T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
#2733702
01/16/20 06:22 PM
01/16/20 06:22 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
The T&Ds that I sold recently were advertised as 1.60 ratio, but lost about .05 when installed and measured with both soft checking springs (1.59+) and 600# open springs (1.54+). This isn't the first time I've seen a rocker arm check below the advertised ratio against a "real" spring, but wasn't expecting this with the T&Ds. Has this been other T&D users' experience, too? Thanks - Brad
EDIT: Pic showing they are single shaft and stamped 1.60
Last edited by BradH; 01/17/20 12:56 AM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2733709
01/16/20 06:50 PM
01/16/20 06:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,479 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,479
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
I’m sure Andy checked it on the ones he had done for the TF heads.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2733710
01/16/20 06:52 PM
01/16/20 06:52 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
They should be the nominal ratio when loaded. They should be higher than the nominal ratio when using checking springs.
I'd send them back.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2733723
01/16/20 07:53 PM
01/16/20 07:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
As I stated above, I don't own them anymore. The new owner knows what the loaded ratio is and they should suit his application well. This is more of a "For Informational Purposes Only" question.
Last edited by BradH; 01/16/20 07:58 PM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: justinp61]
#2733752
01/16/20 08:57 PM
01/16/20 08:57 PM
|
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 702 Lake Villa Il
INTMD8
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 702
Lake Villa Il
|
Possible they were just packaged wrong and 1.5's or is there a part number on them?
69 Charger. 438ci Gen2 hemi. Flex fuel. Holley HP efi. 650rwhp @7250 510rwtq @5700
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2733753
01/16/20 09:03 PM
01/16/20 09:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,947 Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,947
Oregon
|
I’m sure Andy checked it on the ones he had done for the TF heads. The T&D rocker arms I had made for the Trick Flow heads were supposed to be 1.70 ratio. They ended up being 1.65 ratio. I called and talked to them and they admitted the mistake and offered to build me a new set. I said don't bother and it ended up not making any difference. I dyno tested them back to back against another set of rocker arms that checked out at 1.70 ratio and there was zero power difference. The T&D rocker arms were the best shaft rockers I've ever run. If I needed another set of high end rockers I'd buy them again in a heart beat. I think the latest version from Hughes is really nice too. The Hughes rockers tend to check lower than advertised so just order one ratio higher than what you need and you'll be happy.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2733768
01/16/20 10:27 PM
01/16/20 10:27 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
|
Is that set up a single shaft or paired shaft T&D system? If single shaft I've seen the same thing with them The Harland Sharp single shafts are usually a .5 ratio higher than advertised, 1.5 ratio check to be 1.55, 1.60 ratio check to be 1.65 'I have one motor now (440-1 heads)that has a set of Jesel paired shafts rockers that are suppose to be 1.55 ratio, I am going to look at my notes and make sure exactly what their true ratio is I'm thinking they where dead on with checking springs, I set them up with 325 lbs. on the seats and 870 Lbs. opened, I'll pull several pairs off and see how they measure now
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: AndyF]
#2733793
01/17/20 01:05 AM
01/17/20 01:05 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
I’m sure Andy checked it on the ones he had done for the TF heads. The T&D rocker arms I had made for the Trick Flow heads were supposed to be 1.70 ratio. They ended up being 1.65 ratio. I called and talked to them and they admitted the mistake and offered to build me a new set. I said don't bother and it ended up not making any difference. I dyno tested them back to back against another set of rocker arms that checked out at 1.70 ratio and there was zero power difference. The T&D rocker arms were the best shaft rockers I've ever run. If I needed another set of high end rockers I'd buy them again in a heart beat. I think the latest version from Hughes is really nice too. The Hughes rockers tend to check lower than advertised so just order one ratio higher than what you need and you'll be happy. Have you checked other T&Ds and found them to be over the stated ratio unloaded and approximately the stated ratio when loaded? I know this is the case with Jesel and Harland Sharp, but can't get a consistent answer for T&D.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fbs63]
#2733827
01/17/20 09:46 AM
01/17/20 09:46 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
Are they bolted direct to the head? Are you using any kind of "geometry correction" spacers? Assuming you're directing this to me, this setup uses a B3RE spacer setup that pretty much nailed the mid-lift geometry on both the pushrod-to-adjuster and rocker-tip-to-valve-sweep sides. This configuration is consistent with T&D's instructions for setting up the rocker geometry.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fbs63]
#2733876
01/17/20 12:35 PM
01/17/20 12:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
The geometry may be correct in a non running engine but what do you think happens to the whole shaft at 7k? I bet it looks like a worm on the ground. Not sure how your comment above applies to my post; crankshafts don't stay perfectly straight when they're spinning at high RPM, either, but you still want to know the bearing clearances, etc., when the engine's being assembled. My point is that the geometry was pretty much nuts on, and not something that should have impacted my ratio measurements. On the subject of rocker arm geometry (running or not), I'd much rather mine look like what I posted above than what another popular brand of rocker arms look like when you simply bolt 'em down on a set of BB Victors. Holy Sh!t!
