Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi guys, I finally got a set of aluminum heads for my project and now need to get the valvetrain situated.
These new heads require hardened pushrods and pushrod guide plates. Can I reuse my e7te rocker arms though? I doubt I need to go full roller and there's nothing wrong with the set I have now.
I've never seen the factory rockers on any aluminum head though, so I'm guessing the answer is no for some reason.

Any help is appreciated, and thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
If the new heads use pedestal rockers you can use your original rockers, I believe. I think it's more important to use 7/16th rocker studs for valvetrain stability than it is to use roller rockers. I would definitely not use roller tipped rockers, they cost more and don't do anything.

I am presently using Scorpion aluminum rockers. If I had it to do over I'd either use a cheap, strong stamped steel rocker or move all the way up to steel roller rockers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,750 Posts
my Edelbrock Performer 5.0 heads reuse the Stock style rockers because the have the same mounting system

Guide plates and hardened pushrods are not required on these heads
So it depends on the heads you have what you need to use
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
If the new heads use pedestal rockers you can use your original rockers, I believe. I think it's more important to use 7/16th rocker studs for valvetrain stability than it is to use roller rockers. I would definitely not use roller tipped rockers, they cost more and don't do anything.

I am presently using Scorpion aluminum rockers. If I had it to do over I'd either use a cheap, strong stamped steel rocker or move all the way up to steel roller rockers.
Hi JDUB - I am curious about your comments on rocker selection. I have always been in the camp that lighter weight (aluminum) and less friction (roller) will always create more HP. I would think that their must be a library of data on this. Have you compared on your engine? just curious and not trying to create any friction.

thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Full roller rockers make more power according to the library of data, that's why I used them. Same library of data says roller tips only do nothing. Not sure where the library of data stands on rocker weight. I think my rockers are fine, they were a good budget choice, but I'm not pushing them hard either. My engine runs out of steam around 6200 RPM, I think due to my stock style lifters, but not sure. My combo probably would have been fine with stamped rockers. I could have saved some money maybe.

On the other hand spending about double what I paid I could have had steel full rollers that would fit without $130 valve cover spacers and I never would have needed to buy rockers again no matter how much lift or spring I might upgrade to in the future.

In a lot of ways my build was very successful and it met my power goals. But I think if I was smarter I could have done better. I just want to lay out what I've learned from my own experience, and sifting through the library of data to an obsessive degree, so that others can do it better than I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,455 Posts
Hi JDUB - I am curious about your comments on rocker selection. I have always been in the camp that lighter weight (aluminum) and less friction (roller) will always create more HP. I would think that their must be a library of data on this. Have you compared on your engine? just curious and not trying to create any friction.

thanks
The bulk of the weight on a steel roller rocker is near the fulcrum, so its affect is less than if it were at the tip. The problem with aluminum is that it fatigues over time making it more likely to crack.

The savings from roller tips is probably minimal but may save some wear on the valve tip and perhaps reduce some side loading on the guides (to a small degree).

I like to look at roller rockers as saving power vs creating it. With roller rockers less power is lost to friction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
I agree, the roller rockers don't add power, they preserve power. I went with them because I figured if you get 5hp here, 3hp there, etc. it will add up.

The roller tip only rockers MUST reduce valve stem wear, but with plenty of stock 5.0 engines with over 100k miles, I'm not sure how important that really is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
What do your new heads have for rocker arm studs- screw-in studs? Are they 3/8" or 7/16"?


https://cdn.website.thryv.com/7fc8b09813234ba0b3c5e3c0a1b8c109/files/uploaded/BOSS 289.pdf
I'm not sure cause they haven't shown up yet. The ad says they accept 3/8 or 7/16 so they're probably tapped for 7/16. Here's a link:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/372383119120
They're Skip White china jobs with (hopefully) decent valvetrain components installed. I read they are Dart Pro 1 rip off's but I'm not too sure about that. I'd actually love to know what they are copied from though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
Hi guys, I finally got a set of aluminum heads for my project and now need to get the valvetrain situated.
These new heads require hardened pushrods and pushrod guide plates. Can I reuse my e7te rocker arms though? I doubt I need to go full roller and there's nothing wrong with the set I have now.
I've never seen the factory rockers on any aluminum head though, so I'm guessing the answer is no for some reason.

