I think I will get them once I get the exhaust and paint done. If it runs fine after this rebuild might as well keep it. For the next rebuild I am definitely planning on a 264 cam with 110* lobe and upgrading pretty much all the internals. And if money allows order a large log head or even an aluminium head if money allows at the time. In other words my diet shall consist of to afford that in a timely manner ha. I must admit, I have learned a plenty about this motor in the last year. I just need to learn the technical aspects of it. Can't imagine it would be to easy to find a full rocker set of 1.7 for my car.... Would be nice.
yeah.. I agree. Ford is pretty good at marketing their parts. lol seriously though.. not everyone finds a solid 15 horse from a simple rocker swap. Least of all.. those already running shaft mounted systems with very small displacements. Personally.. I'd take a cam upgrade with stock rockers vs the other way around. On the other hand.. cams aren't a simple bolt on like rockers would be though.. hence the hype and popularity. They can cool your oil slightly while allowing it to last longer too.
I would like to do the cam but I do not want to go digging in the engine for a while again. I'll take off the valve cover and stuff but beyond that I want a break from it ha. And I have 2 blocks of the 200 right now. So I can build one up internal then swap everything when I'm ready.
sounds like a plan. If you're going all out to make that thing run.. just be sure to port the factory style exhaust ports. Cause there's a solid 5 horse at the rear wheels right there alone. Ohh.. and it makes the motor noticeably more responsive too.
That's why I stop eating for the next year and put on the aluminum head. Yeah I plan on the large log head from classic inlines and pay them to do all that fun stuff so I get a nice cylinder head for reasonable price.
Will the aluminum head fit a Maverick? Looking at the install pics on a '66 Mustang…it is very close. The Maverick engine bay is close to 3-1/4” smaller than the '66 Mustang engine bay. http://www.classicinlines.com/AlumInstalls.asp
:16suspect So, you don't reccommend a rocker swap that lessens friction that could yeild up to a 15 hp increase, yet you're going to say that a 5 hp increase can be noticeable at the rear wheels simply by grinding on the exhaust ports ? If the Cobra rockers (that were made by Crane) were nothing more than slick marketing, then why didn't they get carried over into the regular 5.0 production ? I mean, come on, there would be money to be made by all parties involved here wouldn't there ?
no.. not really at this juncture.. and especially based upon his overall upgrade plan. I'd put that money elsewhere and jump up the horsepower ladder as far and fast as my dollar would stretch. And enough already with the.. "15 horsepower gain on a 6,000+ rpm 100+ ci larger V8".. in comparison to this little short rpm motor. You know.. some of that gain might come from improving on the old "individual rockers sitting on wobbly studs" design. lol And I wouldn't underestimate factory style shaft systems either. Consistency, stability, and light weight are their forte' to be sure. The thin walled factory designs are not too good for very aggressive cams/springs of course.. but they seem to do just fine within their designed parameters. No offense to the OP here.. I just shoot from the hip .. but IMHO, this little "low compression/low rpm" motor would be lucky to see 5-6hp from a 1.6 ratio setup and much of that gain would likely come from pure friction reduction alone. But geez.. I don't know.. maybe you could get up to 8-10hp on this little motor if you retuned it slightly for that extra .030 lift? Now.. if you put a beefier cam/springs in there to move the rev range up another 800rpm from stock?.. I'm guessing maybe you could see another 10-12hp with a decent rocker setup on this little rascal 200 if you're willing to spin it up a bit. Or reach for the stars and move the rev range up to about 6,800.. or so.. with a nice stout "worked head"/cam/spring.. and you could very well see 15-20+ "rocker swap horsies" that you didn't have with the factory stuff(not that it could fit or maintain proper geometry with too much spring/lift anyways). And furthermore.. lol.. much of the extra(20+ range) can be gained from the rigidity/stability over the cheap factory stamped steel stuff running well above its design parameters and flexing all to hell and back.. even if you did actually manage to make work with a stouter cam. I've also seen a few torsionally split rocker shafts and even a couple of snapped off pedestals before. Not too good once you start dumping money..and rpm.. into the equation. At that juncture.. cash spent on proper rocker design ultimately turns out to be cheap insurance in the long run. Stock cams don't necessarily need that level of insurance either. Anywho.. if you really think that little stock block/head/cam 200 will huff and puff its way to another 15 horses via that lone 1.6 rocker swap?.. well.. every man is entitled to his own opinion and I can respect yours. Mine still stands to reason that you won't find a 10% power gain on this little engine..or any other for that matter.. with a simple rocker swap.
