Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40, mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry, rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad, drag-200stang, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, Jimmys61falcon, rjonah, Sooshi, Robert92867, Invectivus


PLEASE TEST ON http://dev.fordsix.com

<<<***PLEASE READ*** New Site Update >>>

high ratio rocker arms

Moderator: Mod Squad

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #51 by BCOWANWHEELS » Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:11 pm

I never said I was "getting" roller rockers. I said my friend is building me a set of adjustable 1.6 ratio oem rockers,new hard chrome shaft,new springs and he said I don't want old stands so he,s going with new best I could understand. also new pushrods with cups. I,d like rollers but price makes it out of the question for me and most others. the market jusy don't support the cost. I didn't mean to miss leed anybody.
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

User avatar
JackFish
VIP Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #52 by JackFish » Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:29 pm

How much $$ are you looking at?
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
Yup, I bought another one.
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1 (3)
1999 Dodge Ram 2500

CNC-Dude
Registered User
Posts: 1521
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:06 pm
Location: N. Ga.
Contact:

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #53 by CNC-Dude » Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:48 pm

In your very first post you asked who made roller rockers for these engines, so I assumed this was the direction you were going in and was what this whole thread was based on. No problem.
Image

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #54 by chad » Thu Dec 31, 2015 10:07 am

[u]i[u] thought high ratio was above 7.1
Last edited by chad on Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), '69 250ci, NV 3550 & DSII, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #55 by BCOWANWHEELS » Thu Dec 31, 2015 10:57 am

well considering stock is somewhere between 1.43 to 1.46 I think for a mild street engine 1.6 true is pretty good as it adds about .45 thou lift.
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

hotrodguy
Registered User
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:15 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #56 by hotrodguy » Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:40 pm

Looks like stock 1.6 Ford for me also.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #57 by xctasy » Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:24 pm

BCOWANWHEELS wrote:well considering stock is somewhere between 1.43 to 1.46 I think for a mild street engine 1.6 true is pretty good as it adds about .45 thou lift.




Which is why we get only 220 to 235 hp from stock valve gear engines.


Ford established in 1958 that they were gonna need 1.73 and 1.76 idealy at least to beat emerging polyspheric Chevy and Hemi engines.

Your wedge cylinder head needs a proper, modern rocker ratio. Ford Australia always wanted to go to Cleveland/FE style ratios in there imported US 5.0 engines. I took em 8 years, but in 2000 to 2003, they went to 1.7 ratio rockers in the last 5.0 engines, and the results were dramatic. They got better economy, sound, performance, and extended the engine so it could cope with another 30 cubic inches in final 5.6 liter, 335 hp form. That none of you Americans got the 5.6 Windsor V8 it is because you didn't understand that its little gains that make the engine create better power.


Its why Ford USA never made the cross flow 4.9 as well. Whcih can fit CHEVY ROCKER ARMS

Sometimes, its better to bite the bullet on a real development spree, other times, its better to optimize.


We respect your decisions, but they are wrong when both peak power, and off idle to peak torque is compromised with these low lift rocker arms in a head that needs every ounce of breathing. It took years for Roush to get 1.7:1 rocker arms into 5.0 and 5.8 Mustangs, but they work, and the right cam can then make power and torque.

Its like spoiling a ship becasue the cost of tar is too high.

This kind of "money philosphy" sets power development back into the dark ages...
Last edited by xctasy on Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #58 by BCOWANWHEELS » Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:33 pm

I,d be extreamly happy to get 225 hp out of my 250 engine. if money is no object for some let them step up to the plate and get some parts into being marketed. just remember its a hobby not big buck nascar or nhra. I,d be happy with a honest 175-185 hp engine. I am not a racer anymore but just enjoy getting a bit more out of it than ford did.
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #59 by xctasy » Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:06 pm

If you copy FordSedan Devliery's 440 cfm triple carb 250 engine, cam, and head, you'll get well over 225 flywheel hp. Easy. But it was an 11:1 compression ratio engine. But if you want 9.5:1 compression, then you'll need 1.73:1 rockers to make up the loss

Croselys 200 makes 205 flywheel hp with one 500 cfm Holley 2-bbl, and its a mild 200.


