Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: GY3] #2734135
01/18/20 11:12 AM
01/18/20 11:12 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 GY3

The Mental Mastubation Nationals! grin


Spell Check on Aisle 1, please!

Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: BradH] #2734136
01/18/20 11:15 AM
01/18/20 11:15 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
pittsburghracer Online work
"Little"John
pittsburghracer  Online Work
"Little"John

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
Originally Posted by BradH
Originally Posted by pittsburghracer
Originally Posted by BradH
Originally Posted by pittsburghracer
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. wink



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??? laugh2




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
6.143@110.85 mph
9.73@135.05 mph shifting at 6700 RPM
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: BradH] #2734138
01/18/20 11:17 AM
01/18/20 11:17 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
This thread has officially derailed... I'm good. wave

P.S. Jeezus, PBR, you are soooooo easy to bait. grin

Last edited by BradH; 01/18/20 11:24 AM.
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: pittsburghracer] #2734158
01/18/20 11:38 AM
01/18/20 11:38 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,581
flint michigan
mopar dave Offline
master
mopar dave  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,581
flint 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 11:52 AM.
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: BradH] #2734161
01/18/20 11:42 AM
01/18/20 11:42 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
pittsburghracer Online work
"Little"John
pittsburghracer  Online Work
"Little"John

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
Originally Posted by BradH
This thread has officially derailed... I'm good. wave

P.S. Jeezus, PBR, you are soooooo easy to bait. grin




Lol. You didn’t bait me. I’ve been shutting guys up for years.


1970 Duster
Edelbrock headed 408
6.143@110.85 mph
9.73@135.05 mph shifting at 6700 RPM
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: BradH] #2734170
01/18/20 11:52 AM
01/18/20 11:52 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,581
flint michigan
mopar dave Offline
master
mopar dave  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,581
flint michigan
Bolted up and valves are lashed. I just need a box of oil and bolt the headers back up and it will be running. Is there a way to measure accurately with the rockers on? I would gladly measure if that's possible as I will be in the garage tomorrow.

Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: mopar dave] #2734192
01/18/20 12:36 PM
01/18/20 12:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 34,258
Bend,OR USA
C
Cab_Burge Offline
I Win
Cab_Burge  Offline
I Win
C

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 34,258
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 up
Cam timing at the valve you need the lash your going to use wrench
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 shruggy

Last edited by Cab_Burge; 01/18/20 07:19 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 12:45 PM
01/18/20 12:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,866
Wichita
G
GY3 Offline
master
GY3  Offline
master
G

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,866
Wichita
Originally Posted by BradH
Originally Posted by GY3

The Mental Mastubation Nationals! grin


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.
10.40 @ 130mph with a 200 shot of nitrous. 6.48 @ 105mph in the 1/8th. 1.37 60 ft.

Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: fbs63] #2734200
01/18/20 12:54 PM
01/18/20 12:54 PM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
M
madscientist Offline
master
madscientist  Offline
master
M

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
Originally Posted by fbs63
Originally Posted by dvw
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 01:07 PM
01/18/20 01:07 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
pittsburghracer Online work
"Little"John
pittsburghracer  Online Work
"Little"John

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
Originally Posted by madscientist
Originally Posted by fbs63
Originally Posted by dvw
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 01:08 PM.

1970 Duster
Edelbrock headed 408
6.143@110.85 mph
9.73@135.05 mph shifting at 6700 RPM
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 01:11 PM
01/18/20 01:11 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,751
So. Burlington, Vt.
F
fast68plymouth Online content
I Live Here
fast68plymouth  Online Content
I Live Here
F

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,751
So. Burlington, Vt.
Quote
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 08:21 PM
01/18/20 08:21 PM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
M
madscientist Offline
master
madscientist  Offline
master
M

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
Originally Posted by fast68plymouth
Quote
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 08:24 PM
01/18/20 08:24 PM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
M
madscientist Offline
master
madscientist  Offline
master
M

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
Originally Posted by pittsburghracer
Originally Posted by madscientist
Originally Posted by fbs63
Originally Posted by dvw
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: BradH] #2734565
01/19/20 04:26 PM
01/19/20 04:26 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,581
flint michigan
mopar dave Offline
master
mopar dave  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,581
flint michigan
Brad, I set up an indicator on the retainers today and took some measures on valve travel. My cam lobes measure .403/.410 and I use a 1.6/1.5 HS rocker. Intake measured .630 open and the exhaust measured .600 open. Cold lash was set to .015/.015", so looks like my rockers are true 1.6/1.5 ratios under pressure. I only cycled each valve one time, no double checking measures like I usually do, but I think this is accurate.

Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded [Re: madscientist] #2734607
01/19/20 06:08 PM
01/19/20 06:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,761
Shelby Twp. Mi
HardcoreB Offline
master
HardcoreB  Offline
master

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,761
Shelby Twp. Mi
Originally Posted by madscientist
Originally Posted by fast68plymouth
Quote
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 09:17 AM
01/20/20 09:17 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
Quote
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 11:34 AM
01/20/20 11:34 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
M
madscientist Offline
master
madscientist  Offline
master
M

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,928
Washington
Originally Posted by BradH
Quote
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 12:16 PM
01/20/20 12:16 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
pittsburghracer Online work
"Little"John
pittsburghracer  Online Work
"Little"John

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,128
PA.
Originally Posted by madscientist
Originally Posted by BradH
Quote
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
6.143@110.85 mph
9.73@135.05 mph shifting at 6700 RPM
422 Indy headed small block
5.982@112.56 mph
9.42@138.27

Livin and lovin life one day at a time




Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Advertisement
Sponsored Link
Moparts Newest Topics
Gen III and alcohol
by hemi_doug. 02/27/20 09:37 AM
STEVE JULIANOS OLD CHALLENGER R/T BACK ON THE BLOCK
by rdrnr6970. 02/27/20 09:07 AM
Cuda 340 shaker feet brackets
by AARCONV. 02/27/20 08:06 AM
Moparts Recent Posts
Mopar cam and lifter set
by MO_PA. 02/27/20 10:03 AM
long rod 400, 915 heads
by csk. 02/27/20 10:03 AM
headliner: change or not change?
by topside. 02/27/20 10:02 AM
AMD stops producing a lot of sheetmetal
by chargervert. 02/27/20 10:00 AM




Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1