• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

Anyone using 1.7 rr on intake and 1.6 on exhaust with gt-40 heads?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bjl95mustang
  • Start date Start date Sep 26, 2004
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 26, 2004
#1
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #1
I got 2 sets of rockers for my setup and I am trying to deciede if I should use the 1.6, 1.7, or 1.7 intake and 1.6 exhaust. I'm building up a budget 306 with home ported gt-40 heads between 62-58cc(not milled yet) with a tfs-1 cam and a home ported performer intake, shortie headers, off-road h-pipe and 24lb injectors. I have read about people doing half and half but i wanted to see if anyone here has done it.

Thanks,
Brandon
 

RIO5.0

15 Year Member
Feb 16, 2001
6,892
8
128
N.H.
Sep 26, 2004
#2
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #2
I wanted to try that myself....If there 1.7 peds, I'll buy the other 1/2 from ya...

It may not add alot. hp wise...but every little bit adds up....I posted it some time ago after reading and article in 5.0
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 26, 2004
#3
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #3
Do you still have the post from 5.0?
 
W

wytstang

Mustang Master
Mar 14, 2004
4,988
4
78
Summerville,SC missing South Fl. weather :(
Sep 26, 2004
#4
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #4
I thought it was 1.6 intake and 1.7 exhaust if your N/A and 1.7 intake and 1.6 exhaust for power adder.
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Sep 26, 2004
#5
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #5
I'd do the 1.7/1.6 I/E combo. If you're using a standard split pattern camshaft or even a single pattern camshaft, use the 1.7's on the intake side. The exhaust will find it's way out.

You may pick up a few...

Joe
 
W

wytstang

Mustang Master
Mar 14, 2004
4,988
4
78
Summerville,SC missing South Fl. weather :(
Sep 26, 2004
#6
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #6
I thought that ford's needed help on the exhaust side so using the 1.7 on the exhaust side would benifit them more. :dunno:
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 26, 2004
#7
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #7
I have also been thinking about using 1.7E and 1.6I. Damn, I don't know.
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Sep 26, 2004
#8
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #8
The TFS cam has a split in it, so a 1.6 on the exhaust is fine.

A 1.7 on the intake side will give you a little more top-end by making the cam act bigger than it really is. And no, there won't be any side-effects of running 1.7's on the intake side.

Joe
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 26, 2004
#9
  • Sep 26, 2004
  • #9
Cool, I guess i will do 1/2 & 1/2 and see how it is.
 
C

cmozez

Member
May 3, 2003
450
0
16
Tupelo,Mississippi
Sep 27, 2004
#10
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #10
In 5.0, thier best results came from 1.7 exhaust and 1.6 intake.
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 27, 2004
#11
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #11
Does anyone have the 5.0 mag online so i can read it?
 

krahkin

Member
May 7, 2004
183
0
16
Acworth GA
Sep 27, 2004
#12
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #12
I do, but I will have to dig through the pile to locate which issue
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Sep 27, 2004
#13
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #13
cmozez said:
In 5.0, thier best results came from 1.7 exhaust and 1.6 intake.
Click to expand...
And it was probably with the stock cam, which favors the intake side. So 1.6's on the exhaust "evened" things out. I'm not saying I'm right, but I wouldn't believe everything in magazines.

Joe
 
W

wytstang

Mustang Master
Mar 14, 2004
4,988
4
78
Summerville,SC missing South Fl. weather :(
Sep 27, 2004
#14
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #14
But wouldn't having a larger lift on a N/A engine even with a cam help evacuate the cylinders better. Thus allowing the cylinders to fill back up with a more pure combustion able mixture.
EDIT: I’m not arguing with you just having a discussion.
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 27, 2004
#15
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #15
Well, I wonder what I should do. If i do 1.6 on the intake will be at just around .499 and I think .512 exhaust. I believe my springs are good to .550-600. These are home ported gt-40 with stock sized valves.
 

1105

I AM the random post master...bow down
May 3, 2003
3,841
0
0
Daytona Bch, FL
Sep 27, 2004
#16
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #16
I'd do 1.7 I 1.6 E. If you feel like it, do it both ways and see which one gives you the most power.
 

RIO5.0

15 Year Member
Feb 16, 2001
6,892
8
128
N.H.
Sep 27, 2004
#17
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #17
Info from the article....

1105 said:
I'd do 1.7 I 1.6 E. If you feel like it, do it both ways and see which one gives you the most power.
Click to expand...

The 347 they tested in 5.0 mag with the 4 combos around 1.6/1.7. The motor had Z304 heads and an XE282HR comp cam...not exactly a stocker...They only got like 4 HP top with all the combos, 1.7s on the Ex side 1.6 Int was the best....Its kinda one of those "inching" things...theres not alot to be had, but some nonetheless...it also stated its one of those, why one combo will just pull a tad on another thats matched with the same stuff..all the gain was in the high RPM area...its not gonna be a seat of the pants thing...

GT40s are set-up for 1.7s anyway?? No?? Running 1,7 on a 1.6 can lead to valve guide wear some, due to the geometry being off some..Theres more cons than pros to doing it...rather than chg a cam for more lift, this swap can do it easier..

The article was in the Aug 2004 issue..." Lift and Invigorate" was the name..Whether its on line ???? Was a cool article on just 1.6/1.7 workings though...
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 27, 2004
#18
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #18
The gt-40's on cobras come with 1.7rr. But i'm going to be using a tfs-1 cam.
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 27, 2004
#19
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #19
The manufacture only has the specs with the rockers but no recomendations!!
 

bjl95mustang

Founding Member
Jan 18, 2000
1,495
0
36
Austin,TX
Sep 27, 2004
#20
  • Sep 27, 2004
  • #20
Damn server.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Discussion on mild budget build/ top end
  • Acesario
  • Feb 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
775
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 23, 2026
General karthief
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
983
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
Engine Head gasket port matching plus head/intake port alignment
  • PonyGTrider
  • Dec 10, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
507
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 12, 2024
PonyGTrider
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
SBF Head Flow Table - Work in Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Sep 29, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
17
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 30, 2025
Noobz347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?