Another Edelbrock Victor Saga

Had a customer bring some Victors that needed a little valvetrain work. His engine builder wasn't getting anywhere by talking to the rocker manufacturer, and he remembered talking to me at Carlisle about this stuff. Easy fix, right? Uhhhh, NOT!

A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. Here are several.

Uh Oh!

Ok, I'll just make up a kit and get it corrected, right? Nope, the engine builder would rather have stands made. Additionally, T&D uses a .750" shaft, so with the .120" offset needed to get the roller where it needs to be, elongating the holes in the shaft would weaken it too much. This is going to suck!

Alright, throw it in the mill and start cutting off the stands, fill the bolt holes, weld, re-drill and tap, heli-coil, cut a keyway, and add additional support screws for the three center stands. Then grab some 6061T6-511 bar and start making new stands.

Ok, get it all together and, CRAP! The roller is too far inboard. It would run, but I don't like it. Neither does the engine builder. Time to make another set of stands.

A better pic of the roller placement.

Is the 1.7 ratio a contributing factor??
Or T&D's design?

Joe

So on this set of heads how far did you move
the shaft(in,out, up,down)

The sweep across the valve was right where it was supposed to be for a .718" net lift roller cam. The offset just needed an adjustment.

It has nothing to do with the rocker design or ratio. It is the location of the fulcrum centerline, aka. shaft centerline, that determines the proper geometry. Every engine will need a specific location for the shaft for its combination. The factory location will only be correct for a factory spec engine. Change anything, and it will need to change also.

Final numbers were .290" up, and .085" offset.

Good to see you back again, Mike! I hope you're doing well!

Here is a completed head. There is plenty of clearance for the spring and retainer. Even though it looks close from a profile shot, you can't see the relief in the rocker that would allow another .100" in spring diameter.

More

Not my Victors, but I'm still interested in this thread.

Is that combination going to need valve cover spacers now?

Where did you get studs that long?

He has pretty tall fabbed valve covers, so I doubt it. The real problem is side clearance. Edelbrock raised the rail on these heads, but they went straight up instead of on the incline of the valve, and that crowds the tail end of the rocker. You definitely couldn't use a cast cover.

Good luck getting a spring pressure measuring tool in there!

On my SB stuff I have to use reverse lip valve
covers and still have to notch the lip of the
cover and the gasket to clear

B3RE,

Love your threads and you did some work for a buddy in Tucson. My question would be wouldn't a shorter valve help the situation out? I'm sure the valve lift has something to do with the length of valve that can be used? Just curious. thx matt

Very nice work Mike!
Seems like I remember a certain genius member calling your product "snake oil" and saying that your attention to detail on rocker geometry offers no benefit, I wonder what his view would be on this specific application.

Oh, don't forget to drill & tap the center stud location to accept the longer studs like in the #2 & #4 shaft hold-down positions. There have been a number of center pedestal cracking reports on here, and I wouldn't run a Victor head w/o this mod now.

Much better pictures than what I saw at BSD! Really enjoyed our talk, Mike. That is a ton of work. Don't you love parts that offer a "Bolt on performance increase"!

The stands aren't any wider than the original hold downs, so I doubt he will have any trouble there.

Yeah Mike, the fabbed covers have that reverse lip. If the rockers weren't so darned long, some of those issues could be eliminated.

This thread reminds me of something I forgot to do...

Very cool pics and info sir. Very similar to my stuff sans the stands.

Yes Matt, a shorter valve would have made it less "off", but he was shooting for that elusive 2.00" installed height to run that much lift. Getting 2.100" will be rough with that valve cover rail location. There likely won't be room for that much offset.

Shhhhhhh! I use the snake oil as a machining lubricant.

I didn't drill the center deeper, but it has the additional support screws in the three center stands, so it is very rigid. I know the center stand is thin, but I have to wonder if the cracking issue isn't from valvetrain instability. After all, it breaks enough other parts.

Thanks Tom, I enjoyed the conversation as well. Amazing how much better digital pics look out of the bright sunshine.

Hey Jeremiah, didn't you beat on that thing yet?

That's some nice looking quality work. I like how the bottoms are done vs like the offset W2 stands which are flat as you know. I don't know how anyone would expect them not to take a lot of work to set them up correctly.

If you can post it whats the spring height and are they longer then delived valves? I don't know BB specs but just wondering.

Thanks for the compliments guys!
The engine builder was shooting for a 2.00" installed height, and the valves were Ferrea and REV. The customer bought the heads CNC ported bare from Hughes, so the valves are the builders choice. I don't think they are much longer, if any, than stock Edelbrocks, because he he still needed that deep retainer to get the 2.00". I only moved the rockers to where they needed to be to get the proper geometry.