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fbs63]
#2733880
01/17/20 12:40 PM
01/17/20 12:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 289 St.Pete,Florida
lancer493
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 289
St.Pete,Florida
|
Brad, a while ago I posted about the Victor head/rocker arm ratio subject, using Hughes rockers and B3 correction kit. My results were nearly exactly the same as yours,with light checking springs. I was careful to check for parasitic loss from dial indicator geometry and flexing. My numbers worked out to be 1.43ex and 1.45 in for 1.5advertised rocker ratio.Ordered 2 new 1.6advertised ratio rockers. You guessed it, 1.53ex and 1.55in actual for them. Never measured without B3 kit. My original conversation with Mike at B3 didn't mention a minor lift loss,but in an after the fact conversation I vaguely remember a comment in that direction. Seeing our similar situation and findings points in the direction of the correction kit is probably the root of the problem, as we used two different rocker arm manufacturers, with the same advertised raitos producing nearly identical lift losses. Its like a chess game, every move(0r change ,if you will) counts. Thats hotrodding! Not blaming anyone but myself. I do have a spare set of 1.5's for sale I anybody is interested! Thanks ,Bill
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: lancer493]
#2733885
01/17/20 12:50 PM
01/17/20 12:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
...our similar situation and findings points in the direction of the correction kit is probably the root of the problem... No, the reason why the Hughes rockers lose ratio with the geometry correction kit is due to the location & angle of the Hughes adjuster screws. I gave Mike a whole bunch of measurements after doing multiple before & after measurements; Mike worked with someone who does CAD stuff and duplicated my measurements w/in a few thousands of lift. The Hughes rockers are regressive in ratio (start out higher and end up lower); adding the B3RE kit made it more apparent that when the roller-tip geo was changed, it made the pushrod-side issue even more extreme. This is not the same thing as I'm asking about regarding T&D rockers, which don't have the same issue when the geometry correction is applied. Here are Mike's CAD drawings, FWIW.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2733889
01/17/20 12:56 PM
01/17/20 12:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
More details re the above CAD diagrams for Hughes 1.6 BB rockers measurements taken w/ soft checking spring: B - Std shaft location "low pivot geo" - Sweep: 085” & centered - T&D cup adjuster w/ 9.575" OAL pushrod - 1st half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .348 = 1.629 - 2nd half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .332 = 1.554 - OA ratio = .680 / .4272 = 1.592; ratio change = -.075 D- B3RE shaft relocation for mid-lift geo at net .650" - Sweep: 045” & slightly inboard of centered - T&D cup adjuster w/ 9.795" OAL pushrod - 1st half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .339 = 1.587 - 2nd half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .328 = 1.536 - OA ratio = .667 / .4272 = 1.561; ratio change = -.051 Estimated loaded ratio loss at peak lift based on prior measurements w/ 600# open load springs: ~ .05 'A' OA estimated loaded ratio ~ 1.54 'B' OA estimated loaded ratio ~ 1.51 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// In case anyone reads this the wrong way, I'm NOT "blaming" Hughes for this. Hughes' rockers were made for years by Probe Industries, and this is the same basic design that Probe had before Hughes started selling their rockers. When Probe quit -- or sold off -- its rocker business, I believe Hughes picked up Probe's tooling, etc., and has continued to make them using the same design. Could Hughes redesign their rockers? Sure, if Dave & Co. thinks it's a problem. I'm guessing he doesn't, so they'll likely stay the same. I've run 'em successfully on a couple of builds, but I didn't understand the nature of their ratio / geometry "quirks" until I did all of my before & after checks w/ the B3RE kit.
