Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #2995772
12/16/21 11:17 AM
12/16/21 11:17 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
OK, a few updates gents!

@Cab_Burge is right on having to source a couple of solid lifters. I tried what @B1MAXX suggested (which I was also contemplating as a possible Plan-B) to see if I could toss a few washers into the hydraulic lifter I have, but the tie-bar rivet prevents me from being able to remove the inner plunger body, and without me being able to do so I cannot turn that lifter into a solid.

So I've got a pair soaking up in an "oil bath" (LOL) to see if I can basicaly get them pumped-up enough to act as a solid (which they should do given that I only have the checking spring pressure acting against it).

Alright, so I haven't forgotten @B1MAXX's request: as soon as I have this lifter thing sorted out I'll get some pics of the roller patter on the valve tip.

In the meantime, Mike (B3) and I have been emailing this week. I've provided him with all the info and he's given me some recommendations, one of which is to move to a 0.100" offset shaft. I did these calculations on my own as well (there is a good description of what you are aiming for in the Rocker Geometry" article by Jim Miller in the Apr-Jun 2010 issue of Engine Professional) and came up with an adjustment figure. Mike is pretty tight-lipped about his numbers, which I suppose I understand, although I'm going to get his kit regardless because that's the quickest path for me TODAY to get to better geometry.

Back to the rocker shaft story...what I have right now is the on-center one that came with my HS rocker kit. I called HS yesterday and talked to Randy there. He is willing to exchange the shafts I got for the 0.100" offset ones, and I think I should be able to use these with Mike's setup (waiting for Mike to confirm).

Also in the meantime, I have an original set of MP blue W2 rocker arms here (the kit) so I'm going to spot-check the shafts that were supplied with that kit, not sure if they are offset or on-center? That is the MP P4876343 kit I'm talking about. Will toss these on and do a comparative set of photos so I can post here as well. It'll make for a good compare of the MP stuff vs. HS setup.

Final remark re: this whole combo...LOL

@Gtxxjon: you are absolutely right in your statement, and to those who at least somewhat understand the valvetrain component relationship this is no surprise. However, I will tell you this: it's extremely dissappointing to see that numerous parts which are sold as "W2 Long Valve Race Head" ready quite simply are NOT! I suppose we probably all already knew this to be the case, especially as applicable to the MP sourced stuff...it still stings though, especially when I am all too aware of the fact that my current W2 setup is top-dollar I have ever spent on a SB Mopar valvetrain!

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #2995775
12/16/21 11:24 AM
12/16/21 11:24 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,094
central texas
K
krautrock Offline
top fuel
krautrock  Offline
top fuel
K

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,094
central texas
when you get your solid lifters and are ready to run the valve pattern marks, can you do the harland sharp rocker kit with both shafts, and also the mopar performance kit?
the two arms will most likely have different fulcrum lengths so the pattern will be different.

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #2995843
12/16/21 03:37 PM
12/16/21 03:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
M
madscientist Offline
master
madscientist  Offline
master
M

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
Originally Posted by Diplomat360
OK, a few updates gents!

@Cab_Burge is right on having to source a couple of solid lifters. I tried what @B1MAXX suggested (which I was also contemplating as a possible Plan-B) to see if I could toss a few washers into the hydraulic lifter I have, but the tie-bar rivet prevents me from being able to remove the inner plunger body, and without me being able to do so I cannot turn that lifter into a solid.

So I've got a pair soaking up in an "oil bath" (LOL) to see if I can basicaly get them pumped-up enough to act as a solid (which they should do given that I only have the checking spring pressure acting against it).

Alright, so I haven't forgotten @B1MAXX's request: as soon as I have this lifter thing sorted out I'll get some pics of the roller patter on the valve tip.

In the meantime, Mike (B3) and I have been emailing this week. I've provided him with all the info and he's given me some recommendations, one of which is to move to a 0.100" offset shaft. I did these calculations on my own as well (there is a good description of what you are aiming for in the Rocker Geometry" article by Jim Miller in the Apr-Jun 2010 issue of Engine Professional) and came up with an adjustment figure. Mike is pretty tight-lipped about his numbers, which I suppose I understand, although I'm going to get his kit regardless because that's the quickest path for me TODAY to get to better geometry.

