• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

quick q about rocker arms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cobain03
  • Start date Start date Feb 1, 2008

Cobain03

Active Member
Aug 27, 2003
996
0
36
Lexington, Ky
Feb 1, 2008
#1
  • Feb 1, 2008
  • #1
http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Products/RockerArms/MagnumRoller.asp

do i have rail or non rail setup? they are not connected by a "rail" so im guessing non rail right?
 
B

Blu-Steel

Member
Dec 29, 2006
92
0
7
Waynesville, MO
Feb 1, 2008
#2
  • Feb 1, 2008
  • #2
The term rail can be confusing, since there is no actual “rail”. The rail refers to the rocker arm itself at the portion where the arm sits on the valve tip. Up until 1965 Ford used non-rail rocker arms and from 1966 up to the 70’s (maybe early 80’s too, I’m not sure) they used a rail rockers. Rail rocker arms have a parallel rail along the tip where the rocker sits on top of the valves. The valve tips are longer and the rail keeps the rocket arms and push rods aligned as they go up and down. Non-rail rockers are flat at the tip and the vale stems are very short. The reason why there are two different types is that 1965 and before heads had cast in push rod guides that kept the rods in alignment with the rockers. Ford got cheap in 1966 and stopped casting the guides into the heads so the part where the push rods slide into the heads is round and the rods fit in loosely (as opposed to the 65 heads where the rods fit into a tight slot). To compensate Ford designed the rail rocker arms. It’s a fairly decent set up for a street car but not as reliable in the long run, especially in performance applications. I had rail rockers on my car but I switched to 65 heads and non-rail rockers, since I was rebuilding my engine anyway. Hope this helps. Another good source is the book “how to rebuild your small bock Ford”. It has some pictures of both.
 
M

mikethebike

Member
Jun 12, 2007
358
0
17
Greenville, SC
Feb 1, 2008
#3
  • Feb 1, 2008
  • #3
Blu-Steel said:
The term rail can be confusing, since there is no actual “rail”. The rail refers to the rocker arm itself at the portion where the arm sits on the valve tip. Up until 1965 Ford used non-rail rocker arms and from 1966 up to the 70’s (maybe early 80’s too, I’m not sure) they used a rail rockers. Rail rocker arms have a parallel rail along the tip where the rocker sits on top of the valves. The valve tips are longer and the rail keeps the rocket arms and push rods aligned as they go up and down. Non-rail rockers are flat at the tip and the vale stems are very short. The reason why there are two different types is that 1965 and before heads had cast in push rod guides that kept the rods in alignment with the rockers. Ford got cheap in 1966 and stopped casting the guides into the heads so the part where the push rods slide into the heads is round and the rods fit in loosely (as opposed to the 65 heads where the rods fit into a tight slot). To compensate Ford designed the rail rocker arms. It’s a fairly decent set up for a street car but not as reliable in the long run, especially in performance applications. I had rail rockers on my car but I switched to 65 heads and non-rail rockers, since I was rebuilding my engine anyway. Hope this helps. Another good source is the book “how to rebuild your small bock Ford”. It has some pictures of both.
Click to expand...

These were origanally called 'self-aligning' rockers since the modifed tip did indeed keep the push rod in alignment. The advantage of this design is the push rods don't rub aganist the head and wear down thereby weakening the rod. I doubt 'cheap' had much to do with it seeing as it probably cost more to make the rocker with the 'rails' than without.
They work very well up to 6500 or so.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Feb 1, 2008
#4
  • Feb 1, 2008
  • #4
The rail rockers were put into production starting in April 1966. The last heads using them (small blocks) were the 76 heads. Starting in 1977, the switch to pedestals was made. The D8OE heads have pedestal rockers.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Feb 1, 2008
#5
  • Feb 1, 2008
  • #5
mikethebike said:
These were origanally called 'self-aligning' rockers since the modifed tip did indeed keep the push rod in alignment. The advantage of this design is the push rods don't rub aganist the head and wear down thereby weakening the rod. I doubt 'cheap' had much to do with it seeing as it probably cost more to make the rocker with the 'rails' than without.
They work very well up to 6500 or so.
Click to expand...

The pre-rail pushrods didn't wear down. These were hardened pushrods. I've taken apart 289's with em that had more than 100K miles on them and the pushrods had nary a sign of guide wear. The only clue as to the guide's presence was the lack of varnish build up where they contacted the guides.
 

Rusty67

20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 3, 2002
3,749
37
109
LA, CA
Feb 2, 2008
#6
  • Feb 2, 2008
  • #6
You should have your heads machined for screw in studs and put guide plates in them unless you have the older style heads with the cast in guide plate.
 

PUNISHER RACING

Active Member
Aug 27, 2007
1,124
0
36
FORD CITY, PA.
Feb 2, 2008
#7
  • Feb 2, 2008
  • #7
if you do not have guide plates or intend on getting your heads machined for them and studs buy the rail type
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
New misfire after replacing valve seals/springs.
  • SpeedofDarkness
  • Aug 24, 2025
  • SN95 V6 Mustang Tech
Replies
0
Views
240
SN95 V6 Mustang Tech Aug 24, 2025
SpeedofDarkness
S
1
Engine Motor swap from a 2003 Explorer
  • 1996mustang new
  • Oct 9, 2025
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
678
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Oct 16, 2025
squeak93
Resolved 93 Mustang 5.0 - Cranks but does not start
  • dan50
  • Jul 18, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
308
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 18, 2026
dan50
0
V6 to V8 Swap info
  • 02_2v_Curtis
  • Jan 11, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
824
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jan 11, 2026
02_2v_Curtis
0
A
Blow through intercooled questions
  • AngryH58
  • Aug 31, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
94
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Sep 1, 2026
AngryH58
A
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang 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?