MRE roller rockers on Trick Flow heads

[femtnmax]

432 low deck. Howards hydraulic flat tappet cam, Crower lifters. MRE 1.6 roller rocker arms and MRE rocker shafts. 8.90 effective length pushrods with 5/32 radius ball/cup. Felpro .039 head gasket #1009.
Rocker arm sweep contact on valve stems was approx .055 inch width, contact starting at valve stem max diameter and moving toward exhaust side. This was for .550 valve lift.

FYI...the "long" ARP head bolts were too long on RH side of 1969 383 block. Cleaned and tapped the holes as deep as possible and still had to grind off/clean up the 5 "long" head bolts..shorten them about 1 thread pitch. They were bottoming out before the head bolts were fully torqued.

 

[yellow rose]

That doesn't look bad, but it's hard to tell how wide the witness mark is from a picture.


You may be able to tighten it up a bit.

Check out b3racingengines.com and read his tech stuff.

 

[rumblefish360]

*I think* by moving the shafts upwards, you can move the contact mark backwards closer to the middle.

 

[Abodybomber]

432 low deck. Howards hydraulic flat tappet cam, Crower lifters. MRE 1.6 roller rocker arms and MRE rocker shafts. 8.90 effective length pushrods with 5/32 radius ball/cup. Felpro .039 head gasket #1009.
Rocker arm sweep contact on valve stems was approx .055 inch width, contact starting at valve stem max diameter and moving toward exhaust side. This was for .550 valve lift.

FYI...the "long" ARP head bolts were too long on RH side of 1969 383 block. Cleaned and tapped the holes as deep as possible and still had to grind off/clean up the 5 "long" head bolts..shorten them about 1 thread pitch. They were bottoming out before the head bolts were fully torqued.
View attachment 1714988363 View attachment 1714988364

*I think* by moving the shafts upwards, you can move the contact mark backwards closer to the middle.

Seen both issues,on multiple engine brands.... Why I went stud conversion on Magnum... You don't have that option..Send "Yellow Rose", a P.M.,...or use the search option here..

 

[femtnmax]

Here is a photo of the banana grooves I cut in the MRE rocker shafts using an angle grinder with thin cut-off wheel (about 1/8 inch wide). Finished the shaft cuts with 600 grit emery cloth. To help valve train oiling for the .550 valve lift I tripled the amount of oil flowing to the rocker shafts by making the oil holes in the cam journal into circumferential slots where the slot lengths are 3 times the diameter of the original oil holes in the cam journal. Not to say this is the way to do it, this is just what I decided on.

A tool to pre-oil the engine/rocker shafts I made using an old 318 oil pump drive, ground off all the teeth, and a 6 inch long bolt with the bolt head ground into a flat blade like a screw driver to fit the distributor drive slot in the oil pump drive.
To pre-oil the rocker shafts, I started with the crankshaft at #1 cylinder TDC, then rotate the crank CW stopping at 90 deg ATDC. At this crank position oil will be sent to the LH drivers side rocker shaft. Run the drill CCW for a big block. At about 500 rpm drill speed, had to run the drill a good minute until oil was running out at a good flow from the entire length of the rocker shaft. Now rotate the crank CW stopping at 360 deg after TDC. Run the drill again to oil the RH rocker shaft. Then turn the crank another 360 degrees to put it back at #1 cylinder TDC.

Concerning the rocker shaft position for optimum rocker geometry, I realize what I showed the last post was close but not optimum. I’m not the expert like some of you guys, but I don’t know why Trick Flow kept the cast in rocker shaft stands in their BBM heads. Just like OEM heads, tapered shims and custom spacers are needed to reset the rocker shaft height. I used to work for a guy that ran an A/stock Ford 427, the rocker shafts were supported in removable shaft blocks that could be flat shimmed or change the height of the square shaft block easily to anything you wanted. It was really easy to “tune” the rocker geometry. Same goes for the Mopar small block Magnum heads with the stud type rockers…again it is real easy to improve the rocker geometry.

