Rocker arms...

[Marz]

Hey all... I was going to replace my Rocker arms in the GT.

I'd like to know if the rockers in the link below will work with my basically stock 85 short block with stock E7's. Also, I don't think there'll be any clearance issues with the stock fined Al vavle covers... correct?

http://store.summitracing.com/default.asp?target=eadvsearch.asp&SearchType=Make

I was also thinking of getting new pushrods as well. Which ones would you all recomend?

Thanks

Jasen

[FoxChassis]

Bad link.

Do you need new pushrods?

[Marz]

Ratz...

Ok... here's the good link:

http://store.summitracing.com/default.asp?target=partdetail.asp&part=CCA%2DRP1431%2D16&SearchType=Make&N=4294908331+4294908282+4294925023+4294925232+4294 840126+4294839887&Nao=30&autoview=sku

I also just noticed that they come with pushrods....

I'm not that great in the mornings w/o my caffein.

Thanks

Jasen

[FoxChassis]

Won't work with stock heads unless you install studs.

And roller tips (only) are a waste of money. Get roller fulcrums.

[twister]

Won't work with stock heads unless you install studs.

And roller tips (only) are a waste of money. Get roller fulcrums.agreed, get pedistal mounts

[Marz]

Ok, I'm going to have to pop a valve cover off after work to conferm this... but I could have sworn I saw a nut holding those rockerarms down. Wouldn't that mean the rockers I have are stud mout?

Hell, Maybe I'm just confused since I've never paid anyattention to replacing rockers before.

[FoxChassis]

Stock heads are pedestal mount. Have been since '77. If you have studs in your '87 cylinder heads that ain't stock.

[Marz]

ok... I'm wrong.

This is the pedestal mount then?

http://carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford_8_z.jpg

Ok, Right now I really don't care about increasing HP in the GT. I wanted to at least reduce friction where the rockers hit the valves so I thought about the roller rockers.

Edit: But I may just get stock replacements... I'm getting rocker noise and want to also replace the pushrods along with the rockers just to be safe.

Thanks.

Jasen

[FoxChassis]

I see stocker rocker arms and pedestal bolts.

There is more friction in the fulcrum area than in the valve tip area. Like I said, roller tips (only) are a waste of money. And certainly not worth $125+.

[irvin]

any worth to putting 1.6 roller rockers on a stock 86 5.0 ?
--Irv

[Marz]

any worth to putting 1.6 roller rockers on a stock 86 5.0 ?
--Irv

Well, from what I was told it's not worth it unless you go with a full roller rocker... which I believe is the same as a Fulcrum as FoxChassis was talking to me about. The valves open the same with the 1.6.. your just reducing friction.. which reduces wear and tear.

The 1.7 ratios would increase HP... or so I'm told.... but the valve lift (I think thats correct) is a little more... it's like adding more duration w/o changing the cam from what i understand. Edit: Actually it like keeping the stock factory cam but adding more duation when going from the stock 1.6 ratio rockers to a 1.7 ratio fulcrom roller rocker

[fordfreak300]

you are coprrect the 1.6 roller rockers will reduce friction. Reducing friction does save on wear and tear but it also does do some thing else. Reducing friction can allow you to rev a little faster and with reduced friction comes a little horsepower. I am not talking a large amount here. Just a little. Every little bit counts.

I agree with foxchasis if you are giong to get roller tip rockers make sure you get the full roller rocker for the reason he explained.

[FoxChassis]

Stock rockers are stamped steel. Very flexible at high RPM and or spring pressures.

Most aftermarket arms are forged or extruded aluminum. You'll find some that are stamped steel and they are less expensive than the forged and extruded ones.

Stock ratio is 1.6:1. The only thing you're going to gain with full-roller 1.6:1 arms is a little bit of reduced friction in the fulcrum and valve tip areas. You'll not be able to measure it in the seat-of-the-pants meter and probably not a dyno either.

[Marz]

Stock rockers are stamped steel. Very flexible at high RPM and or spring pressures.

Most aftermarket arms are forged or extruded aluminum. You'll find some that are stamped steel and they are less expensive than the forged and extruded ones.

Stock ratio is 1.6:1. The only thing you're going to gain with full-roller 1.6:1 arms is a little bit of reduced friction in the fulcrum and valve tip areas. You'll not be able to measure it in the seat-of-the-pants meter and probably not a dyno either.

Good point about the factory ones being flexable. At what RPM do they become flexable?

When I'm ever doing any kind of race or just hard acceleration I never take the RPM's above 5K when going through the gears.

[twister]

the stock lifters start to give out arround 5500....

[frankiesaysrelax]

roller tips (only) are a waste of money. Get roller fulcrums.

I remember reading just the opposite in Car Craft some years ago, however they tested them on a Chevy 350. (surprise surprise). They said the stock pivot ball setup turns out to really work rather well and that most of the friction was at the tip, consequently only a roller tip was really necessary.

[FoxChassis]

A Chevy 350 in Chevy Craf....errr Car Craft? Nah!

[MurPHy]

the stock lifters start to give out arround 5500....

Are you sure about that? I've taken my stock '90 to close the rev limiter (6,000 RPM), and never had a problem. The fact that it made no power after 5,000 RPM means that I shift at 5,000 RPM, no point going higher if it doesn't help, right?

Can't wait to put on those GT40s and new valvetrain...

[black86capri50]

it has to do with accurate valve events, the stock rockers flex, thus the valve does not open all the way, and even 1.6 full roller rockers will show an increase on the dyno based on this fact

but only at high rpm