T&D=Horrible customer service!
03-22-2008, 05:50 PM
#21
Launching!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug we never ever ran them and we couldn't return them! They told me that they knew they were like this now and that they were redesigned with more clearance to the back of the head and valve cover rail and that this was workable at lower lifts. That was about 3 years ago.
We use Jesel now on LSx stuff and of course still need valve cover spacers etc. but we have no other problems like these geometry concerns. When you under or over arc the pushrod side you can generate some crazy problems as you know. I think I still have our old ones as they are not able to be used on anything with over .550 lift.
We use Jesel now on LSx stuff and of course still need valve cover spacers etc. but we have no other problems like these geometry concerns. When you under or over arc the pushrod side you can generate some crazy problems as you know. I think I still have our old ones as they are not able to be used on anything with over .550 lift.
Well that's bullshit. I'd be shipping them back and disputing the credit card charges if they were to screw me like that. I mean who designs a shaft rocker system only good up to .550" lift. For these custom set-ups. They are just that. Designed to work with a specific set up. If it doesn't work with the combo you told them, then I'd be sending them back for them to try again or a refund. That's if the parts are at fault.
03-22-2008, 06:40 PM
#22
FormerVendor
It's so long ago now Doug I don't even have any hard feelings anymore but still I buy the Jesels instead just because I know they work in that application and they are easy to get. I was not real happy at the time but I thought I'd possibly use them again some day on a lower lift deal but yes at that low a lift I would use stock rockers unless it was a higher pressure solid roller deal or something. I don't even know where they are anymore to tell you the truth. I just chalked it up to another lesson learned about getting specs like that in writing from all involved up front.
03-24-2008, 07:27 AM
#23
TECH Addict
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nevada, TX
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erik, thats kind of you to chime in with that info. Very helpful for the situation, as I know what kind of ordeal it has been for Pwebb trying to get this out of the shop and on the street. There are alot of blind leg humpers in this thread that for some reason cant imagine a manufacturer mess up. Funny, half the time these vendors can do no right and are blamed for things that arent even their fault, the other time its everyone else's fault. LOL @ this thread.
03-24-2008, 06:40 PM
#25
FormerVendor
Thanks and just trying to help you guys. Also even though T and D may have messed this application up and I am not saying 100% for sure they did (but probably) I will say that they do make some really good stuff so hopefully everyone can get fixed up in the end.
03-25-2008, 12:38 AM
#26
FormerVendor
iTrader: (64)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Mr. SStroker on this one...how in the hell did you or your builder not check the geometry before you put it on a dyno?
And of course they won't accept the part back...it's already been used. What the hell are they supposed to do with it? Put it in a pie, bake it, and eat it?
And of course they won't accept the part back...it's already been used. What the hell are they supposed to do with it? Put it in a pie, bake it, and eat it?
I agree....if your "SAM" builders didnt catch the valve wipe being 3/8" off then they did a horrible job assembling this motor and didnt check the small details.
When they adjusted the valves and didnt catch this problem. Its their fault completely that they ran the engine with it setup wrong. This problem should have been found during assembly.
did they even check pushrod length? plus they should have shimmed the rockers to get correct valve wipe.
Maybe the two SAM grad's forgot to mention they were the janitors at the shop and didnt really go there.
03-25-2008, 01:48 AM
#27
FormerVendor
I agree....if your "SAM" builders didnt catch the valve wipe being 3/8" off then they did a horrible job assembling this motor and didnt check the small details.
When they adjusted the valves and didnt catch this problem. Its their fault completely that they ran the engine with it setup wrong. This problem should have been found during assembly.
did they even check pushrod length? plus they should have shimmed the rockers to get correct valve wipe.
Maybe the two SAM grad's forgot to mention they were the janitors at the shop and didnt really go there.
When they adjusted the valves and didnt catch this problem. Its their fault completely that they ran the engine with it setup wrong. This problem should have been found during assembly.
did they even check pushrod length? plus they should have shimmed the rockers to get correct valve wipe.
Maybe the two SAM grad's forgot to mention they were the janitors at the shop and didnt really go there.
I agree with some of what you are saying but you did realize that the "valve sweep" could be perfect on this engine right? That is not what they are talking about being wrong on it. It's the pushrod side that the geometry is really bad on, not the valve side. Just because you have a nice valve side sweep number doesn't mean your geometry is right.
If the built-in rocker geometry is skewed then raising of lowering the stand height only changes which side is getting worse and which side is getting better. There's some other LS1 rockers people run like this and they don't make as much power either.
What about all the other people that have been running these rockers for quite some time and never noticed anything? What do you think of those people and those shops? I know quite a few. They never even noticed a thing wrong with them. That's what turning lower rpm and using hydraulic rollers does since almost anything will work. It just won't work as well as it could.
I would give these guys at least a bit of a break as they did notice the problem even if it was after dynoing and maybe T and D will do something about making the rockers differently now as their older models had better geometry before they made these latest rocker arms differently.
03-25-2008, 02:47 AM
#28
Gotta remember this is the interwebnet where everyone benches 500+, makes 6 figure income and has a degree in engineering. T&D said they got complaints on the rockers not fitting under valve covers so they made a set that would. Now they dont work with anything extreme. They said they are 6-8 weeks out on a set of rockers for me. I said no good, refund the money and ill go buy jesel. Only problem is, i only need a sportsman style rocker and the only thing jessel offers is a bad **** J2k mohawk thats 500+ bucks more. The shop took it for granted that they would send them a rocker with correct geometry. They have NEVER had one problem from their old manufacturer.
