My Jesel Saga

My post of 10/08/04 on another forum:

I had heard rumors that Jesel had once sold their Sportsman Series shaft mount rockers, part number KSS 506060 to go on AFR heads and then switched to part number KSS 516060. I recently bought an unused set of rockers advertised as KSS 516060; however, when it arrived, I noticed that the side of the Jesel box said KSS 506060. When I contacted the sellar he was very apologetic and immediately offered me a refund. He had purchased the rockers for his AFR heads and then decided to scale back and race in the pure street class. When he advertised the rockers, rather than going to his shop to get the part numbers, he just looked it up on Jesel's website and put the current number in his ad not knowing there had been a change to the number in the interim.

Now, when I mounted the open 1/2 of the rocker system set on one of my heads, I immediately noticed that the intake rockers were slightly off line towards the front of the engine. I moved them within the tiny bit of play in the system, but never could get everything to line up to my satisfaction. So, I emailed Jesel. The tech guy there said that, "We were selling P/N KSS-506060 for AFR heads , but that is before we got a head and realized it took a slightly different set up." When I asked him if any effort had been made to correct the issue for those who had already purchased ill fitting rocker systems, "I do not believe there was Lynn" was his response. The only thing he said in terms of getting properly fitting rockers was, "KSS-516060 is $695 if you have to purchase it through us."

The following is the body of the email I just sent to Jesel:

I can only say that I am very disappointed in Jesel. As one of the top tier vendors for performance parts, I would have thought better of Jesel than this. I think it is unconscionable that Jesel would not seek to correct this oversight once they learned of it. I am not saying that Jesel knowing sold ill fitting parts, but they may as well have since they did not correct the situation once they became aware of it.

I can forgive the fact that parts were sold without KNOWING they were suitable for their stated purpose. Having been a sales engineer in the computer industry for many years, I know all to well what can happen when "time to market" issues butt heads with "quality control" issues. Especially, when the engineer has no hard facts that something IS wrong; only the feeling that something COULD be wrong. The QC engineer will loose most of these battles (especially, with Tier 2 and 3 products.)

I have to wonder though, "Would this have been true if it had happened with one of your product lines other than the Sportsman Series?" Perhaps, Jesel feels that it is OK to take chances with the "regular guy" out there. Well, there are a lot of us "regular guys" out here and with the global communications capability we have, it doesn't take long before even the big guys catch wind of what has happened to us. It may not be enough for the big guys to change anything in the short run, but, I believe, it will be enough to put that gain of doubt in the back of their minds; just enough so that the next time something happens maybe they won't be so quick to give Jesel the benefit of the doubt.

I can recall when I first came to realize that Jesel was producing parts for the masses, so to speak. During a flight home from a business trip, I was reading one of the popular automotive magazines, I can't recall which, but there was an advert for Jesel Sportsman Series Shaft Mount Rockers. I immediately thought, this is the rocker system I want on my GT40 replica! There was no doubt in my mind that these would be the best rockers I could get for my car. Well, now I feel like the little boy who has just learned that Santa Claus isn't real; my bubble has burst.

Regards,
Lynn Larsen
*************************************************************
A Few Days Later, I posted this to the same forum .......

Well good for you Jesel,

I just got an email back from Jesel saying they didn't realize I was talking about unused rockers. And that they would swap them. To be totally up front and do the right thing by Jesel, I told them that I wasn't the original retail purchaser and that he an I would work out whatever it took to have them sent back by the original purchaser. (refunds or swaps normally are only extended to the original purchaser, so I want to work within their rules.)

So, maybe there is still a Santa Claus, after all

************************************************************

Today, 10/26/04, approximately two weeks later and about 10 days since I shipped the rocker arm set to Jesel in New Jersey I posted this....

Well, to give credit where credit is due: Jesel looked up the transaction with the original purchaser, recognized the transaction, accepted the returned parts and has shipped the new KSS 516060 rocker arms to me. UPS delivered them to me today. There was a shipping charge and a nearly equal COD charge on the shipping to be paid to UPS , but that is OK with me.

Disregarding how we came to be in this place, the bottom line is that, when push came to shove, Jesel DID THE RIGHT THING. This, even though, the right thing was beyond what is the typical return policy of most vendors: I was not the original purchaser, yet they accepted the return from me and have sent the replacements to me! They would have been well within customary practice to have forced me to send the parts back to the guy I bought them from, had him send them to Jesel, who would have, in turn, sent the replacements to the original retail purchaser and, finally, he would ship them to me. It is quite admirable that they didn't make us jump through all of these hoops!

