Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? #3057789
07/09/22 09:19 PM
07/09/22 09:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
3
375inStroke Offline OP
Special needs person
375inStroke  Offline OP
Special needs person
3

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
I see some experts only care about the sweep pattern on the valve tip. I see come adjust the rocker arm shaft, and pushrod length to get the rocker arm perpendicular to the spring retainer at one half valve lift, and then make sure the pattern on the valve tip is within .040" from the edge. With non-roller rockers, that perpendicular is measured from the rocker arm foot to valve tip contact, through the centerline of the rocker shaft, but with roller rockers, it's taken from the center of the roller rocker tip, through the center of the rocker shaft. Is this correct? If so, then I need to raise my rocker shaft .25". WTH? I also don't see how changing the pushrod length changes geometry, or is that just for Chevys where you adjust the rocker up and down also?

Last edited by 375inStroke; 07/09/22 10:12 PM.
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3057800
07/09/22 10:19 PM
07/09/22 10:19 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 268
Anchorage, Alaska
metallicareload Offline
enthusiast
metallicareload  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 268
Anchorage, Alaska
Everything you've mentioned is what makes sense to me. The more centered and the narrower the pattern the better, but I don't think that is THE most important aspect. We arent working on chevies here, so I think pushrod length issue is overblown (except Magnum guys), as long as yours are the "right length" you're fine.

The 90 degree at midlift makes sense to me as that should result in the narrowest sweep pattern. But I've also been advised to have the roller on the valve tip only move in "one direction." IE the roller moves across the valve tip towards the exhaust side when opening, and rolls back to the inside when closing the valve shruggy Having the rocker shaft "too low" will achieve that.

I'm using spacers on my Trick Flow 240 heads with solid roller cam. Rocker shaft has been raised and moved away from the valves. My "ideal geometry" would have the valve reach 90 degrees before mid lift. That would do two things, ignoring lobe profile: the valve would be opening the quickest at lower lifts and slowest near peak lift. #2 it would conform more to the roller moving in one direction advice I've been given shruggy Easier said than done.

Ultimately, I took the easy road. Used the "recommended" parts and talked to someone smarter than me. Mike @ B3 Racing Engines drive


440, 4-Speed, 3.54
1968, when Dinosaurs ruled the Earth
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3057801
07/09/22 10:20 PM
07/09/22 10:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
3
375inStroke Offline OP
Special needs person
375inStroke  Offline OP
Special needs person
3

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
The pushrods that were in the motor looked like $#!t, and two were bent, so I cut a couple up and made adjustable ones for checking geometry. They were too long with the Comp rollers. The adjuster was all the way out, and the lifter plunger was compressed at least .100". They look like they measure 8.547", or .030" under stock. With the stock rockers back on, it looks like the shaft needs to be lowered if we're going for perpendicular at half lift, but it still gets max lift, so I'm thinking just use the stock rockers since lift is only .496". With non-adjustable rockers, how much preload should I shoot for since I need to order new pushrods now anyways?

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: metallicareload] #3057809
07/09/22 10:40 PM
07/09/22 10:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
3
375inStroke Offline OP
Special needs person
375inStroke  Offline OP
Special needs person
3

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by metallicareload
I've also been advised to have the roller on the valve tip only move in "one direction." IE the roller moves across the valve tip towards the exhaust side when opening, and rolls back to the inside when closing the valve shruggy

Ultimately, I took the easy road. Used the "recommended" parts and talked to someone smarter than me. Mike @ B3 Racing Engines drive


I guess the roller is only reversing direction once per cycle instead of twice. I have no idea what this does to the dynamics of rollers and oiling.

I read their page, B3 Racing Mopar rocker arm geometry and their spacers do look very thick, which is what my measurements seem to say I need if I'm going to use roller rockers. Do all roller rockers require such thick shims to make things right? I'll try and throw out everything I've heard, and reread their tech guide.

I'm not building this motor. It started as a five speed install, and things got out of hand with while I'm at it, then cleaning the motor, then changing cam and intake, and everything snowballing, lol.

