Hey, Buick experts. Does anybody have advice on roller rockers? We seem to wear out the shafts on the TA rockers (two sets). Looking at them, it seems like the oil hole for the bearings doesn't feed both sides. Does anyone have experience with Jesel rockers? They want $1700+, and the heads have to be machined, but throwing another $983 at TA without knowing why they wore seems futile, and expensive. Neither set had a lot of miles on them, but it does include some "hard" miles (more like 1/8th mile). Thanks!!
Why would you not just by replacement shafts? TA 1319A What spring pressures are you running, and are you limiting oil thru the pushrods via orrifices? I am not aware of any great issue with TA roller rockers/shafts in light to moderate street use, and while we broke an occasional rocker with the big roller cam stuff, wear due to oiling was never an issue that I recall. JW
If the pushrod cups are adjusted too far into or out of the rockers, .... I believe that will internally close off the oiling passage to the bearings. I'll have to check one to be sure though. (Mike at TA should have the difinative answer to your situation) Larry
I've put thousands of miles on my set of TA rockers and so has many many others , you have another issue imo
I have KB rockers on my sons car and they have gone thousands and thousands of miles with no problem whatsoever. I bought them used and they are still going with a mild cam. I have the Jessel rockers on my own car but I have not put more than 500 miles on them yet.
I don't feel the T/A Roller Rockers need to be defended as they have proven to be an excellent and extremely dependable product for decades. That being said I tested out what I had posted in the #3 post in this thread on a set of my TA 1.65 Roller Rockers and found it to be true. If one follows TA's instructions as to how to properly adjust them (adjusting screw flush to bottom of rocker is ideal and up to 1-thread turn in or up to 1 thread turn out is acceptable), there will be no oiling nor geometry issues, ..... But I found that by turning the adjusting screw just 1-1/2 thread turns in from being flush with the bottom of the rocker that the oiling to the roller bearings begins to be constricted, and by the time the screw is 2-thread turns in from being flush with the bottom of the rocker that the oiling to the roller bearing is totally blocked. I also found that the adjusting screw can be turned out all the way from the bottom of the rocker with no oil restriction to the roller bearings. This may not be the issue with Clark's rockers but I thought it's worth throwing out there for other folks. As for the oil hole feeding both sides, the rocker is machined only .010 larger than the shaft in that center passage area between the two roller bearings to help retain the strength of the rocker especially when clearancing the rocker for larger springs/retainers. So the space between the two bearings is actually the .010 oil channel across to the roller tip. Then there is the "synthetic oil needle/roller bearing" theories, where folks claim that since the synthetic oil is so slippery that the needle/roller bearings fail to roll and instead slide across the surface causing friction and failure. I'm not saying that I buy into that but I sure hear alot of reports from other sources of it happening with various components though never with TA Roller Rockers. Hope that helps. Larry
Thanks for the feedback. The springs are TA 1125, and we've had this problem on stock heads and on TA Stage 2 SE heads. We don't use synthetic oil, and we add the zinc additive. We'll check the alignment/adjustment.
I cut a old rocker along its axis and found that 1 1/2 turns in or out from flush seems to be the max before the oil is restricted to the rocker shaft.
I checked mine last night (using a rubber tipped air gun) as in post #8 and it never restricted turning out, .... (all the way until the oil band was exposed) but turning in was a different story. Larry
I'm in the middle of this right now. Changing roller lifters from the TA roller lifters to the Johnson roller lifters. My push rods are a bit too short. Just ordered longer ones. One full turn gets me flush.
Say there all you fellers up there, Do you ever add washers between the roller rocker and the stud tower, and or the spacer and the rocker? What would be the feeler gague clearance you would go by? Im building my motor and notice there is definitely more movement side to side than im comfortable with. I had KB roller bushing rockers that I used the rocker stops with. Which elemenated any need for washers.
Clark, You may need to replace the bearings as well in the rockers along with new shafts to solve the problem. That should take care of it
I'm guessing you mean me, not the other Larry (THE DOCTOR) Jim Weise no longer uses the Morel lifters (TA) that originally were installed in my motor. He uses the Johnson lifters now. My valve train has always been a bit noisy when the engine is fully warm. That may just be a consequence of using the aluminum heads, I don't know. This was also true of my original engine once I installed the Stage1SE heads. Jim thinks thinks the Johnsons are a better lifter, and maybe quieter. They are a shorter travel lifter and use less preload. I just wanted the better lifter, and to see if they made a difference in the noise. The Morels looked great when they came out, and I have already sold them to BrunoD as he wants to go roller in his street car.
I'm not sure I noticed a part number on the box. I got them through Jim. He uses them exclusively I believe.
Yup, TA 1412-2 (or just specify Iron block 455 roller lifters, made by Johnson) Worth every penny. These lifters are available because after about a dozen sucessful installs of morel lifters, where maybe we had a little noise, but nothing one could not live with, I had one stick down on the dyno... first time it happened, I figured it was a fluke, but the second time, it was a pattern. This costs me about a grand in lost time, two dyno session fees, and parts, plus all my labor time. I cannot do business like that, plus even worst fear is having this happen to a customer, hundreds or thousands of miles away, after they get their new motor. I went on the net, and found plenty of guys with this problem with Morel lifters, on all different makes. So an issue exists, and then I actually heard the same thing happened to one of our board members here. Time for another option.. So, knowing what lifters crossed over to also fit a 455, I went looking for a better quality lifter, and I found it at Johnson lifters. Short travel, precise metering and tolerances, fast refill rate, and high spring pressure capability. Just the ticket. I started by getting them thru Isky, but eventually talked Mike at TA into doing a buy in with Johnson, so he could sell these to everybody who "knows better". I had sold a few sets to guys like Larry, but that's not really my business model, I usually just sell parts that only I have, or that I work on or spec out (heads, cams, intakes, shortblocks, 470 pistons ect ect). I have used about a dozens sets of Johnson lifters now, with 100% complete success. I am about to go see if their claim of 7500 rpm capable is true, since I just ordered a big hyd roller for refresh of a 494 I did years ago. After yet another issue with Morel lifters, not on the entry level 1412 set, but with a high dollar alum block set, where there we full of crap from manufacturing.. you could not pay me to run Morels. I simply can't afford to take the chance. Now you know better, buy inexpensive roller lifters at your own risk. JW
I agree with Jim in regards to the Johnson roller lifters were stocking. Engine builds here at TA Perf get the Johnson's. But, based on the amount of Morel roller lifters we sell, which is a fair amount compared to the call backs, it's very very minimal. But like Jim, if theres going to be a problem with one it will be in an engine I built. It's kinda like installing our coated cam bearings verse uncoated. If it keeps helps the grief guru away it's worth the extra $$ to me.