So between the two, there is a clear issue where the log head requires a better kind of cam lift profile, and some work on the porting to suit. Then the valve lift can go up. Ford Australia instantly lifted the cams lift profile, and made sapce for the valves to creat lift. So its all about how many total dollars you spend to get a hp level you'd like.


The rocker and cam pacakge with a log hea will cost as much as the Classic Inlines head and its normal Clay smith cam.


Those 1.65:1 rockers and Clay Smith Cam suited the head, but the head gave the power. If you do more cam and rocker work, the log head can be made to shoot well over 225 hp in a 9.5:1 compression engine.


Its the lift profile, cam and rockers that you need to gell together. The FE designers were prevented putting all the FE smarts into the Small Six because of budget. The Windsor was a backward step for many years, the Cleveland a forward step. The Chevy LS 4.8/5.3/5.7/6.0/6.2 engines copied Fords wedge head development work, and new of what Honda and Fords 1970's partner ship work ment for the canted valve big block Chevy and Ford 335 and 385 engines. They found that the canted vale engines were like Hemis, and they made emissions harder to obtain, and made less power for a given compression ratio. The Windsors wedge head became the darling, and the rocker ratio issue took Ford years to correct becasue the engineers decided to look at CFI, 4BBL and Port EFI. They didn't even look at the rocker ratio on Windsors becasue of the money.


That was a bad move, but you can address that with a 250 six by thinking.


"If I want 1.7 to 1.85:1 rocker ratios, what is the least I have to spend to get it, and how much hp do I get, and compared to any other change. IS IT WORTH IT?"

The answer is yes, its worth it, but you have to look at the gains in a per dollar basis, but not let the money rule out your options.


Hp costs, but not that much if your not buying other stuff. At 500 thou lift, there is 165 to 185 cfm per intake port air flow hiding in a late model log head if you manifold the carbs properly.


You can only get that CFM by lifting the valves higher than 500 thou. The advantage of rocker arms with high lift rates is that you need the peak lift cfm to be gotten by a higher than 500 thou lift, and that the engine is at sub 500 thou lifts twice as many times as it is at maxiumum lift.


You gain power, but you gain torque eveywhere if the cam suits the application. The valve lifters on Fords are big dimaeter, and make a great lift curve, which the high ratio rockers love.

Roller rockers won't help you in power at Dyno Test one on day one, but after 50000 miles, your vlave guides will like properly designed roller tip rocker. The valve guides can over comethe need to roller tip rockers. If designed right, they will help durablity, BUT cHEVY PROVED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ROLLER TIP ROCKERS .

In the same way, Non roller cam engines can make as much power as roller cam engines, but on a road engine, you can too easily wipe out a cam follower or lobe, and put metal fragments through your engine. NASCAR engines are state of the art in making a poor engine combo work, but they use 1.9:1 rocker ratios to do it.





Anyway, its your choice.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #60 by BCOWANWHEELS » Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:17 pm

over complicate imo think simple.................
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #61 by xctasy » Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:10 am

BCOWANWHEELS wrote:over complicate imo think simple.................


Your opinion or choice. Its all good. :lol:


I will say one more thing before concluding.

Sometimes its taken 9, maybee 12 years to get the right answer to a question. Sometimes it takes that long to validate what you thought was true. Its like this...the test for info is Deuteronomy 13:1

Are the predictions I make true or false. “true”="True'", "false"="False"

If I point to any other masters than the accepted ones = False.

If I use non accepted techniques in predictions = False.