GOOD FOR YOU JESEL!!

My faith is restored again, within reason of course Don't want to go off the deep end or anything. Caveat Emptor is now and forever valid when laying down your hard earned cash. But, at least you know now that Jesel Valvetrain acted as an honorable business with me and, indeed, went the extra mile.

Regards,
Lynn

Amen, that kind of restoration is hard to forget.

Also goes to show that costumer service is taken seriously, even for the "regular guy" who buys one unit at a time.

Congradulations Lynn.

I guess this proves that the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

So how do the fit? What's the valve cover and intake clearance like?

I havent had a chance to check these, but with the KSS 506060 rockers which I doubt are any different dimensionally, stock EFI valve covers didn't quite fit but Powered by Ford covers did. What kept the EFI covers from fitting wasn't the height actually, it was more the way to covers countoured in around the the stock rocker arms. This was especially true around the two scallops for the bolt holes.

Regards,
Lynn

Do you mean the stamped steel '94 mustang style valve covers or the '93 die cast aluminum valve covers?

Also, do the AFR's have a raised valve cover mounting surface?

No, he means the cool 84-85 5.0L covers that had "Powered by Ford" cast into them, don't see them that much. I have a set I got on Ebay and I realy like them, much better than "Ford Motorsport" or heaven forbid, Cobra valve covers on a 40.

I was asking about the "EFI" valve covers.

Lynn and I both have the Roush intake.

It's a great looking piece of automotive jewlery and is really a system. It comes with everything and is a complete bolt on, except if your engine isn't a stock '94-95 Mustang GT which has low profile stamped steel valve covers.

Tall valve covers won't clear the intake, and standard valve covers are not tall enough to clear stud mount rockers, so bolt down or shaft rockers are the only choices for a high rpm valve train. I don't think shaft rockers would fit unless they are the non adjustable type for hydraulic lifters.

If we can find valve covers that are tall enough for stud mount rockers and short enough to fit under the intake, that will solve a lot of problems. Otherwise we will have to resort to fabricated valve covers or intake spacers, but intake spacers are not a good idea because the mounting surfaces are angles, so the spacer would cause bolt allignment issues and create a chicane for the air to flow through.

If Lynn can make the Jesel's fit, that will make my job that much easier, because I want to run a set of TEA ported Twisted Wedge heads on my engine.

I mocked up a head tonight with the rockers. I was mainly looking at how the intake roller lined up with the valve tip. It is much better than the KSS 5060606 rockers, but, amazingly it isn't as balls on centered as I thought it would be or as the exhaust valve is. I don't think there is going to be any issue with running them, I just thought they would line up better. It could be the way the valve springs are set too. The stock AFR spring set up is actually pretty crappy and, as I have mentioned else where, the valve springs have way to much freedom of motion. So, things might line up better when I get the good springs, locators, proper retainers, etc on them. I really hope I don't have to reface the angle cuts on the valves and then reseat them. That would be an expense I hadn't counted on.

The one valve cover that I tried other than the Powered by Ford covers Ron is talking about, was a stamped cover that came on the crate engine I bought from Ford around, damn, 4 years ago now. It was a G50, ironic huh?, code motor (something like M-6000-G50) that was a 5.0 Ford Falcon over run engine. That's the motor thats in the car now. I had put some chrome covers on it and had these laying around.

And yes there is a lip of 1/4-3/8" around the edge of the heads, so that if I can get some covers that just fit, the lip can be machined to get them within a gnats ass of the rockers hitting them. I'll figure something out even if I have to cut the top off some covers and weld them to the intake . Hell thats what they did with the oil filler, right? Well its cast into the intake, but you know what I mean. I obviously don't want that heat on the runners so I am just talking crap, but I'll figure something out, but spacers between the valley manifold an the runner manifold will be absolute last resort because of the rear deck issue. It'll be fun making it fit, but one way or the other, It'll get done.

Regards,
Lynn

PS Dan, did you get my email? Whats up with the search thing. For some reason, that is really bugging me.

I sent you an email, but what search thing?

Lynn,
I have an article or two about the proper pushrod selection and rocker(roller) arm fitmeny. If I can find them I'll copy them and send them.
Bill

Dan,

Someone has hijacked your screen name over on NMRA apparently. I thought it was you, but I hadn't looked at their profile. Assuming did it to me this time.

