FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: 427Fastback on June 23, 2013, 09:56:42 PM
-
I have to hone out my Dove/Comp rocker arms for clearance.Most of them are tight at .0005 to .001 clearance.I am fitting them to a nice set of H/S heavy duty shafts.They measure identical to each other....I would imagine the rockers will expand some what on the thick shafts....
I was thinking around .002 clearance but am interested in thoughts and opinions..
Engine is solid lifter 270S and no crazy valve spring pressures..
They will be honed on a machine for trueness and I have a ($$$$)Bower 3 finger measureing device that will read to 5 decimal points...
Cory
-
I wish I had all that fancy stuff to do this job - or maybe I am better off without it :-\ I just went through this, fitting a set of new HS rockers to a POP shaft. They would go on, but very tight and I measured maybe .001" clearance or less. Oddly, they were free on the shaft in some locations and not in others. I still don't understand how this can be unless maybe the two halves of the bushing in the rocker aren't "square" with each other....???
Anyway, I just used a regular wheel cylinder hone and honed them a little at a time until they moved smoothly on the shaft by feel. Pretty low tech, but they still feel very snug clearance-wise (no rocking on the shaft) but don't "stick" anywhere.
I am curious how these materials expand relative to each other with temp. In my case, steel shaft, bronze bushing.
-
I have seen Ford specs for this clearance in service manuals from .002" to .005". On steel rockers I usually have them honed on a pin fitting machine if they are too tight, and go to .0025" clearance. Since aluminum rockers will expand more with temperature, you can probably get away with running less, but I think if it were me I'd hone them to .002".
-
I did some measuring today on all the shafts I have.(stock,FPP,H/S and replacements)There is quite a bit of variance between them all.Even the two H/S shafts measure different....839 and .840...The rockers are plus or minus as well..By putting the big rockers on the big shaft the measurements work out .I have a couple rockers at 1 1/2 thou but I think they will be fine when warm...Most are at 2 to 2 1/2 thou..I don't have any with to much clearance which is good...
It has been 2 months since my truck accident and I finally have some energy to do something.....even if its just measuring parts....
Cory
-
And to think I just used some fine emery cloth....and my fingers....on my HS rockers and shafts ;D
-
I'm with Jay in that I hone the aluminum rockers so that the rocker to shaft clearance is a minimum of 0.002".
-
It seems we all agree that .002 is the target..I will recheck the clearances when I do the final assembly on them.For now I am happy to know that they are close...I will polish up any of the tight ones...
Thanks...Cory
-
I did this a few months ago and it was recommended to hone the bushings to 2 thousandths clearance. We used an adjustable reamer. That was from the POP valvetrain instructions.
John
-
Digging up this old thread as I was searching for clearance info. I’m working on rocker setup for my 352, it’s an old adjustable Ford setup. I’m getting .839 for the shafts which seem ok, but the rockers feel very loose and I’m getting .012” clearance using a small bore gauge. Changed mics, measured with a decent caliper, all figures jive. Has anyone seen one this loose? This was supposed to be a cheap rebuild, I assume re-bushing the rockers would not be cheap with today’s labor rates
-
Digging up this old thread as I was searching for clearance info. I’m working on rocker setup for my 352, it’s an old adjustable Ford setup. I’m getting .839 for the shafts which seem ok, but the rockers feel very loose and I’m getting .012” clearance using a small bore gauge. Changed mics, measured with a decent caliper, all figures jive. Has anyone seen one this loose? This was supposed to be a cheap rebuild, I assume re-bushing the rockers would not be cheap with today’s labor rates
Yeah is called worn out rocker arms. I'd avoid bushing them. It has been done to stock rockers, but weakens them as they are not too thick to begin with. Just buy some new ones. Problem is when there is too much clearance you get too much oil leakage. The .002" to .0025" spec is a good one to use. The main thing is the shaft and rocker both have to be round. The problem with going tighter is not having enough clearance to get the oil out. On some shafts you will find they cut a groove across the oiling hole to help get the oil to where it needs to be. If your shafts don't have this it is a good thing to ad. Also make sure the oiling holes are pointed down towards the head.
