Not a real big cam..... flat tappet 292 @ .020/.600" with 1.5 rockers, but with the 1.6 it's .640" lift and whatever duration changes that causes. Springs are 170 lbs. on the seat, 354 lbs/in, so a little over 390 open.

I had to replace a set on a 440 I used to own. They were used with a mild 238@.050/.555 street roller and this what a mess they made...The springs were off and probably lash too, but still what a mess. Day one of car ownership at that.

I would not use these rockers with a stock hydraulic cam

I've already ordered a set of Harland Sharps. Can't risk a motor over trying to cobble together a set of these cheap ones. I looked at the T&D, but I didn't want to also have to get new pushrods, since they only offer cup adjusters requiring a ball on both ends and mine are ball/cup like traditional Mopars.

Good call.

Should go without saying, but make sure you check your geometry.

Go to b3racingengines.com and read all the tech pages.


The chances your geometry will be correct is near zero.

Dang Tony!!!

Don't feel bad....... But I got a pretty good chuckle out of that pic

Don't worry Dwayne, I can laugh now too! I kid you not, I picked up the car (70 Superbee), brought it home from Ohio, took the family out for a drive to show off my new toy - and all of a sudden lots of loud sounds from under the hood. Turned out to be a good car, but I really thought I had been taken. Picked up a set of Hughes rockers and correct valve springs, replaced a valve, and never had another issue. Previous owner helped with the cost too, so that was good.

Still, will never touch a cheap rocker - ever again. Ill use stock stamped before I would touch that garbage.

Those cheap rockers are nothing more than a waste of raw materials.

"Chances your geometry will be correct is near zero." BINGO! That has been my experience with most every engine I've built.

Thanks for the resource - can never know too much, and I always regard what I read on a Mopar specialist's site with more respect. Real-world experience always trumps academics or Brand-X generic info. It sounds like he subscribes to Jim Miller's "Mid-Lift" theory for rocker geometry. I read Miller's stuff a few years ago and he makes a compelling argument for the "1/2 lift" geometry. Sometimes it's tricky to get that with assorted parts and a shaft system, but it's what I try for.

Just to follow up, the pushrod length and rocker geometry with the Harland Sharp 1.6 rockers is pretty darn good. The roller area is centered on top of the valve and measures .120" travel. Checked on a few, but here's one:

With .640" lift and the HS rockers, you shouldn't have more than .040" sweep. A 300% error in geometry is not going to be good for the valvetrain.

I just did a few more calculations. Increase your net valve lift to 1.184", and the geometry will be perfect. Fwiw, you would have been better off to spend the extra money on pushrods, and got rockers with a better design, IMHO.

It's centered, but as mentioned it's way too wide.

That needs to be corrected.

T&D refused to install a solid bushing on mine when they were in for a rebuild.

Years ago the suggested perfect sweep from the Mopar drag race engineers at thier drag race seminars was from the inner third of the stem at closed to the outer third of the stem at max lift on both 3/8 and 5/16 valve stems
That was with ductile iron rockers also

Yes Cab, that advice would produce the least amount of scrubbing action on a ductile iron, or any, non roller tip rocker. It's a completely different animal with a roller. With a non roller, the contact point between the valve and rocker moves from the inside to the outside of the rocker tip. On a roller, it is always in line with the roller axle centerline. Mock them up side by side, and run them through a lift cycle. The geometric differences are very noticeable.

I don't think they will bush a rocker that was already machined for a bearing. They will sell them without a bearing, or with a bushing if you [censored] loud and long before you order them.

I'd argue that the exact same effect occurs with roller tip rockers but that the effect is greatly reduced due to the MUCH tighter radius on the roller wheel vs. the OE type rocker pad. The line from the contact point to the roller axle is only at a right angle to the line from the center line of the rocker shaft to the roller axle at one point of lift.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread on the rocker tip sweep pattern but in the interest of learning some more about this I just went out into my shop this afternoon to check the sweep pattern and width on one of my new HP bracket motors.
It has a Jesel paired rocker arm kit on a set of Indy 440-1 heads with lash caps, the sweep width is right at .130 wide using a set of dial calipers to measure that, it is almost perfectly center on each side of the valve stem tip and the lash cap oil hole in the center
I did set them up like the instruction say from Jesel using shims under the tool steel adapter mounting bracket to the heads to get the geometry the way they want it
I used a set of Manley .080 thick harden head bolt washers as shims after talking to their tech. rep., Jesel does offers their shims in .025 increments so maybe using a .025 thicker or thinner spacer might make the sweep patter better or worse
I'm going to run what I have for now on this motor and maybe later, if I get a burning desire to test, I'll experiment with the stand height shims thicknesses to try and make it better
I keep thinking that the roller wheel on the end of the rocker arm needs to move, roll, to avoid destroying itself from galling from lack of motion