 

[AndyF]

*I think* by moving the shafts upwards, you can move the contact mark backwards closer to the middle.

 

[AndyF]

*I think* by moving the shafts upwards, you can move the contact mark backwards closer to the middle.

You would need to lower the rocker shaft to move the contact mark back towards the intake manifold. Raising the shaft moves the shaft closer to the valves. I'd run it as is, it will work just fine. Check out my article on the Hot Rod website to see the Mancini rocker arms in use on the Trick Flow heads. I made 700 hp and the engine spun to 7000 rpm without any issues.

 

[B3RE]

Rocker arm sweep contact on valve stems was approx .055 inch width, contact starting at valve stem max diameter and moving toward exhaust side. This was for .550 valve lift.

View attachment 1714988363 View attachment 1714988364

The sweep width is over twice what it should be for a .550" net valve lift. The off center pattern won't be an issue. The roller should be at exactly the same place with the valve on the seat, as it is with the valve at full lift. I would guarantee that the shaft needs to move over .100" for your combo. Or, you could put a solid roller in it, with a bunch of valve spring, and flog it on a dyno. It will rev just fine......for a while.

Trick Flow did move the stands from the stock location, but it wasn't enough to get the geometry closer to what most applications need. I've tried to get them to change it for the new 270 head, but no dice so far.

 

[yellow rose]

Glad you chimed in Mike.

Lots of guys run stuff and get away with it. Don't make it right.

 

[B3RE]

Glad you chimed in Mike.

Lots of guys run stuff and get away with it. Don't make it right.

Thanks Tim,

The way I see it, if you don't know it's right, you won't know what went wrong when there is a failure. Its playing with fire, IMO.

 

[rumblefish360]

Thanks for the correction gentlemen

 

[femtnmax]

The MRE rockers have 900 miles on them, so I took the rocker shafts off and disassembled everything. Those miles included a 200 mile endurance test with a minimal speed of 80 mph, and top speeds of 110+ mph. Thus the minimum cruise engine speed was 3700 rpm for 200 miles. I did stop once for gas. FYI there are 6 states in the northern Rocky Mountains with 80 mph speed limits on open-road 4 lane highways.
Valve spring pressures are the low-end spring that TrickFlow offers for flat tappet cams. IE 120 lb seat and under 400 lb open load, which I was told is the max load for these MRE rocker arms.
Inspection of the rocker assemblies showed no problems anywhere. Details include:
No issues with the MRE rocker arms #MRE-57001-16, 1.6 ratio with spacers.
No valve spring retainer pull-thru past the valve locks on the Trick Flow heads, all trick flow parts.
No scuffing of the 3/8 diameter pushrods in the Trick Flow heads pushrod slots.
No overheat of the pushrod cups at the rocker arm adjuster interface.
No problems with the Smith Brothers pushrods, 8.90 inch effective length, 5/32 radius ball & cup.
No issues with the rocker shaft studs, ARP part #AJ2750-1B.
No problems with Hughes rocker shaft hold down brackets or 12 point nuts. These were left over from the rocker shaft hold down kit for the old 906 heads. New Trick Flow part #HUG-7442TF.
No problems with the Crower Camsaver lifters, part #66031X3-16, they provide extra lube to cam lobes.
No problems with MRE rocker shafts #MRE-715. I had carefully tapped out the end plugs with a punch, and yes they did need some cleaning inside with a long lifter galley brush. Reused and staked the end plugs.
Rocker shaft shim kits: 440 source #113-1108 spacers, 105-1108 shims, and VSI 201 x .03 shims.
Dougs headers D452, with 2 inch diameter primary tubes fit the low deck block and Ebody no issues. First time I have not needed to add any clearance dents.