If I have a rebellious, unrepentant spirit = False.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #62 by BCOWANWHEELS » Fri Jan 01, 2016 2:19 am

there is only 1 that's worthy of being called master and that's JESUS CHRIST and he made salvation so simple so even a child can understand it. the beginning of wisdom begins the day one invites JESUS CHRIST into ones heart then picks up the cross and lives for him the rest of ones days forsaking all others (satins counterfits ) jmo but lets keep on the rocker arm track as not to offend anybody
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #63 by chad » Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:30 am

The reason I enjoy all this is because it involves systemic thinking…one part effects all other parts. Now I'm not an automotive engineer but (know human systems, a lill biological, & building science) it seems - following the foregoing - that small coordinated twiques done with experience and knowledge add up to quite large results. Six hundred fifty miles out to sea we win races by small adjustments to every single parameter available (sail choice, foot, luff, reef, tack, etc, etc) keep our eyes on all at once and make good strategic choices form the very best quality info sources.

Why not look at the achievable and work backwards, with time and patients, to achieve it?

Wish I had more (technical expertise) to offer...
Last edited by chad on Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), '69 250ci, NV 3550 & DSII, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

hotrodguy
Registered User
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:15 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #64 by hotrodguy » Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:58 am

xctasy, I much appreciate your input, you have really thought it out. Thank you.

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #65 by BCOWANWHEELS » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:37 am

I,am almost sure ford "y_block" rockers are what is used for the 1.6 ratio oem rockers. and there is aluminum rockers available for the y-block engines. more to come.
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

User avatar
64 200 ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 1005
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:08 am
Location: Long Beach California

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #66 by 64 200 ranchero » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:08 pm

60 ford ranchero daily driver. 200 tri power, modified c4 trans, ds2 distributor, msd programable 6al2, weber ict's, 8" rear end with full spool, 3.80 gears, 245 tires, CI dual out header, Dynomax muffler, 114hp shot wet nitrous kit. JE Forged pistons, 280 110lc cam, around 11-1 compression.

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #67 by BCOWANWHEELS » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:42 pm

WELL LOOKS LIKE THE FORD Y BLOCK AND FORD FE ROCKERS ARNT THE ROCKERS WERE LOOKING FOR BUT RATHER THE JEEP 4 CYL ROCKERS AND THEY HAVE TO BE MODIFIED AT THAT TO GET THE 1.6. SORRY I CANT SAY MORE BECAUSE I GAVE MY WORD I WOULDNT. MY SET IS DONE AND JUST WAITING ON A SET OF NEW JOHNSON HI-LIFT ANTI PUMP UP LIFTERS. MORE WHEN I CAN
BOB
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #68 by 67Straightsix » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:08 pm

BCOWANWHEELS wrote:WELL LOOKS LIKE THE FORD Y BLOCK AND FORD FE ROCKERS ARNT THE ROCKERS WERE LOOKING FOR
BOB


Can you be more specific on why the FE rockers won't work? - because I've been doing some preliminary measurements on roller tip rockers off of a 427 and it seems with a little modification they will work. I need to narrow them down 1/8" and put a bushing in the center hole. Are you seeing something that I'm missing?

Thanks, Ryan

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #69 by BCOWANWHEELS » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:31 pm

I don't have one to compare, I,am just going by what my buddy is telling me.he,s a rocker arm nut// he told me jeep 4 cyl rockers is the best match. best I can help you. also shaft size is different I think
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #70 by 67Straightsix » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:52 pm

BCOWANWHEELS wrote:I don't have one to compare, I,am just going by what my buddy is telling me.he,s a rocker arm nut// he told me jeep 4 cyl rockers is the best match. best I can help you. also shaft size is different I think


Shaft size is different - .780 for the 200, .840 for the 427. The FE rockers are wider. A bushing or needle bearing will fix the shaft difference, and shave .125 off of the width. Any one think it's worth the work vs cost?