Last edited by BradH; 01/17/20 01:08 PM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2733902
01/17/20 01:23 PM
01/17/20 01:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
No, the reason why the Hughes rockers lose ratio with the geometry correction kit is due to the location & angle of the Hughes adjuster screws. Pic of T&D 1.45" 1.60 ratio on left; Hughes 1.52" 1.60 ratio on right; difference in pushrod adjuster screw locations & angles very apparent, and all this factors into how the different designs "work" when installed in different configurations w/ respect to the valve & shaft relationships.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2733907
01/17/20 01:41 PM
01/17/20 01:41 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
How much cam lift were you losing on the 1.55 rockers instead of the advertised 1.6 rockers. And how much ET do you think it was costing you in your street strip car?
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2733910
01/17/20 01:53 PM
01/17/20 01:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
How much cam lift were you losing on the 1.55 rockers instead of the advertised 1.6 rockers. I'll let you reverse-engineer the answer from the following: .650" net lift w/ .018" lash and .433" lobe Since you may be mathematically challenged, it's right about .020" net lift. And how much ET do you think it was costing you in your 3800#, 680 HP street/strip car? Fixed... and I have no idea since my P O S hasn't made it back to the track w/ the new engine build, nor will the engine go back on the dyno before the car is running again. The other thing was I was expecting to use them in my spare engine build (fresh short block) that might also end up with a different cam. The new cam choice would be influenced by the net ratio vs the lift my valve springs can support, and the lower ratio than expected didn't fit w/ what I'd been considering. How much do you think it would cost you in your... what did Ray call it... oh, yeah... tin can?
Last edited by BradH; 01/17/20 02:03 PM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2733913
01/17/20 01:58 PM
01/17/20 01:58 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
How much cam lift were you losing on the 1.55 rockers instead of the advertised 1.6 rockers. I'll let you reverse-engineer the answer from the following: .650" net lift w/ .018" lash and .433" lobe Since you may be mathematically challenged, it's right about .020" net lift. And how much ET do you think it was costing you in your 3800#, 680 HP street/strip car? Fixed... and I have no idea since my P O S hasn't made it back to the track w/ the new engine build, nor will the engine go back on the dyno before the car is running again. How much do you think it would cost you in your... what did Ray call it... oh, yeah... tin can? Hey don’t blame me because you own a fat car. Lmao 😂.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: dvw]
#2734034
01/17/20 11:08 PM
01/17/20 11:08 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
|
Last edited by Cab_Burge; 01/17/20 11:08 PM.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#2734081
01/18/20 09:17 AM
01/18/20 09:17 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,027 Mt Morris Michigan
mopar dave
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,027
Mt Morris Michigan
|
I seen the same thing with valve lash loops at the track. Minimal if any on the small block with a solid roller at .700" using a T&D rocker which Pittsburghracer now owns. With a victor head and 1.6 Harland Sharps just bolted on with lash and as the engine would run gave me these patterns. Not perfect, but doesn't look bad and just had the guides checked and giving an outstanding A+ no wear from Sanchez. So their not hurting anything anyway. I haven't done any measuring except for piston to valve clearance.
