1.7 roller rockers
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
1.7 roller rockers
thinking about putting some ford or crane 1.7 roller rockers in my 1986 F150 302 4-speed
any body done this?
worthwhile? horsepower? torque? easy installation?
can I use the original valve covers
let me know about your opions and experiences
any body done this?
worthwhile? horsepower? torque? easy installation?
can I use the original valve covers
let me know about your opions and experiences
Hotshot
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 11,141
Likes: 25
From: south louisiana
Originally Posted by wrenchturner04
thinking about putting some ford or crane 1.7 roller rockers in my 1986 F150 302 4-speed
any body done this?
worthwhile? horsepower? torque? easy installation?
can I use the original valve covers
let me know about your opions and experiences
any body done this?
worthwhile? horsepower? torque? easy installation?
can I use the original valve covers
let me know about your opions and experiences
Hotshot
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 11,141
Likes: 25
From: south louisiana
He'll have no clearance issues swapping to 1.7's, they only increase the lift by about .030". And you don't need a roller cam to run with them. Guy's running race motors were using roller rockers with flat tappet cams long before roller cams became commonplace. And they still do. I ran a set of "Cobra" 1.7 rockers on a std 5.0 from an 88 Crown Vic in my 89 Ranger with no problems whatsoever. And it's not just me that suggests it , Ford does as well in their book "The Official Ford Mustang 5.0"
Postmaster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,496
Likes: 0
If a couple more hp as in, 5-10 and equal tq, that will probably increase after it peaks sounds good, then sure get the rockers.
Trending Topics
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
You may have problems with the original valve covers. Stacking gaskets and removing internal baffles may be required. Valve to piston clearance is a non-issue with stock low-compression pistons and the stock mild cam.
Jim
Jim
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
Hotshot
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 11,141
Likes: 25
From: south louisiana
They'll work on all 5.0's from the 78's up to the end of production in 2001. They're the "bolt down" type and are direct replacements for the stamped steel stock rockers used on those year's motors. If you're putting them on a roller cammed 5.0 with high miles ( 75,000 - up) I'd also recommend changing the pushrods too. The roller cammed pushrods don't rotate like the flat tappet ones do and as a result get worn to a "knife like" edge at the rocker end.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: va beach VA
I don't believe that I have a roller cam in my 96 5.0. So the 1.7 rollers are direct replacements and should bolt right down, no need for a new valve cover and just use a new gasket. Do you recommend replacing the push rods with new ones? Like you said "high miles". i'm seriously thinking of doing this this weekend. a few extra horses won't hurt and I can use them on the new motor (when i do the rebuild). and last you did say the rollers are used on the cobra 5.0?
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 2
From: Gainesville, FL
All,
Why would a 1.7 ratio arm help you?
1. The intake valve is too small. Increase valve lift, increases the cross sectional area around the valve.
2. Valve duration does not change. This means the valve opens and closes at the same time. You should see no change in idle characteristics.
3. So, if the intake flow charateristics are limited by a restricted intake valve size this would help.
4. If the restriction is in the intake manifold, mass airflow or filter box arrangement, you probably will not see any change.
5. Is reduced friction a viable source for effiency gains? Yes it is. How much can you gain by switching to roller rockers. In my opinion, the change will be unoticable.
I would bet that changing to a K&N filter system would show you more gains. once you have allowed more flow through the motor, you will have to figure the next restricting element. It is a house of cards and can challenge even the best test & tuner.
Lastly, if you notice gains, they are most likely from a undersized intake valve with respect to manifold system.
Good luck,
KingFisher
Why would a 1.7 ratio arm help you?
1. The intake valve is too small. Increase valve lift, increases the cross sectional area around the valve.
2. Valve duration does not change. This means the valve opens and closes at the same time. You should see no change in idle characteristics.
3. So, if the intake flow charateristics are limited by a restricted intake valve size this would help.
4. If the restriction is in the intake manifold, mass airflow or filter box arrangement, you probably will not see any change.
5. Is reduced friction a viable source for effiency gains? Yes it is. How much can you gain by switching to roller rockers. In my opinion, the change will be unoticable.
I would bet that changing to a K&N filter system would show you more gains. once you have allowed more flow through the motor, you will have to figure the next restricting element. It is a house of cards and can challenge even the best test & tuner.
Lastly, if you notice gains, they are most likely from a undersized intake valve with respect to manifold system.
Good luck,
KingFisher
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Originally Posted by dfisher1
All,
Why would a 1.7 ratio arm help you?
1. The intake valve is too small. Increase valve lift, increases the cross sectional area around the valve.
2. Valve duration does not change. This means the valve opens and closes at the same time. You should see no change in idle characteristics.
The valve duration does slightly increase with increased valve lift, but not significantly. I beleive 1.6-1.7 increase would bring another 2-5 deg. duration @ .005" tappet lift. Like I said, hardly significant.
3. So, if the intake flow charateristics are limited by a restricted intake valve size this would help.
4. If the restriction is in the intake manifold, mass airflow or filter box arrangement, you probably will not see any change. Less than 1/8 of the airflow restriction on 4-cycle motor is before the cylinder heads.
5. Is reduced friction a viable source for effiency gains? Yes it is. How much can you gain by switching to roller rockers. In my opinion, the change will be unoticable.
What he can expect though is a motor that sounds quieter at idle, and will probably increase the redline of the motor. I've installed Crane roller rockers on my vehicles, as well as many of my friend's, and they are always worth it. Even on LT-1 Camaros, the difference is noticable in idle noise, and at high-RPM pulls.
I would bet that changing to a K&N filter system would show you more gains. once you have allowed more flow through the motor, you will have to figure the next restricting element. It is a house of cards and can challenge even the best test & tuner.
Lastly, if you notice gains, they are most likely from a undersized intake valve with respect to manifold system.
Good luck,
KingFisher
Why would a 1.7 ratio arm help you?
1. The intake valve is too small. Increase valve lift, increases the cross sectional area around the valve.
2. Valve duration does not change. This means the valve opens and closes at the same time. You should see no change in idle characteristics.
The valve duration does slightly increase with increased valve lift, but not significantly. I beleive 1.6-1.7 increase would bring another 2-5 deg. duration @ .005" tappet lift. Like I said, hardly significant.
3. So, if the intake flow charateristics are limited by a restricted intake valve size this would help.
4. If the restriction is in the intake manifold, mass airflow or filter box arrangement, you probably will not see any change. Less than 1/8 of the airflow restriction on 4-cycle motor is before the cylinder heads.
5. Is reduced friction a viable source for effiency gains? Yes it is. How much can you gain by switching to roller rockers. In my opinion, the change will be unoticable.
What he can expect though is a motor that sounds quieter at idle, and will probably increase the redline of the motor. I've installed Crane roller rockers on my vehicles, as well as many of my friend's, and they are always worth it. Even on LT-1 Camaros, the difference is noticable in idle noise, and at high-RPM pulls.
I would bet that changing to a K&N filter system would show you more gains. once you have allowed more flow through the motor, you will have to figure the next restricting element. It is a house of cards and can challenge even the best test & tuner.
Lastly, if you notice gains, they are most likely from a undersized intake valve with respect to manifold system.
Good luck,
KingFisher
I agree with Fisher about the subtleness of the improvement, but from experience I know that Crane roller rockers are truly one of the finest bolt-on for the money.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
From: va beach VA
ok
I've done lots of chevys but never a ford. are the rockers mounted on a bar or studs? if they are direct replacements for the stock rockers do i need to replace the springs to? seeing that the motor has 128k on it. and last should i put new pushrods on while i'm there?