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #71 by drag-200stang » Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:33 am

67, stock FE , the angle of the pad and adjuster are way off because a V8 's cam is in a shared location. After market roller tip do appear like they may work.
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #72 by 67Straightsix » Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:38 am

I have the roller tip. Going to do some experimenting to see if they will work.

User avatar
64 200 ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 1005
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:08 am
Location: Long Beach California

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #73 by 64 200 ranchero » Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:51 pm

here are some roller tipped FE 1.76 ratio rockers the shaft diameter is 0.840 in http://www.ebay.com/itm/FORD-FE-390-428 ... Kf&vxp=mtr
Last edited by 64 200 ranchero on Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
60 ford ranchero daily driver. 200 tri power, modified c4 trans, ds2 distributor, msd programable 6al2, weber ict's, 8" rear end with full spool, 3.80 gears, 245 tires, CI dual out header, Dynomax muffler, 114hp shot wet nitrous kit. JE Forged pistons, 280 110lc cam, around 11-1 compression.

User avatar
64 200 ranchero
Registered User
Posts: 1005
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:08 am
Location: Long Beach California

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #74 by 64 200 ranchero » Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:11 am

60 ford ranchero daily driver. 200 tri power, modified c4 trans, ds2 distributor, msd programable 6al2, weber ict's, 8" rear end with full spool, 3.80 gears, 245 tires, CI dual out header, Dynomax muffler, 114hp shot wet nitrous kit. JE Forged pistons, 280 110lc cam, around 11-1 compression.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #75 by 67Straightsix » Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:41 am

Here's a picture of the FE rocker - the geometry of the push rod and rocker is questionable. If the shaft pedestal was shorter, I believe this would
fix the rocker geometry - seems like a lot of work to make this a viable option.


http://imageshack.com/a/img908/8425/zzLiFc.jpg

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #76 by drag-200stang » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:01 am

See below.
Last edited by drag-200stang on Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #77 by drag-200stang » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:01 am

67Straightsix wrote:Here's a picture of the FE rocker - the geometry of the push rod and rocker is questionable. If the shaft pedestal was shorter, I believe this would
fix the rocker geometry - seems like a lot of work to make this a viable option.


http://imageshack.com/a/img908/8425/zzLiFc.jpg
SI makes taller valves that would help geometry, make more room for more lift and better spring selection.
Where you able to move the rocker back enough?
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #78 by BCOWANWHEELS » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:06 am

my rockers and pushrods are done, he,s just waiting on my Johnson -hi-lift anti pump up lifters to come in then he,ll ship it all to me. once I get his permission I can post his price if he,s willing to make more sets. I think he will.
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

hotrodguy
Registered User
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:15 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #79 by hotrodguy » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:55 pm

What did you finally wind up with on the rockers, ratio?

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #80 by BCOWANWHEELS » Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:44 pm

1.6 adjustable non roller. hard chrome / slotted shafts as far as the stands I,am unsure. my buddy said he didn't like to uuse stock used because they were all galded inside..................... all I can say at this point
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

64-5mustang
Registered User
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #81 by 64-5mustang » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:36 pm

I'm a little confused hear. I would like a set of rockers adjustable and purfer roller. Is anyone one producing a full set saft and pedastools as well. I do have a non adjustable set anyone can have for a core if they wish pm me.

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #82 by BCOWANWHEELS » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:39 pm

yellow terra is the only ones available.
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #83 by 67Straightsix » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:05 pm

64 200 ranchero wrote:maybe these guys can help rockerarms@rockerarms.com http://www.rockerarms.com/pages/products.html


This was a great recommendation - I called rockerarms.com and the man I talked to worked with Mike at Classic Inlines. He was extremely helpful - they have adjustable 1.65 ratio rocker arm assemblies for I6 at a good price. And the best part for me is that they're located in Redding, CA which is only an hour from my place. Xctasy's information about high lift rockers is intriguing - but right now my head is finished and I don't want to buy new valves and springs.