Jeez, that's a he11uva lot of work to get that combination straightened out.

My stock-valve (Edelbrock supplied) Victors w/ the Hughes rockers didn't look nearly that jacked up when I mocked 'em up. Mine are set up for a 1.900" installed height using ti retainers and +.050" locks.

I'll still look for what they'd need to optimize the geometry, though.

It was a lot of work, but they were for an 8 sec., 10.5 tire car. The builder wanted the best that the customer could afford.

I'd be willing to bet yours are still off a good bit, even at 1.900", but like Jeremiah's Victors with Hughes rockers, it should be a lot less work. It just doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on good parts, and then not have them set up correctly.

Should have just went B1s more up front but ALOT less machine work.

That would have required different pistons and other specialized parts. From the story I got, he was running Indys and the seats fell out of them, so he went Edelbrock.

Good buisiness for you, great work.

Thanks Randy.

Looks plenty stout, Mike. With the lift stated and good care, the valve train ought to live to a ripe old age!

I hope so Greg. I know the customer isn't anxious to spend more money on the valvetrain any time soon. Can't say that I blame him.

very good work!!!!!

At least that is the newer castings with the extra material above the intake ports. I ended up using PAC 1326 valve springs with thinner valve spring locators (I think 0.030") that PAC milled for us, plus the +0.100" PAC Ti retainers, standard locks, and lash caps. Using the max wedge rocker shaft blocks we just set the shaft height where it looked OK, but it would have been nice to have the offset like shown here.

I have some photos, but need to figure how to post them?

and I still do thank you very much, this is an excellent thread and has nothing to do with what you described genius. why anyone would want to go through this is beyond me. they missed the boat on the design imo. great thread Mike this is what we need not some holier than thou attitude.

You didn't mention it , so I am guessing it isn't an issue , but I got curious.
Push rod clearance ?
Moving better than 1/4 " upward coupled with the offset has to have changed things there.
yea ? nay ?

I wish they would have had more material above the ports. It would have made things a little easier than trying to cram everything onto that little stand boss.

I'd love to see your pics. Below the post window, click "File Manager"-then "Browse"-then "Add File"-then "Done Adding Files". That will load files from your computer. Not sure about from a phone.

Thanks Quicktree!
You know, you're just the kind of guy who begs to have his chops busted whenever we get the chance. We just can't help ourselves.

Seriously though, I am glad Mopar guys are starting to pay more attention to this stuff. I was at my home track this weekend talking to some racers I've known for thirty years. I had asked a husband and wife couple last year about their valvetrain, and the answer was "Nope, no problem here". I talked to them Saturday, asked how the cars were running, how they were holding up, and I get "Well, we blew up the 408 this spring, and broke the valvetrain twice" (HS, by the way). They're not so sure there isn't a problem anymore, especially since the broken valvetrain is what blew the motor. I'm pretty sure I'll be hearing from them.

Good call! It could very well need some massaging, and I informed both the customer and the builder of that fact. I told them clearancing was their responsibility, since I wasn't building the motor. I wasn't removing material, unless I knew it needed to be removed. The final offset was only .085", so it probably won't take much, if any.

Thank you!
I hope you got through all of the flooding ok. Katy is all but what, 10 miles, from Houston. I heard they got hammered.

I just re-read the tech write-ups on your website for about the 10th time, and feel like I am finally getting a handle on what you're saying.
If I'm right, then with a cam (lift) change, won't the fulcrum point on the rocker need to be re-calculated and corrected since the perpendicularity will be at a different point?

That's correct, Tom. Valvetrain geometry is not just the rocker arm, or the valve length, or the valve lift. Everything in the valvetrain plays a role. This is one of the points I've being making for a long time. Unless it is dead stock, something will have to change for it to be perfect.

I have a question on how the geometry changes from a 1.5 ratio to other higher ones.

It would seem that the length from shaft centerline to valve tip
has to be the same, does the distance from shaft centerline to pushrod
cup shrink or are there other geometric changes??

Am thinking of Victors for our 512 build, but with std. ratio rockers (Hughs) and a low .600 lift roller

Some of these threads are raising the hairs on the back of my neck!!

