CorrectHarland Sharp, TD & Jesel make W2-5-7-8-9 rockers.
He was referring to iron rockers.
CorrectHarland Sharp, TD & Jesel make W2-5-7-8-9 rockers.
Dyno testing is unlikely, as it is very expensive and this motor is not going in a dedicated drag car. I hope to get it on a run stand for break-in and checking for leaks before dropping it in the Duster. The car will see the occasional trip to the drag strip but it’s no where near sorted out and I’m not a pro driver. So the numbers it puts on the board probably won’t be an accurate measure of the engine’s potential. I’m just building it to show off, do obnoxious burnouts, and have a genuine wild time.I have been following this build. I am slowly getting my ducks in a row to build an almost identical build. I have some ported 010 W2 heads with iron and aluminum rockers, both a 360 or a 340 block to build upon. I cant wait to see what kind of numbers SSG_Karg's stroker will make. Will it see a dyno?
If SSG has never checked/measured the rocker ratio on a set of W2’s before, it could be enlightening.
Between the pushrod/lifter angularity and the intake pushrods being “laid sideways”, the net ratio is often over .1 lower than “advertised”(even with a checking spring).
I went ahead and checked lift at the retainer out of curiosity. With cold lash set at .018”, l am seeing .581-.587 on the intakes and .584-.591 exhaust. Cam is advertised as .400” lobe lift and .600/.600 with a 1.5 rocker. Not as bad as I had expected.You already have a cam, so in your case “iiwii”.
But if you were thinking about changing it down the road, it would be worth knowing what the net rocker ratio(loaded with full spring force) actually is.
I've got a feeling you'll be tickled pink!Dyno testing is unlikely, as it is very expensive and this motor is not going in a dedicated drag car. I hope to get it on a run stand for break-in and checking for leaks before dropping it in the Duster. The car will see the occasional trip to the drag strip but it’s no where near sorted out and I’m not a pro driver. So the numbers it puts on the board probably won’t be an accurate measure of the engine’s potential. I’m just building it to show off, do obnoxious burnouts, and have a genuine wild time.
If it runs 11s, I’ll be tickled pink.
Yeah, in hindsight I wish I would have just ordered a set of cup adjusters and ball/ball pushrods. I’ll probably still get a new set to replace the current ones. Paranoia is setting in.Btw, Smith Brothers makes some very nice adjuster screws.
Yeah, in hindsight I wish I would have just ordered a set of cup adjusters and ball/ball pushrods. I’ll probably still get a new set to replace the current ones. Paranoia is setting in.
Without modifying the rockers, yes. Need pushrod oiling lifters (AMC style), ball/ball oiling pushrods and cup adjusters.Without going back thru all the threads, would you need through the pushrod oiling to use ball/ball pushrods?
I didn't read the entire post, most likely it's history by now since the op is older. Any help this late in the game is pretty much uselessCorrect
He was referring to iron rockers.
They might be a little better than they were originally. Since I had to restore the radius on the rocker tips anyway, I cut the fulcrum length slightly longer so the rocker would center on the valve tip a little better in his application. That would have the effect of a very modest ratio increase, but I figured it would still be below advertised. Looks like it worked out better than expected.Sounds like your net ratio is very close to 1.5.
Better than I would have expected.
(Theoretically, in order to get .600 lift, you’d have to have the lash at zero)
Btw, Smith Brothers makes some very nice adjuster screws.
Live and learn I guess. I’ll probably end up getting a set of adjuster screws from them and I’ll be sure to specify USPS shipping.FWIW, when I order from Smith Brothers, I specify USPS priority shipping.
By the way Mike, great job bringing these old rockers back to life. I think you should be credited with the minimal loss of lift due to your dressing of the rocker tips. Good job brother!They might be a little better than they were originally. Since I had to restore the radius on the rocker tips anyway, I cut the fulcrum length slightly longer so the rocker would center on the valve tip a little better in his application. That would have the effect of a very modest ratio increase, but I figured it would still be below advertised. Looks like it worked out better than expected.
Thanks Jim, but I don't have to be credited. I was just trying to make them usable and fit reasonably well. I wasn't sure if I mentioned the increased fulcrum length to you, but when Dwayne mentioned the ratio accuracy, it reminded me that I did that, and it probably had some beneficial effect on ratio. I gotta be careful here, or I'll have the phone ringing off the hook with people wanting me to "ratio" their iron rockers, lol. With all the grief you have had with this build, I'm hoping it lives up to your expectations. I'm looking forward to hearing about the first beat run.By the way Mike, great job bringing these old rockers back to life. I think you should be credited with the minimal loss of lift due to your dressing of the rocker tips. Good job brother!
Essentially, that's the effect.B3RE,
You mentioned increasing the fulcrum length. With these rockers, do you do this slightly re-grinding the shoe so that the high point is slightly further outboard? Thanks.
Let the flood gates open! HahahaEssentially, that's the effect.
Yeah, but where is the high spot on a radius? Up, down, left, right? It has to have context.Let the flood gates open! Hahaha
My preference for break in oil is Driven BR.