User avatar
cr_bobcat
Registered User
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:13 am
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #84 by cr_bobcat » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:44 pm

Odd. I emailed them and was told they only had 1.6 ratio. They quoted a price of $400 with core exchange. $425 if you have non-adjustables to exchange. Now I'm curious as to what is going on there. That's just too much money for rebushed 1.5s.

Who did you talk to and what kind of price did they quote you? I was emailing back and forth with Hector.
Block: Stock C8 Block/pistons, C9-M head, 1.75/1.5 valves, dual spring, 1.65 RAU Rockers, port divider, direct mount Holley 4412-500, HEI w/20* advance, manifold vac, dual-out Arvinode exhaust, Clay Smith 264/274 110* installed w/ 4* advance, adjustable dual chain timing, C4 w/ shift kit, 3.20 (TBC) rear ratio, 9.44 SCR / 7.97 DCR

Build that Six with parts from http://www.vintageinlines.com

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #85 by 67Straightsix » Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:27 am

cr_bobcat wrote:Odd. I emailed them and was told they only had 1.6 ratio. They quoted a price of $400 with core exchange. $425 if you have non-adjustables to exchange. Now I'm curious as to what is going on there. That's just too much money for rebushed 1.5s.

Who did you talk to and what kind of price did they quote you? I was emailing back and forth with Hector.


I plan on driving up there some time next week - I'll find out what they have and report back.

64-5mustang
Registered User
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #86 by 64-5mustang » Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:17 pm

I'm interested in a set of adjustable rockers please let me know what you guys come up with.

MustangSix
Assistant Admin
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:15 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #87 by MustangSix » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:53 pm

Here's an old hot rodder technique for modifying shaft mounted rockers.

When you rebush a rocker you can make the pushrod side shorter and the valve stem side longer to get more ratio. But did you know that there's a little more ratio left in a stock Ford shaft rocker without rebushing?

Take a look at the tip where the rocker contacts the valve stem. Usually the wear pattern is toward the inside of the rocker. But if you move the contact area to the furthest point out on the rocker, you have effectively lengthened the valve stem side of the rocker. It simply makes the lever longer on that end. It's not much, but it's something.

Here's how: First, inspect your rockers to see if you have any more room left to move that contact area. If so, measure roughly how much further outboard that contact can go. Let's say you come up with .050". Now, if you open up the mounting holes on the rocker pedestal by elongating them slightly, you can move it away from the valve stems by that much.

The rocker is still the same, but you've changed the effective ratio by moving the contact point a bit. The lever arm on the valve stem side is acting as if it is longer because you're using more of that end.

How much gain in ratio? Like I said, not a lot, and the ratios don't remain constant anyway because of the arc of movement. That's just the simple geometry of it.

Since at the moment I don't have a rocker to measure, let's do this notionally. Lets' say for example, the center of the rocker shaft is 1.100" away from the pushrod ball and the center of the contact point on the valve stem is 1.650" from the shaft centerline, your ratio is 1.500:1. If we shove the rocker shaft away form the valve so that the contact point is hitting the valve stem .050" further out, the long end is now effectively 1.700" and the new ratio is 1.545:1.

But it does add up in two ways. First, the increase in ratio moves the .050" lift measurement on the cam to a little further out on the lifter ramp. That makes the effective duration slightly longer. Secondly, the added ratio translates into a bit of extra lift. if the cam lift is .250" the valve lift would go from .375" to .386". It won't be much, but that extra .011" could be good for a few hp on a stock cam engine.

