Moparts

Rocker geometry on victors

Posted By: littlejohn44

Rocker geometry on victors - 12/30/14 08:12 AM

I just acquired a set of max wedge cnc ported victors that came off of a stroked 400. They came with crane 1.6 and hughes 1.6 offsets. I changed them to my shafts and was fixing the shims when I noticed the valves were hitting the springs. The guy i got them from said hughes set these up. Every retainer has marks all the way around the edge on intake and on the exhaust around the high point of the retainer. Exactly where each rocker hits on my mock up. Im not sure what retainer these are . I have checked valve length its correct. I am new to putting race motors together so i havent been around some of the thick spring stuff. I would have to do hella grinding just to get them to not rub. should the roller rocker be level with the roller just sitting on top of the valve? right now the valve sits so low in the retainer i dont know how the roller could make contact. it almost looks like the spring height is 1/8 to tall and the rocker is at an angle. With the rocker touching the roller tip sticks up over the valve tip about 1/8 inch. I will try and get pics tom-marrow but didnt know if someone had an idea from my babbling
Posted By: littlejohn44

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/30/14 08:14 AM

Do they shim up the rocker shafts for any reason? It has tall studs more than plenty for hold downs?
Posted By: DAYTONA540

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/30/14 08:45 AM

What is the installed height on the springs? About
1.900 is all you can get away with on those rockers with a 1.550 or bigger spring. After that the rockers have to be relieved to clear or a lot smaller spring installed. Hope this helps.
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 12:38 AM

I know exactly what you are dealing with. The shaft needs to be raised and offset substantially to locate the rocker properly and have correct geometry.
Posted By: littlejohn44

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 01:28 AM

im gonna check that today, my machine shop guy is closed til the 5th so i didnt realize how much i depend on him. lol
Posted By: AndyF

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 01:49 AM

The Victor heads have really short valves which cause a bunch of problems in terms of spring height and room for the rocker arms.

You most likely need to work backwards from the valve lift that you're trying to hit. Once you know that you need to figure out how much room you have for a valve spring and then go spring shopping. A beehive spring would be perfect if you can find one that will work with your camshaft. If you can't find a beehive that fits then look at the small diameter "special" springs from PAC and others.
Posted By: BIGSTROKER

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 01:49 AM

they were probably running lash caps
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 02:33 AM

A longer valve would only make this situation worse, as would lash caps. The OP said the rocker had a lot of angle which would be made worse with this approach, not to mention have terrible geometry. The rockers are manufactured with plenty of clearance for the spring if the rocker is properly located. It needs to be moved to the right place!
Posted By: dvw

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 03:12 AM

Quote:

A longer valve would only make this situation worse, as would lash caps. The OP said the rocker had a lot of angle which would be made worse with this approach, not to mention have terrible geometry. The rockers are manufactured with plenty of clearance for the spring if the rocker is properly located. It needs to be moved to the right place!


My question has always been this. How could a company that's made as many heads as Edelbrock, screw up the rocker shaft location on the Victors so bad? All I hear about these heads is how rockers and push rods don't fit.
Doug
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 03:30 AM

Quote:

Quote:

A longer valve would only make this situation worse, as would lash caps. The OP said the rocker had a lot of angle which would be made worse with this approach, not to mention have terrible geometry. The rockers are manufactured with plenty of clearance for the spring if the rocker is properly located. It needs to be moved to the right place!


My question has always been this. How could a company that's made as many heads as Edelbrock, screw up the rocker shaft location on the Victors so bad? All I hear about these heads is how rockers and push rods don't fit.
Doug


The question is "Where should they put it?". When the Chrysler designed the head, it was for a specific valve length, lift range, and rocker design. Considering most performance or race engines share none of these specs, how could they possibly put it in the "right" place?
Posted By: BradH

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 03:36 AM

What diameter are the springs?

What's the installed height w/ the current spring & retainer combination?

Are either the retainers or locks designed to increase the installed height over "standard" pieces?

And, yes, pics would really help.
Posted By: DAYTONA540

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 04:07 AM

Where should they put it? It's not that hard, the rockers were made to be used at 1.875 or 1.900 max installed height. They work there. If you need 2.00 installed height put a .125 longer valve in it.Cut the stands off and install blocks .125 higher than stock location. Not that tuff of a job for a good head shop to do.But I'm sure given some of the experts here it can be made into rocket science planning.
Posted By: dvw

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 04:21 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

A longer valve would only make this situation worse, as would lash caps. The OP said the rocker had a lot of angle which would be made worse with this approach, not to mention have terrible geometry. The rockers are manufactured with plenty of clearance for the spring if the rocker is properly located. It needs to be moved to the right place!