After reassembling the engine top end I prelubed the rocker assemblies again before engine start.
Averaged 14 mpg fuel economy at 70 mph during a separate 280 mile run. 3.23 axle ratio.
Concerning the rocker geometry, many engine builders like the mid-lift layout where the rocker arm roller is at the same position on the valve stem with valve closed and valve max lift. I noticed Jesel recommended their rockers be about 0.10 inch below mid-lift so there would be less roller movement across the valve stem as the valve approached full valve lift. Thus the TrickFlow as-is rocker shaft location with MRE rockers appears to be somewhat the Jesel method.
Jesel - Tech Tips & Faq
Not trying to start something. On another forum I was told there are as many opinions of rocker geometry as there are members on the forum.

 

[B3RE]

The MRE rockers have 900 miles on them......

Concerning the rocker geometry, many engine builders like the mid-lift layout where the rocker arm roller is at the same position on the valve stem with valve closed and valve max lift. I noticed Jesel recommended their rockers be about 0.10 inch below mid-lift so there would be less roller movement across the valve stem as the valve approached full valve lift. Thus the TrickFlow as-is rocker shaft location with MRE rockers appears to be somewhat the Jesel method.
Jesel - Tech Tips & Faq
Not trying to start something. On another forum I was told there are as many opinions of rocker geometry as there are members on the forum.

I'm not trying to start something either. I'm trying to stop something, namely the destruction of Mopar valvetrain parts, which always take something else with them. There is a lot to be lost if the valvetrain isn't right, whether the engine fails or not.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You're not running Jesels, and the recommendations are understandable for engines running 900"+ lifts and 1000lbs + spring pressures with titanium valves and tiny stem diameters. That kind of side loading will flex the small soft stems, and risk failure. So instead, guys throw away their valve springs every 20 passes as a tradeoff for not breaking something else in the valvetrain. Still, many engine builders don't use that recommendation. The NASCAR guys might use Jesel rockers, but they don't set up their geometry that way. The valvetrain guy at Sonny's doesn't set up their ProMod motors that way. How do I know? I have a few inside sources who have confirmed this.

The Trick Flow heads, or any other heads for that matter, don't have the stands positioned for the "Jesel Method" regardless of the rocker used. Valve lift plays a role as well, so your combo just happens to be about .100" low. It would be different for a different combination. Regardless, it isn't right unless you make it right.

You have 900 miles on your rockers and everything looks great. A man once hit a big rock with a sledge hammer 100 times and the rock looked perfect. At 101......... well, you get the idea.

 

[femtnmax]

B3R3...yes, I get the idea for sure. I was going to experiment with raising the rocker shaft and see what geometry results...which I realize you are way ahead of me. My understanding is the MRE rocker arms are budget Harland and Sharp rockers, so they should use the same spacers under the rocker shafts.
Do you sell the "half moon" spacers to raise the shafts 0.10 inch??
Phil

 

[yellow rose]

B3R3...yes, I get the idea for sure. I was going to experiment with raising the rocker shaft and see what geometry results...which I realize you are way ahead of me. My understanding is the MRE rocker arms are budget Harland and Sharp rockers, so they should use the same spacers under the rocker shafts.
Do you sell the "half moon" spacers to raise the shafts 0.10 inch??
Phil

You can't just raise the shaft. If you just raise the shaft, you will make the rocker hit the valve spring.

The half moon shims are JUNK. They break the stands, especially on cast iron heads and don't work.

Call B3 and do his deal. Costs more, but his stuff actually works.

 

[femtnmax]

I never liked the half mood spacer idea either.
At TrickFlow when they designed the heads, there were probably plenty of design iterations before they settled on a final geometry. The mid-lift rocker geometry has been around for decades, and this was not TF's first cylinder head design. There have to be reasons they recommend Harland Sharp rocker arms which MRE rockers are a version of. There have to be reasons that Trickflow is staying with their geometry even on their new 270 max-wedge heads.
I will mock up additional rocker geometry, do some more research, and ask more questions.
thanks.

