Quote:

---

A longer valve would only make this situation worse, as would lash caps. The OP said the rocker had a lot of angle which would be made worse with this approach, not to mention have terrible geometry. The rockers are manufactured with plenty of clearance for the spring if the rocker is properly located. It needs to be moved to the right place!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A longer valve would only make this situation worse, as would lash caps. The OP said the rocker had a lot of angle which would be made worse with this approach, not to mention have terrible geometry. The rockers are manufactured with plenty of clearance for the spring if the rocker is properly located. It needs to be moved to the right place!

---

My question has always been this. How could a company that's made as many heads as Edelbrock, screw up the rocker shaft location on the Victors so bad? All I hear about these heads is how rockers and push rods don't fit.
Doug

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A longer valve would only make this situation worse, as would lash caps. The OP said the rocker had a lot of angle which would be made worse with this approach, not to mention have terrible geometry. The rockers are manufactured with plenty of clearance for the spring if the rocker is properly located. It needs to be moved to the right place!

---

My question has always been this. How could a company that's made as many heads as Edelbrock, screw up the rocker shaft location on the Victors so bad? All I hear about these heads is how rockers and push rods don't fit.
Doug

---

The question is "Where should they put it?". When the Chrysler designed the head, it was for a specific valve length, lift range, and rocker design. Considering most performance or race engines share none of these specs, how could they possibly put it in the "right" place?

---

Quote:

---

From what I've seen over the years the rocker shafts need to go down not up. When you are opening the valve farther then the midpoint is lower not higher. So the shaft needs to drop into the head in order to get the correct geometry. Lowering the shaft is much more difficult than raising the shaft which is why most people don't bother.

---

Since we are discussing moving the shafts, what do you think needs to happen to the shaft location in the attached picture and why? That picture was taken at full lift by the way.

To the original poster, DO NOT GRIND THE ROCKER ARMS! That is not the answer. With a little more information there are way more correct methods for resolving your issue. Get us more details and some pics.

Quote:

---

Good question but the Mopar Stage VI heads were also screwed up in a similiar fashion with a short valve and not much room for the valve spring. My guess is that the Edelbrock engineer just wasn't thinking about a 2.00 inch spring height when he did the CAD drawing.

From what I've seen over the years the rocker shafts need to go down not up. When you are opening the valve farther then the midpoint is lower not higher. So the shaft needs to drop into the head in order to get the correct geometry. Lowering the shaft is much more difficult than raising the shaft which is why most people don't bother. The Victor heads do have large flat pads in the correct place so Jesel rocker arms should fit. I haven't put Jesels on a Victor yet so I don't have any pictures to share but maybe someone else does.

---

Andy,
Do you have any data to show improved performance when lowering the stands to correct geometry with a roller rocker? My guess is you are treating a roller rocker the same as a stocker and inputting the wrong geometry points into your CAD models. They are not the same.

Another question, exactly what is proper geometry in your mind? In your book, you reference a bunch of different rocker brands, and their various fulcrum lengths, and claim you need to find the ones that that center the rollers on the valve stems to have good geometry. Now, you're talking about moving the shaft when increasing the valve lift. Which way is it? Talk about confusing!

As far as the stand location and height, it has absolutely nothing to do with spring installed height. the manufacturer can only account for their valve length when designing the head, and has no idea what rockers or camshaft the end user will install. A valve with the same length, but a different lock groove location, will have different installed heights but will retain the same geometry points. They will both take the same amount of correction to get the geometry right. I've done the Stage VI heads, and while they aren't my favorite head, they can have great geometry and spring clearance without grinding on anything.

I have pictures and more information on my website if that helps explain any better what I am getting at.

Quote:

---

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.

---

I know it seems to run ok, but I wish you would address that sweep and get rid of the lash caps. With those rockers and that valve lift, you should only have .038" sweep across the valve when the geometry is correct. I'd hate to see you have an expensive failure down the road because the valvetrain is getting beat up.

Quote:

---

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.

---

Another example of HS BBM rockers' being too long between the pivot point and the centerline of the roller. Not a big fan of them, but I seem to be in the minority w/ that opinion.

Quote:

---

I`ve always run lash caps on every motor small or big and never an issue so far...........I`d be curious about your product, prices etc.

