|
Author
|
Topic: so i'm looking at a set of edelbrock rpm heads
|
Dubz
Gearhead Posts: 1890
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-13-2004 05:17 AM
   
and i'm reading on edelbrocks site
Performer RPM Ford....Will not accept rail rockers...Then i hop onto summit to check prices on them (was looking at the #60259, or edl-60259) and look in the suggested parts, which they list the comp cams magnum rail type rockers. Am i missing something? who is right, or are they both and i'm missing something ------------------
1974 Gran Torino(351W/c6)
My Page
shooting for 14's this year
IP: Logged |
whiteknight289
Gearhead Posts: 1391
From: Wheaton, IL, USA
Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted 08-13-2004 01:28 PM
Originally Ford used rocker arms with two different style of tips.
The first style is referred to as 'non-rail' because the end is smooth and in theory could walk side to side on the valve stem tip. That movement was restricted by the slot the pushrod goes thru being very narrow.
The other type has two little ears on the side of the tip that keeps it located over the valve stem tip and the pushrod hole is round instead of slotted.I think the confusion is coming from the style of rocker arm mounting, as there are some shaft-mounted rockers that sometimes are referred to as rail rockers. I'm guessing these will not fit the RPM heads. The heads shoul dhave guide plates that will prevent the rocker arm tip from moving side to side, allowing you to use conventional roller rockers. Scott
IP: Logged |
Dubz
Gearhead Posts: 1890
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-15-2004 03:05 PM
with a fairly stock low compression 351, would a set of aluminum, high flowing heads help much if at all? Aluminum would probably make compression matters worse due to heat loss right, but possibly balanced by the weight loss on the front endtrying to figure out what the next best $/hp stage would be. I'd need new heads/headwork before i can run a good cam, and i'd probably cam it before a rebuild. ------------------
1974 Gran Torino(351W/c6)
My Page
shooting for 14's this year, next year...whenever the car is back together [This message has been edited by Dubz (edited 08-15-2004).]
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 9489
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 08-16-2004 11:39 PM
Dubz,The truth is that changing one or two, or even three things in the combo will not give you the full h.p. you'll receive when all components are matched. I'd save my money and build the engine as a matched set of components that work together with the trans/converter/rear end ratio.  SteveW
IP: Logged |
Dubz
Gearhead Posts: 1890
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-18-2004 03:13 AM
well the plan is a "matched setup", missing out on one thing for a while though, and that would be compression.This is the motor now
351W
close to 8:1 compression
670cfm street avenger
1" 4 hole carb spacer
rpm air gap
1.7 ratio magnum rockers
a set of hooker competition headers which are hopefully being ordered next week For a cam i'd need to do the screw in studs, and new valves springs, ect. this starts to add up quick enough i was thinking a new set of heads wouldn't be too much more. Then go with a mild cam, something that would work well with lower compression to keep my dynamic compression high. toss in a mild street converter, my 3.56 ring and pinion on some sort of traction device, and i figued i'd have a street bruiser till a full bottom end rebuild. any opinions or changes?
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 20708
From: Reno Nv USA M&M#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-18-2004 03:27 AM
Sounds good to me, I agree with the new heads not being that much more $$ then having your stock heads rebuilt and modded. I'd go with the 270h so far I love mine.------------------
SCOOP oddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. My Pics
IP: Logged |
Dubz
Gearhead Posts: 1890
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-18-2004 03:31 AM
I was wondering about that scoop, wondered how it would run with my lower compression though, you've got probably a point and a half on me at least
IP: Logged |
Fastymz
Moderator Posts: 20708
From: Reno Nv USA M&M#1240
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-18-2004 03:40 AM
Yeah my motor has close to 10-1
compression. I don't see why that cam wouldn't work good with your 8-1 motor too ?
CompCams doesn't say anything about need more compression until you get into the 280h cam.
------------------
SCOOPoddly obsessed with big scoops on little Mustangs 65 coupe,351w,C4,Big Boss 429 hood scoop,8" 3.40 TracLoc. My Pics [This message has been edited by Fastymz (edited 08-18-2004).]
IP: Logged |
Dubz
Gearhead Posts: 1890
From: Manitoba Canada
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-18-2004 04:01 AM
true, was just on thier site, and it says 9:1 for the 280H, so lower than that for the 270H i guess might be bearable
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