My question has always been this. How could a company that's made as many heads as Edelbrock, screw up the rocker shaft location on the Victors so bad? All I hear about these heads is how rockers and push rods don't fit.
Doug


The question is "Where should they put it?". When the Chrysler designed the head, it was for a specific valve length, lift range, and rocker design. Considering most performance or race engines share none of these specs, how could they possibly put it in the "right" place?


Exactly, The factory Mopar head from 1962 has plenty of short comings. So I guess if I was designing a max wedge port race style head it would have started by using a 2" installed height 1.625" spring for a .750" lift cam that used existing rocker arms. I agree it's impossible to get it dead on for every combo. But lets at least get it close. I had to move my T&D stand on my -1s to get it where I wanted it. That being said the former owner of my heads ran them on his car for years with the rockers in the wrong position. At least the parts didn't crash into each other. I haven't seen one set of Victors that could be bolted together and run with out something hitting. I could understand that if they were something special. Why not just run -1s?
Doug
Posted By: AndyF

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 04:28 AM

Good question but the Mopar Stage VI heads were also screwed up in a similiar fashion with a short valve and not much room for the valve spring. My guess is that the Edelbrock engineer just wasn't thinking about a 2.00 inch spring height when he did the CAD drawing.

From what I've seen over the years the rocker shafts need to go down not up. When you are opening the valve farther then the midpoint is lower not higher. So the shaft needs to drop into the head in order to get the correct geometry. Lowering the shaft is much more difficult than raising the shaft which is why most people don't bother. The Victor heads do have large flat pads in the correct place so Jesel rocker arms should fit. I haven't put Jesels on a Victor yet so I don't have any pictures to share but maybe someone else does.
Posted By: MadMopars

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 05:46 AM

Quote:


From what I've seen over the years the rocker shafts need to go down not up. When you are opening the valve farther then the midpoint is lower not higher. So the shaft needs to drop into the head in order to get the correct geometry. Lowering the shaft is much more difficult than raising the shaft which is why most people don't bother.



Since we are discussing moving the shafts, what do you think needs to happen to the shaft location in the attached picture and why? That picture was taken at full lift by the way.

To the original poster, DO NOT GRIND THE ROCKER ARMS! That is not the answer. With a little more information there are way more correct methods for resolving your issue. Get us more details and some pics.

Attached picture 8379005-0902141647c-1.jpg
Posted By: MoParFish

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 09:54 AM

It sounds like maybe you have offset retainers? Yeah, the Victors have their own set of hurdles. I run them and don't know anyone else personally who runs them but, that's the way I like it FWIW Here's my combo if it helps at all and, it's all just my 440/512 MW Victors, .674 sollid roller, Trick Flow springs TFS-16943-16(which are actually PAC-1243)installed at 1.900, Comp tool steel retainers 1732-16(very compact low profile), Comp CCA-4785-16 locators, 621-16 lash caps, Smith Bros .375x.083 pushrods, Harland Sharp S70016EVK rockers. No spring/retainer clearance issues even without lash caps. I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK. Has been to 7400 RPM a couple times but keep it below 7k now. Also, don't forget about the possible center rocker stand breakage issue. I preemptively removed the factory helicoil and drilled/tapped and installed a 1.0 inch helicoil further into the head so the top of insert is just below bottom of stand. Learned that trick here on Moparts

Attached picture 8379122-vh12.jpg
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 03:50 PM

Quote:

Good question but the Mopar Stage VI heads were also screwed up in a similiar fashion with a short valve and not much room for the valve spring. My guess is that the Edelbrock engineer just wasn't thinking about a 2.00 inch spring height when he did the CAD drawing.

From what I've seen over the years the rocker shafts need to go down not up. When you are opening the valve farther then the midpoint is lower not higher. So the shaft needs to drop into the head in order to get the correct geometry. Lowering the shaft is much more difficult than raising the shaft which is why most people don't bother. The Victor heads do have large flat pads in the correct place so Jesel rocker arms should fit. I haven't put Jesels on a Victor yet so I don't have any pictures to share but maybe someone else does.