-
Since this thread was re-started, and previously "it seems we 'all' agree(d)" that of .002" (or so) was 'the' number, allow me to inject (muddy the water ::)), so what connecting rod bushing to (piston) pin clearance to you run? ???
Oh, and to answer the recent inquiry and agree with:
Yeah is called worn out rocker arms. Just buy some new ones.
:)
Scott.
-
Since this thread was re-started, and previously "it seems we 'all' agree(d)" that of .002" (or so) was 'the' number, allow me to inject (muddy the water ::)), so what connecting rod bushing to (piston) pin clearance to you run? ???
Oh, and to answer the recent inquiry and agree with:
Yeah is called worn out rocker arms. Just buy some new ones.
:)
Scott.
Depends on the application. On some applications, you'd be surprised.... I've ran .002" multiple times........
-
Depends on the application. I've ran .002" multiple times........
Well yeah, intentionally sure, "in certain applications" or even just rationalized for reasons that have nothing to do with the mechanics of it! But in general, and consider the similarities, and the dissimilarities, and think about it. Why are we "wanting" to have .002" clearance? :-\
It's just a question. :)
Scott.
-
If you are running a vacuum pump or a dry sump you need more pin to piston clearance. You don't get the same oil splash in that case as you do with with a standard oiling system, and my understanding is that the additional clearance prevents galling of the piston/pin interface. In my big SOHC with the dry sump I always run .0017" or so; never a problem in many miles of driving.
-
O.K., let's rephrase it this way: If (generally) we determined that the wrist-pin to connecting rod bushing, or even that of the aluminum rod, clearance, is O.K. at something less than .002" (more often 'significantly' less) and this relationship is having to endure what is seemingly a significantly harsher environmental function, then why do we think the clearance for the rocker arms "needs" to be greater? ???
Still, just a question.
Scott.
-
Passing oil to the pushrod tip, roller tip, spring oiler, etc.
-
Passing oil to the pushrod tip, roller tip, spring oiler, etc.
If I understand, your intention is that we "need" a generous (?) clearance value in order to facilitate the flow volume required for these addition points of lubrication? :-\
If so, then for consideration don't both these additional points of oil emission function "better" with the advent of oil pressure behind them? This to "squirt" the oil fluid, in order to jump the distance, as these junctures don't possess a "direct" mechanical oil delivery mechanism to bridge this (depending on the rocker arm product)? And as the clearance sum about the I.D. & O.D. relationship circumferences increases isn't the result going to be a loss of pressure in this area? And this particularly with the popularity in the use of oil "restrictors" being present, which will, if effective, be limiting the oil delivery volume (more so than that of the self limiting function within the rocker/shaft relationship by design) and hence causing a loss of pressure as soon as the area of leakage (clearance sum) supersedes the area of the restriction? And at this point 'even more' clearance probably isn't really going to help! :-\
In other words, the greater the clearance, leads to greater leakage rates, that which then one finds excessive and unacceptable, so then they choose to install restrictors to limit the oil volume passage and leakage loss at the rocker arm to shaft juncture, this resulting in that oil volume as being made available is insufficient to create any significant pressure (aka. no "squirt", not to mention other oil starvation instances!), and resulting in it just drooling out onto the cylinder head emanating from the lower hemisphere just beyond the point of the clearance narrowing where the shaft and rockers are attempting to contact one another at the bottom in their eccentric positioning, and the greater the clearance the sooner and lower in these circumferences that this is going to take place. And of course also, the greater the difference in these radii (due to clearance sum) this will result in less surface area interacting and reduction in the oil film load carrying capacity. :o
Or perhaps something like that might sorta be what I'm thinkin'. ::)
Scott.
-
You're gonna have to dumb it down for this old hillbilly. What point are you trying to impress upon us?
-
Scott...
Are you asking hypothetical questions, or are you saying you run a lot less clearance on rocker arms? Spell it out for us.
-
Actually my "questions" might be regarded as "leading". ;)
Scott.
-
I never was fond of being vague for attention sake.