Last edited by mopar dave; 01/18/20 09:20 AM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: dvw]
#2734095
01/18/20 10:12 AM
01/18/20 10:12 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,825 NW Indiana
fbs63
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,825
NW Indiana
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug This exactly! All I'm saying is with the shaft spaced up and over like that there is NO way it stays still. ONLY way I would ever correct geometry would be to mill the stands off and make new ones that TOTALLY surround the shaft. W2's were a good example. I would bet some of your lift loss is from flex in the studs.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: mopar dave]
#2734110
01/18/20 11:00 AM
01/18/20 11:00 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
I seen the same thing with valve lash loops at the track. Minimal if any on the small block with a solid roller at .700" using a T&D rocker which Pittsburghracer now owns. With a victor head and 1.6 Harland Sharps just bolted on with lash and as the engine would run gave me these patterns. Not perfect, but doesn't look bad and just had the guides checked and giving an outstanding A+ no wear from Sanchez. So their not hurting anything anyway. I haven't done any measuring except for piston to valve clearance. Man now I feel like I was ripped off. You advertised them as 1.6 rockers and now when I put them on this winter and take my Indy rockers off my “tin can” is going to be a DOG. I need a Lawyer. 1-800-slo-ride.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: mopar dave]
#2734114
01/18/20 11:15 AM
01/18/20 11:15 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
Dave, your sweep patterns look far more reasonable than the HS Victor pic I posted above. I wonder if there was a fulcrum distance reduction between the first rockers and yours. The ones I measured were even longer than the Hughes' 1.52". If yours are still off the heads, could you check the distance between the shaft pivot centerline and the roller tip centerline?
Last edited by BradH; 01/18/20 11:21 AM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: dvw]
#2734123
01/18/20 11:31 AM
01/18/20 11:31 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,651 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,651
Wichita
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug The Mental Masturbation Nationals!
Last edited by GY3; 01/18/20 01:43 PM.
'63 Dodge 330 11.19 @ 121 mph Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs. 10.01 @ 133mph with a 250 shot of nitrous an a splash of race gas. 1.36 60 ft. 3,700 lbs.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734131
01/18/20 11:57 AM
01/18/20 11:57 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
Hey don’t blame me because you own a fat car. Lmao 😂. What's the tin can weigh, anyway? I was wondering if we switched engines whose car would pick up and whose would slow down. I’ll just say I’m a racer that races almost every week (7 months a year) at the track for the last 46 years or so. I have never raced a car that weights more than 3200 pounds as I want to go as fast as I can, on a budget, with zero tricks on fancy gadgets. It would be stupid for me to race a FAT car and I never will. If you want to line up, let’s go.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: GY3]
#2734132
01/18/20 11:59 AM
01/18/20 11:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,479 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,479
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
It’s been a few years since I measured any rockers for ratio correctness. The last ones were Jesel 1.7’s on Indy 572-13’s....... I don’t remember what the exact numbers were, but the gist of what I saw was there wasn’t any “extra” ratio built in.......and that with 800lbs open load they did lose a little....... but not much.
The farthest off on the high side I’ve measured were some HS 1.6’s on a set of Indy SR’s. 1.67 with checking springs and still about 1.63 with 700lbs spring load.
I’ve tested several BBM rockers that lost over .05 ratio going from checking springs to full spring load.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2734133
01/18/20 12:04 PM
01/18/20 12:04 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
Hey don’t blame me because you own a fat car. Lmao 😂. What's the tin can weigh, anyway? I was wondering if we switched engines whose car would pick up and whose would slow down. I’ll just say I’m a racer that races almost every week (7 months a year) at the track for the last 46 years or so. I have never raced a car that weights more than 3200 pounds as I want to go as fast as I can, on a budget, with zero tricks on fancy gadgets. It would be stupid for me to race a FAT car and I never will. If you want to line up, let’s go. Are you afraid to admit how light your car is???
