1.7 roller and springs

[ponsai03]

Hi to all: I will be installing a E303 cam to my 1990 LX 5.0. I will also like to put 1.7 rollers. Now. Can I use my stock springs and pushrods or do they have to be replaced? If they need to be replaced what specs. do I have to look for when buying springs and pushrods for this combination? Also, any model in particular?
Are my stock rocker arms pedestal mount or shaft mount?
Will I have any clearance problems using stock type valve covers?
Sorry for asking so much but I know that with all this mustang maniacs in this forum my project will go with no problems Thanks!!!

 

[PJC Racing]

Hi to all: I will be installing a E303 cam to my 1990 LX 5.0. I will also like to put 1.7 rollers. Now. Can I use my stock springs and pushrods or do they have to be replaced? If they need to be replaced what specs. do I have to look for when buying springs and pushrods for this combination? Also, any model in particular?
Are my stock rocker arms pedestal mount or shaft mount?
Will I have any clearance problems using stock type valve covers?
Sorry for asking so much but I know that with all this mustang maniacs in this forum my project will go with no problems Thanks!!!

You need to change the springs and retainers. FRP A50 springs and B50 retainers.

The pushrods need to be measured for proper pushrod length for proper valve train geometry: Technical Specs & Information

Your stock rockers are pedestal.

You may have to modify the baffles in the valve covers depending on what rockers you get.

Now the one thing you NEED to check and did not ask about is PTV (piston to valve clearance)

 

[ponsai03]

Thanks. What if a go with 1.6 rollers and the E303? Will affetc piston to valve clearance? Do I need to change the springs /pushrods?

 

[NotchAbove]

With the 1.6's your total lift will be as advertised - .498. Going from 1.7 to 1.6 will increase PTV clearance. Stock springs can handle up to .500 lift so you will be running on the edge of tolerance.

 

[Maryland Stang]

Thanks. What if a go with 1.6 rollers and the E303? Will affetc piston to valve clearance? Do I need to change the springs /pushrods?

Stock 5.0 springs were designed for the stock 5.0 cam which is a much lower lift cam. You didn't say how many miles your engine has but it's probably a good bet that it's a lot of miles. The springs are probably pretty tired by now.

The valvetrain geometry should always be checked when installing a new cam. It may be that the stock pushrods are the right length for maximum power and valve guide life but without checking it there's no way to know.

 

[ponsai03]

So will notice any difference in power if I run 1.72's? You said thar .498 will be the lift with 1.72's using stock springs. Any recomendation of aftermarket springs that will fit my configuration? Thanks

 

[BlownFiveLiter]

So will notice any difference in power if I run 1.72's? You said thar .498 will be the lift with 1.72's using stock springs. Any recomendation of aftermarket springs that will fit my configuration? Thanks

No, he said that the .498 is the advertised lift, which is with 1.6 rocker arms. If you go with 1.72 rockers, you bump up to .535 and would almost certainly have coil bind and PTV clearance issues.

 

[joel5.0]

Total valve lift has nothing to do with the possibility of PtV issues, it's during the overlap (or exhaust to intake cycle changeover) that the valves and the piston could get intimate, as shown below.... when maximum valve lift is reached, the piston is >1.5" below the deck.

If you're buying new rockers, use the 1.7 ratio.... for the springs, you could buy the TFS upgrade kit 2500100 or like PJC mentioned, the equivalent FRPP parts.

 

[ponsai03]

Ok. Most of you guys in this forum had stated very clear that it's not worth the effort or the money to install a E303 with stock heads and intake. The problem is that I already dismantled everything (top end including lower intake) and would like to take advantage of this by any means.
Would anyone of you recommend installing 1.7 with my stock configuration? Will I have to change what I mentiones above? (springs and pushrods using my stock cam) Will I notice any difference?
Actually my car has shorty headers, fuel press. reg., 70mm throttle, 73mm mass air, cold intake, under drive pulleys and 3.73 rear.
Please!!!!!!!!!! Help my on this

 

[phutch11]

I'll be the voice of desent on this topic - by all means I would run the bolt down 1.7s and the E-cam with your stock setup. I did run that exact setup for a long time and that combo ran like a bat out of hell.

If you call FRRP and ask them about putting 1.7s on an E-cam with stock heads/springs/pushrods, etc - they will tell you to do it and not to worry.

Do it and don't look back - its a great low buck combo.

That said, if you have any concerns that the heads or block have been decked or shaved for any reason then I would say that you MUST check PV clearance.

Good luck....

 

[PJC Racing]

^^^I would not listen to a thing he has to say ^^^

 

[BlownFiveLiter]

^^^I would not listen to a thing he has to say ^^^

You gotta do better than that. If you think he shouldn't be listened to, you need to expound on why exactly.

 

[PJC Racing]

You gotta do better than that. If you think he shouldn't be listened to, you need to expound on why exactly.

Sure I can elaborate:

The stock springs are designed for stock cams. Stock springs do not have the spring rate to maintain the valves at rpm when used with a cam that has more lift and duration that the stock cam. Then to compound to this with a 1.7:1 rocker will make valve train failure and float much more likely. All of this would be an issue with brand new stock springs, now he (phutch11) stated sure go ahead and use the stock springs with out any consideration for how old and worn out the springs could be.

