Print Page | Close Window

1.6:1 rocker arms for WC-D17

Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22300
Printed Date: 13 Feb 2025 at 5:31am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 1.6:1 rocker arms for WC-D17
Posted By: wi50
Subject: 1.6:1 rocker arms for WC-D17
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2010 at 3:07pm
A few years agoe on an engine I built I used rocker arms from a IHC 361 or 407 diesel engine.  It's been a while and I didn't rember quite what I did to make it work.  Yesterday I made a trip to the salvage yard and bought a set to use on another engine I'm working on and today made up a set.
 
The Allis rocker arms are 1.5 to 1, the IH are 1.6 to 1ratio.
 
The distance from center of pivit point in the IH is just slightly more, this is needed for the increased valve travel and rocker arm arc.  The ratio increase comes from the pushrod end.  It will be necessary to slot the pushrod holes in the head or drill them larger.
 
The rocker arms will fit the Allis shaft with a bit more clearance, you can put them on the Allis shaft without issue, put them on and use them as is, or the IH use a bushing that one could remove and re bush.  Another option is the bore spaceing on the IH will work out for the Allis, the oil holes for the rocker arms are in the right spot bu you will have to drill the holes for the rocker posts, hone the posts a bit to fit the IH shaft, a bit more work but it doesn't go to bad.  If one runs them as is, on the Allis shaft, less oil will get to the valves, good bad or otherwise, for long running periods of field work I probably wouldn't trust it, for short times and a little tractor pulling it's just fine.
 
It's a conversion that can be dine with few tools, not much more needed than a pliers, or if you chose to do it on the IH shaft a mill or drillpress.  The shaft is hard, so grind the surface before drilling the hole.  How much benifit you get will depend on your engine, cam, head etc.  May want to only use on the intake and leave the exhaust alone.



Replies:
Posted By: mlpankey
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2010 at 6:40pm

I think your a bit high on the allis rocker ratio . every one i have checked is a 1.47.1 ratio .  usually less do to bad geometry the nvalve stem from factory are to long or the stands are to short causing the geometry promblem ted posted in the bottom pic. if you make stands offset then no need to elongate the pushrod holes.The ratio of a rocker arm is determined by the distance between the centerline of the pivot point to the centerline of the roller tip or area of contact with the valve stem, divided by the centerline of the pushrod to the centerline of the pivot point .

Published by tedeaton on 10 Dec 2007 at 10:55 pm

http://www.eatonbalancing.com/blog/2007/12/10/rocker-arm-geometry/ - Rocker Arm Geometry

Rocker arm geometry is an area that’s very often overlooked when modifying an engine for increased power output and/or efficiency. Besides the obvious advantage of reducing valve stem and guide wear by minimizing the “scrubbing” action that can take place when the rocker arm geometry is optimized, the maximum or advertised lift at the valve for a given camshaft profile can also be obtained. The method in which the rocker arm geometry is altered will vary depending upon the valve train design. There are basically two rocker arm support designs where the rocker arms are either a ball (fulcrum) and stud arrangement or are shaft mounted. To adjust the rocker arm geometry on the ball and stud style, the length of the pushrod itself is altered in order to change the pivot point but when dealing with a shaft mounted rocker arm such as on our venerable Y-Block or an Fe Ford, then the height of the pedestal stand holding the rocker shaft must be altered.

In the case of the Y-Block, rocker arm geometry whether it’s good or bad, doesn’t change when the heads and/or deck is machined. The relationship of the rocker shaft to the valve stem tips remains the same and the pushrod length only needs changing when required by lieu of the lash adjuster being outside of its usable range. On an engine using the ball and stud arrangement for its rocker arms, any machining done to the head or deck surfaces can necessitate a change in pushrod length to maintain the existing rocker arm ratio.