Andy,
Do you have any data to show improved performance when lowering the stands to correct geometry with a roller rocker? My guess is you are treating a roller rocker the same as a stocker and inputting the wrong geometry points into your CAD models. They are not the same.

Another question, exactly what is proper geometry in your mind? In your book, you reference a bunch of different rocker brands, and their various fulcrum lengths, and claim you need to find the ones that that center the rollers on the valve stems to have good geometry. Now, you're talking about moving the shaft when increasing the valve lift. Which way is it? Talk about confusing!

As far as the stand location and height, it has absolutely nothing to do with spring installed height. the manufacturer can only account for their valve length when designing the head, and has no idea what rockers or camshaft the end user will install. A valve with the same length, but a different lock groove location, will have different installed heights but will retain the same geometry points. They will both take the same amount of correction to get the geometry right. I've done the Stage VI heads, and while they aren't my favorite head, they can have great geometry and spring clearance without grinding on anything.

I have pictures and more information on my website if that helps explain any better what I am getting at.
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 04:04 PM

Quote:

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.


I know it seems to run ok, but I wish you would address that sweep and get rid of the lash caps. With those rockers and that valve lift, you should only have .038" sweep across the valve when the geometry is correct. I'd hate to see you have an expensive failure down the road because the valvetrain is getting beat up.
Posted By: Thumperdart

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 05:23 PM

I`ve always run lash caps on every motor small or big and never an issue so far...........I`d be curious about your product, prices etc.
Posted By: BradH

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 06:28 PM

Quote:

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.


Another example of HS BBM rockers' being too long between the pivot point and the centerline of the roller. Not a big fan of them, but I seem to be in the minority w/ that opinion.
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 06:30 PM

Quote:

I`ve always run lash caps on every motor small or big and never an issue so far...........I`d be curious about your product, prices etc.


Hey Dom,
It's not about the lash cap, they have their place. It's about using them as a crutch for inadequate spring clearance or excessive sweep. If the geometry is correct, there is much less sweep and spring clearance is rarely an issue. I don't know your combo, but it's very possible you don't need them either. Give me a call. I'd love to talk to you about it, and you can decide whether you need them or not.
Posted By: Thumperdart

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 06:33 PM

I agree and started using em on my small-blocks because of how wonderfull the geometry is on those.........
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 06:43 PM

Quote:

I agree and started using em on my small-blocks because of how wonderfull the geometry is on those.........


I hear ya, but even the small blocks can be very nice if the rocker/shaft is in the right place.
Posted By: BradH

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 06:44 PM

Quote:

.674 sollid roller,


I'm right in the same ballpark lift-wise.
Quote:

PAC-1243)installed at 1.900


Same springs & installed height.
Quote:

Comp tool steel retainers...


I'm using ti retainers, which I'm good with as long as the springs don't have dampers that wear into them.
Quote:

Smith Bros .375x.083 pushrods


I'll be getting some new SB pushrods, but plan to use .120" walls for this much spring pressure
Quote:

Harland Sharp S70016EVK rockers.


Hughes' stuff on RAS shafts; no lash caps
Quote:

Also, don't forget about the possible center rocker stand breakage issue. I preemptively removed the factory helicoil and drilled/tapped and installed a 1.0 inch helicoil further into the head so the top of insert is just below bottom of stand.


Did that to mine after seeing the posts on the broken center stands.
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 07:01 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.


Another example of HS BBM rockers' being too long between the pivot point and the centerline of the roller. Not a big fan of them, but I seem to be in the minority w/ that opinion.


Posted By: MoParFish

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 07:04 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I decided to run the caps only because the sharp rockers sweep the roller toward the outer tips of the valves and wanted more contact. I'm sure it's not the ideal setup but seems to be working OK.


I know it seems to run ok, but I wish you would address that sweep and get rid of the lash caps. With those rockers and that valve lift, you should only have .038" sweep across the valve when the geometry is correct. I'd hate to see you have an expensive failure down the road because the valvetrain is getting beat up.

I hear ya and appreciate the advice I figure the only way to do it right would be to mill the stands and fit a paired Jesel setup but, if I went that route the engine would still be on the stand It's been in the car and running for over a year and I check the lash regularly. The HS rockers do seem a little long and also causes a fitment issue on the pushrod side of the rocker for some valve covers with the Victors. I ended up using fabricated aluminum covers and profiling the inside flange with a die grinder so I could slide the straight down over the studs. All good there now.

