Author Topic: Adjustable rocker arm shaft question  (Read 4478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lalessi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Adjustable rocker arm shaft question
« on: June 04, 2014, 02:05:12 PM »
Does anybody know if there is a difference between hydraulic and solid lifter rocker shafts? I have new adjustable rocker arms and used hydraulic shafts that seem to fit.... I will buy new shafts but the ones I have found are said to be for hydraulic rockers. Clueless again.
Lynn

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4474
    • View Profile
Re: Adjustable rocker arm shaft question
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2014, 02:57:54 PM »
There is no difference that I know of. Sizes should be the same on all stock rockers and the vast majority of aftermarket rockers. The shaft wont know what rocker it has on it. Just make sure the oil holes are on the bottom.
Doug Smith


'69 R-code Mach 1, 427 MR, 2x4, Jerico, 4.30 Locker
'70 F-350 390
'55 Ford Customline 2dr
'37 Ford Coupe

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7433
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Adjustable rocker arm shaft question
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2014, 03:24:32 PM »
+1 on that; FE rocker shafts are all the same dimensions unless you count the SOHC.
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

thatdarncat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1871
    • View Profile
Re: Adjustable rocker arm shaft question
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2014, 04:40:34 PM »
Well, technically there was a difference originally from Ford. By part number, early solid lifter motors (352 & 390 )and the '66 solid lifter police 428 used B8AZ-6563-A. Starting in '63 the 406 & 427 LR got shafts C3AZ-6563-A. From '65-'67 the medium riser 427 got C5AZ-6563-A. The medium riser shaft I believe is a tiny bit longer to make up for the wider valve spacing and wider shaft stands. All hydraulic cam FE's got B8AZ-6563-D shafts ( including the '68 hydraulic lifter 427 ). There are differences originally in the amount of holes. Now from a practical standpoint I agree with everyone else, it won't make much difference, except maybe if you have medium riser 427 heads. As CJShaker pointed out though, there is a top and bottom. The Ford shop manual will show how to orient the shafts.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 04:46:19 PM by thatdarncat »
Kevin Rolph

1967 Cougar Drag Car ( under constuction )
1966 7 litre Galaxie
1966 Country Squire 390
1966 Cyclone GT 390
1968 Torino GT 390
1972 Gran Torino wagon
1978 Lincoln Mk V

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4474
    • View Profile
Re: Adjustable rocker arm shaft question
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2014, 05:06:59 PM »
Leave it to Ford to have 27 different part numbers for the same part ;D ;D

There are technically small differences between all the shafts, but nothing that really matters that I've seen, although I do like the "grooved" oil hole version. But it can be argued that they actually weaken the shaft. Thick chrome moly shafts with grooved oil holes and end stands are the cure for just about any set-up.

My Medium Riser heads work fine with any shaft I've used. The factory wave washer on the end is just eliminated and a "spacer" washer is used to accommodate the wider spacing of the stands.
Doug Smith


'69 R-code Mach 1, 427 MR, 2x4, Jerico, 4.30 Locker
'70 F-350 390
'55 Ford Customline 2dr
'37 Ford Coupe

lalessi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Adjustable rocker arm shaft question
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2014, 10:14:44 AM »
Thanks for the help guys. Amazing resource for information.... I'll be back!!!!
Lynn

MT63AFX

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Adjustable rocker arm shaft question
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2014, 05:57:02 PM »
Thanks for the help guys. Amazing resource for information.... I'll be back!!!!

...and had GM added a new part number for it's ignition switches with the "slight" differences it wouldn't be in the trouble they're in today,  :o, RodC.