Last edited by 375inStroke; 07/09/22 10:46 PM.
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3057811
07/09/22 10:47 PM
07/09/22 10:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 268
Anchorage, Alaska
metallicareload Offline
enthusiast
metallicareload  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 268
Anchorage, Alaska
Originally Posted by 375inStroke
...ith non-roller rockers, that perpendicular is measured from the rocker arm foot to valve tip contact, through the centerline of the rocker shaft, but with roller rockers, it's taken from the center of the roller rocker tip, through the center of the rocker shaft. Is this correct?...


Having gone from Crane ductile iron to Harland Sharp rollers, this is how I understand how things work.

Originally Posted by 375inStroke
The pushrods that were in the motor looked like $#!t, and two were bent, so I cut a couple up and made adjustable ones for checking geometry. They were too long with the Comp rollers. The adjuster was all the way out, and the lifter plunger was compressed at least .100". They look like they measure 8.547", or .030" under stock. With the stock rockers back on, it looks like the shaft needs to be lowered if we're going for perpendicular at half lift, but it still gets max lift, so I'm thinking just use the stock rockers since lift is only .496". With non-adjustable rockers, how much preload should I shoot for since I need to order new pushrods now anyways?


The third element here is where the rocker arm adjuster and pushrod are located. If all three pivot points are on a line, then there should be minimal issues/minimal excess wear and maximum lift. I've measured where too short pushrods have reduced lift because the adjuster ball is too low, and this results in excess horizontal movement in the pushrods on the rocker end. With shaft mounted rockers, pushrod length is the last thing I considershruggy

Last edited by metallicareload; 07/09/22 10:56 PM.

440, 4-Speed, 3.54
1968, when Dinosaurs ruled the Earth
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3057814
07/09/22 11:00 PM
07/09/22 11:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,983
Oregon
A
AndyF Online content
I Win
AndyF  Online Content
I Win
A

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,983
Oregon
I did a lot of rocker arm testing on the dyno with my 470 low deck. We ran multiple dyno tests using multiple rocker arms and multiple rocker arm ratios. Basically a big zero difference. I think I spent around $5000 testing rocker arms and didn't find any power. Pushrod length was critical even with shaft mounted rockers. We never saw the need to move the shaft up or down with any of the high quality rocker arm systems. It is common to have to shim and/or machine the stands to move the rocker arms sideways for correct alignment.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/trying-find-extra-power-rocker-arm-testing/

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: AndyF] #3057823
07/09/22 11:15 PM
07/09/22 11:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 268
Anchorage, Alaska
metallicareload Offline
enthusiast
metallicareload  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 268
Anchorage, Alaska
Originally Posted by AndyF
I did a lot of rocker arm testing on the dyno with my 470 low deck. We ran multiple dyno tests using multiple rocker arms and multiple rocker arm ratios. Basically a big zero difference. I think I spent around $5000 testing rocker arms and didn't find any power. Pushrod length was critical even with shaft mounted rockers. We never saw the need to move the shaft up or down with any of the high quality rocker arm systems. It is common to have to shim and/or machine the stands to move the rocker arms sideways for correct alignment.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/trying-find-extra-power-rocker-arm-testing/


As someone who's spent hundreds upon hundreds in custom pushrods I probably will never use again, pushrod length is not unimportant, but there are more important things to consider


440, 4-Speed, 3.54
1968, when Dinosaurs ruled the Earth
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3057824
07/09/22 11:17 PM
07/09/22 11:17 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,080
Bend,OR USA
C
Cab_Burge Offline
I Win
Cab_Burge  Offline
I Win
C

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,080
Bend,OR USA
I like to see the rocker arm contact to the valve stem center centered at half of max lift up scope
Adjust and modify as needed up wrench


Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: Cab_Burge] #3057827
07/09/22 11:43 PM
07/09/22 11:43 PM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 903
Washington
H
hemienvy Offline
super stock
hemienvy  Offline
super stock
H

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 903
Washington
There is another rocker arm philosophy to consider.