Also, found this pic where I ran a sweep pattern without the lash caps.

Sorry OP for the hijac. It's kinda related as us Victor guys need all the help we can get. We seem to be the underdog

Attached picture 8379387-DSCN3183.JPG
Posted By: d7cook

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 07:14 PM

Hopefully the OP doesn't mind me piggy backing a related question.

How does one remove the heli coil on the center stand to tap it deeper?
Posted By: MoParFish

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 07:25 PM

Quote:

Hopefully the OP doesn't mind me piggy backing a related question.

How does one remove the heli coil on the center stand to tap it deeper?

I got in behind the original insert with a pick then grabbed it with a pair of needle nose pliers and twisted it back out. I then set the head up in the mill/drill press and used a close fitting drill bit as a centering device and clamped head. Then chucked the appropriate drill bit and drilled I beleive 1.250 inches further? below the bottom of the rocker stand then tapped new threads and installed the new 1.0 inch long inserts I got from MSC. I used an arp stud. I can probably find the part number if anyone needs it.

Attached picture 8379418-eng.jpg
Posted By: B3RE

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 12/31/14 11:22 PM

Quote:

I figure the only way to do it right would be to mill the stands and fit a paired Jesel setup



Nah, you don't have to mill the stands in most cases,or go with Jesels to do it right.

Quote:

The HS rockers do seem a little long and also causes a fitment issue on the pushrod side of the rocker for some valve covers with the Victors.



Extra length on the roller side means extra length on the adjuster side for a given ratio, and it causes clearance issues.

Quote:

Also, found this pic where I ran a sweep pattern without the lash caps.



The sweep is too wide, but by raising the rocker even more with the lash cap, it gets worse.
Posted By: littlejohn44

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 02:57 AM

its been a little colds here and i have been sick im hoping for some pics by this weekend. i got a rough measure of spring height and it looked to be way over 2.+. I am gonna change springs and retainers anyway. all the info you guys are spillin i keep it coming appreciate it. Thanks
Posted By: MoParFish

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 03:08 AM

Quote:

its been a little colds here and i have been sick im hoping for some pics by this weekend. i got a rough measure of spring height and it looked to be way over 2.+. I am gonna change springs and retainers anyway. all the info you guys are spillin i keep it coming appreciate it. Thanks

Yep, sounds like they used offset retainers to run a taller spring which sinks the tip further into the retainer. If the spring is bigger than 1.550, that's not helping either. Hope you get to feeling better for the new year and Happy New Year All !!
Posted By: AndyF

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 04:00 AM

That sweep pattern doesn't look to bad for a Mopar. You're right, the HS rocker arms are a little too long but you should be able to improve the situation by using lash caps.

Moving the rocker arm pivot down reduces the amount of scrubbing at high lift which reduces the friction. The lower pivot point will increase the total amount of scrubbing but that doesn't matter since most of the sideways travel occurs at low lift.

The old Chevy Power engine book recommends having the rocker arm perpendicular to the valve at 2/3 lift. That is lower than the 50% or mid-lift recommendation that is most common.
Posted By: MadMopars

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 06:50 AM

Quote:

The old Chevy Power engine book recommends having the rocker arm perpendicular to the valve at 2/3 lift. That is lower than the 50% or mid-lift recommendation that is most common.



Heres my two cents. The problem with the attached picture is the rocker arm is perpendicular to the valve at full lift. Not mid, not 2/3, but full lift. This is a .557 lift cam, 1.95 installed height on the springs and CAT Rockers. Although this results in greatest NET lift, it does affect valvetrain stability and other performance aspects. For argument sake, let say the only direction we can move the shaft is up or down. If we go down, the rocker will never be perpendicular to the valve stem in this application. Raising the roller tip by use of lash caps would also make our situation worse. Our only other hope to acheive the mid lift or 2/3 concept is to raise the shaft in relation to the valve.

I'm not saying there isn't an application that may require the shaft to be lowered or valve lash caps to be installed, I'm just saying that spacing the shafts up for proper geometry is necessary in some applications such as this.

All I can add is this, if anyone is having valvetrain issues or is curious about proper geometry, talk to Mike @ B3 Racing Engines. You won't find a nicer guy that is willing to go out of his way to help resolve your issues.

