Yup.. been there done that. I was losing about 1/2 quart of oil per
fill-up due to not installing the oil baffles when I installed my Mopar
Valve Covers when I did my Crower 1.7 Rockers. That puppy really sucked
that oil in!!! Speaking of which, it's been 3-4 weeks since I put the
baffles in, and the oil level is sitting pretty.
Ken Allgood
97 CC SLT 5.2L
----- Original Message -----
From: "greg conner" <dodgeboy93@hotmail.com>
To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: DML: on the topic of rocker arms...
>
> Hes talking about changes needed to the rt heads to accomidate the
rockers,
> not to stock valve covers. REmoving the baffels all together is not a
great
> idea on the valve covers. A properly functioning pcv system will suck too
> much oil into the intake manifold.
>
>
>
> Greg Conner
> 1996 RC
> 3.9 hybrid
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Gary Hedlin" <ghedlin@theramp.net>
> >Reply-To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> >To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> >Subject: Re: DML: on the topic of rocker arms...
> >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:44:25 -0500
> >
> ><srp@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:20030714230017.YKPT20948.lakemtao05.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net...
> > >
> > > The 1.7s are fine on that lift-- puts you in the .512 range, maybe a
> >little higher. I run the same setup, but with 1.92 RT heads.
> > >
> > > With Mopar rockers on RT heads, you'll need to cut the area around the
> >pushrod holes-- as the casting/geometry is a little too tight.
> > >
> > > Crower bolt on without any changes.
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > www.socaldakota.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >So those of us removing the oil baffles to get the crower arms to fit
have
> >been doing it out of boredom??
> >
> >Gary Hedlin
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:37 EST