The TF headed 505 is done, and she is wicked

[451Mopar]

What was the rocker arm issue? I used the recommended HS rockers in 1.6:1 ratio on the TF240 heads on the 505 stroked 440, and did not notice any problems?
This was back when the TF240 heads came out and the rockers were less than $700 back then.
Curious how many sets of rocker arms would need to be sold to lease a CNC machine to make them? Seems the price of rocker arms has been going up really fast.

 

[747mopar]

I'm sorry I don't know this, but do you have Trick Flow heads? If "yes", Is one of those 2 brands what you used?

Interesting, not sure what caused his issues but I installed Harland Sharps on a set of Trick flow 240's, geometry was spot on?

 

[747mopar]

Sounds like a blast, enjoy that beast!

 

[biomedtechguy]

Summit for example sells Harland Sharp RB rocker arms, and then they have a different part # for RB w/TF heads...
Not saying that the "wrong" rockers were bought, just throwing that out there.

 

[wyrmrider]

how can you tell?
let's see the stripw widths on the rop of the valve
roller tips?
you're blowing smoke
cuz it's mechanically impossible
unless the heads have raised stands

 

[beanhead]

There's no way anyone can make a head that has ideal geometry for all the rockers out there; they're all too different. Andy F. lined up a bunch of the more popular rockers once and you could see the differences...but, some consider this splitting hairs so to speak. Personally I like corrected geometry.
Mine could probably swipe a tad bit skinnier, but I'm good with it as is.

 

[RemCharger]

^^^^. Most problems I see are hobbyists not knowing how bolt torque- stretch works on rocker shafts adjuster nuts etc. I agree perfect is perfect,,, but in most cases non perfect works for 99% of the people.

 

[wyrmrider]

looks good to me congrats
and it fired upon first crank

 

[Wietse]

There's no way anyone can make a head that has ideal geometry for all the rockers out there; they're all too different. Andy F. lined up a bunch of the more popular rockers once and you could see the differences...but, some consider this splitting hairs so to speak. Personally I like corrected geometry.
Mine could probably swipe a tad bit skinnier, but I'm good with it as is.

Very true, if one would make it that custom it is going to be like a "one-off" with some serious costs, and not gaining anything out of it.
There are many combinations possible to get it very close, and with a product like B3 offers you will get it near perfect for a reasonable price.
It seems a lot of guys seem to think it does not matter that much to have correct geometry, but i think they should consider the fact that a good geometry properly passes on the effect of the camshaft that they so carefully selected to be the right one for their purpose.

That swipe looks very good!

 

[andyf]

But, you know what they say... if I didnt have bad luck...
Well, the first issue was with the Harland Sharp rockers. Dont believe TF's BS just because they are the recomended rocker to use that they are going to be right. The geometry on those is awful! I ended up spending much more than I budgeted for the valve train to get it right. B3 racing made shims for me that got it right. Spent about $1470 on the valve train not including cam and lifters.

The engine is in my 73 Rallye Charger, 4 speed car with a 3.23 geared sure grip. I am using a Mcleod Super street Pro clutch. It is on the hairy edge of being able to handle the power. Needs a recommended 500 miles of easy street driving to break in. Waiting is going to suck. So far I have not abused it.

The car is wicked quick. It will go triple digit speeds in what seems like just half peddle. I have been easy on the clutch, but from a stop rolling out till the clutch is at full engagement and then nailing it... it's a smoke show and the car is going sideways.

The other day I was cruising around the neighborhood. Maybe about 2 miles from home I get on it pretty good. I get in the garage and see a water trail on the garage floor. Center core plug on the passenger is gone. Bad luck. The machine shop put those in for me. I pray the engine is OK. New plug came today. Install tomorrow.

Sounds like a great engine. Not sure what the issue with your HS rocker arms was. I used HS rocker arms back when I did the dyno testing for Trick Flow and they worked just fine right out of the box. So did the other rocker arms that I tried. Here is a link to the article I did for the Hot Rod network: https://www.hotrod.com/articles/trying-find-extra-power-rocker-arm-testing/

 

[andyf]

I had close to 0.800 lift with the HS rocker arms and no problems. I used a valve cover with a clear top so I could watch the rocker arm oiling as the engine ran. They worked just fine up past 7000 rpm. This was a 470 low deck that made more than 700 hp on pump gas.

 

[andyf]

Here is a video of the engine showing warmup and a couple of pulls on the dyno:

 

[biomedtechguy]

@andyf

 

[69 GTX]

Sounds like a great engine. Not sure what the issue with your HS rocker arms was. I used HS rocker arms back when I did the dyno testing for Trick Flow and they worked just fine right out of the box. So did the other rocker arms that I tried. Here is a link to the article I did for the Hot Rod network: https://www.hotrod.com/articles/trying-find-extra-power-rocker-arm-testing/

Did you ever figure out why there was no gain in HP? I went the 1.6 HS route on my 440+6 trying to pick up a little HP with a milder cam.

 

[biomedtechguy]

I went the 1.6 HS route on my 440+6 trying to pick up a little HP with a milder cam.

How is your rocker arm geometry?

 

[69 GTX]

A+

 

[dvw]

You know what is amazing? Geometry changes based on the cam lift. With a cast in pedestal shaft system it wont be perfect for every lift range. But does it really matter? Depends on how far off it is. In most cases it's like worrying about .000x changes bearing clearance. Or or matching an intake manifold. Way to much money and time spent for very little gain. How many shaft mount engines are out there with no geometry correction? And believe it or not they race them, amazing.
Doug

 

[Wietse]

Depends on how far off it is.

Thats a bit the thing, some say i accept that, others believe it is too much.
Would it run 100.000 miles more with a good geometry, who knows.
But if spending $200 and some free time gives me some more insurance it does, i would not mind.

Some i see out there where the roller is nearly at the edge of the valve stem, you would not leave it like that, right?
But i think that if you decide to do the extra mile to correct it, you would go to a spot where it is as good as it gets.

Doug, you doing this as business if i am not mistaken?
So in that case you need to charge your clients, which makes me understand you better in saying it is time consuming and you cannot justify additional hours made because you wanted it to be so damn close/perfect. (unless your client insists on it, it's his money)

But if you build your own engine, in your own time, who cares how long it takes.
As long as you got the beers in the fridge and free time to spend it is a good job!

 

[dvw]

You are correct. If the rocker is off the tip of the valve there is an issue. But off center some? Not a big deal. Certainly not on a normal build. Just like correcting lifter bore alignment. The bottom line is. How critical is the issue? Will it affect reliability. Does it make a measurable increase in performance. What is the cost. Weigh these factors and make your decision. You can easily spend over $15k on a street motor. Not everyone has that luxury. My point is if you know what will live and what wont you'll be ok. Were not building NASCAR or Pro Stock. There is always a point where it'll run well and live. Go back 4 years. How much geometry discussion was there?
Doug

 

[andyf]

Did you ever figure out why there was no gain in HP? I went the 1.6 HS route on my 440+6 trying to pick up a little HP with a milder cam.

The engine didn't need more lift so it didn't pick up power. Some engines need more lift, some don't. This one was fine with less rocker ratio. I ended up staying with the 1.65 ratio T&D rockers for future tests and over time they worked the best for this engine. I was eventually able to make close to 800 hp on pump gas by just continuing to test parts and move forward. It took me a couple of years and roughly $10,000 in dyno testing charges plus who knows how much in parts cost!