440 Build Dyno Results

[wyrmrider]

putting in a roller rocker is like installing a quarter inch longer valve with a stock or iron rocker or a quarter inch thick lash cap with a stock valve

 

[BSB67]

putting in a roller rocker is like installing a quarter inch longer valve with a stock or iron rocker or a quarter inch thick lash cap with a stock valve

And they have been run that way 35 years by probably a hundred thousand mopar enthusiasts and racers.

 

[wyrmrider]

And they cause nothing but problems
I've seen spintrons- valve springs go more nuts than they usually do and you need more spring
valves close quicker/ harder and accelerate faster than designed
the valve motion is nothing like the cam designer wanted it

 

[moper]

Looks like a nice build. Dynos are tools - so until you get it to the track and race it, and weight it, you don't know what it's doing in your car. That's the simple reality with dynos.

On the geometry - The idea is the sweep is the narrowest you can get with a good looking placement on the tip. Normally depending on the setup it will be less than 1/8".
The quick and easy way to check geometry is to rotate the engine with a dial indicator on the retainer - at 1/2 total lift the roller should be centered on the valve stem. If it's not then remove the rockers and clean the roller and stem tip and coat the top of the stem with dykem or a Sharpie marker, then reinstall the rockers and rotate the engine through the entire opening and closing event for each valve. Then remove the rockers and look at the pattern. Really wide sweep, or a sweep offset to the intake or exhaust sides of the stems could be problems.

 

[BSB67]

And they cause nothing but problems
I've seen spintrons- valve springs go more nuts than they usually do and you need more spring
valves close quicker/ harder and accelerate faster than designed
the valve motion is nothing like the cam designer wanted it

So all of the cam designers, the same ones offering the roller tip rockers, did not realize that their rockers were totally screwing up the valve train and did not work with their own cam lobes? That is completely nonsensical. Again, thousands upon thousands of roller tip rockers used on every imaginable cam and lifter combination without issue for 35 years. Is it perfect, No. Does it matter for the typical street guy and racer? No. To think that the lack of perfect rocker geometry is some paramount issue that the the typical enthusiast and racer needs to chase after is silly. You can even buy rockers with skewed geometry for the purpose of changing valve reaction by design.

Frankly, it simply amazes how tolerant the Mopar rocker shaft system is considering the amount of other really really dumb stuff people do with their valve train set ups and they still live.

 

[wyrmrider]

Spock claims illogical
with a too tall valve for the stock or iron rocker or a roller tip the tip of the rocker is angled up when the valve is closed
This gives you less ratio when you have the least spring pressure
at open you have the most spring pressure and even more as the rocker is now closer to tangent where you have the most leverage (ratio)
while the cam is trying to slow down acceleration to go over to the nose the non optimized geometry is increasing ratio - exactly the opposite of what is required or desired
so we end up with valve float or hyd lifter pump up and compensate with stronger valve springs than would be necessary
There are issues- they're called losers
your comments do not make geometrical or mechanical sense
you do end up with more lift as the tangent is closer to max lift- but the trade off is not a good one
That and a lot of roller rockers are designed way wrong- just look at the angle of the adjustment screws and the pushtods
remember the LA valvetrain was designed for about .430 -450 lift- you go past .450 even .500 you can benefit by making adjustments as the valve closed position does not change- the change is all on the valve open side- the stock rocker ends up angling down (lash caps can help) ( and roller rockers are still way off but not off as much as without increased lift)
"Frankly, it simply amazes how tolerant the Mopar rocker shaft system is considering the amount of other really really dumb stuff people do with their valve train set ups and they still live." you got that right that's why the other guys pay extra for shafts

 

[383man]

And they have been run that way 35 years by probably a hundred thousand mopar enthusiasts and racers.

I agree that many smalltime racers run roller tip rockers and have for years without checking any rocker geometry. Is is right ? No its not perfect but I would think many rockers are made with the companies knowing many will just bolt them on and go. Myself I feel anything running a serious cam by lift and duration should be checking valvetrain geometry but most little guys with .450 to .550 lift cams you can bet are not checking valvetrain geometry. And many do fine but of course not all. Myself I run a Dwayne Porter flat tappet that's .592 and .585 lift with 264 & 270 @ .050 duration. I checked my scrub and look at where the roller tip runs through my valve run to full lift and back. I am using these Hughes 1.6 rockers that sit very centered on the valve tip and run within the .050 scrub and have a nice pattern on the valve tip. I have been running this setup since 2011 with good results. Sure we all agree getting valvetrain geometry perfect is the right way to do it but we all know many backyarders never check it and do ok. Ron

 

[dvw]