Thanks for the educational inputs....Joe

Nothing to do with it? Oh really? Please do explain!
What Mike does is correct rocker arm GEOMETRY by relocating the rocker shaft to a position where it needs to be while accounting for certain variables i.e. installed valve stem height, rocker arm fulcrum length, net valve lift, and I'm sure several other things... The machined rocker shaft saddles in the head are not a "one location fits all" nor do all rocker arms have the same fulcrum length, whether he gets there by making new shaft stands or making shaft relocation kits the goal and end result is the same! While in this case the stackup of all these variables was obviously extreme, just bolting a shaft rocker system to the stands in the head will be less than ideal, way too many variables for the shaft location to be correct.
Comprende Pythagoras??

I'll need to put it back together again soon and see where things are per the instructions you sent me. One of the next things I need are new custom-length pushrods, and I only want to order those once.

Yep, all the same fulcrum lengths...

lol how did you that pic that was after chasing sixpackgut around all day I believe. I know what he does and have no problem with it. the problem is when he first came on here there was some claim to adding horse power by a simple correction. and my offer still stands just like the one with our newly found carb guru. you make claim back it up. I will still wager that he can correct mine from where they are now and you would see little gain if any. I set mine up just like have done for nearly 40 years and I get more than my fair share of passes. I know the geometry is off it's always been off. long before correction part were available.

again Mike thanks for this post, after seeing this I would not consider a victor head. why anyone would want to is beyond me if they are all like that.

At least you could give AndyF credit for that photo...

Hey, they're no more effed up than my MP Stages were!

Hey, Sleepy! Where were the other six Dwarfs?

Ok fellas, let's try to be productive here.
Quicktree, I won't make you any guarantees, other than it will be right. Try calling a cam company and getting a guarantee that their cam will make more power than what you've already got.

For what it's worth, I've never had a kit returned for not doing what is was supposed to do. I had a member here return one because he didn't want to clearance the heads for his 3/8" pushrods. 5/16" would have cleared, and he would have been better off using them, than loading up the motor with more spring. That was the one an only kit that was ever returned.

Considering that some pretty big names in the Mopar world have used my kits, or recommended them to their customers, I'd say they have a pretty good track record.

Yeah, it's not the heads fault. If you want the geometry right and run a lot of lift, you're going to have to do something, no matter what head you run. Btw, when did competitive racing not require customized work?

Yes, AndyF does get credit for the photo, however, the premise of that photo is incorrect. The fulcrum length has nothing to do with proper geometry as it relates to efficient, stable, valvetrain operation. For me, all it means is "How far am I going to have to offset the shaft once I have it at the correct height?".

Have you ever found a head/rocker/valve height that was actually correct? other then maybe stock?

Makes me wonder why they even put them on, or how they decide where to put the stands.

If your current rocker arm set up has a very wide sweep the mechanical action input on the adjuster side is not making efficient use on the output side and you have loss of lift at the valve. The max lift may not be impacted much but the all important low and mid lift (where the valve spends the majority of the time) will have less valve lift, slower rate of lift, and adversely flow potential. Think of it like buying a fast ramp roller cam only to and find out you are missing out on performance potential because the rocker is sweeping out some instead of opening the valve.
Will the correction make power?
If your geometry is off (wide sweep) in theory yes it will make more power.
Can an amount be guaranteed?
No, way too many variables. However, your valvetrain will be more stable if corrected.
Theres got to be a reason why when Jesels are installed the installed valve stem height is relative to where the subplates mount on the head.

That's a lot of work. Over or under $1000? I'm betting over.

R.

Let's put it this way. With a stock head and stock length valve, and Harland Sharp rockers, you would have to have over .900" lift to get the correct action at the valve. You can't get that with a stock length valve, and a longer valve would mean you would need more lift, and a longer valve, and more lift, and........... You can't get there!

I don't have a fast track into the mind of the cylinder head engineers, but my theory is, 'The consumer doesn't want to buy something that requires additional work, so we put stands on the head that will accept shaft style rockers. However, it can't be at the right place for everyone, so we will put it at the factory location. That way, if anyone complains, we can say we used the factory engineering'. That's my best guess.

For my time, it should have been over, but I cut the guy some slack. Only because I spent three days trying to figure out the best way to do it. Every time I would try something it would cause another issue, it seemed. He was out about $800. I figure I made about $3/hr on that one. I guess the steak and seafood dinner will have to wait. lol

Nice work on the stands!! My Victor/Sharp combo is getting by OK but only .674 lift and 1.900 installed spring. Those are the first Victors I've seen with new stands installed. The stands keyed to head plus the extra screws look to be a solid setup

wasn't sleeping, it was dark in there and some knucklehead was taking pictures. but I was tired as hell after walking about 50 miles in that place. I did see Elvis running around

Thanks! I'm looking forward to seeing the car make a few passes, since he is fairly local. Cecil County is his home track.

