When the valves hit the piston you better be 200% sure to check the
timing so a simple "no" doesnt fix it

Also, there are thicker metal headgaskets for sale that might work with
the shortest pushrods. A friend of mine used them on his chevy engine to
avoid using race gasoline. not the best fix but it might work for now.

Johan

Harris Family wrote:
> no
>
> "JohanB" <johanberkhoff.spam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:TGBSc.18757$cK.12329@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
>
>>
>>Harris Family wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Quite simply, Pull the spark plug from #1 and feel the air rush out as
>
> you
>
>>>turn the crank to the 0degree mark. The air rush is the compression
>
> stroke
>
>>>bringing you to TDC.
>>>
>>
>>This only works when the cam timing is correct.....and isnt that what
>>were trying to find out ????
>
>
>

 

I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
causing the problems yo uare having either.

Something silly is wrong.

I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
the cam is the same and has not been changed.

The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.




"Harris Family" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s_BSc.1945$aB1.1581@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10hkpkchlog5k92@corp.supernews.com...
> > Spin the crank one full rotation.
> >
> > the crank goes around twice for every rotation of the cam, so the crank
> can
> > be at the top on one rotation, and the valves are in transition between
> > exhaust open and intake open. You would have troubles putting the
pushrods
> > in if this were the case.
> >
> > Having said that, the rockers and pushrods on the 4.0 could easily be
> > different than on the 4.2.
>
> 4.0l rods are 1mm shorter, but that's not enough for my problem.
>
>

 

I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
causing the problems yo uare having either.

Something silly is wrong.

I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
the cam is the same and has not been changed.

The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.




"Harris Family" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s_BSc.1945$aB1.1581@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10hkpkchlog5k92@corp.supernews.com...
> > Spin the crank one full rotation.
> >
> > the crank goes around twice for every rotation of the cam, so the crank
> can
> > be at the top on one rotation, and the valves are in transition between
> > exhaust open and intake open. You would have troubles putting the
pushrods
> > in if this were the case.
> >
> > Having said that, the rockers and pushrods on the 4.0 could easily be
> > different than on the 4.2.
>
> 4.0l rods are 1mm shorter, but that's not enough for my problem.
>
>

 

I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
causing the problems yo uare having either.

Something silly is wrong.

I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
the cam is the same and has not been changed.

The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.




"Harris Family" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s_BSc.1945$aB1.1581@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10hkpkchlog5k92@corp.supernews.com...
> > Spin the crank one full rotation.
> >
> > the crank goes around twice for every rotation of the cam, so the crank
> can
> > be at the top on one rotation, and the valves are in transition between
> > exhaust open and intake open. You would have troubles putting the
pushrods
> > in if this were the case.
> >
> > Having said that, the rockers and pushrods on the 4.0 could easily be
> > different than on the 4.2.
>
> 4.0l rods are 1mm shorter, but that's not enough for my problem.
>
>

 

I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
causing the problems yo uare having either.

Something silly is wrong.

I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
the cam is the same and has not been changed.

The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.




"Harris Family" <SHARRIS11nospam@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:s_BSc.1945$aB1.1581@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10hkpkchlog5k92@corp.supernews.com...
> > Spin the crank one full rotation.
> >
> > the crank goes around twice for every rotation of the cam, so the crank
> can
> > be at the top on one rotation, and the valves are in transition between
> > exhaust open and intake open. You would have troubles putting the
pushrods
> > in if this were the case.
> >
> > Having said that, the rockers and pushrods on the 4.0 could easily be
> > different than on the 4.2.
>
> 4.0l rods are 1mm shorter, but that's not enough for my problem.
>
>

 

Both the block and head have been shaved. Rich needs to by
adjustable rockers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

CRWLR wrote:
>
> I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
> causing the problems yo uare having either.
>
> Something silly is wrong.
>
> I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
> think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
> the cam is the same and has not been changed.
>
> The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
> on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
> and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
> to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
> complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
> reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
> to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
> think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
> investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.

 

Both the block and head have been shaved. Rich needs to by
adjustable rockers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

CRWLR wrote:
>
> I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
> causing the problems yo uare having either.
>
> Something silly is wrong.
>
> I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
> think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
> the cam is the same and has not been changed.
>
> The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
> on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
> and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
> to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
> complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
> reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
> to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
> think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
> investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.

 

Both the block and head have been shaved. Rich needs to by
adjustable rockers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

CRWLR wrote:
>
> I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
> causing the problems yo uare having either.
>
> Something silly is wrong.
>
> I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
> think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
> the cam is the same and has not been changed.
>
> The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
> on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
> and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
> to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
> complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
> reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
> to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
> think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
> investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.

 

Both the block and head have been shaved. Rich needs to by
adjustable rockers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

CRWLR wrote:
>
> I read your Reply to Mike, and I can't see that the machine work would be
> causing the problems yo uare having either.
>
> Something silly is wrong.
>
> I suggested earlier that you might have issues with the timing chain, but I
> think you said the timing chain has not been altered, so I assume that means
> the cam is the same and has not been changed.
>
> The only other thing I can think of is that the bosses for the rocker arms
> on the 4.0 are taller than for the 4.2. This would leave the rockers lower,
> and they would hit the valves sooner and send the opposite end even closer
> to the cam, making the pushrods way too long, which seems to be your
> complaint. If this were the case, washers under the bosses would be a
> reasonable fix. Well, maybe washers are too low tech, but you need some way
> to space the entire rocker arm assembly further from the top of the head. I
> think Hesco's advice is not too far off from what you need, else you need to
> investigate the bosses that hold the rockers up.

 

I know 500% for sure that the cam timing is correct. The engine has not been
disassembled during this evolution. So a simple no does.
"JohanB" <johanberkhoff.spam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ETKSc.18965$cK.12251@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
> When the valves hit the piston you better be 200% sure to check the
> timing so a simple "no" doesnt fix it
>
> Also, there are thicker metal headgaskets for sale that might work with
> the shortest pushrods. A friend of mine used them on his chevy engine to
> avoid using race gasoline. not the best fix but it might work for now.
>
> Johan
>
> Harris Family wrote:
> > no
> >
> > "JohanB" <johanberkhoff.spam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:TGBSc.18757$cK.12329@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Harris Family wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Quite simply, Pull the spark plug from #1 and feel the air rush out as
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>turn the crank to the 0degree mark. The air rush is the compression
> >
> > stroke
> >
> >>>bringing you to TDC.
> >>>
> >>
> >>This only works when the cam timing is correct.....and isnt that what
> >>were trying to find out ????
> >
> >
> >