---

Hey Dom,
It's not about the lash cap, they have their place. It's about using them as a crutch for inadequate spring clearance or excessive sweep. If the geometry is correct, there is much less sweep and spring clearance is rarely an issue. I don't know your combo, but it's very possible you don't need them either. Give me a call. I'd love to talk to you about it, and you can decide whether you need them or not.

Quote:

---

I agree and started using em on my small-blocks because of how wonderfull the geometry is on those.........

---

Quote:

---

.674 sollid roller,

---

Quote:

---

PAC-1243)installed at 1.900

---

Quote:

---

Comp tool steel retainers...

---

Quote:

---

Smith Bros .375x.083 pushrods

---

Quote:

---

Harland Sharp S70016EVK rockers.

---

Quote:

---

Also, don't forget about the possible center rocker stand breakage issue. I preemptively removed the factory helicoil and drilled/tapped and installed a 1.0 inch helicoil further into the head so the top of insert is just below bottom of stand.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.

---

Another example of HS BBM rockers' being too long between the pivot point and the centerline of the roller. Not a big fan of them, but I seem to be in the minority w/ that opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.

---

I know it seems to run ok, but I wish you would address that sweep and get rid of the lash caps. With those rockers and that valve lift, you should only have .038" sweep across the valve when the geometry is correct. I'd hate to see you have an expensive failure down the road because the valvetrain is getting beat up.

---

I hear ya and appreciate the advice I figure the only way to do it right would be to mill the stands and fit a paired Jesel setup but, if I went that route the engine would still be on the stand It's been in the car and running for over a year and I check the lash regularly. The HS rockers do seem a little long and also causes a fitment issue on the pushrod side of the rocker for some valve covers with the Victors. I ended up using fabricated aluminum covers and profiling the inside flange with a die grinder so I could slide the straight down over the studs. All good there now.

Also, found this pic where I ran a sweep pattern without the lash caps.

Sorry OP for the hijac. It's kinda related as us Victor guys need all the help we can get. We seem to be the underdog

Quote:

---

Hopefully the OP doesn't mind me piggy backing a related question.

How does one remove the heli coil on the center stand to tap it deeper?

---

I got in behind the original insert with a pick then grabbed it with a pair of needle nose pliers and twisted it back out. I then set the head up in the mill/drill press and used a close fitting drill bit as a centering device and clamped head. Then chucked the appropriate drill bit and drilled I beleive 1.250 inches further? below the bottom of the rocker stand then tapped new threads and installed the new 1.0 inch long inserts I got from MSC. I used an arp stud. I can probably find the part number if anyone needs it.

Quote:

---

I figure the only way to do it right would be to mill the stands and fit a paired Jesel setup

---

Quote:

---

The HS rockers do seem a little long and also causes a fitment issue on the pushrod side of the rocker for some valve covers with the Victors.

---

Quote:

---

Also, found this pic where I ran a sweep pattern without the lash caps.

---

Quote:

---

its been a little colds here and i have been sick im hoping for some pics by this weekend. i got a rough measure of spring height and it looked to be way over 2.+. I am gonna change springs and retainers anyway. all the info you guys are spillin i keep it coming appreciate it. Thanks

---

Yep, sounds like they used offset retainers to run a taller spring which sinks the tip further into the retainer. If the spring is bigger than 1.550, that's not helping either. Hope you get to feeling better for the new year and Happy New Year All !!

Quote:

---

The old Chevy Power engine book recommends having the rocker arm perpendicular to the valve at 2/3 lift. That is lower than the 50% or mid-lift recommendation that is most common.

---

Heres my two cents. The problem with the attached picture is the rocker arm is perpendicular to the valve at full lift. Not mid, not 2/3, but full lift. This is a .557 lift cam, 1.95 installed height on the springs and CAT Rockers. Although this results in greatest NET lift, it does affect valvetrain stability and other performance aspects. For argument sake, let say the only direction we can move the shaft is up or down. If we go down, the rocker will never be perpendicular to the valve stem in this application. Raising the roller tip by use of lash caps would also make our situation worse. Our only other hope to acheive the mid lift or 2/3 concept is to raise the shaft in relation to the valve.