I agree many rockers are not spot on. Then again the factory location of the rocker shaft was designed in 1958 for probably .390" lift. Asume that spec was spot on. Then for every .100" increase in lift the shaft needs to be lowered by .050". So how many motors have been built without this modification? By the thousands. Perfect, no. Do they perform decent, yes.
Doug

 

[wyrmrider]

That spec most likely was not spot on Early B engines did not have cast in stands and the lift was up in the .425 range for the stock cam and much more than that for the HP non max wedge 413
.050 you can fix with a lash cap and you most likely sunk the valves
it's the radius of the roller that's the problem
lucky the roller also provides a straight path to the tip not a slide like a stock or iron rocker
evenso valve guides last longer
does lack of more optimum geometry contribute to lobe failure- it certainly does not help
would not be too hard to figure the angle of the rocker at max cam lift with optimised geometry- mid lift and compare with lift with rocker at tangent at max lift and see the difference in spring pressure/ nose load
I've never done it but I do know you can pick up some rpm before valve float or pump up
remember Hamberger and Mullin both sold offset replacement stands many many years ago- there was a reason we milled off the stock stands
with roller tips the spacers from one of our members should work well

 

[threewood]

That spec most likely was not spot on Early B engines did not have cast in stands and the lift was up in the .425 range for the stock cam and much more than that for the HP non max wedge 413
.050 you can fix with a lash cap and you most likely sunk the valves
it's the radius of the roller that's the problem
lucky the roller also provides a straight path to the tip not a slide like a stock or iron rocker
evenso valve guides last longer
does lack of more optimum geometry contribute to lobe failure- it certainly does not help
would not be too hard to figure the angle of the rocker at max cam lift with optimised geometry- mid lift and compare with lift with rocker at tangent at max lift and see the difference in spring pressure/ nose load
I've never done it but I do know you can pick up some rpm before valve float or pump up
remember Hamberger and Mullin both sold offset replacement stands many many years ago- there was a reason we milled off the stock stands
with roller tips the spacers from one of our members should work well

I just got my kit from B3Racing and it reduced my sweep from .080" to around .020". It is centered and the adjuster at base circle is much more in line with the pushrod. It actually does look cleaner and more efficient. The site won't let me post pics for some reason.

 

[wyrmrider]

That's typical
here's a quote from a HRM article
"
FROM HRM
An asymmetrical lobe refers to opening and closing ramps that are not identical. In order to maximize both valve speed and control, the lifter must be raised in a different manner from which it is lowered.

For example, in performance applications the valve is generally opened as quickly as possible, but the speed of the valve slows significantly as it nears maximum lift to keep it from lofting.
But on the closing side, the valve must be seated relatively gently to keep it from bouncing. An asymmetrical lobe design allows this."
raising your shafts with roller rockers keeps the rocker geometry from fighting the cam designer
not doing it takes stronger valves springs (obviously)

 

[threewood]

Would love to hear how the springs go for you.

The Holley 850 was perfect for AF right out if the box. Didn’t need to touch it the whole time.

Are you running an auto or 4 speed? I debated going with a larger double pumper but went with the 800cfm avs Edelbrock to keep it street friendly, mine is an auto. Highway mileage is 10.6 mpg so I doubt I could do much worse with a mechanical secondaries.

 

[threewood]

Here is the difference from direct bolt on rockers to shimmed and adjusted rockers...

base circle

At full lift

Scrub

Shimmed and adjusted...

Base circle

At lift

Scrub

$200 for the kit, first time using one.

 

[wyrmrider]

Thanks threewood and that's not a big cam
I've never taken pictures
The other place shaft spacers help is when you need large diameter springs

 

[threewood]

Thanks threewood and that's not a big cam
I've never taken pictures
The other place shaft spacers help is when you need large diameter springs

That is a .556"/.560" lift solid tappet cam.
I'm happy that I measured correctly and got the geometry correct. Hoping these parts last a long time.

 

[383man]

Thanks for the pics "threewood". They look good now. And B3racing may be the only ones who sell the proper shims that don't put to much side stress on the rocker stands so they wont crack. They are made right as a standard shim of the same thickness all the way across would put to much pressure on the sides of the rocker stands. They make theirs so they don't do that and seat in the rocker stands without cracking them. Looks like they worked nicely for you. Ron

 

[BSB67]

I agree that many smalltime racers run roller tip rockers and have for years without checking any rocker geometry. Is is right ? No its not perfect but I would think many rockers are made with the companies knowing many will just bolt them on and go. Myself I feel anything running a serious cam by lift and duration should be checking valvetrain geometry but most little guys with .450 to .550 lift cams you can bet are not checking valvetrain geometry. And many do fine but of course not all. Myself I run a Dwayne Porter flat tappet that's .592 and .585 lift with 264 & 270 @ .050 duration. I checked my scrub and look at where the roller tip runs through my valve run to full lift and back. I am using these Hughes 1.6 rockers that sit very centered on the valve tip and run within the .050 scrub and have a nice pattern on the valve tip. I have been running this setup since 2011 with good results. Sure we all agree getting valvetrain geometry perfect is the right way to do it but we all know many backyarders never check it and do ok. Ron


View attachment 619890

Thanks Ron.