Four things - it won't net you much extra lift because there's only so far you can go; secondly, you have to make sure the pedestals don't walk after elongating those holes to move the pedestals back; third, you have to make sure the oiling hole is not either blocked or uncovered; and finally, moving the rocker shaft also moves the pushrod angle and you have to make sure they aren't rubbing or hitting the openings in the head. Alternatively, you could bush the rocker shafts, offsetting the bush to move the rocker back.
Good luck!
Jack Collins

CZLN6
VIP Member
Posts: 3354
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 11:07 am
Location: Idaho Falls, Id
Contact:

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #88 by CZLN6 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:34 pm

Howdy All:

WOW!!! What a no-brainer! Thanks Jack. I guess it takes an "Old Hot-Rodder" to come up with the simple/easiest/cheapest way. You can bet I'll be using this idea on my next engine. This idea needs to be highlighted with a new post heading.

Have you ever used this idea on an engine, Jack? Did any of the "Look-out-fors" you listed come up at all? That tweak will even work on non-adjustable rockers. Any body that tries this please report your experience and results

.011" increase in lift, by its self will probably not be noticed, but added to other inexpensive valve job upgrades it would.

Thanks again, Jack! Far and away the Ah-ha! of this day.

Adios, David
co-author of the Falcon Performance Handbook
http://www.falcon6handbook.com/

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #89 by xctasy » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:06 am

OP, Jack, everyone. Nice work.

I still have nothing to add, but will re-note for re-clarity my earlier information, with some simple amplification. It would be nice if people actually read this stuff. I'm trying to help, but its very stressfull seeing people "not get it". But then, its possible yall do, but I'm missing it.

Anyway

I think this covers in part what Jack is saying, graphically. On the basis of what increases lever arm and valve lift, you have to look at the diagrams, and work it out yourself.


MustangSix wrote:....

Since at the moment I don't have a rocker to measure, let's do this notionally. Lets' say for example, the center of the rocker shaft is 1.100" away from the pushrod ball and the center of the contact point on the valve stem is 1.650" from the shaft centerline, your ratio is 1.500:1. If we shove the rocker shaft away form the valve so that the contact point is hitting the valve stem .050" further out, the long end is now effectively 1.700" and the new ratio is 1.545:1.

.....





Image

Examples.

NB// On stock Ford small sixes, the rocker arm shafts are not bushed, but can be.


1. B series Volvo engines, ohv fours and sixes with the "nominal" giant 4.165 bore spacing engine


For all engines in general
When D1 is least,
the lever arm gives D2 the most lift.


Image

2. The A series 948/998/1275 engines

http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic ... ht=rockers
drmini in aust

PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:54 pm

Location: near Baulkham Hills, NSW

I tested S rockers, pressed steel rockers, and the late sintered ones.
I found the S ones gave 1.16:1,
pressed steel 1.21:1, and
sintered 1.18:1.
All were measured on the same 12G940 head, with an RE13 cam (0.290" lobe lift) fitted.

I like the pressed steel (round pad) ones, with 0.44" offset bushes in I can get them up to 1.31:1 ratio. And their pads are harder than the S rockers.


Image



Note:If the rocker shaft stays the same diameter, then you'll have to find rocker arms with a bigger inside diameter. FE rocker arms are bigger ID.

You use easily avaliable bronze bushes but have them offset ground. The lift gain is had by having a difference between the shaft diameter and the rocker bush diameter, and then offsetting the difference. So if you have a typical approx 840 thou diameter rocker (Packard, FE Ford) and a small diameter Small Six (144-170-200-250) of about 748 thou approx, then if everything was in order, you would have an ability to reduce the FE rocker ratio from a stock 1.76 to as little as 1.63 to as much as 1.90 by using a 70 thou offset. In practice, the FE rocker on the small six is no longer 1.76, but 1.65 after its centered on the stock 4.76" tall valve, then bushing can take it up to 1.76 or 1.78:1 again. It just depends where you place the offset bush. There are a host of other matters, but if you can just see what happens as per the diagrams, you'll be able to do it yourself without spending 600 bucks plus.