Back to the rocker shaft story...what I have right now is the on-center one that came with my HS rocker kit. I called HS yesterday and talked to Randy there. He is willing to exchange the shafts I got for the 0.100" offset ones, and I think I should be able to use these with Mike's setup (waiting for Mike to confirm).

Also in the meantime, I have an original set of MP blue W2 rocker arms here (the kit) so I'm going to spot-check the shafts that were supplied with that kit, not sure if they are offset or on-center? That is the MP P4876343 kit I'm talking about. Will toss these on and do a comparative set of photos so I can post here as well. It'll make for a good compare of the MP stuff vs. HS setup.

Final remark re: this whole combo...LOL

@Gtxxjon: you are absolutely right in your statement, and to those who at least somewhat understand the valvetrain component relationship this is no surprise. However, I will tell you this: it's extremely dissappointing to see that numerous parts which are sold as "W2 Long Valve Race Head" ready quite simply are NOT! I suppose we probably all already knew this to be the case, especially as applicable to the MP sourced stuff...it still stings though, especially when I am all too aware of the fact that my current W2 setup is top-dollar I have ever spent on a SB Mopar valvetrain!


Get the geometry dialed in and then check to see if the oil holes in the shaft line up with the oil holes in the rockers arms to feed the adjusters. Spoiler alert: they don’t. I was on Chrysler’s ass years ago about that but they ignored all the documentation I sent them. The holes in the shafts are TA offset. Chrysler didn’t leant to own the fact they were sending out garbage. Where HS puts the oil feed holes I can’t say. I don’t use needle bearings on a reciprocating shafts.


Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #2996468
12/18/21 02:39 PM
12/18/21 02:39 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
Last update for a while: Mike and I chatted yesterday, I placed my order for his kit. He did a good job answering my questions, which I admit were probably more specific then perhaps the normal questions he gets, LOL! He will be running all his adjuster set jobs in early January, so perhaps by late Jan I can provide the final update on what the end result looks like.

In the meantime, I ran through two other checks:

1) I took the MP W2 rocker arms that I have here and captured the @seat and @max_lift photos

2) I took my shaft-adjustment calculations (which indicated I needed to raise the shaft by 0.174" for my HS rocker arms) and set the shaft up on the head with stacked shims for a raise of 0.175"
- the photos show the results, the big takeaway here is the much much smaller roll pattern the rockers now leave on the valve tip
- assuming that the shaft offset of 0.100" which Mike recommended is enough, that will move the roller inboard (towards the intake) and therefore closer to the center of the valve tip
- I am not sure if 0.100" will be sufficient, right now it feels like 0.180" may be more like it (the roller is at the edge of the vale tip, and this being a 11/32 stem would need about 0.180" to get the tip to the center
- needless to say, the kit and offset shaft recomendations will actually diagonally move the shaft so it may have well be the case that 0.100" offset is sufficient

OK, here are the photos...I'll update the post with the matching videos next, I just need to get them processed. The HS rocker arm video in particular shows how the previous wide arc (due to the incorrect geometry) had the roller ROLL across the tip as opposed to PUSH the valve. The roller still rolls somewhat at max-lift, but that's pretty minimal now.

Bottom line: translate the rocker arm movement into valve movement ASAP by avoiding the ROLL across the tip. If one really wanted to get fance you could theoretically measure (in crank degrees and valve lift) the difference between the amount of lift that is seen in both setups (corrected vs as-is). That should show increased lift at crank degrees that was previously not there since the cam lobe lift was being lost to a rocker arm ROLL instead of a being transferred to a valve PUSH.