While my problems weren't relative to clearance, the geometry was incorrect. Shifting any higher than 5600 would result in loss of perfromance. After correcting my geometry, I can shift the car at 6500 with no loss of performance. I can"t thank Mike enough. Give him a call before you buy other parts or grind on your stuff. I think you'll be glad you did.

Attached picture 8380256-8379005-0902141647c-1.jpg
Posted By: BradH

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 07:06 PM

Quote:

Also, found this pic where I ran a sweep pattern without the lash caps.


I tried to locate a comparable photo (I thought?) I took of mine w/ the Hughes rockers, but came up w/ nothing...

What I do remember is that the pattern was definitely narrower, although a bit biased on the intake-side of the valve tip (starts on the intake side and ends up closer to the center at max lift).
Quote:

Sorry OP for the hijac. It's kinda related as us Victor guys need all the help we can get. We seem to be the underdog


Amen, brother!
Posted By: Jeremiah

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 07:28 PM

Has anyone actually seen the Jesel or T&D paired shaft stuff on these heads? Any idea where I could send them if I decided to go that route? It's a new year!
Posted By: MoParFish

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 08:22 PM

Quote:

So you guys don't like the Isky RAD-9999 springs for these heads?

Specifications:
Style: Dual with Damper
Outer OD/ID: 1.600"/1.150"
Inner OD/ID: 1.040"/.745"
Seat Pressure: 250 lbs. @ 2.000"
Open Pressure: 770 lbs. @ 1.200"
Rate: 650
Coil Bind: 1.150"
Max Lift: .800"

They are 283 @ 1.950 and 7838 @ 1.250



I'm sure they're great but when Dwayne Porter spec'd my cam he recommended a spring similar to the Comp 943-16 around a 550lb spring rate so, I chose the TFS-16943-16 (PAC-1243). Plus, I wanted to run locators and standard height retainers and locks and with this combo it ended up scary close to the spec'd 1.90000 installed.

By the way FWIW I'm running these heads OOTB out of the box. No port work, clean up or valve job. I was tempted to at least clean up the cast flashing but, wanted to know what they would do truly OOTB. I checked factory valve contact with Prussian blue, assembled and bolted 'em on. Well, I guess I did fix the center rocker stands so maybe OOTB "flow-wise". Car with me is 3785 and has gone [Email]10.33@130[/Email] in good air. I'm sure I'm leavin some on the table but does OK for now. More info on engine combo about half way up the page
Posted By: Jeremiah

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/01/15 09:50 PM

Quote:

Quote:

So you guys don't like the Isky RAD-9999 springs for these heads?

Specifications:
Style: Dual with Damper
Outer OD/ID: 1.600"/1.150"
Inner OD/ID: 1.040"/.745"
Seat Pressure: 250 lbs. @ 2.000"
Open Pressure: 770 lbs. @ 1.200"
Rate: 650
Coil Bind: 1.150"
Max Lift: .800"

They are 283 @ 1.950 and 7838 @ 1.250



I'm sure they're great but when Dwayne Porter spec'd my cam he recommended a spring similar to the Comp 943-16 around a 550lb spring rate so, I chose the TFS-16943-16 (PAC-1243). Plus, I wanted to run locators and standard height retainers and locks and with this combo it ended up scary close to the spec'd 1.90000 installed.

By the way FWIW I'm running these heads OOTB out of the box. No port work, clean up or valve job. I was tempted to at least clean up the cast flashing but, wanted to know what they would do truly OOTB. I checked factory valve contact with Prussian blue, assembled and bolted 'em on. Well, I guess I did fix the center rocker stands so maybe OOTB "flow-wise". Car with me is 3785 and has gone [Email]10.33@130[/Email] in good air. I'm sure I'm leavin some on the table but does OK for now. More info on engine combo about half way up the page



Sounds like a righteous package to me. It really moves that weight. There is more cam and engine info in my 66 Charger build thread if you want to take a look. My Victors are Hughes' CNC program/valve job with a .740ish net lift roller so it's bit different. I have been told to stay with a higher end spring like the PAC, Isky Tool Room or Manley Nextek stuff. It's hard to find a spring in a diameter larger than 1.550 that will work out at a 1.950 installed height.
Posted By: littlejohn44

Re: Rocker geometry on victors - 01/04/15 01:46 AM

The guy i bought the heads from explained to me that he put washers that he made under the shafts to shim them up. That explains everything hughes didnt set these heads up. I am going with diffrent retainers and springs to get the right height.
© 2024 Moparts Forums