Remember, the art of pushrod rockers is an American institution that it understood fully by all our OHV race engineers, but it seams the English and Swedes fiddle around with it on there 4 cylinder cars A LOT MORE THAN WE DO OUR SIXES. Its hard for me to fathom that the engines that won Le Mans against Ferraris with "better" engines did so with just stock FE and modfied Windsor valve gear engines which were designed by the same people who threw together the small six in 18 months. It would be better that a few tricks from the FE was used in conjunction with normal small six rebuilding work than a few extra bucks go down the gurgler on roller tip rockers that probably don't even de load the valve tip.

Image

On A and B series BMC engines, (and on Small sixes ) you can re bush

Image

the shaft pedastools (can be rebushed with a single diameter bush, shifted 70 thou in this instance)


or


the rocker arm (shifted 44 thou to create a reduced D1 lever arm so the overal ratio goes up from 1.21:1 to 1.31:1).


offsetting from an FE to a Ford Six bush size (840 thou minus 748 thou ) allows a potential of nearly 92 thou offset to increase lift by reducing the pushrod to rocker shaft pivot distance. In fact, 60 to 70 thou is possible.

See http://www.mgbmga.com/tech/mgb16c.htm
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
cr_bobcat
Registered User
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:13 am
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #90 by cr_bobcat » Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:02 am

It all makes sense to me. I get it. I already have the math done too (at least for the sizw of the offset, not for valve stem length). But lingering things like how to handle oiling are bothering me. If I bush the rockers, do i have drill th oiling home through then go in with a dremel and slot the bush for a new oil channel? Or do you press in a bush from each side, preserving the existing channel?
Block: Stock C8 Block/pistons, C9-M head, 1.75/1.5 valves, dual spring, 1.65 RAU Rockers, port divider, direct mount Holley 4412-500, HEI w/20* advance, manifold vac, dual-out Arvinode exhaust, Clay Smith 264/274 110* installed w/ 4* advance, adjustable dual chain timing, C4 w/ shift kit, 3.20 (TBC) rear ratio, 9.44 SCR / 7.97 DCR

Build that Six with parts from http://www.vintageinlines.com

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #91 by BCOWANWHEELS » Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:38 pm

I think rather than all you guys concentrating on this rocker issue some of you need to take on another part of these engines parts so we have good coverage of all parts we need since the death of MR. MILLER. AND HIS FAMILY NOT GOING TO PERSUE the business. jmo
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

User avatar
JackFish
VIP Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #92 by JackFish » Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:54 pm

BCOWANWHEELS wrote:I think rather than all you guys concentrating on this rocker issue some of you need to take on another part of these engines parts so we have good coverage of all parts we need since the death of MR. MILLER. AND HIS FAMILY NOT GOING TO PERSUE the business. jmo

Oh we've known that here for a long time.
And with Classic Inlines gone now too we are discussing options.
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
Yup, I bought another one.
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1 (3)
1999 Dodge Ram 2500

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #93 by BCOWANWHEELS » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:55 pm

dissgussing ???? lets get to it. its easy to jump on someone elses band wagon. pick up a torch and run with it.
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #94 by BCOWANWHEELS » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:07 pm

heres a thought why not start working on a double roller timming chain and gear set for the 250 ???????????????????
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

bmbm40
Registered User
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: Carson City, NV

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #95 by bmbm40 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:50 pm

Get your torch and go for it.
66 Bronco-1970 250, NV3550, DSII, 4 turn ps, uncut, 1" bl, 2.5" sl, front disc, twin stick D 20, 30 x 9.50
NEXT- direct mount 2v, power brakes, rear LS, 3G, electric fan, electric upgrades, custom curved DSII, header, 31" tires

New guy? Get the Falcon Performance Handbook and Ford six high performance parts from https://vintageinlines.com

bmbm40
Registered User
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: Carson City, NV

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #96 by bmbm40 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:52 pm

Sorry. Erased double post.
66 Bronco-1970 250, NV3550, DSII, 4 turn ps, uncut, 1" bl, 2.5" sl, front disc, twin stick D 20, 30 x 9.50
NEXT- direct mount 2v, power brakes, rear LS, 3G, electric fan, electric upgrades, custom curved DSII, header, 31" tires

New guy? Get the Falcon Performance Handbook and Ford six high performance parts from https://vintageinlines.com

BCOWANWHEELS
Registered User
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:32 am

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #97 by BCOWANWHEELS » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:36 pm

edited
I BELIEVE IN JOHN 3:16 SINCE OCTOBER OF 1975 AND NEVER REGRETTED A SECOND OF IT.

