I really thought he was running a much bigger spring myself. I run 1.58 springs with the Harland Sharpe aluminum rockers milled down by Harland Sharpe. No choice in my case with the springs being much bigger than normal. I agree with you that with a smaller spring like he has and maybe even a tapered retainer he may not need to grind on the rocker but my opinion was if needed he could without much worry grind a little on the rocker and make it work.

I swapped one of the spring retainers from the Lunati to the edelbrock and the clearance isn't as bad.

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HPbdCHVXS2uR1lUb5ZFSVTrDxcd-M5yc[/img]

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q-Rd2bTyhv8kbs4gd2GnsaRqHCAN0wPf[/img]

I spoke to Mike at B3 and provided measurements to build me a kit relocate the shafts. I'll post some new pictures when I get the kit installed.

thanks again for everyone's input. This is my first time attempting to build vs. assemble an engine.

thanks again, Ray

One reason why "people have used relieved rockers for years without problems" is that the manufacturer has found it to be far cheaper to make the beam X=section much larger than needed (and you'll do whatever you want, and not blame them) than to make them as close to spec as possible, and then have to rate them by RPM, spring load, etc. Extra metal is a great safety factor.

You'd be surprised at how much attention is paid to "not giving the customer too many choices". They (the bulk of buyers) don't want any choices - they want you to tell them what's best, then they buy it. If you leave them with a question, they go somewhere else.

BTW: longer rockers (G2 hemi exhaust is the poster child), and especially long valve-side levers are much more fragile than shorter. Make no comparisons between same mfg. & model, different engine WRT safety, life expectancy unless the shaft-to-roller axle distance is nearly identical.

I'm glad you called Mike. Definately worth it.

If you don't mind, maybe you can show some pictures of the rockers before and after you fix the geometry. That would certainly help people understand what is going on.

Per the pictures...looks to me that you could use a lash cap. The rocker shaft really needs to move down. Looks like that the roller will scrub inwards through out the entire motion. Just an observation, maybe check with a checker spring and watch motion.

Are there plugs in the ends of the tubes.. if
not you should have them otherwise your gonna
loose the oil out the ends.. but maybe they are
there and I missed them

My .02 is........the design of that rocker is such that it doesn’t provide adequate retainer clearance.

I think some of the other brands of rockers would have worked no problem.

Looks to me like the shaft needs to go up and back towards the intake. Moving it up and not back will make the clearance less.

My valve covers are off. I've got to do a radiator in the wife's Durango today. After that I will take a couple of pictures of my rockers and springs.

I have the same stuff as the OP.

I have a SB Comp Pro-Magnum rocker I use to check for rocker/retainer clearance.......they don’t even come close to the Edelbrock retainers on those heads.

I had some SB RPM heads in the shop for freshening last year that were being run with 1.55 springs......the Comp rocker cleared those as well.

They aren't a 1.6 rocker either. If you want a 1.6 ratio steel rocker, Comp can't/won't help you.

I don't know why this is being approached as a rocker design issue. The problem with clearance is a symptom of a problem, and not the root problem itself. I haven't clearanced a roller rocker in ten years, but I have relocated the shafts to correct geometry every time, whether they had enough clearance or not. Get the geometry correct, and the clearance problem, if there, goes away. Just because there is clearance doesn't mean the root problem doesn't exist.

The op never posted back how old of a kit they were. The installed height of his current heads is way above oem and the "like" rockers I had were made to be like a oem replacement and they fit well. And I think thats what prompted the up and out thought to make them work.

I know B3RE makes great fixes but id be dammed Id spend money to fix on what probably was a early $150 set of rockers.

Most eddie head applications need little to nothing to work well although here again not saying B3RE inst needed for some but for the things I do im not killing guides and wearing out parts.

I posted before, toss them on a oem height sprung 318 or 340 cast head and look how good they fit.

I know I'm a privy to some additional information, but I can assure you, the installed height is not taller than the Edelbrock heads are stock.



Try to step outside the box. The issue is not rocker design. If design was an issue, I would still be clearancing rockers. They do have a design issue, but it is a compromise based on poor installed geometry.



From a geometry perspective, that is simply an incorrect statement. They are as bad as any head out there, except possibly the new Trick Flow head, which we won't know until they are released.



