concourse engine rebuild question...

If you can get the correct, oem valve covers to clear the roller rockers, you should be fine. Those two variables alone, ie, roller cam and roller rockers won't take points off.

Judges should chime in shortly.

 

I have to ask; What makes you think that a roller engine would be any more reliable than the stock engine that came in the car from 1969? With the exception of the plastic upper timing gear, I have heard of no issues with any other components installed in these engines. (That's assuming that Ford used the plastic upper timning gear in this engine) I have seen stock engines with way more miles on them than I think you intend on driving your GT-350.

 

351 W engine are know for valve guides wearing out. So switching to roller rocker arms put less strain on valve train then stock rocker arms. So the valve guides will not wear out with them.

 

I can't remember the last time I pryed the valve covers off of a concours entry . Now if the car has a non stock lumpy cam that I can hear then that is a deduction that can be expected. Bob

 

Yep, I don't remember Bob asking me to "pass him the sockets" when assisting in judging either. I usually hold the clipboard.

 

Felpro makes a double thick valve cover gasket. I use them on my 65 GT350 so my posi lock nuts clear my sand cast Cobra Valve covers.

 

Yea, I guess that after 50,000 miles or so, you could have guide wear problems, if they weren't replaced with brass during the rebuild.

 

nothing wrong with wanting some clearance, but using thick valve cover gaskets would be obvious departure from stock, and may not be overlooked by a competent concours judge.


Z.

 

I wouldn't use bronze guides, I'd use cast iron. Much more durable. Other than that, I'd go stock. Unless this Shelby will be your daily commuter car. If so, you probably will need to replace the guides again in 100,000 miles or so.

 

Stroke it. Put in a mild roller cam. It will idle just like stock but the low end response will be much improved even with the stock carb.

Advantage of a roller cam is no chance of wiped cam lobes. There has been a rash of them lately. Why take the chance?

 

The excessive cam lobe wear problem has been solved.

 

I would do it stone-stock but blueprinted. A bottle of ZDDP eliminates cam problems. Since we're talking about a real Shelby, IMHO original configuration is the way to go. (anyone can build an Eleanor) Of course, stress-relieving, balancing, and mild porting maximize power, while simply creating what the designers intended.

About the only exception I've seen that I liked was a 68 GT350. Ford basically shafted Shelby by offering the relatively lame J code 302 as the top smallblock engine in 68. The J code had the same camshaft and exhaust manifolds as a 289 2V, a pitiful state for a GT350. The Holley carb and high-rise manifold Shelby installed corrected only the pitiful small carb Ford used, and made the cam and manifolds seem even more inadequate.

This car was rebuilt from junk, and the engine was the stone-stock original, except when rebuilt it was fitted with the C9OZ-6250-C hydraulic version of the 289HP cam, and a pair of 289HP exhaust manifolds. The manifolds are rarely noticed, and of course the cam is internal. The results were surprising. Excellent power.

[/IMG]

 

You could consider roller tipped rockers. They should fit without issues and reduce friction and wear a little. Not that I think that valve guide wear will be an issue anytime soon with this particular (concourse correct) engine.