VIDEOS
=====
1) raised HS rocker arm roll over the valve tip
[video]http://darcio.no-ip.org/mopar/w2/W2%20-%20Rocker%20Sweep%20-%20HS%20rocker%20arms%20-%20raised.mp4[/video]

2) MP W2 rocker arm roll over the valve tip
[video]http://darcio.no-ip.org/mopar/w2/W2%20-%20Rocker%20Sweep%20-%20MP%20Rocker%20Arms%20-%20As_Is.mp4[/video]

W2 - Rocker Sweep - MP rocker arms - seat.jpgW2 - Rocker Sweep - MP rocker arms - max_lift.jpgW2 - Rocker Sweep - HS rocker arms - raised - seat.jpgW2 - Rocker Sweep - HS rocker arms - raised - max_lift.jpg
Last edited by Diplomat360; 12/18/21 03:57 PM. Reason: Added VIDEO links
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: B1MAXX] #2996557
12/18/21 08:22 PM
12/18/21 08:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,842
Pattison Texas
CSK Offline
master
CSK  Offline
master

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,842
Pattison Texas
Originally Posted by B1MAXX
Offset shafts require milling the stands off. Just a heads up.


I have offset shafts , no milling the stands off required , I do have the B3 set up.


1968 Charger COLD A/C Hilborn EFI
512ci 9.7 compression, Stealth heads, 4.10 gear A518 ODtrans 4100lb,10.93 full street car trim
2020 T/A 392 Stock 11.79 @ 114.5

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: CSK] #2996584
12/18/21 10:24 PM
12/18/21 10:24 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,944
Apollo, PA.
B1MAXX Online content
top fuel
B1MAXX  Online Content
top fuel

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,944
Apollo, PA.
The mopars look ok to me. Why did you buy the harlands, and now the b3 kit? Just curious. How much was the b3 kit?

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: B1MAXX] #2996831
12/19/21 09:14 PM
12/19/21 09:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
Originally Posted by B1MAXX
The mopars look ok to me. Why did you buy the harlands, and now the b3 kit? Just curious. How much was the b3 kit?

You are right...the MP rockers look like you could almost run with them as-is. I did not measure the width of the roll across the tip, but judging by the video it looks like it's about 1/4 of the stem diameter, which would be about 0.090". I will get the final numbers eventually, but with the collapsing hydraulic lifter and the light checking springs I just didn't get much of a marking on the valve tip. To be clear, there was enough there to eye-ball check, but not enough to actually capture a good measurment and show well in a photo, so that I could post it here. Either way, as you can tell in the video the MP rockers do have a pretty good amount of roll across the valve tip followed by the push down on the tip, so there is wasted motion there. If one wanted to correct that, a matching kit would be required.

Anyways....so why the HS stuff? Well, the original intention was to run a set of double valve springs (CompCams #930 - 1.560" OD, 354 lbs./in. rate, 1.160" Coil Bind Height, 153 lbs@1.900", 383 lbs@1.250"). That was going to cause me a clearance problem with the MP rockers and I would have to do a little grinding on them...which I hated the thought of doing.

In parallel to that, I really wanted to run a 1.6 ratio rocker, maximizing the lift and letting the W2 heads flow some air to support the 408 stroker volume.

Researching all this I came up with the HS stuff as a viable alternative. I watched them for a while (stuff of course never goes on "SALE" LOL), but eventually I got a Summit Code and along with their competitive price match policy I picked these up for $950 USD.

Fast forward a few months (umm, more like a year actually) the heads having been finally finished by the machine shop, I started to measure things and the installed height of the double springs was going to put me way over what the hydraulic roller @seat and @max-lift load should be...yeah, not happy as I had explained all this to the machine shop that did the head work...but...apparently that was lost on them (and I mean I had printed stuff out, specific instrutions on what the final dimensions needed to be).

Sooo...back to the "valve spring" shopping task I went so that I could find a spring that works with what the actual dimensions were telling me I could run. I ended up with the CompCams beehive spring #26056 (1.454" OD base, 1.185" OD top, 400 lbs./in. rate, 1.100" Coil Bind Height, 160 lbs@1.800", 420 lbs@1.150").

Now the MP rocker clearance is not a problem...LOL, yey! But I already have the HS rocker arms, which are nice pieces, and well since I already have them, I might as well make use of these things.

I did not go through the correction measurements for the MP rocker arms yet, they have a smaller diameter roller on them, so that would not require the shaft to be raised quite as much as the HS do. I will say that compared to the corrected HS rocker valve tip roll, the MP are much wider and in the as-is form still need some correcting, just not as much as the HS set does.