It is not hard whatsoever just to say, "I've had luck with running them in this style of application at .xxx clearance". Not hard at all.
-
I thought this was a "discussion" forum; sorry my bad! :(
But it seems to me, that just making declarations of "I've done this or I've done that", though may prove interesting, but never really provides possible explanations or answers, or even hypotheses, as of the "why" that process might actually have merit, this vs. the old adage of: "that's just how we always dun it!" But yeah, the latter surely is easier! ::)
It's sorta like: Why are you doing it, if you don't know why? ???
And, it's not about "attention", other than perhaps an attempt to draw others into the discussion, whom might, even if only initially, be more reserved, but might also "actually" have something truly valuable to add to the "discussion". ;)
Again, sorry,
Scott.
P.S. Hey, I'd bet, that if reading a novel, your probably one of those whom will read the last chapter first! ::) Maybe? ;D
-
Not fond of, or impressed by word salads myself. Talking down your nose at folks is not the way to make friends, and definitely does not impress people- especially pretty knowledgeable, well respected people
-
Scott, so what’s your target number on a performance FE, alum rockers, and may as well add wrist pin based on a stroker. No “teaching” just your recommendation for a number, we heard the why already
Make believe you are standing at the bench doing the work
-
Scott, so what’s your target number on a performance FE, alum rockers, and may as well add wrist pin based on a stroker. No “teaching” just your recommendation for a number, we heard the why already
Make believe you are standing at the bench doing the work
That would have been the logical thing to state instead of playing a game of 50 questions.
Most of us do things because they have worked well over time. If someone has done something differently and it has worked, then that would have been some nice data to share.
-
I have a slightly different philosophy, having spent many years around very large things with huge oil pans and hydraulic tanks, which get very hot and transfer the heat into the air- you'd never want to touch the hyd tank on a big excavator at the end of the day, as it makes a helluva big part of the cooling system. In those rockers, I like just enough clearance to ensure a good flow of oil for cooling of the rockers and springs, and concentrate on ways to efficiently return the heated oil to the pan and/ or cooler to carry the heat away. I like to have as much flow for cooling as I can without flooding the covers, rather than restrict the flow way down- there are ways. And managed to say that with words not exceeding 11 letters, as most of you already know I am just a Dumbshit 7th Class (AKA Hillbilly) like everyone else, and if I started trying to impress people with a lot of bullroar word salad, folks would think that Fender Lizard had hijacked my account- quite a few of you have been around long enough to get that one lol ;D
-
I have a slightly different philosophy, having spent many years around very large things with huge oil pans and hydraulic tanks, which get very hot and transfer the heat into the air- you'd never want to touch the hyd tank on a big excavator at the end of the day, as it makes a helluva big part of the cooling system. In those rockers, I like just enough clearance to ensure a good flow of oil for cooling of the rockers and springs, and concentrate on ways to efficiently return the heated oil to the pan and/ or cooler to carry the heat away. I like to have as much flow for cooling as I can without flooding the covers, rather than restrict the flow way down- there are ways. And managed to say that with words not exceeding 11 letters, as most of you already know I am just a Dumbshit 7th Class (AKA Hillbilly) like everyone else, and if I started trying to impress people with a lot of bullroar word salad, folks would think that Fender Lizard had hijacked my account- quite a few of you have been around long enough to get that one lol ;D
I worked on some logging processors that moved hyd oil through the tanks so fast we plumbed a line from the intake to the hyd tank with a check valve to put boost in the tank to help keep the suction side of the pumps from cavitating. Those tanks also had bolt on heat sinks on them and by mid-day you could cook bacon on them. I never tried, but I did heat up my lunch on them more than once while on long duration service calls!
I'm also a fan of oil flow within reason. Maybe in a drag race engine you would/could limit the amount of oil in there quite a bit. But for a street application as much oil flow is as practical without causing another issue like pumping the covers full or causing windage or drainback issues I think helps. The cooler stuff runs the longer it'll last. But that's just my .02 and it's probably not worth half that with inflation so....
-
Passing oil to the pushrod tip, roller tip, spring oiler, etc.