A few more

Any idea what would be a good cam lift and install height to target to avoid all the extra work you had to do if building a 512 with the victor max port?

https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1516685/1.html

Why on earth would anyone use these heads? How could a major head manufacture build a head with so many dimensions incorrect? Whoever signed off on these heads should be unemployed. Power wise I've yet to see one much better than an -1. Nothing fits. You have to ask yourself why? I've seen plenty of complaints about Indy as a company, but the castings are used by the thousands without failure. In fact I think I've seen more failures on the few Victors that are being run. Nice work on the fix. I just can't see going to all that trouble for little or no gain in performance.
Doug

Because Ebrock makes heads for the masses and unfortunately that mass is a bunch of cheap azz Mopar guys! It would have been anarchy to spit a head out with no stands and let the builder design as needed..... but you have to realize too that this project appears to be using an Ebrock Victor above and beyond its target audience...... and that's cool! Great post!

How did you know I got my Victors on a Black Friday, roll back, double coupon, blue light special

mopar dave, Ok, first, the only reason those heads required all that work is because of the reduced shaft diameter and fulcrum length of the T&D rockers. There was no way to offset the shafts enough without risking failure of the shafts. The correct lift would be far beyond the capability of the installed height to get the proper sweep action with the shafts just bolted on. You could probably do what Jeremiah did with his Victors, and have everything correct.

MoParFish, I can see from your photos that the roller starts inboard and stops outboard at full lift. The roller should stop at the same place it started if the geometry is correct (sweep out-sweep in). The lash caps are making that condition worse, but they keep the roller from rolling off the valve when the geometry is off. With .674 lift, your sweep should be roughly .038" when correct. No need for the caps. You've got a nice motor there. I just wish the valvetrain was optimized.

With a BB Harland Sharp rocker, and 1.00" lift, the sweep across the valve should be .084". How many guys out there are getting that much sweep, or more, with .600" or less lift? I've seen a lot of them myself, so I know there are a lot more.

The Indy heads are no different. They need the rocker shafts relocated, just like any other head with cast in stands. I've done enough to know.

Got some feedback from the engine builder, and he wanted to pass along some info that answers a few of the questions I couldn't answer. From the email:

"Good morning Mike.

I seen the write up on Moparts about Jeremys heads. Let the guys know that 3/8 pushrods fit with plenty of room. I think a 7/16 would go with no additional work. Also I seen some one asked about valve length and they were .150 longer the what the heads would have had from Edelbrock."

I also got a call from one of the well known (he advertises here I believe) Mopar engine builders using my kits. He did a before and after test, and picked up 500 rpm with 130# less spring pressure. He said the motor made great power as well. He's pretty happy, because he is always looking for ways to make more power. He must be, he ordered four more kits, and said he has more coming.

Mine have T&D paired which I did move. However Most are run as is. The difference is that the average person can bolt and Indy together and run it. The rockers and push rods don't hit anything. Perfect, no, but usable. I have yet to see a Victor that everything bolts on. Rockers hit the retainers, pushrods hit the heads, the rocker shaft bolts pull the threads, valve covers don't fit, spring height to short. Why use them?
Doug

Since this thread has the attention of some Victor owners, has anyone had their sheet metal valley plate crack in the 90deg bend below where it bolts to the head? Mine did in several spots and really started to notice the oil leak at Mopars at the Strip this year. Ended up just running a bead of Right Stuff all the way down each side for a temp fix. Too many heat cycles I guess. I was thinking about modifying an indy plate or getting one of Andy's plates. These heads were a bit challenging to to get to a point where I was comfortable with them but, I enjoy taking the road less traveled sometimes

I was thinking Brad. Were the Stages you speak of ported by Dwayne Porter, have Hughes rockers, and bought by a Moparts member in PA? If so, I corrected those heads over a year ago. They ain't effed up no more. I wish I could find the pics, but I remember they were pretty bad. Off about the same amount as these Victors.

Has anyone put an oil drain at the back of the head?I may need a smaller restricter in the head also.The back of my v covers leak before 1st gear is over.

They weren't effed up when I sold them, either, considering I provided him w/ the necessary pedestal spacers & lash caps that I'd used to straighten 'em out. Check your PMs.

Brad, I'm not insinuating that you sold someone effed up heads. I was simply alluding to the fact that just bolting a shaft onto the cast stands would be way off. I did the correction for his combination without the lash caps, and they look good. You had them set up for your combination, now they are set up for his. Nothing wrong with that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.