Price wise...Mike is charging me $200, which I honestly think is a fair price for the machining he does to make these (if I understand the geometry/shape of these spacers correctly, once I have them here I will know better of course). Am I expecting them to be perfect...in all honesty: NO, there are just too many "moving pieces", meaning not all valve tips are perfectly aligned (height wise), so that means the rocker arm arc will be different between all the valves...but those differences are so tiny (for my purposes) that it's nearly like splitting hair!

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #2996956
12/20/21 09:19 AM
12/20/21 09:19 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,944
Apollo, PA.
B1MAXX Online content
top fuel
B1MAXX  Online Content
top fuel

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,944
Apollo, PA.
Thanks for the info. up

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #3030364
04/03/22 06:58 PM
04/03/22 06:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
PART-1
=====

Alright you guys...more info! Took a while because there were some additional delays in getting the stuff shipped...

I got Mike's correction kit, I had also returned the on-center W2 rocker arm shaft to HS and they graciously agreed to replace that with the 0.100" offset shaft (plus the price difference, which is to be expected).

In short: Mike @B3 did say that "some lift would be lost, but geometery would be much better". I agree, the numbers tell the story, you be the judge whether the anticipated benefits of one (better geo) outweigh the disadvantege of the other (lost lift).

These photos are a series of @seat and @max_lift captures of where the rocker arm roller is. I have this done for both the INTAKE and EXHAUST valves because as you see later on, there is a significant difference between the two when you assess the results of B3's adjustment kit.

INTAKE VALVE

1) corrected @seat
[Linked Image]

2) corrected @max_lift
[Linked Image]

3) corrected @seat WITH lash cap
[Linked Image]

4) corrected @max_lift WITH lash cap
[Linked Image]

EXHAUST VALVE

1) corrected @seat
[Linked Image]

2) corrected @max_lift
[Linked Image]

3) corrected @seat WITH lash cap
[Linked Image]

4) corrected @max_lift WITH lash cap
[Linked Image]

Now here is where it's going to get a little "techie!" lol

So how do I compare the NEW (corrected) config to the AS-IS (un-corrected)?

I literally built a tracking spreadsheet where for each configuration I measured:
1) raw lobe lift
2) @valve lift for the as-is
3) @valve lift for the corrected
4) @valve lift for the corrected + lash cap extra

I've attached the spreadsheet (Lotus 1-2-3), so if you want take a look at that.

EDIT
====
For whatever reason, could be Moparts server, not sure, but not all the image links were showing. So I split this large single post into two separate sections.

Last edited by Diplomat360; 04/05/22 08:30 PM. Reason: Split of the large post into two sections
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #3030459
04/04/22 01:04 AM
04/04/22 01:04 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,540
Milwaukee WI
T
TRENDZ Offline
master
TRENDZ  Offline
master
T

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,540
Milwaukee WI
The intended purpose of the correction kit is to accelerate and decelerate the valve in a controlled manner. you can toy with getting more lift or quicker lift on one end, but you pay for it in durability. Your engine will make more power and last longer with the geometry correction even with a touch less lift. Bottom line… You went the right route. (with the exception of going with a hydraulic lifter) grin


"use it 'till it breaks, replace as needed"
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: TRENDZ] #3030578
04/04/22 01:23 PM
04/04/22 01:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Brad_Haak Offline
super stock
Brad_Haak  Offline
super stock

Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
How a B3 kit impacts the valve lift is dependent upon the rocker arm's dimensions & geometry. This pic shows a T&D on the left and a Hughes on the right. If you look at the respective locations & angles of the lash adjuster screws, you may understand how moving the rocker arm up and / or away from the original pedestal location can change the lift curve more on some rockers than others. It's one of those factors that you only know for sure by plotting the lift curves with and without the relocation kit in place.

TD-1.45L-x-1.60R_HE-1.52L-x-1.60R.jpg

2021 Challenger 6.4L Scat Pack 1320 (2022)
100% stock: 1.680, 11.894 at 113.75 (DA 175 ft)
wheels, tires, air filter: 1.714, 11.833 at 115.80 (DA 310 ft)

1973 Challenger 452 ci street/strip (2008)
pump gas, DOT radials: 1.454, 10.523 at 126.44 (DA 514 ft)
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #3031045
04/05/22 08:30 PM
04/05/22 08:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
PART-2
=====

In the meantime, here are a few charts that illustrate the results.