Bill,

Actually the Jesel kit comes with an adjustable pushrod length checker and very complete instructions for getting the proper pushrods. They obviously push you towards theirs, and there are a lot worse ways to go, but the basic information is universal and accurate. If you happen upon the article you mention or know exactly where it is, sure go ahead and send it to me. One can never know enough!

As far as setting the geometery of the rockers, I will probably just shoot for a compromise: Jesel says the plane through the center of the rocker axle and tip axle should reach 90º to the valve stem at ~.75 lift. This puts the max mechanical advantage in the area of valve lift where spring pressures are the greatest. The mid-lift theorists basically ignore this aspect and only focus on efficiency of motion, or fidelity of the transference of the cam lobe profile to the valve tip, and try to reach the orthogonal point at .5 lift. So, if I can get the 90º position any where in between .5 - .75 lift without having to machine the stands or the set of shims that came in the kit, I'll be a happy camper.

Regards,
Lynn

"So, if I can get the 90º position any where in between .5 - .75 lift."

Some theorists say 90 deg.closer to .5 means the valve opens quicker initially and is moving slower at full open for less chance of float.

Well the Pro Magnum rockers are installed and the tips still won't center, except it's only on some of the valves. AFR says to put some ARP studs in it, this helps because their longer but the stud holes are still a little off on some of the valves. This confirms what the machinest says that ARP uses some economy hardware. The ARP studs definitely improve the centering buts it's still not exact.

I guess I didn't know what to expect with mass produced A.M. heads. The tips are also off center in the front to rear direction also. Measuring the distance between studs shows a .025" max difference. A straightedge from front to back shows a .015" difference. The threaded stud holes are inserted with heli-coils which I've never really liked, and think this may be contributing to innacuracy.

The cam is also showing off time by up to 6 deg between different valves. Need to do more measuring and researching and may post to "engines and drivetrains" once I have it all figured out.

Chris,

On the midlift theory, I don't disagree with the approach/theory of 90º at .5 lift at all. It makes good sense, but then again so does having the max mechanical advantage where the spring pressures are the highest. I have found similar misalignment (front to rear) on my AFRs with the Jesel rockers as well. The 516060 parts reduce the misalighnment a LOT and make it tolerable (with the 506060 rockers, I would have had the arm dragging across the valve tip before long.)See the not to scale diagram. That is why, with all things considered, if I can get the orthogonal point somewhere between 1/2 lift and 3/4 lift, I'll be doing good. To be able to more precisely control the path of the roller across the valve tip is, apparently, cost prohibitive for me. So, as is not uncommon, I will have to settle for a compromise. I hate having to compromise, but the wallet is just so deep.

I am shocked by the cam variation. Is this just error in the lobe locations on the cam? And, whose cam it is? I would have never even thought that the cam would be off like that! At least, with one that's not from Joe's custom cams in downtown Podunk. And, I can't imagine that you are not using a quality cam.

You know, other than cost I bet this is one reason why Ford didn't fool with roller rockers in the late model 5.0s. Using the stamped steel rockers with cup and ball gets rid of the problem, sort of.

I wonder how much a roller rocker is really worth in hp IF it was compared to a strong cup/ball rocker that didn't flex? Can't compare a modern roller rocker to the stock cup/ball type, they flex somewhat, but a good one. High quality cup/ball type were available for a time for racers who were prohibited from running roller rockers, but I think the SCCA and NASA in their V8 pont car classes allow roller rockers now so whoever was making them might not do so any longer.

Ron,

For every day use and in the short run, there is probably very little difference. I think that, when needed, the main savings is in heat. I was somewhat surprised that most of the NASCAR engines, that run for any length of time, run spray bars on their valve springs just to pull the heat out of them. The heat, they say, leads to high variation in spring pressures, at best, and broken springs, at worst. So the friction of the non-roller rocker can add significantly to the heat buildup in the valve spring combo that they would go to great lengths to avoid. The spring pressure variation leads to valve float which is like public enemy number one for those guys. I would imagine that all of this holds true for just about any kind of racing engine, especially endurance racing, but I just learned about it from the NASCAR engine builders.

Regards,
Lynn

Must say, never have had any alignment issues with roller rockers used with screw in studs even at high rpm, but I use a stud girdle rather than shaft mounted rockers. It makes valve lash adjustments a bit of a pain but certainly locks everything together tight and I turn 7.5-8k. Shaft rollers should probably be made by the head manufacturers!