|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2071561
05/11/16 04:23 PM
05/11/16 04:23 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
B3RE
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 561
USA
|
I just need to find someone who sells a high quality 1.70 rocker arm that fits the Trick Flow head. I would say a head might have to make it's way to T&D for that. The pic of the scrub pattern with the RAS rockers on page 10 of this thread looks pretty good to me. Here is a pic of a set of custom T&D rockers for a 64 Max Wedge Stock Eliminator motor. I had Brad at T&D make them to my spec, but they still had to have the shafts relocated. The rocker isn't the whole story. I could call him today and tell him what I needed for the TF heads, and he could draw it up and make a set, without me having to send a head. The shaft would still have to be raised for anything under roughly .800" lift". Without actually measuring or doing the math, how can you tell how good the scrub or sweep really is?
Mike Beachel
I didn't write the rules of math nor create the laws of physics, I am just bound by them.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: chrisnben]
#2071564
05/11/16 04:33 PM
05/11/16 04:33 PM
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,131
Thigh-Gap Junction
@#$%&*!
New user name, Same old jerk!
|
New user name, Same old jerk!
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,131
Thigh-Gap Junction
|
... My question to those who already have these heads running- what rocker arms/ratio are you running? Talking with Andy, there are not alot of available choices. I've mocked up my 1.6 "Harland" copies from Mancini Racing (which are supposed to be identical), but IMO are a tad too long of a sweep pattern starting right on center and running 1/8" on the stem where it starts to round again. Now, according to trickflow, these are the recommended ones- but maybe only in a 1.5 ratio?? ...  It doesn't need to be perfect to work okay. I'd run that in a heartbeat and never worry about it. 
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2071620
05/11/16 06:12 PM
05/11/16 06:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,248
Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,248
Oregon
|
I just need to find someone who sells a high quality 1.70 rocker arm that fits the Trick Flow head. I would say a head might have to make it's way to T&D for that. The pic of the scrub pattern with the RAS rockers on page 10 of this thread looks pretty good to me. I agree. The scrub pattern from the RAS rocker arms is about as good as it gets. Kind of ironic that a rocker arm which isn't even available anymore has the best pattern on the new Trick Flow heads. I'm just glad I held on to these rocker arms over the years.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: B3RE]
#2071637
05/11/16 06:32 PM
05/11/16 06:32 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,033
Madison, Wisconsin
chrisnben
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,033
Madison, Wisconsin
|
Hi Guys- as some of you know I'm just about done with this 470 low deck with Trickflows (very similar to AndyF's engine) except with a Comp solid cam from Dwayne P. on a 1.6 rocker. This will be a bracket engine going in my '65 Plymouth. My question to those who already have these heads running- what rocker arms/ratio are you running? Talking with Andy, there are not alot of available choices. I've mocked up my 1.6 "Harland" copies from Mancini Racing (which are supposed to be identical), but IMO are a tad too long of a sweep pattern starting right on center and running 1/8" on the stem where it starts to round again. Now, according to trickflow, these are the recommended ones- but maybe only in a 1.5 ratio?? I'm thinking the Hughes 1.6 might work (or maybe it's the same length??) If by chance there are a set of old Crane golds in 1.6 floating around- those might work as well (same length too??) Anyone try the PRW stainless 1.6's ?? Once we get this figured out- it's off to the Dyno shop. This set-up should be good for 650 HP/ 625 Ft.Lb.  Ok, here's the deal on the Trick Flows, as far as rockers are concerned. The Harland Sharp rockers recommended by TF, are way too long, as they are on most heads, and are even worse on the TFs, because they raised the rocker stands .100" from stock. That is a step in the right direction for better rocker geometry, but they didn't offset the stand when they raised it, which reduced the shaft-to-valve centerline by .025". That is why the shorter rockers seem to fit better, but if the shaft is relocated to properly set rocker geometry, any rocker will work. Since you mentioned the PRW stainless rockers, I am doing a build right now with them, and just like any other roller rocker, I will have to move the shafts to the right location for that combination. You will need to do the same, regardless of the rocker chosen, if you want it to be right. BTW, assuming a net valve lift of roughly .650", you should have less than .040" sweep across the valve when it is right. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're looking at .125"? No Bueno, Amigo! the "1/8" sweep was a quick reference. It measured roughly .048 BTW. Thanks for all the info. Looks like I might try some hughes 1.6's from Andy. I will report then. ~B
'70 Cuda "Badfish 2"- in the works
Home of MoPar University- We school 'em one at a time!!
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: AndyF]
#2078426
05/22/16 07:24 PM
05/22/16 07:24 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
|
A .08 ratio loss under load seems really high to me. I'll have to recheck my Hughes' ratios with the real springs installed, since they measured 1.58 (1.6 advertised offset intake) and 1.50 (1.50 advertised std exhaust) with checking springs.
Last edited by BradH; 05/22/16 07:25 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: AndyF]
#2080959
05/26/16 09:41 PM
05/26/16 09:41 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,396
The Pale Blue Dot
Skeptic
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,396
The Pale Blue Dot
|
I've been trying out a set of the MRE 1.60 rocker arms and they look pretty good on these heads. With my 0.445 lobe they are .737 with a checking spring and .702 with a real spring. So 1.66 ratio with a checking spring and 1.58 with 700 lbs of load. With a flat tappet spring I'm sure they would be 1.60 or more. Seems to be plenty of clearance everywhere and the oiling passages look good. I haven't run the engine yet but I don't see any reason not too. Have you measured pushrod deflection in this?
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: AndyF]
#2081010
05/26/16 11:04 PM
05/26/16 11:04 PM
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Aurora, Colorado
451Mopar
master
|
master
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Aurora, Colorado
|
I don't know anyway to do that. Maybe mount indicator in center of pushrod, reading off a parallel fixture (parallel to the pushrod), then compare the in/out motion with checking springs vs. the actual springs? Just need to keep the pushrod from rotating.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: AndyF]
#2081329
05/27/16 02:45 PM
05/27/16 02:45 PM
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Aurora, Colorado
451Mopar
master
|
master
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Aurora, Colorado
|
To measure the pushrod deflection I think a person would need to weld a tab to the top of the pushrod and then measure the lobe lift at the end of the pushrod. If the pushrod is rigid then the travel at the end should be the same as the lobe lift. My bad, You want to measure the loss of lift due to deflection. I was thinking of the amount the pushrod bows in/out.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: AndyF]
#2081776
05/28/16 10:59 AM
05/28/16 10:59 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 216
Illinois
gearhead01
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 216
Illinois
|
I don't know anyway to do that. One way that may work is an indicator on the end of adjuster screw. Check with light springs and then actual springs. the difference will reflect the displacement lost due to deflecting (bowing) of the push rod. You are not interested in what the bow of the push rod is, just how much rocker movement is being lost. John
1971 Satellite Sebring Plus - 14.46 @ 95.43
1977 Road Runner - N/B 11.02@ 119 Drag Radials
|
|
|
|
|
.JPG "Name: DSC_9667 (Large).JPG
Views: 1515
Size: 221.52 KB
ID: 241351")
.JPG "Name: DSC_9669 (Large).JPG
Views: 1522
Size: 288.08 KB
ID: 241352")
.JPG "Name: DSC_9735 (Large).JPG
Views: 1022
Size: 294.73 KB
ID: 241929")