First a brief explanation of the chart LEGEND:

'@1.6' : actual lobe lift * 1.6 rocker arm ratio
'AS-IS' : actual valve tip lift (on-center shaft)
'CORRECTED' : actual valve tip lift when adjustment kit installed (0.100" shafts and B2 offset shims)
'LASH CAP1' : actual valve tip list when using 0.080" lash cap
'LASH CAP2' : actual valve tip lift when using 0.085" lash cap
'CORRECTED to AS-IS DIFF' : valve lift difference between correction kit and as-is install (RIGHT HAND Y-Axis)
'LASH CAP1 to AS-IS DIFF' : valve lift difference between the correction kit + lash cap and as-is install (RIGHT HAND Y-Axis)
'LASH CAP2 to AS-IS DIFF' : valve lift difference between the correction kit + lash cap and as-is install (RIGHT HAND Y-Axis)

Actual Valve Lift is shown on the LEFT HAND Y-Axis.

The chart uses 2 Y-Axis so that I can capture both the actual valve lift and the difference between the various combinations.


INTAKE

1) metrics with a ONE thread of adjuster showing below rocker arm body
[Linked Image]

2) metrics with a THREEE threads of adjuster showing below rocker arm body
[Linked Image]


EXHAUST

1) metrics with a ONE thread of adjuster showing below rocker arm body
[Linked Image]

2) metrics with a THREEE threads of adjuster showing below rocker arm body
[Linked Image]


OK, so what does that tell me?

1) LIFT LOSS
Yes, it is certianly there. The AS-IS combination (so no lash cap but just the kit spacers) show anywhere beteen 0.020" to 0.030" loss on the INTAKE and EXHAUST.

The obvious thing is that without the use of the LASH CAPS I would have a larger lift loss. This is telling me that the B3 kit is in fact a little off and is more heavily skewed towards a GEOMETRY result as opposed to LIFT results.

2) GEOMETRY
It is much improved. I am still missing an actual sweep pattern width, and I won't have that until the heads are fully assembled.

So is the difference worth it??? Man...that's nearly impossible to tell. Whatever the benefits the improved GEO provides could perhaps be easily made up by the extra power (assuming more lift = more power), but is that the case here? Each combo will be different.

3) INT vs EXH Differences
There are some obvious ones. See the valve lift curve, it is offset on the EXH one, I am seeing MORE lift early on, and less lift later on. This is partially to be expected given that the EXH valve is 0.015" taller as compared to the INT valve. The B3 kit uses this measurement as one of the key inputs into the design, so I knew the EXH would be off having prioritized INT and measured that instead.

Lessons Learned so far:

1) the B3 kit is very specific to a particular cam you are running: the minute you decide to move to something with DOFFEREMT lift, you have a problem, the kit measurements are going to be off now.

2) "hindsight is 20/20" as they say, specifically for my Econo Race W2 heads I would have been better off to machine the as-cast shaft pedestals and rely on block spacers to adjust the geometry with, the benefit here being: in the future, any additional adjustments just need a different spacer as opposed to a completely different offset kit.

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: TRENDZ] #3031048
04/05/22 08:41 PM
04/05/22 08:41 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
Originally Posted by TRENDZ
The intended purpose of the correction kit is to accelerate and decelerate the valve in a controlled manner. you can toy with getting more lift or quicker lift on one end, but you pay for it in durability.

That is a very good point, and I knew getting into this that the geometry correction was the primarly goal. Having said that, if I had my choice I'd pick "the less lift is lost, the better" option.

