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.   

In fact, I would say that the stock rocker clearances and tins could easily be considered a band aid of the day.

     Exactly!   

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"!   

           

     I was referring to the "replacement" they are sending you.   

     Scott.

     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?   

     

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.   

     Or perhaps something like that might sorta be what I'm thinkin'.   

     Scott.

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.

Is it a good or bad idea to swap a used cam from one motor to another.

     A bit of a "crap-shoot"!   

     Scott.

In your scenario a Detroit Locker would stay locked because of the torque applied from the engine, as it works to move the vehicle, will keep the locker locked.
The differential action of a Detroit Locker only happens when the torque forces are low, otherwise that differential will remain locked due to its ratcheting style design.
A Detroit Locker is locked the vast majority of the time by design because it remains locked until the correct low torque conditions allow it to unlock.

. . . . . . .you do not fully understand the way a Detroit Locker works in a vehicle.... which is pretty common, so you are in a normal place.

     I believe you may fall into the same "normal place".   

     Yes, it 'is' of a geared "ratchet" design, and though it does 'transfer' torque as produced from the engine through to the axle shafts, it isn't "torque" sensing in it's operation, rather it is simply "speed" sensing, maybe add "position" sensitive.  Remember it's just a "ratchet" system, where as the ring gear turns the differential housing it's bolted to, the internal gearing doesn't allow either output side gear, and therefore axle, from not turning at least at this speed; but the ratchet feature allows either to turn faster.  So, when traversing a turn, as there is distance differential to be covered, the inside wheel will not be allowed to turn slower in the pivoting maneuver, so it will be the outer wheel in the turn that will "unlock" or "ratchet" forward and accelerate, as being pushed, in order to traverse this greater distance within the same period of time.  After the vehicle straightens out, then as soon as the gear sets realign, the disengaged axle re-locks-up, due simply to the side-springs who's pressure which was overcome to allow the ratcheting effect push things back into this position. 

      One may garner the impression of "torque" sensing because in an instance where the unit is unlocked, when enough torque from the engine is applied to cause the one engaged tire to begin to slip, the unit will catch the slower in motion tire (sometimes with an announcement!  ) in lockup.  But this action was not based on torque, other than that which caused one tire to turn at a faster rate than the other, rather solely by the fact that as the one tire lost traction the ring gear (an associated componentry) sped up and the planted tire resisted, at least momentarily.

      Now once the two tires are spinning, trowing dirt & mud, the unit generally remains locked to both axles, but again this is solely because neither is allowed to be turning at a rate anything less than that of the ring gear, even if this is faster than the overall vehicle's movement; and though torque is what is causing the tires to spin, the unit doesn't care about torque, it's about speed differentials and positioning relationships.   

      Scott.