MustangSix
Assistant Admin
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:15 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #98 by MustangSix » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:53 pm

I'm actually doing something similar for a B-series engine for my MGB GT by making new pedestals.

Here I go again, trying to squeeze something out of another obsolete engine...... :roll:

One more thing. If you look at the pics of the Volvo rockers that Deano posted, note the adjuster length. The D1 length is the distance from the ball, not the outside of the rocker. A longer pushrod moves the ball higher and shortens D1. You gotta measure from that point to get an accurate assessment.
Jack Collins

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #99 by 67Straightsix » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:37 pm

[quote="xctasy"]

You use easily avaliable bronze bushes but have them offset ground. The lift gain is had by having a difference between the shaft diameter and the rocker bush diameter, and then offsetting the difference. So if you have a typical approx 840 thou diameter rocker (Packard, FE Ford) and a small diameter Small Six (144-170-200-250) of about 748 thou approx, then if everything was in order, you would have an ability to reduce the FE rocker ratio from a stock 1.76 to as little as 1.63 to as much as 1.90 by using a 70 thou offset. In practice, the FE rocker on the small six is no longer 1.76, but 1.65 after its centered on the stock 4.76" tall valve, then bushing can take it up to 1.76 or 1.78:1 again. It just depends where you place the offset bush. There are a host of other matters, but if you can just see what happens as per the diagrams, you'll be able to do it yourself without spending 600 bucks plus.

I pretty much understand what you're saying, but I don't quite understand how you get the 70 thou offset without enlarging the bore on the rocker. I have made bushings and have been experimenting with FE rockers - my problem is the bushing thickness is only .031 so you'd have to enlarge the bore on the rocker to make an offset bushing (I don't think there's enough material on an aluminum rocker to do that and be strong enough)- also, the geometry of the rocker is off. I'm thinking if you lower the rocker pedestal approx a .25" that would correct the rocker geometry.

User avatar
cr_bobcat
Registered User
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:13 am
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA

Re: high ratio rocker arms

Post #100 by cr_bobcat » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:09 pm

Well, you really need watch out for the alignment of the rocker at half-lift. At this stage, you want the rocker-arm to valve geometry to be close to 90* in order to have proper valve train geometry, otherwise you lose lift. I've found this article to be rather useful in understanding the problem.

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/ctr ... -geometry/

I ordered a stock 1.76 non-adjustable rocker to play with to see if I can't get the geometry right. Once I've gotten some measurements I'll have a better understanding of what I'm up against.

In the meantime, I've sent emails to both Yella Terra and RAS with some questions but neither seem to be responding at all. It's been a couple of days and I haven't heard a peep out of them. This doesn't necessarily hold up my build at all as I've got enough components around to move forward with my stock adjustable 1.5s and mock up a high ratio setup on one of my other 2 heads that I have sitting around.
Block: Stock C8 Block/pistons, C9-M head, 1.75/1.5 valves, dual spring, 1.65 RAU Rockers, port divider, direct mount Holley 4412-500, HEI w/20* advance, manifold vac, dual-out Arvinode exhaust, Clay Smith 264/274 110* installed w/ 4* advance, adjustable dual chain timing, C4 w/ shift kit, 3.20 (TBC) rear ratio, 9.44 SCR / 7.97 DCR

Build that Six with parts from http://www.vintageinlines.com

Return to “144-250 "Small Block" Six Performance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests