|
| | | Co-Administrator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:09 AM
Posts: 762, Visits: 1,091 |
| Longer that stock length valves would be nice. This allows some additional flexibility in port design and when using higher lift camshafts. Drawback is that the supports in the heads for the rocker stands will have to be higher to maintain proper rocker arm geometry. This then makes the valve cover rail higher and in turn and the valve cover sits higher. Is this a problem for those of you with a power brake booster? Raising the rockers would also dictate longer pushrods. Instruction sheet could include a recommended length for a starting point but this is something that might be varied depending upon the brand of rocker, deck or head milling, etc Feel free to add thoughts.
  Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:14 AM
Posts: 282, Visits: 503 |
| | From what Ive heard, Ted, taller heads would pose a clearance problem. I tossed out the idea of a taller valve cover rail to solve fit interference between Blue Thunder intake and valve covers. The idea was shot down because of tight fit between brake master cylinder and valve cover. |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:38 PM
Posts: 442, Visits: 5,733 |
| I had brought up the master cylinder problem in the previous thread. At the present time I have just enough room between the master cylinder to get the valve cover off - without a booster. If a special valve cover bolt could be developed, rather than a stud, it may alleveiate the problem. Then the valve cover does not have to be lifted as high to remove it - to clear the studs. Maybe a hex bolt with a thick head which is threaded in the center to hold the rocker stand down and a bolt that threads into this to hold the valve cover on. There still may not be enough room with a booster, though.
Norcross, GA |
| |
|
|