If I understand, your intention is that we "need" a generous (?) clearance value in order to facilitate the flow volume required for these addition points of lubrication? :-\
If so, then for consideration don't both these additional points of oil emission function "better" with the advent of oil pressure behind them? This to "squirt" the oil fluid, in order to jump the distance, as these junctures don't possess a "direct" mechanical oil delivery mechanism to bridge this (depending on the rocker arm product)? And as the clearance sum about the I.D. & O.D. relationship circumferences increases isn't the result going to be a loss of pressure in this area? And this particularly with the popularity in the use of oil "restrictors" being present, which will, if effective, be limiting the oil delivery volume (more so than that of the self limiting function within the rocker/shaft relationship by design) and hence causing a loss of pressure as soon as the area of leakage (clearance sum) supersedes the area of the restriction? And at this point 'even more' clearance probably isn't really going to help! :-\
In other words, the greater the clearance, leads to greater leakage rates, that which then one finds excessive and unacceptable, so then they choose to install restrictors to limit the oil volume passage and leakage loss at the rocker arm to shaft juncture, this resulting in that oil volume as being made available is insufficient to create any significant pressure (aka. no "squirt", not to mention other oil starvation instances!), and resulting in it just drooling out onto the cylinder head emanating from the lower hemisphere just beyond the point of the clearance narrowing where the shaft and rockers are attempting to contact one another at the bottom in their eccentric positioning, and the greater the clearance the sooner and lower in these circumferences that this is going to take place. And of course also, the greater the difference in these radii (due to clearance sum) this will result in less surface area interacting and reduction in the oil film load carrying capacity. :o
Or perhaps something like that might sorta be what I'm thinkin'. ::)
Scott.
I'd answer it this way, if you don't have enough clearance you will have galling or the rocker seizing to the shaft. Too much clearance and you have excess oil loss. As for restricting oil feed to the rocker shafts that is an interesting one, Dove used to tell you not to do that. I also have a set of their shafts that have oil holes drilled both on the bottom and top. Besides lubrication oil removes heat. If you have a deep sump oil pan and enough oil volume having more oil to the head is not necessarily a bad thing. Some race engines use spray bars to cool valve springs so that they will live. On the FE getting the oil to drain back from the heads can be an issue.
Short answer the FE been around for 68 years, it is an old antiquated design. Using .002" rocker to shaft clearance, making sure the shaft feed hole is slotted, and an .080" oil restrictor will meet the requirements of not galling or seizing the rockers and not flooding the heads with oil.
-
As for restricting oil feed to the rocker shafts that is an interesting one, Dove used to tell you not to do that.
And I agree, as in my book, most often restrictors are handy for major oil loss control in the instances of component failures, this to keep the vehicle on the track for a longer period even though the engine is in a state of self destruction. But otherwise it's an admission that you haven't considered oiling requirements and delivery methodology adequately. :o
On the FE getting the oil to drain back from the heads can be an issue.
And I think the Ford engineers 'were' quite aware of the possible problem; as why do you suppose they went to the engineering effort and production expense for those oil catch & drain-back to the lifter valley tins, that mount under the rocker stands, this as an aid, with the intention of alleviating a certain sum of oil from having to traverse the cylinder head drain-back passages? And for those here, how many re-utilize these (yeah, sometimes requiring reworking, or making anew, to fit aftermarket heads)? Or did we toss 'em, and now are trying to figure out how to limit the oil to the top-end so as not to flood the under valve cover region? ???
Again, just food for thought in the "discussion". :)
Scott.
-
I've always maintained the thought that the rocker drip tins were for those cases where you pull a valve cover and there's a perfectly shaped mold of sludge that would keep any oil from getting back in the head drains.
I've never used them. Same with oil slingers. Same with valley pans.
Have you ever used a Victor FE intake? They don't have any provisions for rocker drip tins, but yet there are hundreds (thousands?) of FE's running around with Victor intakes, that haven't spontaneously combusted.
