Bob, I agree with all of your comments. They also reduce heat in the engine, less friction, and give the correct ratio for the rockers. Studies by the hot rod mags have shown that the ratio is off by
No need to "beg to differ", your opinion is solid about pedestal mount heads. I was only familiar with the earlier stud design, to which my statement applied. BTW: I have heard that the pedestal mou
Steve, not a problem, as the Ford guys are running over 6500 rpm constantly at the drags, and that is not what brakes. Since I have set the rev limiter to 5600 rpm, I am not concerned with the pedest
Bob, I have to disagree about the aluminum valve covers. Our Tiger has the "Tiger -- Powered by Ford" valve covers held down with allen-head bolts. It's tricky getting them off because you have to ma
Thanks for your message. It provides an important data point on the removablility "envelope". Do you have stock rocker arms? I'm pretty sure roller rockers would not permit removal of your valve cov
The subject of the addition of roller rocker to the valve cover removal makes a very different scenario. I agree that most are higher, and even require circular holes to be cut into the splash shiel
Bob, I have stock rocker arms. I have heard that there might be some clearance issues with roller rockers, possibly requiring removing the baffle plate inside the rocker cover or even some grinding,
You do not have to remove the inner steel splash shield of the TIGER aluminum valve covers for roller rocker arms. BUT, you do have to make circular clearance holes for the central nut. A good hole
Steve, sorry to beg the differ, but I put roller rockers on the Tiger, 1990 5.0L, and I had to remove the baffles, and do a little grinding. These heads have pedestal mounts for the rockers. On a sto
This summer I finally replaced the Crane Gold Race roller rockers I first purchased in 1979. I had them rebuilt in 1986, but this time they were too far gone - at least in my opinion, I didn't ask C