Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
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
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

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

20190713_140514.jpg
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: 14,478
So. Burlington, Vt.
F
fast68plymouth Offline
I Live Here
fast68plymouth  Offline
I Live Here
F

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,478
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
M
madscientist Offline
master
madscientist  Offline
master
M

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] #2733715
01/16/20 07:08 PM
01/16/20 07:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,791
MI, usa
dvw Offline
master
dvw  Offline
master

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,791
MI, usa
My paired T&D lose nothing when loaded 800+lbs over the nose..
Doug

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
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted by madscientist
I'd send them back.

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: BradH] #2733725
01/16/20 07:57 PM
01/16/20 07:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,678
W. Kentucky
justinp61 Offline
I Live Here
justinp61  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,678
W. Kentucky
I have 1.7 T&D's on my Indy headed small block. The cam is a Comp solid roller with .433"I/.437"E lobes, with no lash it should be .736/.743". It has .711/.719" at the retainers with.018" lash and the Pac springs. So .007" loss on the intake and .006" on the exhaust, I think it's pretty good considering the horrible push rod angle.

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: 701
Lake Villa Il
INTMD8 Offline
super stock
INTMD8  Offline
super stock

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 701
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: 30,945
Oregon
A
AndyF Offline
I Win
AndyF  Offline
I Win
A

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,945
Oregon
Originally Posted by fast68plymouth
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
C
Cab_Burge Offline
I Win
Cab_Burge  Offline
I Win
C

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 whiney
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 work shruggy'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 wrench 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 luck


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
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted by AndyF
Originally Posted by fast68plymouth
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: BradH] #2733795
01/17/20 01:41 AM
01/17/20 01:41 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,945
Oregon
A
AndyF Offline
I Win
AndyF  Offline
I Win
A

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,945
Oregon
The only other set of T&D rockers that I've checked were fine. As I recall, they were higher with a checking spring and correct with a roller cam spring. But that was just one set. The engine builder I work with uses a lot of T&D rocker arms and I've never heard him complain about them being off. Of course that is Chevy stuff so higher volume production than the Mopar stuff.

Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: AndyF] #2733812
01/17/20 07:44 AM
01/17/20 07:44 AM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,825
NW Indiana
F
fbs63 Offline
top fuel
fbs63  Offline
top fuel
F

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,825
NW Indiana
Are they bolted direct to the head? Are you using any kind of "geometry correction" spacers?

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
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted by fbs63
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.

B3RE TD_1.jpgB3RE TD_2.jpg
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: BradH] #2733832
01/17/20 10:04 AM
01/17/20 10:04 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted by BradH
... This configuration is consistent with T&D's instructions for setting up the rocker geometry.

TD geo guidelines.jpg
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: BradH] #2733838
01/17/20 10:26 AM
01/17/20 10:26 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
My last post on this subject for now... I sent T&D an e-mail from their web site with the following question:

Subject: Advertised vs installed rocker ratio

Question: The custom T&D rockers for BB Chrysler Edelbrock Victor heads that I purchased from a vendor last summer are stamped as 1.60 ratio, but measured 1.59+ w/ soft checking springs and 1.54+ w/ 600# open springs with the geometry set correctly for .650". I was expecting (assuming?) the loaded ratio would be approximately the stamped 1.60, not .05 less. I have since sold them, but want to know if I order another set whether I need to specify 1.65 to get an installed & loaded ratio closer to 1.60, or if there was something "wrong" that my first set didn't deliver the advertised ratio.

Thanks,
Brad Haak

Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: BradH] #2733858
01/17/20 11:49 AM
01/17/20 11:49 AM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,825
NW Indiana
F
fbs63 Offline
top fuel
fbs63  Offline
top fuel
F

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,825
NW Indiana
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.

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
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted by fbs63
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!


HS Victor sweep.JPG
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: BradH] #2733878
01/17/20 12:39 PM
01/17/20 12:39 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted by BradH
My last post on this subject for now...

Let me try this again...

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
L
lancer493 Offline
enthusiast
lancer493  Offline
enthusiast
L

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
B
BradH Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline OP
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted by lancer493
...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.

CAD Hughes std location.jpgCAD Hughes B3RE location.jpg
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1