And using stock pushrods with a new cam and rockers without checking for proper pushrods length is foolish. The lobe bases on cam cores are not all the same especially on “alphabet” cams, which effects pushrod length and geometry. Rocker designs and heights are not all the same, which effects pushrod length and geometry. Not to mention a simple adjustment in lift can have an effect on rocker to valve tip geometry. If you change some thing in the valve train you need to measure for proper pushrod length.

As for FRPP telling people they can use stock springs with this cam, IF they are telling people this they ARE wrong.

So, " Do it and don't look back - its a great low buck combo." What will your (phutch11) comment be when the OP does this and comes back asking about bent pushrods, valve train noise, or broken springs.

Good enough of an explanation?

 

[ponsai03]

I will not install at this moment the E-cam and stay with my stock config. But I need to know if installing 1.7's with the stock cam will do any better. Also will I have any issues with my stock springs and pushrods or can I use them? Any issues of clearance with stock valve covers or PV? Thanks

 

[BlownFiveLiter]

Sure I can elaborate:

The stock springs are designed for stock cams. Stock springs do not have the spring rate to maintain the valves at rpm when used with a cam that has more lift and duration that the stock cam. Then to compound to this with a 1.7:1 rocker will make valve train failure and float much more likely. All of this would be an issue with brand new stock springs, now he (phutch11) stated sure go ahead and use the stock springs with out any consideration for how old and worn out the springs could be.

And using stock pushrods with a new cam and rockers without checking for proper pushrods length is foolish. The lobe bases on cam cores are not all the same especially on “alphabet” cams, which effects pushrod length and geometry. Rocker designs and heights are not all the same, which effects pushrod length and geometry. Not to mention a simple adjustment in lift can have an effect on rocker to valve tip geometry. If you change some thing in the valve train you need to measure for proper pushrod length.

As for FRPP telling people they can use stock springs with this cam, IF they are telling people this they ARE wrong.

So, " Do it and don't look back - its a great low buck combo." What will your (phutch11) comment be when the OP does this and comes back asking about bent pushrods, valve train noise, or broken springs.

Good enough of an explanation?

Yes it is. I knew you'd have the right answer to what I was looking for you to explain. Just keeping everyone honest.

I will not install at this moment the E-cam and stay with my stock config. But I need to know if installing 1.7's with the stock cam will do any better. Also will I have any issues with my stock springs and pushrods or can I use them? Any issues of clearance with stock valve covers or PV? Thanks

You could install the E cam in your stock combo with some new springs, but the return on investment for the amount of work will probably leave you unsatisfied. Going with 1.7 rockers with the stock cam will probably net you around the same power gain as the E cam and 1.6's, but it'll do it with a fraction of the work. More than likely, there will be zero issues with the springs, or piston to valve clearance. You may have to clearance the baffles in the stock valvecovers, so you'll clear the rockers.

 

[phutch11]

Wow, its amazing how violent some people can get about an opinion that is based in actual experience instead of ramblings about core shift, manufacturing tolerances of roller rockers, and the usual digs on aplhabet cams.

I have run the exact combo that the OP is referring to and clearly, PJC Racing, you have not.

The E-cam and 1.7s combo is one of the simplest and oldest that people have run on these cars and I'd imagine that litterally thousands of people have done it successfully.

If the OP's engine really is stock, to include the heads and pistons he will have a minimum of .100 on the intake and .110 on the exhaust and the stock springs and pushrods WILL work just fine.

If work has been done to the heads or egine then yes all that goes out the window.





Posted via Mobile Device

 

[joel5.0]

If the OP's engine really is stock, to include the heads and pistons he will have a minimum of .100 on the intake and .110 on the exhaust and the stock springs and pushrods WILL work just fine.

Stock exhaust valves coil bind lift is .510", the E-303 with 1.7 rockers = .529".... so he will be fine putting the exhaust valve springs under coil bind conditions? .... he might not be as lucky as one of the cases I have had to repair, like the one shown below......

The way to prevent the above from happening (or worse) is simple........ if you install an aftermarket cam or rockers, match the rest of the valve train to the new requirements...... don't fall for the "There is never money to do it right, but there's always money to do it over" mistake. And yes... that was an E-303 with 1.7 rockers setup.

 

[phutch11]

Maybe I got lucky putting 25k miles on the engine on the road, AutoX'ing and bouncing it off the rev limiter on a weekly basis....

When I had that exact setup I did not have any coil bind issues - i.e. more than .050 clearance at max lift - nor PV issues.

All I'm saying is that I had it, I beat the piss out of it and it always came back for more.

It was a good little combo.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Strype]

Funny I asked Ford Tech the same thing when I went to build and they told me NOT to go with 1.72's and a B-cam witch has a lower lift I believe, but it does have a longer duration.

Dunno man. I wouldn't do it. I always heard not to go over .510 or a hair more.


My 2 cents anyway. It's your car.

 

[Strype]

1-800-367-3788

Ford Tech.