Originally Posted by TRENDZ
...Bottom line… You went the right route. (with the exception of going with a hydraulic lifter) grin

Hey....hey....baby steps here...LOL, that's my first roller build! boogie

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Brad_Haak] #3031054
04/05/22 08:52 PM
04/05/22 08:52 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
Originally Posted by Brad_Haak
How a B3 kit impacts the valve lift is dependent upon the rocker arm's dimensions & geometry. This pic shows a T&D on the left and a Hughes on the right. If you look at the respective locations & angles of the lash adjuster screws, you may understand how moving the rocker arm up and / or away from the original pedestal location can change the lift curve more on some rockers than others. It's one of those factors that you only know for sure by plotting the lift curves with and without the relocation kit in place.

Not sure if you had the chance to look over the spreadsheet details. What I had actually captured there were the real lobe as well as valve lifts, which allowed me to also calculate effective/actual rocker arm ratio at each point.

I did that for the very reason you highlighted here: different rocker arms will have different dimensions and geometry.

So in my case, each time I made a change (such as the position of the adjuster screw: 1 or 3 threads showing) I wanted to better understand the real impact that had. Some good eye-opening results there, and what absolutely floored me here is how the EXHAUST valve lift profile is visibly offset as compared to the lobe itself. The valve actually GAINED lift early on and then LOST lift at about the mid-point onwards. That to me is strange b/c on the W2 head it is the INTAKE that has an offset rocker arm adjuster, so the pushrod travel does not translate to an equivalent and linear (multiplied by ratio) valve travel. The EXHUAST valve on the other hand is pretty straight-on!

Again...numbers can be boring, but they do tell the bigger story.

If there is one curious thing about the kit, it is the fact that in ALL instances adding a lash cap ALWAYS resulted in MORE valve lift without significantly altering the rocker arm roller to valve tip geometry. That implies that somewhere between all the components there is either some extra error, or that the calculations for the kit itself are a little off (heck, my very own "starting-point" calculations certainly add to this).

I will email Mike @B3 next to see if he can spot something here. While I do not think running the lash caps is a big deal, I of course would prefer not to have to do that given that the kit is custom designed and built for the parts I'm actually assembling.

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #3031059
04/05/22 09:00 PM
04/05/22 09:00 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,842
Pattison Texas
CSK Offline
master
CSK  Offline
master

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,842
Pattison Texas
I have the b3 set up, I will take correct geometry over more lift !!!!


1968 Charger COLD A/C Hilborn EFI
512ci 9.7 compression, Stealth heads, 4.10 gear A518 ODtrans 4100lb,10.93 full street car trim
2020 T/A 392 Stock 11.79 @ 114.5

Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Diplomat360] #3031493
04/07/22 09:27 AM
04/07/22 09:27 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Brad_Haak Offline
super stock
Brad_Haak  Offline
super stock

Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Here's the summary of the information I gave Mike at B3 some years ago from my measurements w/ different pushrod length, adjuster screw, and shaft location configurations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring valve lift curves w/ different length pushrods and with standard and relocated shafts. Cam is a COMP Cams RX-series endurance roller measured in my block w/ .815”-wheel lifter.

Seat at .018" lash (.012" lobe) = 315
SAE duration at .018" lash (.016" lobe) = 307
.020 = 300+
.050 = 266+
.100 = 232
.200 = 184
.300 = 136
.400 = 68
Peak at .433"

Before & after valve lift curve measurements for changing from ball-type adjuster to cup-type adjuster w/ longer pushrod and, then changing from standard rocker shaft location to B3RE kit optimized for .650" net lift. All measurements taken with Hughes “1.6” standard-offset rocker using soft checking spring and .018" lash.

A = w/ Smith Bros. ball-type adjuster, actual Smith Bros. 3/8" x .120"-wall x 9.200" EL pushrod used in engine
B = w/ T&D cup-style adjusters, ball-ball style adjustable pushrod set at .375" longer than Smith Bros. ball-cup style
C = w/ B3RE shaft relocation kit set for .650” net lift, T&D cup-style adjusters, ball-ball style adjustable pushrod extended longer than w/ test “B”

