so you’re aware, running a lash cap on this valve & lock scenario is playing with fire.

The bottom edge of the sides of the lash cap are not supposed to come in contact with the locks.

In order to insure that doesn’t happen you slant to have the distance from the tip of the valve to the top inner edge of the lock be greater than the inside depth of the lash cap.

There appears to be a wear mark on the locks where the lash cap was contacting them.
In that situation, the lash cap is basically trying to unseat the locks from the valve.

The lash cap should be pushing on the tip of the valve.

View attachment 1716485908

Thanks!

Maybe that's why 4 of them are missing? Because they weren't actually seating on the tip of the valve and were loose?

 

[RustyRatRod]

Just so you’re aware, running a lash cap on this valve & lock scenario is playing with fire.

The bottom edge of the sides of the lash cap are not supposed to come in contact with the locks.

In order to insure that doesn’t happen you slant to have the distance from the tip of the valve to the top inner edge of the lock be greater than the inside depth of the lash cap.

There appears to be a wear mark on the locks where the lash cap was contacting them.
In that situation, the lash cap is basically trying to unseat the locks from the valve.

The lash cap should be pushing on the tip of the valve.

View attachment 1716485908

Yeah, it's incorrect "HERE" to run a lash cap, because the lash caps will be pushing on the LOCKS and not the VALVES. I think you will find you may have something else going on here when you disassemble them.

 

[DionR]

@PRH, have you ever seen or setup a Magnum head to run this type of retainer? Thoughts on why it might be setup like this?

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

Yes like was already said, you're missing a lash cap. What the assembler did was using his brain to make an existing setup work with the lower stem height. Those locks are designed with a recess so that the Lash cap just clears the locks and rests upon the tip of the valve. If the stems have been ground as well, which why in the hell would they in a setup like this, then it's possible that the last cap can rest on the locks instead and you do not want that. I have seen people face lash caps in situations like that so that they don't rest on the lock but there is not much room for that and now we're getting into Uncle Jeb's garage kind of ****.

The Rockers could be scorpions, or some knockoff like that. They don't look familiar to me but I don't mess with a whole ton of stud Mount stuff.
If the setup bothers you, you'll have to buy a set of longer stem valves to remedy it and if the seats have already been run in with the current valves.. you'll need to have those touched -cut/ground , especially on the exhaust side.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Yes like was already said, you're missing a lash cap. What the assembler did was using his brain to make an existing setup work with the lower stem height. Those locks are designed with a recess so that the Lash cap just clears the locks and rests upon the tip of the valve. If the stems have been ground as well, which why in the hell would they in a setup like this, then it's possible that the last cap can rest on the locks instead and you do not want that. I have seen people face lash caps in situations like that so that they don't rest on the lock but there is not much room for that and now we're getting into Uncle Jeb's garage kind of ****.

The Rockers could be scorpions, or some knockoff like that. They don't look familiar to me but I don't mess with a whole ton of stud Mount stuff.
If the setup bothers you, you'll have to buy a set of longer stem valves to remedy it and if the seats have already been run in with the current valves.. you'll need to have those touched -cut/ground , especially on the exhaust side.

I don't see hardly any space at all around the sides of the valve tip. I cannot see how a lash cap will fit there without depressing the locks.

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

I don't see hardly any space at all around the sides of the valve tip. I cannot see how a lash cap will fit there without depressing the locks.

Those are the super locks, and typically that area around the valve tip is solid steel. These are definitely the matching locks for a lash cap... only question is whether or not they were new unground tip valves and somebody paid attention to whether or not the cap contacts the lock itself at the very bottom as PHR said.