Royce, 90 psi sounds low for a 1944 Willys Jeep 4. My well-worn engine was all 145-160 (cranking).
R.B.
Agree I think there is a major problem with rings or valves.
So far no indication that I can see of a problem. Can any of you see an issue?
I have been thinking about turning it over and seeing if I can feel any air coming out of the intake side during compression or any other weird stuff. Any other idea of what I should check for before pulling the cam?
It looks like the rockers are riding on the retainers. Not a good thing…
That does look low… I will look for marks.
Looks like the rocker may actually be hitting the top of the retainer! I will try to get a picture. It doesn’t appear to be holding the valve open but it there is clearance it has to be .00 something.
Neal nailed it. The rocker is sitting on the retainer. A little research and I find Chevy valves in my Ford. They are taller. One good thing is that they are a bit larger 1.94 intake and 1.60 exhaust.
That’s a good catch and can see how it would be easily missed. Finding this now puts the engine builder in question with “what else is not right”
+1
To the owner of that engine, the fear in this case is NOT holding a valve open, it’s releasing the keepers and dropping a valve.
That is a VERY dangerous setup and yes, was a engine-saving catch. If someone aggressively cut the tips of the valves, may be as cheap and easy as using a set of -.050 valve locks to get some rocker to retainer clearance
I have been told that there are no valve lash caps that fit inside the rail on the rocker. Do you know of some? The stem of he valve is 11/32"
Yeah, I am sick about that. I guess we will see. I’ve had it running for maybe 15 minutes.
After looking at your earlier pictures closely I spent some time looking for other valve train pictures, They mostly showed some more gap then yours do. But I still was unsure, I thought it best to mention it. I hope you can find an easy fix other then having the valves replaced.
The hot-rodders tell me to grind the rocker for 0.100 clearance and call it good. Worst case a broken rocker and bent push rod both easy to fix with out pulling the manifold or heads. This is such a tame cam that the spring loads are not that bad. Further they tell that the strength in the rocker is on the tip side not the bottom. I guess I could do one and see what it looks like.
One other solution that kind of appeals to me is to put a set of E-Street Edelbrock heads on it.
Positives:
Aluminum less weight and less likely to ping.
stock '68 302 heads are 63cc E-Street are 60cc. (older 289 was 58.5cc and a touch higher compression than the 302 so this is good)
Much bigger valves 2.02 Intake and 1.60 exhaust.
But this starts to look like project drift. I’ll also need to upgrade to an aluminum intake most likely the Edelbrock Performer. I have a small Holley 4B that i can put on it. I started out trying to keep this car stock and reliable. In the future it would be easy for anyone to fix, just read the manual. I am also sinking in about $1500, maybe more and I am not sure it will bring $1 more when I sell it.
Thoughts?
Have to factor in the extra flow. The Edelbrock heads are probably good for 30+ horsepower by themselves.
That’s about right. 
Don’t get too nervous about the repair, you get pretty much all of .050 with a keeper change, and they even make a .070 keeper for some applications. Lash caps aren’t the answer, because although they will buy some room for a rocker that will allow them, they also change geometry, and a rail rocker can’t have room for it or it would flop all over without it
Regardless, even with a 330lbs/in spring, .050 keeper is only 16 lbs different and my guess is you have less spring rate than that, just need to make sure you have room for coil bind (which also tends to be better on the tight side over loose)
I would get in there, measure installed height, coil bind and open and closed pressures with your cam, and likely buy a set of -.050 keepers. Cheap and easy. I have to do it on a lot of Pontiacs, I do it when picking a spring, they get real close to the rocker body as well.
So there are keepers that move the retainer down by 0.050 to 0.070? That sounds great. I will do a search
Okay, so following more research I find that Manley makes a 1.94 intake that is the correct length, that actually has the .395 tip needed to use rail type rockers. At $200 for a set of 8. So for $400 I could make this work. In the end I would have a set of iron heads that would have some odd size valves. And this is on top of the $80 or so for a new set of springs, and it assumes the seats would match the valves. On other thing I have read is that it is critical to unshroud the valves or they actually flow less than the stock ones. I have my doubts that the engine builder did this. The process also increases the size of the combustion chamber further lowering the compression ratio that is already pretty weak.
I will give Royce credit here. He told me the easy button was to just pry open that very tight wallet of mine and do this right. So I just placed the order for a set of Edelbrock E Street heads with 2.02 valves that are complete with springs and guide plates. I added some full roller rockers to take advantage of the situation.
I think at least a potential future owner won’t be cussing me for creating a hodge podge and if it runs really well then that is it’s own reward.
One last thing, I am in the hunt for a deal on an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake. Anyone know what the difference is between the 289 and 302 versions? I will be running the 289 firing order not the 351 late 302 order.
You’ll love the Edelbrock heads (AFR is better, but OK). If you have any doubt about the short block underlying it, though, be careful. Not sure anyone has determined why the cranking compression is 60% of what it should be.
Suggest resolving the low compression readings before opening the wallet. I had a similar situation and only swapped a pair of GT40 heads on after getting good readings 145 to 160 psi.
R.B.