But to make sure you and everyone else understands, if you are using a roller tip rocker and a 0.500" lift cam, your rocker geometry is off by a bunch. No exception unless you took drastic machining measures to make up for it. Your rocker shaft centerline is probably 0.180 to 0.250 too low, and the only reasonable way to to make it "right" is to move the shaft up. And the condition gets worse the higher the lift, worse with lash caps.

So, at the risk of repeating myself again, What is the sum total of all roller tip rockers on Mopars today. All brands, no exception, Harland Sharp, Crane, Dove, Comp, Hughes....They all have the same inherent condition that negatively effects "right" geometry, i.e. a roller tip. Understand that there is no rocker design criteria that will fix this condition created by the roller tip. Again, how many of these rocker arms have been, and are being used in flawless service?

I understand rocker geometry. I understand how to truly measure it, factors that effect it, and how to fix it. I'm also saying that it does not matter in 99% of all uses. I would argue that Ron is an example of this exactly.

 

[BSB67]

Rough numbers, Based on a 0.050" scrub, Ron's shafts should be raised about 0.10", which is actually very close in my book. Indy EZ heads probably comes with taller pedestals than the factory and factory replacement type aluminum aftermarket.

 

[383man]

Rough numbers, Based on a 0.050" scrub, Ron's shafts should be raised about 0.10", which is actually very close in my book. Indy EZ heads probably comes with taller pedestals than the factory and factory replacement type aluminum aftermarket.

I am definetly no expert on valvetrain geometry but I do understand it pretty well. And I agree mine is not perfect by any means but as you said it gets the job done for me. That's one reason I wanted to stay with a basic cyl head that did not need offset rockers and had the exh ports in the standard location because I know my setup is pretty low buck and that's ok as that's the ballpark I fall into. So I used my adjustable pushrod and set my rocker adjusters with about 1-1/2 threads showing and then ordered the pushrods to the lenth that my adjustable pushrod was set at. My valvetrain geometry may be off some and is not perfect but its good enough that it works very good for my low buck setup. And since my car is a street car I don't even run it hard all that much since I only get to race it about once year. And then I shift it about 6200 and trap about 6400. It holds good adjustment as when I check it once a year most are usually on the money. And you are right as the EZ head rocker stands do look a bit higher then the stock head rocker stands. I may be pushing the limit but my setup has worked flawless for me . And if I changed it to be perfect I don't think I would see anything in my performance since it has been trouble free. I am sure guys who run more serious lift and duration can and do run into trouble and breakage if they don't have the valvetrain geometry right on or very close. I cant afford to run the serious setup and run with the big boys anyway. I like a mild simple low buck combo that runs fine and stays together. Ron

 

[BSB67]

I am definetly no expert on valvetrain geometry but I do understand it pretty well. And I agree mine is not perfect by any means but as you said it gets the job done for me. That's one reason I wanted to stay with a basic cyl head that did not need offset rockers and had the exh ports in the standard location because I know my setup is pretty low buck and that's ok as that's the ballpark I fall into. So I used my adjustable pushrod and set my rocker adjusters with about 1-1/2 threads showing and then ordered the pushrods to the lenth that my adjustable pushrod was set at. My valvetrain geometry may be off some and is not perfect but its good enough that it works very good for my low buck setup. And since my car is a street car I don't even run it hard all that much since I only get to race it about once year. And then I shift it about 6200 and trap about 6400. It holds good adjustment as when I check it once a year most are usually on the money. And you are right as the EZ head rocker stands do look a bit higher then the stock head rocker stands. I may be pushing the limit but my setup has worked flawless for me . And if I changed it to be perfect I don't think I would see anything in my performance since it has been trouble free. I am sure guys who run more serious lift and duration can and do run into trouble and breakage if they don't have the valvetrain geometry right on or very close. I cant afford to run the serious setup and run with the big boys anyway. I like a mild simple low buck combo that runs fine and stays together.
.

Ron, your stuff, both this motor and the previous one, are probably some of the finest examples of how well simple with a plan works. I love it.