Any help is appreciated, and thanks
To use your stock stamped steel "sled" rockers , you would have to use a 7/16ths stud and rocker "fulcrums" for a Boss 302 or Boss 351 or 429SCJ. These can be hard to find at times. You would also need a self locking nut or "poly lock" like a roller rocker uses. You would also have to check and make sure the rocker "slot" didn't bind on the stud. Roller rockers ( of the same ratio) rarely improve power. Changing to a higher ratio does as it adds lift and a small increase in duration "at the valve". Aluminum rockers reduce oil temperature over steel versions. Roller tip rockers ARE easier on valve guides. Roller rockers will have an increase in valve train noise whether aluminum or steel construction.
I have done this for "vintage" road race applications where a "factory" , non roller rocker must be used . The benefit is mainly from the 7/16ths stud with "racier" camshafts.

Randy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
I'd get 7/16 studs and 7/16th roller rockers. No reason not to, the price difference is negligible. The springs those heads come with probably won't handle much more than .525 lift at around 6250 RPM. If you want a bigger cam and more RPM I would think you'd want 150lbs on the seat and 450lbs open so you do not experience valve float.

https://www.jegs.com/i/Comp+Cams/249/987-16/10002/-1

With those springs you'll be looking at a cam like this:

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/tfs-51403001
https://www.andersonfordmotorsport.com/n-41-camshaft-2600-6200-range/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,109 Posts
you have 301 questions left....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
those heads appear to be set up for the OE 5.0 style rockers


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8NW0R0kDiY
Oh man that would be sweet.

With a cam matched to keep it under 5800 rpm, what kind of HP you all think I could get from these on a 302 with a performer rpm intake and tubular headers?

I'm planning on putting them on a 351w, but if the 302 hp is adequate, I might just shelve the 351w for a truck project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,455 Posts
The flow numbers for those heads look to be similar to AFR 165s. You might expect similar HP to those. Check this out:

https://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2003/06/afrinstall/

AFR may do a bit better due to smaller valves (less plug shrouding) and smaller ports yielding more velocity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
The flow numbers for those heads look to be similar to AFR 165s. You might expect similar HP to those. Check this out:

https://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2003/06/afrinstall/

AFR may do a bit better due to smaller valves (less plug shrouding) and smaller ports yielding more velocity.

Nope, that ain't gonna be enough. Definitely doing the 351 for more power.


I found a Lunati cam part #51014LUN used, TF 1.6 full roller rockers, and I'm still looking for a nice dual place intake (Stealth or similar).


I'm hoping to break 300hp by 4500. Sound do-able?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,455 Posts
^^^ the 351 should get you that with ease. 9 times out of 10 torque is what people are really after for the street. The 351 will do very well in that regard. The 351 will be a tight squeeze in a 66 and will weigh more than a 289/302. A 347 would get you the power of the 351 with the weight and size advantage of a 289/302.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
^^^ the 351 should get you that with ease. 9 times out of 10 torque is what people are really after for the street. The 351 will do very well in that regard. The 351 will be a tight squeeze in a 66 and will weigh more than a 289/302. A 347 would get you the power of the 351 with the weight and size advantage of a 289/302.
I expect I may have to hack out a little bit of shock tower to get it comfortably in there, but I'm OK with that.


If anyone wants to trade my $500 roller 351w for their 347, I would be OK with that. I probably could have done the 347 for about what this 351 will cost once I factor in intake, headers, oil pans and such. But now I'll have room to grow.


And if 351 aint enuf, I'll get the 408 stroker kit. And if that aint enuf, I can still put a blower on it. and if that aint euf, I'm obviously blowing lines of coke and somebody should do an intervention before I kill myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,455 Posts
If you go with a Canton T shaped oil pan for the 351, I have an oil pickup to sell.(new, open box)
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top