Fig A.Rocker arm geometry is generally optimal when the travel or movement of the rocker arm tip on the valve stem is minimized. To understand how to achieve correct geometry, it must be understood that the rocker arm tip itself travels in an arc. At zero lift, the rocker arm tip is expected to be closer (or inboard) to the plane of the pivot point and as the valve starts moving down, the rocker arm tip starts moving outboard. If the geometry is close to ideal, then the rocker tip will be at its most outboard position at half or mid lift at which point the rocker tip starts moving inboard again as the valve reaches full lift. Simply put, ideal rocker arm geometry is achieved when the rocker tip is sitting on the valve stem tip at the same position at both zero lift and full lift. In a perfect world where the rocker shaft pedestal stand locating holes, the valve guide, and the rocker itself are all machined to exact specifications, the rocker tip is expected to be sitting slightly inboard of the valve stem center at both zero and full lift while the rocker tip will be sitting the same distance outboard of the center of the valve stem at exactly mid-lift. But because of variances in manufacture, getting the rocker arm to sit on the valve tip in the desired location while optimizing the rocker arm geometry doesn’t always happen. In these cases, lash caps may be utilized to increase the area on the tip of the valve stem in which to increase the working area but in other cases it may require another style of rocker arm of the same ratio. Depending upon the scenario, compromises may be made in which optimum geometry is not achieved in order to allow the rocker tip to be sufficiently located on the valve stem tip.

Now that it’s clear that the rocker tip must be sitting on the valve tip at the same location at both zero lift and full lift, then it’s easy to assume that the rocker arms pivot point most be raised or lowered if the rocker arm tip contacts the valve stem too far inboard or outboard at zero lift in relation to where the tip resides at full lift. In the case of the Y-Block with its shaft mounted rockers, this involves altering the height of the pedestal stands so that the rocker shaft can be moved in the appropriate direction. If the rocker arm tips are sitting too far inboard or closer to the shaft versus where the tip sits at full lift, then the pedestal stands need to be longer or sitting taller. Conversely, if the rocker arm tips are sitting too far outboard as compared to where they reside at full lift, then the pedestal stands need to be shortened. In extreme cases, altering the height of the shafts can require an appropriate change in pushrod lengths to insure adjustability at the rocker arm for valve lash adjustment.

Fig A.There are several different methods in which to measure rocker arm geometry. Without any measuring tools available, a visual observation of the rocker arm movement while the valve is going through its range of motion can prove quite adequate. Using a dye or magic marker on the valve stem tips to indicate the path or length of travel on those tips while varying the height of the rocker shaft can also indicate better or worse rocker arm geometry. Measuring the actual valve lift can also be performed as maximum valve lift occurs at “perfect” geometry and if the rocker is above or below this ideal point, then the valve lift starts decreasing logarithmically by the amount that the geometry is incorrect. There are tools available to facilitate measuring rocker arm geometry and one of these is a dial indicator on a fixture that actually measures the relationship of the rocker tip and with the edge of the valve stem at both zero and full lift. Regardless of the method used, the end result remains the same where the contact point of the rocker tip with the valve stem at both zero lift and full lift are being made the same.

As delivered from Ford, the rocker geometry on the Y engine is reasonably close with the stock lift camshafts. As the stock camshafts are replaced with those with increased lift, then it becomes necessary to machine the rocker shaft pedestal bases so that the shaft itself sits lower to re-achieve a more ideal rocker arm geometry. Because of the variability in the various rockers from the different manufacturers, it would be difficult to have a set amount that would need to be removed from the stands for a given amount of lift. Even using aftermarket or replacement valves with different than stock valve stem lengths will dictate checking the rocker arm geometry and correcting as deemed necessary. Due to all the variables involved, it would be prudent to at least check the rocker arm geometry on an engine as it’s being assembled especially when new valves, rocker arms, and possibly rocker shaft assemblies are being replaced.. T.E.

Originally published in Y-Block Magazine, Sep-Oct 2005, Issue #70.

No Comments Yet http://www.eatonbalancing.com/blog/category/engines/ - Engines

Comments are closed.

http://www.eatonbalancing.com/blog/2007/12/10/rocker-arm-geometry/trackback/ - Trackback URI |



-------------
people if they don't already know it you can't tell them. quote yogi berra



Posted By: mlpankey
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2010 at 7:19pm
ps wi 50 We think alike on more than we dont. my math could be a tad low I think allis stated them being a 1.5.1 ratio.
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx26/pankeyc/tractor%20parts/0327001705-1.jpg - http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx26/pankeyc/tractor%20parts/0327001705-1.jpg
Valves shown in head have considerably shorter than stock valve stem lengths. Notice also where the hole in the stand is for the valve cover in relation to the carter key hole in the rocker shaft.


-------------
people if they don't already know it you can't tell them. quote yogi berra



Posted By: mlpankey
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2010 at 7:34pm
For all the unbelievers that a short rod doesnt move away from tdc sooner than a long rod heres the picture of how many degrees the crank rotated past tdc for the piston to move .002 down in the bore.
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx26/pankeyc/tractor%20parts/09240916201.jpg - http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx26/pankeyc/tractor%20parts/09240916201.jpg


-------------
people if they don't already know it you can't tell them. quote yogi berra



Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2010 at 7:51pm
I just got back, and I rembered Imade a mistake calculating the ratio, I simply put the caliper on the edge of the hole and measred the center of pivit point for valve and pushrod, for each rocker each way and divided, I need to go back and add half the bore diameter to each and re punch my numbers.
 
