

© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
![]() |
#4 |
Rat Killer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cold ass Ohio
Posts: 1,143
|
![]() There's about 3 or 4 discussions on the board right now about the 1.6 vs. 1.7 rockers.
IMHO It just ain't worth it. Stay with the 1.6's. 1.7's add soo much strain on valve springs, push rods, lifters etc etc. I ran my combo through desktop dyno, and it came out to 579 HP @ 7000. Changed NOTHING but the lift (doing the math, and going to 1.6's) and it dropped all the way down to 576 HP @ 7000. This is going from an intake lift of .647 (1.7) to an intake lift of .609 (1.6) I'll never feel 3 HP, and I'm sure that N2O plate will more than make up for it. ![]()
__________________
d-Con Racing "Nothing fancy, just 347 inches of RAT POISON!" MICE need not apply..... ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dont use 1.7 rockers with stock heads? | Coupe5oh | Windsor Power | 10 | 11-28-2015 12:36 PM |
F Cam With Stock Rockers Or E Cam With 1.72 Roller Rockers ? | 83GTMUSTANG | Windsor Power | 0 | 05-12-2005 12:12 PM |
Rail Rockers on 289 Small Block Heads | sleeperstang | Classic Mustangs | 16 | 05-11-2003 11:34 PM |
Roller Rockers, bad? | HiFlow5 0 | Windsor Power | 1 | 04-14-2002 01:35 PM |
reg rockers or roller rockers?? | Chevysucks | Windsor Power | 1 | 12-05-2001 08:17 PM |