 

[yellow rose]

I never liked the half mood spacer idea either.
At TrickFlow when they designed the heads, there were probably plenty of design iterations before they settled on a final geometry. The mid-lift rocker geometry has been around for decades, and this was not TF's first cylinder head design. There have to be reasons they recommend Harland Sharp rocker arms which MRE rockers are a version of. There have to be reasons that Trickflow is staying with their geometry even on their new 270 max-wedge heads.
I will mock up additional rocker geometry, do some more research, and ask more questions.
thanks.

Could it be marketing?

We should all know by now, there is no one correct stand height, unless it's like the W-2 and you use the exact valves, rockers etc.

So claiming TF put the stands in the correct place...for what? You change stem height, it changes geometry. Change rocker arm manufacturer and the geometry changes.

It's all part of one system where every part affects the whole.

 

[femtnmax]

So claiming TF put the stands in the correct place...for what?

For what???????????????????Read the TrickFlow data sheet that comes with the heads.

If your rocker geometry mod is the magic carpet...do like the other leaders do on this forum....post a full presentation of the design and improved geometry, not just a couple of vague pics.

 

[yellow rose]

For what???????????????????Read the TrickFlow data sheet that comes with the heads.

If your rocker geometry mod is the magic carpet...do like the other leaders do on this forum....post a full presentation of the design and improved geometry, not just a couple of vague pics.

Yeas, for what? For the exact valves they come with, at the exact stem height, with the rocker they tell you?

Then what about lift? You think a cam with .500 lift will have the same geometry as a cam with .600 lift? They don't.


One more time, if you want pics and all the info, go to www.b3racingengines.com because he has pics, he has the tech info, he has done the work.

I'm not getting paid to send Mike work. BUT, in screwing with this crap since 1980, I can tell you that other than milling off the stands and using blocks, HE IS THE ONLY ONE I KNOW OF WITH THE ABILITY TO FIX THE GEOMETRY ON A HEAD WITH A FIXED STAND HEIGHT AND SHAFT POSITION.


I have seen so many broken rockers, engines with way too much spring, down on power, because the geometry was wrong. The only way I had to fix it was mill the stands and use blocks. That's a royal pain in the ***. The B3 system is so simple, much less money and just as effective as blocks are.

Go to the web site. Just because TF engineered it, don't make it right for everything. In fact, I'd bet most everything I have, that most often then not, the geometry is wrong.

 

[AndyF]

432 low deck. Howards hydraulic flat tappet cam, Crower lifters. MRE 1.6 roller rocker arms and MRE rocker shafts. 8.90 effective length pushrods with 5/32 radius ball/cup. Felpro .039 head gasket #1009.
Rocker arm sweep contact on valve stems was approx .055 inch width, contact starting at valve stem max diameter and moving toward exhaust side. This was for .550 valve lift.

FYI...the "long" ARP head bolts were too long on RH side of 1969 383 block. Cleaned and tapped the holes as deep as possible and still had to grind off/clean up the 5 "long" head bolts..shorten them about 1 thread pitch. They were bottoming out before the head bolts were fully torqued.
View attachment 1714988363 View attachment 1714988364

Here is the link to the article on the Hot Rod website where I tested Mancini, Harland and T&D rocker arms on the new Trick Flow heads: Trying to Find Extra Power Through Rocker-Arm Testing - Hot Rod Network

 

[femtnmax]

thanks AndyF for posting. A good read.
I asked a few questions, talked with owner of one of the leading shops that provides alot of respected info on this forum and others.
The MRE rocker arms are made by HS, but they are not the same rocker as HS (HS w/o a shaft bearing). So the geometry is different. They are used often on Stealth and RPM heads with good results, and now I'm using them on TF heads. I asked if my TF geometry with MRE rockers was acceptable, and was told to run it and not worry about it. So that is what I'm going to do.