There are many FE engine builders who are very successful at the way they do things and a lot of us do things quite differently. To say that someone uses restrictors because they "haven't considered requirements and delivery methodology adequately" (along with some stupid emojis) is a pretty pompous thing to say. I mean, I guess I'm sorry that I don't consult with almighty Scott before I put a bolt in. :o ;) ::)
In addition, a lot of us use rocker systems that are totally different than a factory Ford rocker: needle bearing fulcrums, pushrod oiling, etc.
-
Interesting discussion.
I'm no engine builder but I do assemble my own motors and some for my pals.
My FE motors have seen many street races in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, some track time, and I generally beat them up pretty good regularly. Been doing that since the later 1970's.
I've never measured rocker arm to shaft clearance. If using Ford adjustable rocker arms, most anybody with common sense can "rock" them on the shaft when they're assembling the rocker assemblies and tell when they're ready for the trash can. I've worn out some Dove rocker arms too. The better rockers, Harland Sharp or POP for example, last a good long time.
The rocker arm side clearance can be interesting on a FE motor. I do that by feel as well but if the rocker tip is as close as I can get it over the valve tip and I can feel a drag against the solid spacer or rocker stand, I'll let it fly. I've never seen galling when a slight drag is used. I'd rather be on the tight side and have the push rod cups oiled well than looser on the side clearance.
Since we're discussing this, a stock shaft is adequate with end stands at solid flat tappet spring pressure.
A .060 restriction will flow a lot more oil than most folks realize with hot oil at 50psi.
If this drivel puts me in the hillbilly crowd, I carry that distinction with honor.
-
As for restricting oil feed to the rocker shafts that is an interesting one, Dove used to tell you not to do that.
And I agree, as in my book, most often restrictors are handy for major oil loss control in the instances of component failures, this to keep the vehicle on the track for a longer period even though the engine is in a state of self destruction. But otherwise it's an admission that you haven't considered oiling requirements and delivery methodology adequately. :o
On the FE getting the oil to drain back from the heads can be an issue.
And I think the Ford engineers 'were' quite aware of the possible problem; as why do you suppose they went to the engineering effort and production expense for those oil catch & drain-back to the lifter valley tins, that mount under the rocker stands, this as an aid, with the intention of alleviating a certain sum of oil from having to traverse the cylinder head drain-back passages? And for those here, how many re-utilize these (yeah, sometimes requiring reworking, or making anew, to fit aftermarket heads)? Or did we toss 'em, and now are trying to figure out how to limit the oil to the top-end so as not to flood the under valve cover region? ???
Again, just food for thought in the "discussion". :)
Scott.
I acknowledge your point, and not being a smart guy either, but the engineering discussion just doesn't work for me. You had lazy ramps, low spring pressure, umbrellas, or in racing horrible Teflon instead of real seals, sludge and detergent build up and machining that wasn't all that good compared to today. It's just not the same environment.
In fact, I would say that the stock rocker clearances and tins could easily be considered a band aid of the day. Same era of engineers had SCJs blowing up and added oil and a pan lid, when they needed capacity and baffling. It was not state of the art today, even if it was logical then. Same engineers ran double reliefs on a 427 and a HP pump. Same engineers had sledgehammer heavy rods for performance combined with crazy heavy pistons. Old builds are old builds, that's why there are so many windowed 427s
As far as lifter valley tins, I have potential 2 uses for them, catching burnt oil from the crossover, and shielding the road draft tube. Beyond that they did little to nothing
Now as far as numbers, I think the window of rocker to shaft clearance is wide enough to drive a truck through. Another point, I don't restrict to help return, if the returns are plugged, fix them. Restriction gives you slightly less up top where it isn't as critical and keeps slightly more to where it is critical, that's the punchline. The oil still flows, as Tommy said too and FE returns are easy, not difficult, clean them up, make sure the intake manifold has room for the drain and don't block it with silicone by accident.
-
If this drivel puts me in the hillbilly crowd, I carry that distinction with honor.
Of course you always been there- along with most of us :P :P Most rocket scientists are self appointed, ya know ::)
-
I can feel a drag against the solid spacer or rocker stand, I'll let it fly. I've never seen galling when a slight drag is used.