Sure, put beehive springs on the head, and it will have clearance too. Still doesn't fix the problem, and doesn't help the OP finish his engine. It doesn't matter what rocker he uses, the problem is going to be there, whether the symptom (lack of clearance) exists or not.

From a geometry perspective, that is simply an incorrect statement.

Look, down this road again. Just like the W2 stands do there job your kits do as well but many many many have lived and raced without intervention for 30-40 years.

Ive a nice bridgeport mill like many do and ive never felt the need to sit and machine a set of spacers for a oem rocker stand. Because im not wearing out parts or killing them.

You offer a good product and service and if you werent so dam pushy saying everyone has been doing it all wrong for the last 40 years more might be apt to talk to you about your thinking.

I'm the one who told the OP to call him.

I've been doing this since 1980 and wrong is wrong. Butchering a rocker arm is wrong. I don't understand why Chrysler guys just think it's ok to run junk. That's why we can't buy blocks, that's why no one wants to make heads because if you can't bolt stock junk to it nobody buys it.

I couldn't convince 99% of my customers to use blocks because they didn't have W-2 heads and because Joe blow was running 11's and he didn't do it.

This is a better deal. Again, butchering a rocker arm because the geometry is wrong and the rocker is hitting a spring that puny is just wrong.

If you have to be pushy to get your point across that so be it.

First of all, Thank You for the compliment on my products and services. I do disagree with being pushy though. Look at my posting history, and you'll see that I don't post often enough to be pushy.

Back when I figured out why I was having valvetrain issues, a light bulb turned on in my head. If what I was finding was true (and it was), there wasn't a Mopar on the planet, with roller rockers simply bolted to the stands, that had proper geometry. I couldn't wait to share what I found with the Mopar community, so at the advice of a friend who advertises on Moparts, I posted here. After all, Mopar guys are always bemoaning the lack of support they get from the aftermarket, right? Well, for my efforts I got the cyber equivalent of being doused with gasoline and lit on fire. Or, as one member put it "they tried to crucify him". Had it not been for a couple supportive members (and they know who they are), I wouldn't have continued to share what I KNOW to be correct.

So, pushy? No, just confident that I know what I'm doing when it come to Mopar rocker geometry. I don't say it's wrong to be pushy. I know it's wrong because I know the math and can calculate whether the geometry is correct or not. It takes more than a Bridgeport mill to do that.

If you want to be upset with someone concerning this topic, how about the cylinder head manufacturers. They make performance heads that 99% will be used with roller rockers, yet continue to cast and machine the stands at the factory location, where the geometry for roller rockers is terrible. Granted, they can't make it perfect for every application, but they can make it way better than it already is. If the OP's Edelbrock heads had the stands machined over .150" taller, and offset the right amount, his geometry, and anyone else's using roller rockers on that head, would be a lot closer to ideal. Look at it this way. I don't make a geometry kit to fix a problem with the rockers, I make it to fix a problem with the heads. Now, do you think we can get the manufacturers to change the stands in the heads? Don't bet on it. I've already tried.

Happy New Year 2018!

Not impressed by the way-too-common "you need lash caps" as a knee-jerk response to any question about rocker arms.
Sometimes it helps, sometimes it does nothing, sometimes it makes it worse.

Easy way to think about lash caps: will longer valves help?

Amen, brother!

One caveat, though. I have never seen a lash actually help or do nothing to geometry with a roller rocker, unless someone is just trying to center the sweep pattern and not actually fixing the inefficiencies and instabilities of improper fulcrum location. But yeah, lash caps are almost always a bad move 99% of the time.

While I agree that from the info provided here, that it seems you have a geometry issue, there are times you can cheat.
If you don’t have a bridgport, it would actually seem easier to get the kit from BR3 (also a better correction) the only downfall is cost of the kit and pushrods.
Now to my input...
I do have a bridgport, and whole heartedly like to cheat where I can. Here are a couple pics of some crane golds that I relieved for retainer clearance. Again for clarity, there are better solutions.
The first pic is after a failure of the threads in the head for the hold down. The only reason for the pic is to see the relief. These rockers did eventually fail, but not where I relieved them.
The second pic is of the same rockers a few years later. The failure happened on the opposite side of the rocker. Clearly the rockers were designed with enough “meat” on the retainer side of the rocker.