THe IH ones will likely come out at around 1.85 or so..... I bet the Allis ones will come out in the 1.5 or so I'll measure and punch some numbers in the morning when I go back to the shop.
 
On my pulling engine I've made stands to custom height and I ended up makeing push rods to get the geometry to come out right.  I ended up taller than original stands.  We made our own billet alum roller rockers.  I also had to make a plug in the end of the rocker arm shaft with a hole tapped in it, tig weld it in and I made some L shaped brackets that go under the end head stud nut and into the rocker shaft for a support, once in a while the end rocker arm would bend the shaft up if it reved to hard.
 
I've got some videos of the tractor makeing a few runs.  I'm not computer savy enough to post things but hopefully soon I can have the neighbor girl do it for me.


Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2010 at 6:22am
I measured an allis rocker to be 1.488 ratio, the IH to be 1.61


Posted By: Allis Fields
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2010 at 7:24am
Can anyone say if the murphy roller roker set up is a bolt in or does it need custom work done to make it work.


Posted By: mlpankey
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2010 at 8:28am
Originally posted by Allis Fields Allis Fields wrote:

Can anyone say if the murphy roller roker set up is a bolt in or does it need custom work done to make it work.
with stock length valves the Murphy stands will require shiming if you want the maximum . If you dont care about the maximum lift then they will bolt on just as well as the stock allis rockers but most arent getting the maximum from them either. Geometry.

-------------
people if they don't already know it you can't tell them. quote yogi berra



Posted By: wi50
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2010 at 4:49pm

Depending on the factors, I wonder if a stock type engine, or one with verry mild head work or cam can take advantage of the Murphys rockers or not?  I've seen a lot of times where backing off some valve lash will make a few extra hp or help the engine lug a little better.

 
In the little 240 inch "stock" engine I'm putting togather I'm not spending much money, so the Murphys are out, I just made up my mind that I'm useing what I have, cheap at the salvage yard, free and traded parts, etc.  A few hundred bucks in some good valves and a cam grind, a few hundred for some new parts and that's it.  I am going to dyno it with all stock Allis rockers and with the IH ones, and with IH on the intake and the Allis on the exhaust.  Likely won't see much for change but who knows.  I've bored the carb mount on the intake manifold, runners in the manifold, cleaned up the radiuses.  Bored the head runners, port work and installed larger valves with 3 angles and put a radius on the face of the valve, similar work to the valve seats.  I tried to size things so that the port, manifold etc are of 90% capacity of the valve I've chosen and the exhaust is roughly 80% capacity of the intake.  I did not flow test any of the parts however, but did my best to match things in sizeing and capacity to maintain as constant of a velocity as possiable, nothing is cut to large or extreme but is hopefully close to right.  I've got a couple different carbs to try and some different venturis.  When the weather is warmer it'll get some dyno time.
 
What kind of power can a good running, refined 240 make?  I don't think it will break an honest 70 hp but I hope for the higher 60's.  We'll see, may be suprised either way.
 
In my high speed engine, I'm probably going to make a new cam, it's tough to get the correct profile I want on a stock type cam, but I've made cam blanks in the past and sent off to get ground.  The cost isn't bad at all, double a standard grind was the cost last time.  In a friends Olliver 88, it was makeing .893 HP per cube on the dyno after the cam improvements and some more head work, tuned headers etc.  The one rule we did have was an updraft carb, that rule is no longer in use, so I'd think there's some more potential yet.


Posted By: mlpankey
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2010 at 5:28pm
backing off the valve lash and thush kiling lift makes more torque always when done to the exhaust valve . Why does it do it ? Four exhaust ports flow better than two siamezed intake ports. If your gonna make power you got  to get air and fuel into the cylinder and 1/2 inch of net valve lift on the intake does just that.  A good running 240 ci with compression and no mickey mouse ratio here will break 70 and push 90 hp. same reason allis opened the lash up on the 175 cam on exhaust side . The 1/2 inch net valve lift is also the reason when you tighten the lash on the intake side the tractor makes more power.

-------------
people if they don't already know it you can't tell them. quote yogi berra




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net