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734136
01/18/20 12:15 PM
01/18/20 12:15 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
Hey don’t blame me because you own a fat car. Lmao 😂. What's the tin can weigh, anyway? I was wondering if we switched engines whose car would pick up and whose would slow down. I’ll just say I’m a racer that races almost every week (7 months a year) at the track for the last 46 years or so. I have never raced a car that weights more than 3200 pounds as I want to go as fast as I can, on a budget, with zero tricks on fancy gadgets. It would be stupid for me to race a FAT car and I never will. If you want to line up, let’s go. Are you afraid to admit how light your car is??? I’ve mentioned it several times over the years. 2880 with me in it. At one time it was 2550 with my son driving, fiberglass doors, and a few other items I changed out to make it more oldman friendly. If you want to go big block against big block that can be arranged too. Wh me the last time you even ran a car at the track. I hope this build makes it off the dyno alive for you.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2734158
01/18/20 12:38 PM
01/18/20 12:38 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,027 Mt Morris Michigan
mopar dave
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,027
Mt Morris Michigan
|
Over all those T&D's I sold you worked pretty good on my pump gas 408 with a half ass tune. 10.38@131 in my 3300# car off a foot brake.
Last edited by mopar dave; 01/18/20 12:52 PM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734161
01/18/20 12:42 PM
01/18/20 12:42 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
This thread has officially derailed... I'm good. P.S. Jeezus, PBR, you are soooooo easy to bait. Lol. You didn’t bait me. I’ve been shutting guys up for years.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: mopar dave]
#2734192
01/18/20 01:36 PM
01/18/20 01:36 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
|
On or off the motor the only way I know of to measure actual valve lift is with a dial indictor on the retainers, that is IF you know the cam lobe lift so you can do the math on the ratios. I use zero lash when checking valve lift, you can do it either way though with or without the lash Cam timing at the valve you need the lash your going to use Don't forget that all the cam timing and valve lift specs are based on the lobe , not at the valve retainers except for the gross lift
Last edited by Cab_Burge; 01/18/20 08:19 PM.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734199
01/18/20 01:45 PM
01/18/20 01:45 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,651 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,651
Wichita
|
The Mental Mastubation Nationals! Spell Check on Aisle 1, please! They say you go blind from it, so that's my excuse! Fiksed.
'63 Dodge 330 11.19 @ 121 mph Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs. 10.01 @ 133mph with a 250 shot of nitrous an a splash of race gas. 1.36 60 ft. 3,700 lbs.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fbs63]
#2734200
01/18/20 01:54 PM
01/18/20 01:54 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug This exactly! All I'm saying is with the shaft spaced up and over like that there is NO way it stays still. ONLY way I would ever correct geometry would be to mill the stands off and make new ones that TOTALLY surround the shaft. W2's were a good example. I would bet some of your lift loss is from flex in the studs. So it's ok to make a rocker with a said 1.6 ratio but it's not 1.6? That's what i call JUNK. As Brad posted above even T&D will tell you ALL rockers FLEX. Every. Single. Brand. Always. Of the rocker is designed correctly, that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. T&D screwed up. That's just a simple fact. The other simple fact is what happens under load now? The rocker was already down on ratio, and now you load it and put some RPM to it. You lose even more ratio. Why settle for something made incorrectly? Chrysler people just awe me with what they tolerate from the aftermarket.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734207
01/18/20 02:07 PM
01/18/20 02:07 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug This exactly! All I'm saying is with the shaft spaced up and over like that there is NO way it stays still. ONLY way I would ever correct geometry would be to mill the stands off and make new ones that TOTALLY surround the shaft. W2's were a good example. I would bet some of your lift loss is from flex in the studs. So it's ok to make a rocker with a said 1.6 ratio but it's not 1.6? That's what i call JUNK. As Brad posted above even T&D will tell you ALL rockers FLEX. Every. Single. Brand. Always. Of the rocker is designed correctly, that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. T&D screwed up. That's just a simple fact. The other simple fact is what happens under load now? The rocker was already down on ratio, and now you load it and put some RPM to it. You lose even more ratio. Why settle for something made incorrectly? Chrysler people just awe me with what they tolerate from the aftermarket. Most of us are street n strip or bracket guys. I worry more about durability than I do about a well made product costing me .020 cam lift. I could Dick around with an engine forever making it perfect on the engine stand but I would rather be out having fun at the track. I’ll pick up more being on the track tuning than I lost from cam lift.
Last edited by pittsburghracer; 01/18/20 02:08 PM.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734210
01/18/20 02:11 PM
01/18/20 02:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,479 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,479
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. At what load does the rocker go from too much ratio to the “correct” ratio?