As the valve opens more, the spring load becomes greater. This argument postulates that, at greater spring loads,
the rocker should approach the valvestem more perpendicularly, so there is less side loading on the valve guides.

To achieve this, the pushrods should be "too short", so that there is more roller scrub (towards the exhaust side)
while the valve is just opening and spring loads are lower.

Geometrically speaking, there is a greater scrub distance than the "mid lift' philosophy. But less guide wear.

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: hemienvy] #3057887
07/10/22 06:53 AM
07/10/22 06:53 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,317
Ohio
J
jlatessa Offline
pro stock
jlatessa  Offline
pro stock
J

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,317
Ohio
Thank you experts for chiming in with your knowledge.
Those of us not at your level are learning from you.

Joe

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3057899
07/10/22 08:42 AM
07/10/22 08:42 AM
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 375inStroke
Originally Posted by metallicareload
I've also been advised to have the roller on the valve tip only move in "one direction." IE the roller moves across the valve tip towards the exhaust side when opening, and rolls back to the inside when closing the valve shruggy

Ultimately, I took the easy road. Used the "recommended" parts and talked to someone smarter than me. Mike @ B3 Racing Engines drive


I guess the roller is only reversing direction once per cycle instead of twice. I have no idea what this does to the dynamics of rollers and oiling.

I read their page, B3 Racing Mopar rocker arm geometry and their spacers do look very thick, which is what my measurements seem to say I need if I'm going to use roller rockers. Do all roller rockers require such thick shims to make things right? I'll try and throw out everything I've heard, and reread their tech guide.

I'm not building this motor. It started as a five speed install, and things got out of hand with while I'm at it, then cleaning the motor, then changing cam and intake, and everything snowballing, lol.


You didn’t say what heads you are using so I’ll just make general statements here. If you read Mike’s tech pages you should have had this cleared up in your mind because it’s rather simple to understand but more complicated to achieve.

Any shaft system, ANY shaft system is the same. The relationship between the centerline of the shaft, the tip of the valve and the amount of lift must be engineered into the original location of the shaft. And the designed rocker arm geometry itself changes things. You can make a 1.5 ratio rocker several different lengths and each one will change the geometry if you start swapping them out. It’s as simple as that.

Any one of those parameters you change, or all of them means you OUGHT to correct your geometry. It’s that simple. So let’s say you buy some Trick Flow heads and TF established the geometry using brand X rockers and you use brand L rockers the probability is the geometry will be wrong. Valve stem height is critical. Let’s say with the above heads you want to make an upgrade and you decide you need to use .100 long rockers you have now affected the relationship between the tip of the valve and the centerline of the shaft.

It used to be the only way to correct this properly was to mill the rocker stands down and use blocks to get the geometry in shape. Mike’s‘ shims are by FAR a easier, simpler and cheaper than using blocks. And they work.

How many times have you seen engines where the rocker and the retainer hit with relatively small diameter springs? I see it all the time. And the number one response is put a beehive spring on it. Can you do that? Sure. Is it correct? Not even close. You didn’t fix the core issue, you just used a band aid where you really needed an amputation.

I can tell you for a certain fact if you change any one of the above parts of your valve train as in going away from whatever the OE design criteria was you’ll certainly need to correct your geometry. Start changing more than one of those criteria and you will have issues. You’ll be down on power. Your valve train will be unstable. You will lose RPM capability. And you’ll fail parts. The number one killer of rocker arms (outside of cheap junk) is bad geometry.

Invariably, the shafts will need to go up and away from the valves. It’s worth every penny to measure your particular set up and then see how much correction you need. I think you’d be surprised how much you’ll need.


Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: jlatessa] #3057986
07/10/22 01:51 PM
07/10/22 01:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,294
north of coder
moparx Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"
moparx  Offline
"Butt Crack Bob"

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,294
north of coder
Originally Posted by jlatessa
Thank you experts for chiming in with your knowledge.
Those of us not at your level are learning from you.