Lift --- _A_ --- _B_ --- _C_
.010 --- 302 --- 302 --- 300
.020 --- 293.5 - 293.5 - 292
.050 --- 273 --- 273 --- 271
.100 --- 250 --- 249 --- 248
.150 --- 231 --- 230 --- 228
.200 --- 215 --- 214 --- 212
.250 --- 199.5 - 198 --- 196
.300 --- 185 --- 184 --- 181
.350 --- 170.5 - 169 --- 166.5
.400 --- 155 --- 154 --- 151
.450 --- 139 --- 138.5 - 135
.500 --- 122 --- 121 --- 117
.550 --- 102.5 - 101 --- 96.5
.600 --- 78.5 -- 77 ---- 69.5
.650 --- 42 ---- 40 ---- 17

Lift -- .668" - .667" - .653"
Ratio - 1.584 - 1.582 - 1.550

Sweep for A & B: ~ .085"and centered; pushrod/adjuster angle slightly under parallel at half-lift
Sweep for C: ~ .045" and offset slightly inboard; pushrod/adjuster angle slightly over parallel at half-lift

Comments:
1. Every "before and after" combination is going to be different, but in this case it will require a different cam and/or rocker ratio increase to recoup the lost high-lift duration. You might want to give your relocation kit customers a "heads up" (no pun intended) that a higher rocker ratio might be a good upgrade along w/ the kit, to maintain the overall lift curve. Obviously, the only way anyone will know for sure is to do what I did and measure all the options.

2. I expected more difference in the lift curve – and a ratio increase – from moving the pushrod end closer to the rocker arm w/ the cup-style adjuster w/o changing the shaft location. The results are very different from what I graphed out, other than the “swing” (length of the arc) of the rocker-end of the pushrod is reduced significantly.

3. My prior measurements comparing the delivered ratio of this style of rocker using the checking spring vs my PAC 1243 spring (240# closed, 600# open) showed about a .04 loss in ratio; the loaded net lift was .650" +/-.

//////////////////////

More valve lift curve measurements for changing from ball-type adjuster to cup-type adjuster w/ longer pushrod and, then re-running the measurements for both styles after changing from standard rocker shaft location to B3RE kit optimized for .650" net lift. All measurements taken with Hughes “1.6” standard-offset rocker using soft checking spring and reducing lash to .008" (don't have any thinner feeler gauge)

A = w/ standard shaft location, Smith Bros. ball-type adjuster, actual Smith Bros. 3/8" x .120"-wall x 9.200" EL pushrod used in engine
B = w/ standard shaft location, T&D cup-style adjuster, ball-ball style adjustable pushrod set at .375" longer than Smith Bros. ball-cup style
C = w/ B3RE shaft relocation kit set for .650” net lift, Smith Bros. ball-type adjuster, ball-cup style adjustable pushrod
D = w/ B3RE shaft relocation kit set for .650” net lift, T&D cup-style adjuster, ball-ball style adjustable pushrod extended ~ .220" longer than w/ test “B”

Lift --- _A_ --- _B_ --- _C_ --- _D_
.010 --- 316.5 - 315 --- 314.5 - 315.5
.020 --- 305 --- 303.5 - 303 --- 303.5
.050 --- 281 --- 279.5 - 279 --- 279
.100 --- 255 --- 253.5 - 253 --- 253
.150 --- 235.5 - 234 --- 232.5 - 233.5
.200 --- 218.5 - 217 --- 216 --- 216
.250 --- 203 --- 202.5 - 200 --- 200.5
.300 --- 189 --- 187.5 - 185.5 - 185.5
.350 --- 175 --- 173 --- 170 --- 170
.400 --- 159.5 - 158 --- 155 --- 155.5
.450 --- 145 --- 143 --- 139 --- 140
.500 --- 127.5 - 126 --- 121 --- 123
.550 --- 109.5 - 107.5-- 101 --- 103
.600 --- 87 ---- 85 ---- 76 ---- 79
.650 --- 56 ---- 53.5 -- 35.5 -- 42.5

Lift -- .685" - .682" - .663" - .670"
Ratio - 1.600 - 1.594 - 1.550 - 1.565

I ran each set of measurements twice; the #s never varied by more than 1/2 degree and most measurements repeated. The max lift values all repeated, except one time when there was a -.001" variance.