Remember, that in the O.E.M. configuration, the springs on the shafts push the rocker arms against the stands creating a certain sum of "drag"; and though not perhaps successfully causing a complete sealing against oil loss at this juncture, it certainly inhibits "free-flow". :)
A .060 restriction will flow a lot more oil than most folks realize with hot oil at 50psi.
Yes, the sum is quite great; and "ideally" not what might actually be required to actually "limit" oil losses for the rocker shaft array. :o
In fact, I would say that the stock rocker clearances and tins could easily be considered a band aid of the day.
Exactly! ;D
Have you ever used a Victor FE intake? They don't have any provisions for rocker drip tins, . . . . . . .
Yep sure have, since back when they were fist introduced, something like twenty years ago (+/-); and there's an abundance of aluminum (and if need be more could be added) to make drain-back provisions work just as Ford had originally intended, . . . . . . yep! This is if you really wanted such? ;)
I mean, I guess I'm sorry that I don't consult with almighty Scott before I put a bolt in.
It's too bad, but that in pretty much any discussion it always sooner or later leads to "someone's feathers getting ruffled"; and as it seems here (at least to me), for no real reason! You seem personally affronted here, and I don't see any reason for it. I have not called out anyone in particular for unsound practices, rather have attempted to remain attuned to the mechanical engineering aspect, solely for the purpose of "discussion". :)
And then of course, we have to have the other human behavior seemingly relevant here, that of being any time there might be perceived two opposed perspectives, bystanders must always feel the need to "pick a side", did you ever ask yourself "why"? Damn, at our ages, I'm thinking we left the school yard behind a long time ago! ::)
But hopefully, out of this melee, perhaps someone garnered something of value, and that even though it hasn't been via the smoothest of pathways, the Forum has accomplished it's purpose of attempting to be informative or sparked thought, to at least a degree.
Scott.
P.S. Oh yeah, about that bolt, remember: "lefty loosey righty tighty"! ::)
-
Scott, there's been two things that have burned my biscuits in this thread:
1. The amount of beating around the bush without coming out and just saying what you meant. You had probably 5-6 posts where you could have just came out and said what you meant.
2. This line: "But otherwise it's an admission that you haven't considered oiling requirements and delivery methodology adequately. :o" That is a very condescending line and I don't think I'm the only one that took it as though you were talking down to the rest of us. Didn't appreciate it, especially when you come at it like you're the only one that knows what's going on. I don't have engines that flood the tops of the heads or have engines that have trouble returning oil to the valley or pan.
-
The valley and rocker tins are interesting, at least from a historical perspective. The rocker tins certainly were there to help direct the oil return IMHO. Some of the early ones that guys say are for hipo stuff have "spouts" to direct the oil to the valley. later on Ford did not see a need for them and just used the regular ones. The valley pan can see value in it can help keep hot oil off the underside of the intake manifold and also acts as a baffle if you have a road draft tube or early PCV at the back of the intake. I recall in some old Ford paper saying the baffle had to do with helping to keep moisture from forming. Don't know, but we do have to keep in mind they had to make these engines survive in the desert as well as Alaska and do it with the state of the art of the time.
Anyone ever wonder why the intake is part of the head? Was an SAE paper back around 1958 where Ford said having the intake extend further into the head allowed more control over the port shape and resulted in better cold start performance. It all was for a reason, we just don't know the why and of course if the reasoning was right or instead driven by what was believed to be right at the time. Sort of like cross drilled cranks and windowed blocks...
-
Anyone ever wonder why the intake is part of the head? Was an SAE paper back around 1958 where Ford said having the intake extend further into the head allowed more control over the port shape and resulted in better cold start performance. It all was for a reason, we just don't know the why and of course if the reasoning was right or instead driven by what was believed to be right at the time. Sort of like cross drilled cranks and windowed blocks...
In the magazines that I have from '58 covering the "new" Ford engines, Ford had learned that longer port lengths had multiple benefits, like added torque, good street manners, and easier starting, as opposed to the very short runner lengths of the Y-blocks. It was a clever design for the time. As big as those cars were, the engines sat up relatively high and barely cleared the hoods even with low rise intakes, so the FE intake solved the problem of adding runner length without adding height.
