• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Comp Cam Push Rod Length Checker Sucks...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 91BlckGT
  • Start date Start date Sep 17, 2016

91BlckGT

Founding Member
May 24, 1999
2,386
75
68
in a van, down by the river
Sep 17, 2016
#1
  • Sep 17, 2016
  • #1
Comp cams custom push rod length checker doesn't fit AFR valve guides due to knurling on the side. And the only way to accurately validate the length of my push rods are by leaving those guides in place. Argh.

Waste of money that was.

So now I'm looking at the marks where the roller hits using the stock push rods (6.248") and they seem spot on, so I think stock length are good.

I almost bought Comp Cams High Energy push rods, but just realized those do not appear to be "Hardened", so I think I need to pick up the Chrome moly Magnum rods (which makes sense since i have the magnum rockers now). I'm pretty sure the 7621-16 is the model I want, right?

http://www.compperformancegroupstor...&Product_Code=7621-16&Category_Code=516Length
 

liljoe07

5 Year Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,622
363
124
Cartersville,Ga
Sep 17, 2016
#2
  • Sep 17, 2016
  • #2
Can almost bet that will be too short. Can't go by looks alone. Turn the pushrod checker upside down. Put the knurling close to the lifter. Or just grind the knurling smooth.
 

91BlckGT

Founding Member
May 24, 1999
2,386
75
68
in a van, down by the river
Sep 17, 2016
#3
  • Sep 17, 2016
  • #3
liljoe07 said:
Can almost bet that will be too short. Can't go by looks alone. Turn the pushrod checker upside down. Put the knurling close to the lifter. Or just grind the knurling smooth.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about doing that, but the AFR heads are designed for stock lengths (I have 165cc), and I tested 4 different pistons. Each, with the stock length, put them near dead center. And stock are 6.248" vs 6.250". I'll remeasure everything when I get them.

I also decided after further reading to get seemless Chromoly versions, the Hi-Tech model 7917-6.
 

jrichker

StangNet's favorite TOOL
In Remembrance. Thank you for your contributions
Mar 10, 2000
27,512
2,813
234
Dublin GA
Sep 18, 2016
#4
  • Sep 18, 2016
  • #4
@91BlckGT

Use a drill bit to gauge the size of the pushrod hole in the guide; a slightly smaller bit is better that a larger bit.. Then take that same drill bit and drill a hole in a piece of bar stock or a common nut. That will be your go/no go size gauge for the pushrod.

Chuck the pushrod in a drill or preferably a drill press and get it running as fast as it will go. Then take a file and file the knurl down. Use the go/no go gauge you made to check your results. Bingo! Perfect fit!
 
Reactions: Davedacarpainter, FoxMustangLvr and RaggedGT

91BlckGT

Founding Member
May 24, 1999
2,386
75
68
in a van, down by the river
Sep 21, 2016
#5
  • Sep 21, 2016
  • #5
Just a follow up. I picked up 6.250" pushrods. They seem a bit too long. I thought that was within 0.002" of the stock size. Here's the wear pattern:


I got off my lazy butt and measured them. They are the same length, I think the welded ball joints at the were confusing my eyes.

 
Last edited: Sep 21, 2016

liljoe07

5 Year Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,622
363
124
Cartersville,Ga
Sep 22, 2016
#6
  • Sep 22, 2016
  • #6
The mark being toward the intake side shows they are too short. Mark also looks too wide. Try longer lengths till the witness mark gets narrower.
 

91BlckGT

Founding Member
May 24, 1999
2,386
75
68
in a van, down by the river
Sep 22, 2016
#7
  • Sep 22, 2016
  • #7
Ed Curtis agreed. Here's 3 more tests. I "fixed" the comp cam tool using a sandpaper and tape.

Here's the baseline. The new 6.250" rods are left, the cam tool on the right set to 6 5/16"


And here's the second test, with the length tool set a little over .1" longer, at 6 and 6/16"
 

liljoe07

5 Year Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,622
363
124
Cartersville,Ga
Sep 22, 2016
#8
  • Sep 22, 2016
  • #8
The best looking pattern to me is in the second picture. Valve to the far left.
 

91BlckGT

Founding Member
May 24, 1999
2,386
75
68
in a van, down by the river
Sep 22, 2016
#9
  • Sep 22, 2016
  • #9
liljoe07 said:
The best looking pattern to me is in the second picture. Valve to the far left.
Click to expand...

You mean the one with the stock pushrod length, where i didn't set it at TDC or set valve lash properly, thus having it right at the far outside of the valve? Yeah, I'm not going to go with that one.
 

liljoe07

5 Year Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,622
363
124
Cartersville,Ga
Sep 23, 2016
#10
  • Sep 23, 2016
  • #10
Regardless, it's the best looking pattern. But, you don't seem to want to listen to me. So good luck.
 
Reactions: Davedacarpainter

91BlckGT

Founding Member
May 24, 1999
2,386
75
68
in a van, down by the river
Sep 24, 2016
#11
  • Sep 24, 2016
  • #11
liljoe07 said:
Regardless, it's the best looking pattern. But, you don't seem to want to listen to me. So good luck.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about this picture?

The far left valve stem (there are three) is what I was talking about. The far right one is the proper wear pattern (disregarding where I smudged the ink in pulling the roller off). I'm "listening" to you, and was confused when you said the second picture was best. I actually do appreciate people taking the time to respond to this post, but I know the best pattern is going to be the one where the mark is dead center in the valve to maximize lift. Just want to make sure we're looking and talking about the same wear pattern.
 

liljoe07

5 Year Member
Feb 18, 2009
1,622
363
124
Cartersville,Ga
Sep 24, 2016
#12
  • Sep 24, 2016
  • #12
Dead center sweep is not always what you are after. Proper geometry will be the narrowest sweep. And more often than not, that pattern will be off center. And yes, the far left was also what I was talking about.
 

91BlckGT

Founding Member
May 24, 1999
2,386
75
68
in a van, down by the river
Sep 25, 2016
#13
  • Sep 25, 2016
  • #13
Ah.

That said, I did confer with Ed Curtis and he indicated he preferred the right-most one after these series of photos were taken, so I ended up buying 6.350" Hi-Tech rods and returned the 6.250" once I confirmed the measurement of the measuring tool. So your initial hunch about the stock length being too short was spot-on. AFR's instructions said that it would be one of those two lengths anyway, so I feel comfortable with the new measurement. Now to just master valve-lash settings...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Engine Push Rods and guide plates
  • Foxbodychris90
  • May 9, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
9
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 10, 2024
limp
Engine Valve and or rocker noise .....new to this but dont mind getting my hands dirty.
  • mustang matt 1993
  • Jun 29, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
16
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 1, 2024
rednotch
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
781
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
Engine Ball end vs round end pushrods
  • sav22rem22
  • May 15, 2023
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
5
Views
3K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 15, 2023
sav22rem22
Engine GT40P questions and advice
  • sav22rem22
  • Mar 11, 2023
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
13
Views
4K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Mar 31, 2023
sav22rem22
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?