All I can say is geometry is a funny thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


2021 Challenger 6.4L Scat Pack 1320 (2022)
100% stock: 1.680, 11.894 at 113.75 (DA 175 ft)
wheels, tires, air filter: 1.714, 11.833 at 115.80 (DA 310 ft)

1973 Challenger 452 ci street/strip (2008)
pump gas, DOT radials: 1.454, 10.523 at 126.44 (DA 514 ft)
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Brad_Haak] #3031495
04/07/22 09:32 AM
04/07/22 09:32 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Brad_Haak Offline
super stock
Brad_Haak  Offline
super stock

Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
I also loaned Mike one of my rocker arms so that he and his CAD guy could use my data to come up w/ a simulation. Here's a couple diagrams of what they came up with, which also identified that Hughes' lash adjuster geometry results in a regressive ratio across the lift curve.

CAD-Hughes-std-location.jpgCAD-Hughes-B3RE-location.jpg

2021 Challenger 6.4L Scat Pack 1320 (2022)
100% stock: 1.680, 11.894 at 113.75 (DA 175 ft)
wheels, tires, air filter: 1.714, 11.833 at 115.80 (DA 310 ft)

1973 Challenger 452 ci street/strip (2008)
pump gas, DOT radials: 1.454, 10.523 at 126.44 (DA 514 ft)
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Brad_Haak] #3031498
04/07/22 09:38 AM
04/07/22 09:38 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Brad_Haak Offline
super stock
Brad_Haak  Offline
super stock

Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Here are pics I spliced together of the rockers in standard location w/ T&D adjuster setup at closed / mid-lift / peak lift during my measurements. I have (had?) pics from other config tests, but don't see them at the moment.

Std loc cup closed_mid_peak.jpg

2021 Challenger 6.4L Scat Pack 1320 (2022)
100% stock: 1.680, 11.894 at 113.75 (DA 175 ft)
wheels, tires, air filter: 1.714, 11.833 at 115.80 (DA 310 ft)

1973 Challenger 452 ci street/strip (2008)
pump gas, DOT radials: 1.454, 10.523 at 126.44 (DA 514 ft)
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Brad_Haak] #3031500
04/07/22 09:46 AM
04/07/22 09:46 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Brad_Haak Offline
super stock
Brad_Haak  Offline
super stock

Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,072
Loudoun County, VA
Finally, we tried a custom B3 T&D setup using shorter 1.45"-fulcrum 1.60 rockers set up for .650" net lift. The pushrod geometry and sweep pattern were basically "nuts on" w/ Jim Miller's Mid-Lift rocker arm geometry design, but the actual lift curve wasn't significantly different than the Hughes 1.60 setup w/o the B3 relocation kit, so I kept what I had as what I was hoping for was a net increase in lift to go along w' the improved geometry.

B3RE-TD_1.jpgB3RE-TD_2.jpg

2021 Challenger 6.4L Scat Pack 1320 (2022)
100% stock: 1.680, 11.894 at 113.75 (DA 175 ft)
wheels, tires, air filter: 1.714, 11.833 at 115.80 (DA 310 ft)

1973 Challenger 452 ci street/strip (2008)
pump gas, DOT radials: 1.454, 10.523 at 126.44 (DA 514 ft)
Re: W2 stroker build - geometry problems me thinks... [Re: Brad_Haak] #3031907
04/08/22 04:42 PM
04/08/22 04:42 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline OP
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline OP
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
Hi Brad!

Thanks for the detailed response and sharing your data points.

It looks to me like you saw some shift in the valve lift curve with the B3 kit as well. What I was pretty astonished by is the valve lift INCREASE early on on the EXH side, see below:

[Linked Image]

In this case the 'zig-zag' curve (so up early on and then down past the mid-lift) was only present on the EXH side and the B3 kit's only impact on this was to again drop the lift, so no net contribution. I could not explain why I saw this, I did measure several times thinking that maybe I literally missed my 0 (zero) starting point, but no, everything matched.

I emailed Mike @B3 my details a couple of days ago, along with the lift charts, hoping to hear back from him in the next few days.

Given my intended use, which is street, I am looking to do my pushrod length measurement this weekend and get me some pushrods ordered. Have a few sets here, but I suspect the lengths are going to be off by some measure given the extra height of the B3 kit.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1