Tins and valley trays certainly had their uses back in the day. All of us old farts who have taken apart old engines knows that coking under the intake can be a real problem, and that was the reason for using intake pans that covered the crossovers, as well as valley trays. Remember, people were still using non-detergent oils and running these engines daily in mixed hot and cold climates. I believe Ford also knew that oil return in the head was an issue that crept up. We're talking about mass produced engines that didn't exactly have a perfect return path for the oil in the head to begin with. "Cleaning up" the return isn't an option when it requires hand work. Not on a mass production level. For the average "home" builder, using stock parts that aren't modified, I still think they are a good idea. For hot rodders that modify their stuff to make it better, not so much.
-
Anyone ever wonder why the intake is part of the head? Was an SAE paper back around 1958 where Ford said having the intake extend further into the head allowed more control over the port shape and resulted in better cold start performance. It all was for a reason, we just don't know the why and of course if the reasoning was right or instead driven by what was believed to be right at the time. Sort of like cross drilled cranks and windowed blocks...
In the magazines that I have from '58 covering the "new" Ford engines, Ford had learned that longer port lengths had multiple benefits, like added torque, good street manners, and easier starting, as opposed to the very short runner lengths of the Y-blocks. It was a clever design for the time. As big as those cars were, the engines sat up relatively high and barely cleared the hoods even with low rise intakes, so the FE intake solved the problem of adding runner length without adding height.
Tins and valley trays certainly had their uses back in the day. All of us old farts who have taken apart old engines knows that coking under the intake can be a real problem, and that was the reason for using intake pans that covered the crossovers, as well as valley trays. Remember, people were still using non-detergent oils and running these engines daily in mixed hot and cold climates. I believe Ford also knew that oil return in the head was an issue that crept up. We're talking about mass produced engines that didn't exactly have a perfect return path for the oil in the head to begin with. "Cleaning up" the return isn't an option when it requires hand work. Not on a mass production level. For the average "home" builder, using stock parts that aren't modified, I still think they are a good idea. For hot rodders that modify their stuff to make it better, not so much.
Well said.
-
In 1975, I had a friend with a '66 390 Comet, whose dad was the shop foreman for a local short-haul trucking firm that had a fleet of C800's with 391FT engines, so he was "well versed". The Comet popped a head gasket, and his dad showed us how to change the head gasket without pulling the intake, as was the factory procedure. Considering that it was shock tower car, it went pretty well, just took a lot of patience. He also told us about the problems with the oil drainbacks in the heads clogging, and had a factory Ford tool for enlarging the drainbacks in the truck engines. Only time I ever heard of such a tool, but he had one and he was pretty sharp. Flash ahead to 1977, and a gal friend who knew I had my 406 car says hey my girlfriend has a Galaxie she wants to get rid of, smokes and runs real bad. So I go look at it, pretty cherry 500 fastback with perfect interior, 390-4V etc. She starts it, running poorly on about 6 and fogging skeeters. She says can you give me $200 for it? Well, OK. I pull the plugs, fronts are fine, backs oil-fouled. Drip pan goes underneath and pull a valve cover and get black rain- the drainbacks were completely clogged and covers full of oil. Took a lot of digging with a screwdriver to get all the gunk out. A couple oil changes and it was running sweet and clean. Not a perfect return path indeed
-
Man, great story, I have sure been there, good thing is you can drive a screwdriver straight in! Not to mention how it stained your skin like diesel oil back then.
I blame the oil more than the FE, but sure have seen it and the gray sludge of the day that came from detergent packages.
-
I can feel a drag against the solid spacer or rocker stand, I'll let it fly. I've never seen galling when a slight drag is used.
Remember, that in the O.E.M. configuration, the springs on the shafts push the rocker arms against the stands creating a certain sum of "drag"; and though not perhaps successfully causing a complete sealing against oil loss at this juncture, it certainly inhibits "free-flow". :)
A .060 restriction will flow a lot more oil than most folks realize with hot oil at 50psi.