Joe



times two ! up bow
i have seen too many times, the rocker arms are ground on for clearance,which i don't like for a multitude of reasons.
the main gripe i have with the "clearancing technique", is the stress risers induced with the grinding wheel, no matter how fine the grit wheel used in the process. i have seen too many rockers broken in the "clearanced" area.
i also agree the B3 solution is very good. possibly the best out there.
beer

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3058013
07/10/22 04:53 PM
07/10/22 04:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
D
Diplomat360 Offline
top fuel
Diplomat360  Offline
top fuel
D

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,753
Windsor, ON, Canada
Take a look at this THREAD

In my case (that's my thread) I am working with a SB W2 setup, the B3 kit and a whole boat-load of measurements (along with the matching photos for the most part).

My lesson in all this has been: pick the goal, could be ideal geometery, or it could be max lift, or it could be one of the "roller wheel at a certain spot on the valve tip" methodologies...but most likely you're going to hit one or the other, but not all at the same time.

Again, my results: the best GEO does not equal maximum lift at valve....yeah, I'm still struggling with that one!

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: Diplomat360] #3058021
07/10/22 05:26 PM
07/10/22 05:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,100
Loudoun County, VA
Brad_Haak Offline
super stock
Brad_Haak  Offline
super stock

Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 1,100
Loudoun County, VA
Google "mopar rocker geometry site:board.moparts.org" and there will be a number of older threads on this topic... but I don't know that there's one "right" answer.


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: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: Brad_Haak] #3058045
07/10/22 08:00 PM
07/10/22 08:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,348
Las Vegas
Al_Alguire Offline
I Live Here
Al_Alguire  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,348
Las Vegas
The higher the RPM and spring pressure get the more important ALL of that is. When you get into high rpm large spring load stuff there is a fair amount of power in getting it right and anything to reduce flex.


"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."

"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: hemienvy] #3058080
07/10/22 10:27 PM
07/10/22 10:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
3
375inStroke Offline OP
Special needs person
375inStroke  Offline OP
Special needs person
3

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by hemienvy
There is another rocker arm philosophy to consider.

As the valve opens more, the spring load becomes greater. This argument postulates that, at greater spring loads,
the rocker should approach the valvestem more perpendicularly, so there is less side loading on the valve guides.

To achieve this, the pushrods should be "too short", so that there is more roller scrub (towards the exhaust side)
while the valve is just opening and spring loads are lower.

Geometrically speaking, there is a greater scrub distance than the "mid lift' philosophy. But less guide wear.


B3 Racing Mopar rocker arm geometry addresses this in part 2. What do you think?

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: AndyF] #3058081
07/10/22 10:40 PM
07/10/22 10:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
3
375inStroke Offline OP
Special needs person
375inStroke  Offline OP
Special needs person
3

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by AndyF
I did a lot of rocker arm testing on the dyno with my 470 low deck. We ran multiple dyno tests using multiple rocker arms and multiple rocker arm ratios. Basically a big zero difference. I think I spent around $5000 testing rocker arms and didn't find any power. Pushrod length was critical even with shaft mounted rockers. We never saw the need to move the shaft up or down with any of the high quality rocker arm systems. It is common to have to shim and/or machine the stands to move the rocker arms sideways for correct alignment.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/trying-find-extra-power-rocker-arm-testing/


Putting in the time and money carries a lot of weight. Some of this philosophy has to do with getting maximum lift by reducing inefficiency, but you're changing lift by huge amounts going from 1.5 to 1.7 rockers, and showing no gains on a motor that isn't showing any restrictions elsewhere in the build. Am I to deduce chasing perfect rocker geometry is a fool's errand with exponentially diminishing returns, and is to be used to reduce mechanical failures from extreme mismatch of parts, like make sure the roller stays on the valve, and the adjuster isn't sticking out too far, or has excessive angle with the pushrod, stuff like that?

