|
Re: Rocker geometry on victors
[Re: littlejohn44]
#1717715
12/30/14 08:38 PM
12/30/14 08:38 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
B3RE
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
|
I know exactly what you are dealing with. The shaft needs to be raised and offset substantially to locate the rocker properly and have correct geometry.
Mike Beachel
I didn't write the rules of math nor create the laws of physics, I am just bound by them.
|
|
|
Re: Rocker geometry on victors
[Re: BIGSTROKER]
#1717719
12/30/14 10:33 PM
12/30/14 10:33 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
B3RE
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
|
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!
Mike Beachel
I didn't write the rules of math nor create the laws of physics, I am just bound by them.
|
|
|
Re: Rocker geometry on victors
[Re: B3RE]
#1717720
12/30/14 11:12 PM
12/30/14 11:12 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,841
MI, usa
dvw
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,841
MI, usa
|
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
|
|
|
Re: Rocker geometry on victors
[Re: B3RE]
#1717724
12/31/14 12:21 AM
12/31/14 12:21 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,841
MI, usa
dvw
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,841
MI, usa
|
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?
Exactly, The factory Mopar head from 1962 has plenty of short comings. So I guess if I was designing a max wedge port race style head it would have started by using a 2" installed height 1.625" spring for a .750" lift cam that used existing rocker arms. I agree it's impossible to get it dead on for every combo. But lets at least get it close. I had to move my T&D stand on my -1s to get it where I wanted it. That being said the former owner of my heads ran them on his car for years with the rockers in the wrong position. At least the parts didn't crash into each other. I haven't seen one set of Victors that could be bolted together and run with out something hitting. I could understand that if they were something special. Why not just run -1s?
Doug
|
|
|
Re: Rocker geometry on victors
[Re: littlejohn44]
#1717727
12/31/14 05:54 AM
12/31/14 05:54 AM
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 485
Central California
MoParFish
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 485
Central California
|
It sounds like maybe you have offset retainers? Yeah, the Victors have their own set of hurdles. I run them and don't know anyone else personally who runs them but, that's the way I like it  FWIW Here's my combo if it helps at all and, it's all just my  440/512 MW Victors, .674 sollid roller, Trick Flow springs TFS-16943-16(which are actually PAC-1243)installed at 1.900, Comp tool steel retainers 1732-16(very compact low profile), Comp CCA-4785-16 locators, 621-16 lash caps, Smith Bros .375x.083 pushrods, Harland Sharp S70016EVK rockers. No spring/retainer clearance issues even without lash caps. 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. Has been to 7400 RPM a couple times but keep it below 7k now. 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. Learned that trick here on Moparts 
|
|
|
Re: Rocker geometry on victors
[Re: AndyF]
#1717728
12/31/14 11:50 AM
12/31/14 11:50 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
B3RE
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
|
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. 
Mike Beachel
I didn't write the rules of math nor create the laws of physics, I am just bound by them.
|
|
|
Re: Rocker geometry on victors
[Re: B3RE]
#1717731
12/31/14 02:28 PM
12/31/14 02:28 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
Taking time off to work on my car
|
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