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2734321
01/18/20 09:21 PM
01/18/20 09:21 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. At what load does the rocker go from too much ratio to the “correct” ratio? You'd be surprised. It does take much. And, once you load the rocker I doesn't change worth more load up to the point of failure.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2734322
01/18/20 09:24 PM
01/18/20 09:24 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug This exactly! All I'm saying is with the shaft spaced up and over like that there is NO way it stays still. ONLY way I would ever correct geometry would be to mill the stands off and make new ones that TOTALLY surround the shaft. W2's were a good example. I would bet some of your lift loss is from flex in the studs. So it's ok to make a rocker with a said 1.6 ratio but it's not 1.6? That's what i call JUNK. As Brad posted above even T&D will tell you ALL rockers FLEX. Every. Single. Brand. Always. Of the rocker is designed correctly, that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. T&D screwed up. That's just a simple fact. The other simple fact is what happens under load now? The rocker was already down on ratio, and now you load it and put some RPM to it. You lose even more ratio. Why settle for something made incorrectly? Chrysler people just awe me with what they tolerate from the aftermarket. Most of us are street n strip or bracket guys. I worry more about durability than I do about a well made product costing me .020 cam lift. I could Dick around with an engine forever making it perfect on the engine stand but I would rather be out having fun at the track. I’ll pick up more being on the track tuning than I lost from cam lift. I agree 100%. That doesn't change the fact the rocker wasn't built correctly. I have no doubt the rocker would have functioned. I want what I pay for. If ou follow that line of thinking, the rocker could measure 1.55 ratio, or less and been ok. At what point do you send the junk back?
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734607
01/19/20 07:08 PM
01/19/20 07:08 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,003 Shelby Twp. Mi
HardcoreB
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,003
Shelby Twp. Mi
|
that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. At what load does the rocker go from too much ratio to the “correct” ratio? You'd be surprised. It does take much. And, once you load the rocker I doesn't change worth more load up to the point of failure. This is consistent with my findings....I assumed a typo and you meant DOESN'T take much. I don't remember the exact number but it was around 400lbs to full system deflection which was about .027" loss. (difference between checking spring and real spring on a TD shaft system 7/16'' pushrods) typically the TD that I have checked were as described by design with about .02 'extra' ratio. However the shaft system I am speaking of above is LABELED/STAMPED 1.5 and it measures nearer 1.6 unloaded. Because of the placement angle of the adjuster running the longest pushrod possible increases the ratio slightly as well. The paired-rocker system deflection was about the same amount of lift loss as well.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734805
01/20/20 10:17 AM
01/20/20 10:17 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
At what point do you send the junk back? Just to be clear, they were (are) not "junk". The ratio measurements were the only thing I was looking to validate.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734866
01/20/20 12:34 PM
01/20/20 12:34 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
At what point do you send the junk back? Just to be clear, they were (are) not "junk". The ratio measurements were the only thing I was looking to validate. I get that. Again, my question is how far off can the be before they are junk and you send them back? I have a set of Chinese rockers. They are 1.6 ratio. I forget what they are unloaded, but loaded, they are exactly 1.6. If PRW can hit the mark, I'd expect companies with a much higher price point to beat least as good. To me, that is junk. It's nice T&D offered to take them back. They were not correct. They were made defective. That means junk to me.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734886
01/20/20 01:16 PM
01/20/20 01:16 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
At what point do you send the junk back? Just to be clear, they were (are) not "junk". The ratio measurements were the only thing I was looking to validate. I get that. Again, my question is how far off can the be before they are junk and you send them back? I have a set of Chinese rockers. They are 1.6 ratio. I forget what they are unloaded, but loaded, they are exactly 1.6. If PRW can hit the mark, I'd expect companies with a much higher price point to beat least as good. To me, that is junk. It's nice T&D offered to take them back. They were not correct. They were made defective. That means junk to me. For all we know was the rocker ratio off, or the guy checking it??? Was it set at zero lash exactly or was there a fudge factor. Hmmmm
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
|
|