Last edited by 375inStroke; 07/10/22 10:41 PM.
Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: madscientist] #3058083
07/10/22 11:09 PM
07/10/22 11:09 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
3
375inStroke Offline OP
Special needs person
375inStroke  Offline OP
Special needs person
3

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,545
Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by madscientist


You didn’t say what heads you are using so I’ll just make general statements here. If you read Mike’s tech pages you should have had this cleared up in your mind because it’s rather simple to understand but more complicated to achieve.

Any shaft system, ANY shaft system is the same. The relationship between the centerline of the shaft, the tip of the valve and the amount of lift must be engineered into the original location of the shaft. And the designed rocker arm geometry itself changes things. You can make a 1.5 ratio rocker several different lengths and each one will change the geometry if you start swapping them out. It’s as simple as that.

Any one of those parameters you change, or all of them means you OUGHT to correct your geometry. It’s that simple. So let’s say you buy some Trick Flow heads and TF established the geometry using brand X rockers and you use brand L rockers the probability is the geometry will be wrong. Valve stem height is critical. Let’s say with the above heads you want to make an upgrade and you decide you need to use .100 long rockers you have now affected the relationship between the tip of the valve and the centerline of the shaft.

It used to be the only way to correct this properly was to mill the rocker stands down and use blocks to get the geometry in shape. Mike’s‘ shims are by FAR a easier, simpler and cheaper than using blocks. And they work.

How many times have you seen engines where the rocker and the retainer hit with relatively small diameter springs? I see it all the time. And the number one response is put a beehive spring on it. Can you do that? Sure. Is it correct? Not even close. You didn’t fix the core issue, you just used a band aid where you really needed an amputation.

I can tell you for a certain fact if you change any one of the above parts of your valve train as in going away from whatever the OE design criteria was you’ll certainly need to correct your geometry. Start changing more than one of those criteria and you will have issues. You’ll be down on power. Your valve train will be unstable. You will lose RPM capability. And you’ll fail parts. The number one killer of rocker arms (outside of cheap junk) is bad geometry.

Invariably, the shafts will need to go up and away from the valves. It’s worth every penny to measure your particular set up and then see how much correction you need. I think you’d be surprised how much you’ll need.


I'm doing a 5-speed conversion, and this is the motor that was in the car that I'm playing with while I'm building the real motor. It's a stock '71 383 Magnum with headers that I'm changing cam and intake on, and since I need to do this right on the other motors I'm building, I may as well start on this motor. I had Comp rollers, so I tried those, and the pushrods were too long. I read Mike's B3 page, and I started this thread to clear up conflicting information I was reading. His page makes sense, but then again, there's AndyF who set up many different rocker combinations and didn't find any improvement in power. I still get the same max lift with the rollers being too low, or the stock rockers being too high using the perpendicular rocker at half lift method. My final decision is just saving the Comp rockers for the stroker motor, using the stock rockers on this one, and getting 8.50" pushrods, which are .075" shorter, to give me .055" lifter preload.

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3058086
07/10/22 11:32 PM
07/10/22 11:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 903
Washington
H
hemienvy Offline
super stock
hemienvy  Offline
super stock
H

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 903
Washington
He has a couple of facts wrong and because of that his logic conclusions are somewhat inaccurate.

I am splitting hairs with this, but correct is correct. This is not to take away from his otherwise excellent product.

Re: Rocker arm geometry. Who's right? [Re: 375inStroke] #3058088
07/10/22 11:47 PM
07/10/22 11:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,983
Oregon
A
AndyF Online content
I Win
AndyF  Online Content
I Win
A

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,983
Oregon
Engines only need what they need. If the engine doesn't need more air then more lift, or faster valve action doesn't add any power. The only way to know for sure is back to back testing. I proved to myself that once the engine has the air it needs then giving it more air than it needs just costs power. The extra lift costs money and power. Find out what the engine wants and then find a reliable way of providing that lift. I don't think geometry matters that much unless it is something serious like NASCAR or offshore racing. Drag race engines seem to be able to put up with some piss poor geometry.

The engine you are describing can get by with whatever fits. I wouldn't spend a dime on special parts for an engine like that.

Last edited by AndyF; 07/10/22 11:48 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1