you show me your Ford 200 dyno sheet.. and I'll show you mine. Seriously though. I've owned 2 cars with the 200.. a couple with the 170.. and my mother even owned an old Comet(64?) with a tiny and ultra quiet 140 if I'm not mistaken. The 69 Mustang Coupe's 200 got "beefed up" during a quick and dirty rebuild to ready it for sale. As usual.. I got a little carried away. I was pretty young yet and kind of hacked away at that old heads exhaust protrusions with chipped up and half broke carbides/stones.. but it did help in the higher rev's in combination with the good ole' Walker Dynomax Super Turbo. But the head milling(.035 thou, IIRC) and carb mod's(thinned throttle shafts) and disty recurve alone were where the bulk of the gain was found. Oh.. and I ported the cast manifolds collector too. Now that I think about it more.. that was a damned nice little engine once that car was all finished up with dark green metallic paint. I still fondly remember the nice little solid black strip of rubber it left when I took off hard from gravel onto pavement. Horsepower was way up there. Had to be at least 120 horse after all that work. At that time.. I would have killed to get a set of these amazing rockers on that motor.
No need to worry about offending me. I just knee it could reduce heat... That's good enough for me ha. I'm enjoying the conversation and learning. I'm new to this stuff so any information is good. Usually I just get harassed here saying I should swap in a v8 ha.
So, now you add in the "forgotten" other things you did to gain that 5 hp ? (now I want to see how you get that 5 hp figure out of the 120, you're "claiming" now)Seems like a whole lot of work to gain 5 hp. I got more power than that on a 1980 Jeep 258 simply by routing the smog pump output into the aircleaner. Since then, I've graduated to bigger (diesel powered) sixes. .
some key words used to show that you're just yankin' my chain now: "forgotten" ..???.. "claiming" ..???.. "seems" ..???.. some key points to reconsider here: ..25% fewer rockers = less potential gain than a V8 ..VERY low rpm camshaft = less rev range to find additional lift advantages/reduction of frictional losses .. lower pressure springs = less stress on the existing stock shaft setup .. shaft to shaft swap = less gain than individual stud to shaft conversion .. stock head = less rev range to find additional lift advantages/reduction of frictional losses .. flywheel HP gain does NOT = rear wheel HP gain .. typical gain does NOT = exceptional gain.. so obviously, YMMV .. size does matter .. RPM does matter .. many "bolt-on" dyno comparisons on chassis dynos, magazines, and all around the net = much more realistic rear wheel power gains I rest my case. On a more personal note here.. and I'm sure others will likely agree that we need to stop some of these bigger pee pee swinging contests around here(including this one, of course). It serves no significant purpose other than venting our arses to somehow reduce our ever changing daily stress buildup.. and inevitably just pulls the discussion away from its purpose of helping someone out while we redundantly beat a point to death, IMHO. And FYI.. I'm not here to prove that I know more than you and I can only assume that you would/should/could make greater attemp at doing the same. I too will surely need bookoo(speeling?..lol) help as my project progresses through the years and I do hope to keep you in my loop with proper and respectful communication along the way. So in all honesty.. I'm just trying to pay some of my dues around here earlier on here and not trying to step on toes. BUT.. that doesn't mean that I'll quickly bow my head and tip-toe around either. I even have full intention of working with the forums owners/administartors to promote additional contribution when I start selling some of my wares(details will come later after that discussion is privately finalized). So my intentions here are somewhat noble, to say the least. Now don't get me wrong.. I'm all for debating when it's done with a certian degree of respect.. but adding humorous smily faces while slicing away at others posts.. or even the post size.. and continually taking things out of context is starting to wear thin on mt patience. So consider my chain yanked. And despite what you may think.. I do actually respect you(quite a bit more than you seem to realize) just as many others around here do too. In that regard.. I'd much rather see us both work to avoid undermining any respect that was duly earned, with this tit-for-tat kind of banter. Sure it feels good to be knowledgable about some things.. but I would assume that most here are are like me in that they often share for the fact that they too wish they'd have had someone "spell it out for them" or lead them towards a solution.. when they were "green" once. Plus, it feels good to help someone out when it's so easy to do. I even still try to give ocassional tire/jumpstart assistance to keep paying it forward. The internet is vast and can easily mislead just like any other printed material, not to mention that we need to keep in mind that advertising is actually a tool used to aquire your money. That's where experience comes in and sharing it with others is the best thing that guys like us can do. So, in that respect.. I would greatly appreciate it if you'd quit cutting my experience down by picking it apart for 2 pages.
