Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hello guys, im new here to the forum and have a question

I have a 1965 fairlane 500 2dr. hardtop with a 289, my stock heads are really tired and pretty much beat, but i recently came across somebody selling a set of rebuilt heads with all new components (springs, seats, valves, stem seals, etc.)

my question is, the valves on the new head are protruding a lot more through the actual valve springs than original, probably about 3/8" more, and i am just wondering what if i will have to change anything when i put my rockers on from my old heads, not too familiar with valvetrain so if anyone could help me out that would be greatly appriciated

if it helps any the heads i bought are original 69 ford heads from a 302, just freshly rebuilt,

THANKS!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
hello guys, im new here to the forum and have a question

I have a 1965 fairlane 500 2dr. hardtop with a 289, my stock heads are really tired and pretty much beat, but i recently came across somebody selling a set of rebuilt heads with all new components (springs, seats, valves, stem seals, etc.)

my question is, the valves on the new head are protruding a lot more through the actual valve springs than original, probably about 3/8" more, and i am just wondering what if i will have to change anything when i put my rockers on from my old heads, not too familiar with valvetrain so if anyone could help me out that would be greatly appriciated

if it helps any the heads i bought are original 69 ford heads from a 302, just freshly rebuilt,

THANKS!
tall valve stems are for rail rockes and must use them , unless heads have guide plates . plus you will have a comp ratio loss

have your head brought back to spec
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
My 1965 289 heads were non-rail types so they had close tolerance push rod holes in the head castings and non-rail rocker arms. The valve stems were set up in the heads closer to flush with the tops of the retainers. There is a valve adjustment procedure on these involving finding zero lash plus a half turn.

After something around May 66 the 289 heads went from the early non-rail type to a rail rocker type set up(except for the hipo 289 which had screw in studs and guide plates). It sounds like you now have 1 set of each, rail type heads and non-rail heads. To use the heads you bought you'll need to convert to rail type rocker arms and the correct sized matching push rods. To be sure you need to verify your push rod lengths with a push rod length checker. The heads could also have been re-surfaced when they were rebuilt which can affect pushrod length as well. I hope this all is now as clear as mud.

You could have the rail type heads machined for screw in studs and guide plates as an alternative so you could run non-rail type rockers but you'd still have to check your push rod lengths.

Along with the change to rail type heads Ford also increased the combustion chamber size somewhere in there which is why Dan mentioned a compression loss in the new heads you got.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks alot you guys, i guess this brings me to the question, what would be more cost effective, putting new valves in the heads and bring them back to spec or using rail type rockers on them? im a newbie when it comes to building heads... and i am on a budget with my car to get it ready for summer, just trying to find the best course of action

by the way the main reason i am not using the 65' heads that came with the car is because the press in type rocker studs are pulling out, so it was either pressing them back in and pinning them, tapping them for a chevy stud, or getting a different set of heads, these rebuilt ones i bought came for 75 dollars so it was a no brainer to buy them, thanks alot for ALL replies and i hope someday i will possess the knowledge to give people pointers like this myself haha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
I have never liked using the stock rail style rockers with a performance cam...With a bit of rocker and valve stem wear and a high lift cam the rails of the rocker can come into contact with the valve keepers..That will eventually let the valve drop into the cylinder and grenade the engine..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
You need to measure the overall length of the valve to determin if there longer or not. Some situations just the tip is a different length. Valve with a .298 tip can be the same length as a valve with a .250 tip just the valve lock grove is in a different position.

I have also run rail rockers with tight lash mechanical tappet cams up to 9000 RPM. Put a few 100K on them with no issues on severl engines. Those style rockers are a lot stronger than todays stamped steel ones. You cant runn aluminum retainers with them in most cases as there too thick around the edges.

I also dont remember any 289 HiPo having guide plates. There cast ports were a bit different too mostly the exhaust.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
You need to measure the overall length of the valve to determin if there longer or not. Some situations just the tip is a different length. Valve with a .298 tip can be the same length as a valve with a .250 tip just the valve lock grove is in a different position.

I have also run rail rockers with tight lash mechanical tappet cams up to 9000 RPM. Put a few 100K on them with no issues on severl engines. Those style rockers are a lot stronger than todays stamped steel ones. You cant runn aluminum retainers with them in most cases as there too thick around the edges.

I also dont remember any 289 HiPo having guide plates. There cast ports were a bit different too mostly the exhaust.
right about the .. no plates opn the HiPo heads . I was letting that slide .OP is not coming across them .

Aluminum tetainers ??? think it be decades since you could by them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Think the last set I got was with my 250 6 custom cam and kit in 1980. They didnt work and springs were not up to spec. Had to use some inner springs from a SBC. Then cut some retainers down to use them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Thanks alot you guys, i guess this brings me to the question, what would be more cost effective, putting new valves in the heads and bring them back to spec or using rail type rockers on them? im a newbie when it comes to building heads... and i am on a budget with my car to get it ready for summer, just trying to find the best course of action

by the way the main reason i am not using the 65' heads that came with the car is because the press in type rocker studs are pulling out, so it was either pressing them back in and pinning them, tapping them for a chevy stud, or getting a different set of heads, these rebuilt ones i bought came for 75 dollars so it was a no brainer to buy them, thanks alot for ALL replies and i hope someday i will possess the knowledge to give people pointers like this myself haha
Even if you change to stock early short valves in the 1969 heads you will need a Means of holding the rocker on the valve! you need ether rail rockers ,close tolarance slots or push rod guide plates, With short valves you can not use Rail rockers as the rocker will hit the retainer this will caus the reepers to fall out and you will drop the valve Your only choice with the 1969 heads is the long valves and push rod guide plated because the heads have round push rod holes, not close tolarance slots like the 1965 heads
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Thanks alot you guys, i guess this brings me to the question, what would be more cost effective, putting new valves in the heads and bring them back to spec or using rail type rockers on them? im a newbie when it comes to building heads... and i am on a budget with my car to get it ready for summer, just trying to find the best course of action

by the way the main reason i am not using the 65' heads that came with the car is because the press in type rocker studs are pulling out, so it was either pressing them back in and pinning them, tapping them for a chevy stud, or getting a different set of heads, these rebuilt ones i bought came for 75 dollars so it was a no brainer to buy them, thanks alot for ALL replies and i hope someday i will possess the knowledge to give people pointers like this myself haha
Even if you change to stock early short valves in the 1969 heads you will need a Means of holding the rocker on the valve! you need ether rail rockers ,close tolarance slots or push rod guide plates, With short valves you can not use Rail rockers as the rocker will hit the retainer this will caus the reepers to fall out and you will drop the valve Your only choice with the 1969 heads is the long valves and push rod guide plated because the heads have round push rod holes, not close tolarance slots like the 1965 heads
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
Sorry for the error. All the hipo heads had the close tolerance push rod holes so no guide plates. My brain tends to automatically include guide plates with screw in studs.

I'm curious as to why your 65 heads are pulling the pressed in studs out. If that is due to your cam lift and valve spring pressure it will do the same thing on the 69's. In that case you need to get the heads machined and change to screw in studs, guide plates and some decent roller or at least roller tip rockers.

If you have a mild cam and stock springs just get a set of rail rocker arms. They should work fine. You will still need to get the right push rods as well.

After 1977 Ford switched to another method for locating the rocker arms on the 302 and 351W. These are pedestal type rockers that have a half cylindrical fulcrum. The heads have a notch for the fulcrums and this is what locates the rockers. I think the Clevelands also used these. My 2V, 1971 Cleveland heads have these.

I run these on my 302 with a 268H cam, .480 lift and stock springs.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top