Yes, the sum is quite great; and "ideally" not what might actually be required to actually "limit" oil losses for the rocker shaft array. :o
In fact, I would say that the stock rocker clearances and tins could easily be considered a band aid of the day.
Exactly! ;D
Have you ever used a Victor FE intake? They don't have any provisions for rocker drip tins, . . . . . . .
Yep sure have, since back when they were fist introduced, something like twenty years ago (+/-); and there's an abundance of aluminum (and if need be more could be added) to make drain-back provisions work just as Ford had originally intended, . . . . . . yep! This is if you really wanted such? ;)
I mean, I guess I'm sorry that I don't consult with almighty Scott before I put a bolt in.
It's too bad, but that in pretty much any discussion it always sooner or later leads to "someone's feathers getting ruffled"; and as it seems here (at least to me), for no real reason! You seem personally affronted here, and I don't see any reason for it. I have not called out anyone in particular for unsound practices, rather have attempted to remain attuned to the mechanical engineering aspect, solely for the purpose of "discussion". :)
And then of course, we have to have the other human behavior seemingly relevant here, that of being any time there might be perceived two opposed perspectives, bystanders must always feel the need to "pick a side", did you ever ask yourself "why"? Damn, at our ages, I'm thinking we left the school yard behind a long time ago! ::)
But hopefully, out of this melee, perhaps someone garnered something of value, and that even though it hasn't been via the smoothest of pathways, the Forum has accomplished it's purpose of attempting to be informative or sparked thought, to at least a degree.
Scott.
P.S. Oh yeah, about that bolt, remember: "lefty loosey righty tighty"! ::)
Dude, there ain't nobody that got anything from your vague posting with zero information. Do you honestly think that anyone could garner any information whatsoever from the 20 questions you asked with no answers? The only thing that anyone gleaned is that you know how to use an eyeroll emoji like a 14 year old girl and your posts read like a King James version Bible.
-
I thought sesquipedalianism was dead. This post proves me wrong. Joe-JDC
-
. . . . . . there ain't nobody . . . . . . . Do you honestly think that anyone . . . . . . . . .
Maybe you should allow others to speak for themselves rather than constantly choosing to sweep the bystanders under your wing to bolster your own tenuous position; which again is just another behavioral practice of insecurity and immaturity. If your apparently emotionally immature self, and perhaps your feelings of domination over this domain might feel threatened, please rest assured that such was never my intention and that you will have been successful at running-off any such possible threat.
But then, in revue, what informative substance relevant to the O.P.'s inquiry have you brought forth in this thread? ::)
I leave you to it.
Good day,
Scott.
-
Rocker arm clearance .002-.0025.
Restrict at heads .080", or oil through pushrods with head feeds completely restricted. Works perfectly fine with standard volume, B pump, HV pump, doesn't flood anything. Good oil pressure, will work with 750 lbs of spring load over the nose without wearing rocker bushings out.
Your turn, Captain Wordcount.
-
Easy guys.
I believe Scott was/is just merely looking for some tantelizing technical discussion behind the theory of oiling lubrication in it's varied applications within the FE engine.
I get this, there is a very complex system at play at it's core, fluid dynamics within a series/parallel circuit, loads, cycle times, cooling, you name it.
Yes, the question was what clearance, but why "exactly"? That is where the fun lies, just like understanding or hypothesizing about "exactly" why one should not cut the short side of an intake runner beyond don't do it...
I would like to think there is room here for that type of discussion. I certainly enjoy it.
-
Actually, the heading for this is FE Technical Forum: Not a place for "word salad" theories. Simple facts, correct answers, and proven experience is what has made this forum the place to come to for answers. Joe-JDC
-
Um, yes, the title is FE Technical Forum. Lock this one down Jay, getting too crazy in here trying to have an open discussion, too many twisted undies for nothing.
forum/ˈfôrəm/A forum is a public meeting, assembly, or medium (like an online message board) set aside for open discussion. It provides a space to express, exchange, and debate ideas regarding topics of public, professional, or personal interest.
-
Some good information in this thread, and a lot of nonsense. Let's keep it on topic guys...