I'm not saying there isn't an application that may require the shaft to be lowered or valve lash caps to be installed, I'm just saying that spacing the shafts up for proper geometry is necessary in some applications such as this.

All I can add is this, if anyone is having valvetrain issues or is curious about proper geometry, talk to Mike @ B3 Racing Engines. You won't find a nicer guy that is willing to go out of his way to help resolve your issues.

While my problems weren't relative to clearance, the geometry was incorrect. Shifting any higher than 5600 would result in loss of perfromance. After correcting my geometry, I can shift the car at 6500 with no loss of performance. I can"t thank Mike enough. Give him a call before you buy other parts or grind on your stuff. I think you'll be glad you did.

Quote:

---

Also, found this pic where I ran a sweep pattern without the lash caps.

---

I tried to locate a comparable photo (I thought?) I took of mine w/ the Hughes rockers, but came up w/ nothing...

What I do remember is that the pattern was definitely narrower, although a bit biased on the intake-side of the valve tip (starts on the intake side and ends up closer to the center at max lift).

Quote:

---

Sorry OP for the hijac. It's kinda related as us Victor guys need all the help we can get. We seem to be the underdog

---

Amen, brother!

Quote:

---

So you guys don't like the Isky RAD-9999 springs for these heads?

Specifications:
Style: Dual with Damper
Outer OD/ID: 1.600"/1.150"
Inner OD/ID: 1.040"/.745"
Seat Pressure: 250 lbs. @ 2.000"
Open Pressure: 770 lbs. @ 1.200"
Rate: 650
Coil Bind: 1.150"
Max Lift: .800"

They are 283 @ 1.950 and 7838 @ 1.250

---

I'm sure they're great but when Dwayne Porter spec'd my cam he recommended a spring similar to the Comp 943-16 around a 550lb spring rate so, I chose the TFS-16943-16 (PAC-1243). Plus, I wanted to run locators and standard height retainers and locks and with this combo it ended up scary close to the spec'd 1.90000 installed.

By the way FWIW I'm running these heads OOTB out of the box. No port work, clean up or valve job. I was tempted to at least clean up the cast flashing but, wanted to know what they would do truly OOTB. I checked factory valve contact with Prussian blue, assembled and bolted 'em on. Well, I guess I did fix the center rocker stands so maybe OOTB "flow-wise". Car with me is 3785 and has gone [Email]10.33@130[/Email] in good air. I'm sure I'm leavin some on the table but does OK for now. More info on engine combo about half way up the page

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So you guys don't like the Isky RAD-9999 springs for these heads?

Specifications:
Style: Dual with Damper
Outer OD/ID: 1.600"/1.150"
Inner OD/ID: 1.040"/.745"
Seat Pressure: 250 lbs. @ 2.000"
Open Pressure: 770 lbs. @ 1.200"
Rate: 650
Coil Bind: 1.150"
Max Lift: .800"

They are 283 @ 1.950 and 7838 @ 1.250

---

I'm sure they're great but when Dwayne Porter spec'd my cam he recommended a spring similar to the Comp 943-16 around a 550lb spring rate so, I chose the TFS-16943-16 (PAC-1243). Plus, I wanted to run locators and standard height retainers and locks and with this combo it ended up scary close to the spec'd 1.90000 installed.

By the way FWIW I'm running these heads OOTB out of the box. No port work, clean up or valve job. I was tempted to at least clean up the cast flashing but, wanted to know what they would do truly OOTB. I checked factory valve contact with Prussian blue, assembled and bolted 'em on. Well, I guess I did fix the center rocker stands so maybe OOTB "flow-wise". Car with me is 3785 and has gone [Email]10.33@130[/Email] in good air. I'm sure I'm leavin some on the table but does OK for now. More info on engine combo about half way up the page

---

Sounds like a righteous package to me. It really moves that weight. There is more cam and engine info in my 66 Charger build thread if you want to take a look. My Victors are Hughes' CNC program/valve job with a .740ish net lift roller so it's bit different. I have been told to stay with a higher end spring like the PAC, Isky Tool Room or Manley Nextek stuff. It's hard to find a spring in a diameter larger than 1.550 that will work out at a 1.950 installed height.