I would like to see finer thread on the adjusters. That would make counting turns to set valave clearance easier and more precise. I know that ain’t gonna happen though.

I'm confused. I've never had a problem with the original design.
Of course there are times when the adjuster was over-tightened rendering it unusable.
When we rebuild our rocker, we throw away damaged adjuster and clean the threads in the rocker with a forming tap.

You must have really strong wrists…

So its not just me.

I'm utterly confounded by the endless long threads about valve adjustment, backside methods, and the cottage industry that has sprung up making special tools for something that just isn't a problem. In my opinion its one of the easiest things to do on my car.

Or maybe I'm just grumpy and need to go open my wastegate a few times today :D

I think this is a great idea. I have a set of box wrenches with one end that has a ball shaped or rounded off end that makes it useful when at a slight angle. I find that the flat head screwdriver moves out of place WAY too easily. I don't adjust valves for my day job so anything that makes this easier and more controllable is a good idea. I guess the big question is who's got an incentive to fabricate this?

So sorry for asking voicing my opinion. I will refrain in the future.

No, please bring the questions you have. This is a forum where guys hang out and so don't be surprised if you get a little push-back. I've been doing this for 40 years and I still get push-back for some of my ideas.

Ditto what Henry said. I've been doing online car discussions for 25 years, and I know it's difficult to understand the context of what someone else wrote when you don't have face-to-face feedback. Sometimes it pays to challenge the accepted wisdom, and new guys bring a fresh perspective that the old guys sometimes dismiss too quickly.

Thank you, Henry, and PeteZ. I too have been involved in chat rooms forever since the beginning of the internet. I cannot remember the format, but there was a rudimentary version which was only strings with text. I recollect that they were called “Message Boards.”
I had been called out on a board for referring that an RSR Rocker Shaft Seals, now (911-099-103-52), that go into the two groves of the rocker shafts. It was 1986 when I rebuilt my 1972 911T engine. They serve as RCSRT. The other person in the chat, string, insisted it was not an O-Ring because it did not have a round cross-section. Yes, a Proper O-Ring has a Toric Cross-Section, BUT can have unintended “Wipers” or ribs on the outside and inside radii. As I said, these unintended ribs are caused in the molding process. Federal NAS and MS specs have allowed and document the ribs not to exceed .005” height and .003” width. Even Wikipedia shows this, just on the fact it is Wikipedia makes it true. HAH! The early Porsche seals were die cut with square edges. I know it was not the exact geometric term as defined “O-Ring,” but Rectangular Cross Section Round Thingy’s works, which now and forever be termed by the acronym (RCSRT’s). I now Officially own the name, and the term is a pending copy write. Also in German, with respect to our beloved founder, “Rechteckiger Querschnitt Rundes Ding" (RQRD’s).
RCSRT© pending
RQRD© pending
I was using the term O-Ring loosely because it was the easiest term to use since it was a seal that went around a shaft in the two grooves. The were never designed for a seal. So, some mechanic on some team was dealing with an issue with an engine that leaked at the possible 24 junctions and came up with the idea, Now Officially a RCSRT. He may have cut the center hole and used the sharp edge of the Cam Case where the Rocker Shaft resides to shear the seal round. That is the exact thing we were discussing and that was exactly the point I was making on the Message Board. The seals were little known at the time, and I do not believe that Porsche sold them.

I write this off as another nitwit who is the self-appointed expert because of what they thought and without the complete knowledge conversational English, nor conversational colloquialism usage.
Now back to my original point of the thread. Of all the Porsche engines (911T, 911SC, 914 (2), and VW engines (10), and fifty aircraft engines that I have worked on since the mid 70’s, it has always been tedious, but not hard to adjust the valve on the engines. I use a dial indicator and can read or interpolate .00025”. Yes, ¼ thousandth of an inch. A ¼ of the space of the .001” increment lines are repeatable. Feeler gages are ok but are subject to variances with the user’s feel. I just make the extra effort to appease myself. Or prove my settings to myself.
Sorry for the bragging below, but it tells a bit of my qualifications.
Yes, I have a valid A&P License, am a Mechanical Engineer, a Senior Staff Design Engineer, Engineering Design Checker, worked on 3 Billion Dollar Satellites, scud Missiles, and Torpedo’s.

Henry and Pete, below is not about you. You two have my respect.

So please refrain from telling me and others that I am doing it wrong and that I am Stupid.
“Joes picture is from someone two-handing the lock nut (doing it wrong), stupid people (not blaming Joe) do stupid things, no fancy parts will fix that!”