MustangWorks.com - The Ford Mustang Power Source!

Go Back   MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums > Mustang & Ford Tech > Windsor Power
Register FAQ Members List Calendar

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-24-2006, 01:58 PM   #1
bailey_57
Registered Member
 
bailey_57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Berwick,Pa
Posts: 127
Default 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

my car's current set up is a set of ported e7's, edelbrock performer rpm intake, e-cam, 1.6 rr's, 65mm tb, and adj fp regulator. my question is if changing my roller rockers to a 1.7 would help me squeak out a couple more rpm in my powerband. my heads and cam are nicely matched but my intake is designed for 1500-6500 rpm. i chassis dynoed my car and had 241 whp at 5200 rpm. if i change to the 1.7's will it bump up the power band or not. thanks.
jay
bailey_57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 04:00 PM   #2
lx mike
Undescribable
 
lx mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Ft Myers Fla
Posts: 1,539
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

I wouldn't think it would help at the top end. if you had a goood set of heads it might but with those ported e-7's thats probly about as high as your powerband is gonna be.
__________________
Rice Haters Club Member #101
lx mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 10:29 PM   #3
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

I really doubt 1.7s are going to do anything for you. Those E7s may flow worse at max lift with the 1.7s than they would with 1.6s. The heads are just not designed with high valve lift in mind. Also, if you haven't changed the valvesprings, the 1.7s will exceed the maximum .500 lift your springs were designed to accomodate.
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 11:55 AM   #4
Coupe50h
Registered Member
 
Coupe50h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SanAntonio, Tx
Posts: 957
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

True, unit, but i will say i had 1.7's on my stock setup, i did notice a pretty good gain on the street, and track, but then again that was going from stock stamped.....
__________________
X-Texas highway patrol ssp 1990 coupe - exploder Gt-40 iron heads, Explorer intake, 19 lber's. E-cam. crane 1.7 rollers. 190fp. 75mm maf. 65mm tb, tubular subframe connectors, mac cai, Asp crank pulley, T-5, king cobra clutch, flowtech 1-5/8 unequals, mac X-pipe Frpp driveshaft, lakewood Lca's.
race weight 3,160

12.69 @ 107.35, 1.71 60' 26x8.5 drag's 3.90 gear

13.20 @ 106.91 - 235/60/15 firestones 2.3 60' 3.27 gear
Coupe50h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 03:10 PM   #5
Gearhead999
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Oviedo, FL
Posts: 992
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

Don't think you'll see much difference.
__________________
"Support our Troops"

Dave
1968 Cougar
2004 Thunderbird
2007 F150 Harley-Davidson, SuperCrew
1986 LTD
1997 Ranger
1992 Honda Civic
Gearhead999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 11:13 AM   #6
rwhite65
Ride Hard
 
rwhite65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wyoming IL
Posts: 1,094
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

Some of the guys will argue the added stress of the 1.7's to the valvetrain is not worth it. I have 1.7's, but put this all together from scratch, so cant tell ya how it did with 1.6's or anything like that.
Ryan
__________________
65 Fastback 91 roller 306, H/C/I
AOD-Bauman, PI Stallion, 4.10's and traction loc

04 Grand Cherokee Freedom Edition

79 Ford F-250 4x4 - Restored
rwhite65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 02:53 PM   #7
Rev
Registered Member
 
Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Houston, Tx.
Posts: 3,887
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwhite65
Some of the guys will argue the added stress of the 1.7's to the valvetrain is not worth it. I have 1.7's, but put this all together from scratch, so cant tell ya how it did with 1.6's or anything like that.
Ryan
Glad to hear that those 1.7 RR's are doing OK, Ryan.

I actually went from 1.7 RR's back to 1.6 RR's when I changed cams. My application is for a flat tappet rather than a roller cam. I changed cams going to .509/.512 lift. I really didn't want much more than that with a flat tappet, so I sold the 1.7's to Ryan.

With roller lifters, you can tolerate steeper valve lifts without stressing the valve train as much as long as you have adequate piston/valve clearance and as long as you have adequate valve springs. "Adequate" is the key word here.

My belief is that a little over .500 valve lifts is OK, and does not compromise longevity of the cam/valve train for a street driven car. "More's law" states that "more is not always better" and may apply here.

Rev
__________________
'66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi.

O.B.C. #2


'66 coupe

Last edited by Rev; 02-26-2006 at 03:10 PM..
Rev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 03:54 PM   #8
bailey_57
Registered Member
 
bailey_57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Berwick,Pa
Posts: 127
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

thanks alot guys, you just saved me a couple bucks that i can put toward lca's and drag radials.
jay
__________________
'89 GT hatch back
performer rpm intake, performer rpm cylinder heads, fms e-303 cam, kirban adj fp regulator, holley 65mm tb, harland sharp 1.6 roller rockers, alum driveshaft, 3.73 gears (283 rwhp, 303 rwtq new numbers with new heads)
bailey_57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 04:00 PM   #9
rwhite65
Ride Hard
 
rwhite65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wyoming IL
Posts: 1,094
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

As Rev pointed out, he had the 1.7's and helped me out when I needed some rockers for the new set up. The 1.7's might help a little, but I personally would say use the moeny in another area of the car, or better yet, save that money towards a better set of heads.
I have yet to run my new combo, but I will tell you the "seat of the pants" feeling has gotten me wanting even better heads now!
Rev - Sure did work out, thanks again!Hoping to get it tuned good, had a stumble off idle last year when I put it up. I think with the boards help I may have it figured out.
Ryan
__________________
65 Fastback 91 roller 306, H/C/I
AOD-Bauman, PI Stallion, 4.10's and traction loc

04 Grand Cherokee Freedom Edition

79 Ford F-250 4x4 - Restored
rwhite65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2006, 08:02 AM   #10
skiwesser
Registered Member
 
skiwesser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: rock hill,S.C. 29730
Posts: 420
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

I had them on my car that was bolt-on'd out except for intake and I think it at least reved faster and had a little more power, I did put in new valvesprings when I swapped rocker arms.
__________________
88 GT: subs,pullies, 1 3/4 longtubes, flowmasters, AFR 165's,T,F #1 cam,Thyphoon intake, 24# inj., 73mm C&L,65mmT.B., 190LPH pump, Eagle sir rods, forged pistons in a newly rebuilt 306.

DYNO TUNED TO 300.97 RWHP 337RWTQ
skiwesser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2006, 08:18 AM   #11
tmoss
Registered Member
 
tmoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 634
Default Re: 1.6 rr's vs 1.7 rr's

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiwesser
I did put in new valvesprings when I swapped rocker arms.
There is the key - the valve springs have to up to the job. the 1.7s lift the valve faster and increase valve duration (as opposed to cam)and can add some HP to a combo.
__________________
Tom (Torque) Moss
88Gt 5spd Vert, FLowmaster Catbacks, stock cam advanced 4° @ 108.5° ICL, NMRA prepped GT40P heads 1.85/1.55 valves and 1.7 rockers, MAC P headers Jet-Hot coated, 97 Exlporer intake (ported lower), TB and injectors. 277RWHP/330RWTQ (SAE).

http://www.fastlanecars.com/
tmoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


SEARCH