 

[yellow rose]

thanks AndyF for posting. A good read.
I asked a few questions, talked with owner of one of the leading shops that provides alot of respected info on this forum and others.
The MRE rocker arms are made by HS, but they are not the same rocker as HS (HS w/o a shaft bearing). So the geometry is different. They are used often on Stealth and RPM heads with good results, and now I'm using them on TF heads. I asked if my TF geometry with MRE rockers was acceptable, and was told to run it and not worry about it. So that is what I'm going to do.

So, you aren't going to check it? You aren't going to verify geometry?

I mean, Trick Flow wouldn't lie to you, and tell you "our **** runs right out of the box" when in reality, if you don't verify it, you won't have any idea what you have. They are salesmen. They LIE.

When a cam grinder starts telling me his cams take less valve spring then another cam, I don't ever use that guy again.


At least CHECK what you have, not for a centered pattern, but a narrow pattern.

 

[IQ52]

thanks AndyF for posting. A good read.
I asked a few questions, talked with owner of one of the leading shops that provides alot of respected info on this forum and others.
The MRE rocker arms are made by HS, but they are not the same rocker as HS (HS w/o a shaft bearing). So the geometry is different. They are used often on Stealth and RPM heads with good results, and now I'm using them on TF heads. I asked if my TF geometry with MRE rockers was acceptable, and was told to run it and not worry about it. So that is what I'm going to do.

You would need to lower the rocker shaft to move the contact mark back towards the intake manifold. Raising the shaft moves the shaft closer to the valves. I'd run it as is, it will work just fine. Check out my article on the Hot Rod website to see the Mancini rocker arms in use on the Trick Flow heads. I made 700 hp and the engine spun to 7000 rpm without any issues.

So, you aren't going to check it? You aren't going to verify geometry?

I mean, Trick Flow wouldn't lie to you, and tell you "our **** runs right out of the box" when in reality, if you don't verify it, you won't have any idea what you have. They are salesmen. They LIE.

When a cam grinder starts telling me his cams take less valve spring then another cam, I don't ever use that guy again.


At least CHECK what you have, not for a centered pattern, but a narrow pattern.

I agree with AndyF that he could run the rockers he has now and I'm the one that told femtnmax to run the MRE rockers and not to worry about them.

I've no doubt that the B3RE system is a good way to get better geometry and I tried to be supportive of him when they were attempting to crucify him over on Moparts.

In femtnmax's case I think he should run what he has got. Would it be better with the B3RE system? I believe so. If some of you think he just has to have it, why don't you spring for it for him?

 

[B3RE]

[QUOTE="IQ52, post: 1971483663, member:

I've no doubt that the B3RE system is a good way to get better geometry and I tried to be supportive of him when they were attempting to crucify him over on Moparts.

In femtnmax's case I think he should run what he has got. Would it be better with the B3RE system? I believe so. If some of you think he just has to have it, why don't you spring for it for him?[/QUOTE]
I haven't forgotten that support Jim, and it still means a lot to me. Thank you!

When it comes to correcting geometry, some guys get it, and some guys don't. I have given away kits for free, or at reduced cost, just to prove to doubters it works. I'm beyond that now, and if I want to stay in business, there can't be a bunch of freebies.

AndyF could have been one of those recipients, but he made it very clear he tested too many parts on the dyno, and he wanted no part of it. Laughably, a week later someone came out with a plastic windage tray, and he immediately mentioned the desire to try one on the dyno. I doubt the windage tray material is going to show power on the dyno.

So, I have to wonder, why all the effort to discredit something that has not been tried personally. I never discredited Andy's book, in fact, I complimented his book for having a lot of good information, although not necessarily new information. But, when it comes to the valvetrain, he is way off base.

In the end, it's really up to the guys who get it, to decide if they want it right and are willing to spend a little extra to do it, or to the guys who don't get it, but want it to be right and take a chance on something they really don't understand. Or not. That is their choice alone, and I want it to be an informed one.

The horse has been led to the trough. Let him drink if he wishes.

 

[mopowers]

How much do those B3RE kits go for?