Close



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1

    Default How much cam lift can I go with stock '79 302 ?

    Still researching 302 roller cam upgrades and had some questions for the forum knowledge base.

    From the research I have done it seems the 302 stock cam on the 79 vintage of engines only had int/exh lifts of around 0.240, which are pretty puny from what is available in aftermarket cams these days etc....so I was wondering if anyone knows off hand how much possible extra lift these motors would accept before running into piston/valve clearance issues ?

    This would be for my sons car, which is daily driver, so not looking for a huge increase in power/performance here but like the idea of a roller cam conversion (even if its not a power adder) in order to move on from flat tappets. The engine is still in good shape but very much stock, although it was bored 0.030 when rebuilt etc.

    Any comments/suggestions or information would be appreciated.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    FEP Member Mgino757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    489

    Default

    I don't think it'll be PTV issues you'll run into first, but valve float will be the main issue. That .240 is likely the lift measurement at the lobe, not the valve. That being said, that lift value equates to .384" at the valve; pretty puny! I'd dare venture to say .480" would be as much as I'd run with stock springs. As old as they are, a stock H.O. cam will make them float past 6000 rpm. Camshaft duration on each lobe and each opening and closing event timing will mainly determine how much lift you can go with before marrying the valves and pistons. That's definitely not a match made in heaven!

    Either way, any mild cam will work fine without issue. Even an E cam could work. Anything better, you'll want to upgrade the heads, which is what I'd do first. Street manners will be determined by the camshaft and the intake manifold/ carb combo you use.
    1985 Mustang GT conv. modified 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, 2003 V6 T5, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch.

    1998 Mustang GT auto. PI swapped. Daily beater

  3. #3

    Default

    Bored 0.030" over... what pistons? Some years ago, I used Ford Motorsport's A312 flat tappet hydraulic camshaft in a '72 302 with stock dished pistons and valve springs, without issues with clearance or float or running out of steam past 6500rpm. The VALVE lifts for that A312 camshaft are 0.472" intake and 0.496" exhaust. Something else to consider is amounts of duration and stock level compression ratio. The very best comment/suggestion would be to check for clearance issues upon assembly.
    Mike
    1986 Mustang convertible ---> BUILD THREAD
    Past Fox-chassis "four eyes":
    1983 Mercury Cougar LS
    1986 Ford Thunderbird ELAN
    1980 Capri RS Turbo

    Work in progress website ---> http://carb-rebuilds-plus.boards.net/

  4. #4

    Default

    The motor was rebuilt many moons ago (late eighties haha) so I don’t really know what brand of pistons. All I remember is not a lot of $$ were spent so probably just basic aftermarket. I will probably be removing heads so can measure clearance if/when but just wanted a ballpark number to get an idea what cam to look for etc.

    I can probably find an oem cam easy enough and would probably use the retro link bar lifters. Even though they are expensive it seems to make sense to go that route for cam flexibility. From what I’m hearing maybe a stock roller cam from a late 80s non HO car might work decently enough or similar to what I got.

    What’s the consensus on my existing stock valve springs holding up if I find a comparable lift cam ? Or could I just replace with stock springs from a stock roller motor ? Or did the stock heads from 79 change significantly up to early 90s ?

  5. #5
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Just pick a good aftermarket cam in the sub 453 thou net lift range listed below you need and call it a day.

    Everything got down graded in the 1978 head, Ford standardised a lot of parts so the 255, 302 and 351 Windsor engines were all changed to suit a certain peak lift.

    Valve springs need to be better than D8 OE 6513 BA intake and D7 JE 6513 AA on exhaust.

    Seals that worked were D5 UE 6571 BA

    So you can find a cam, Specfically:-

    Fords so called 4-bbl Marine Cam (270/290 split duration cam with 278/283 thou lobe lift).

    Last year made, the 305 hp 1995 Ford Mustang SVT 351 R cam is just the 1972 Cleveland Cobra Jet cam profile remastered, what the so called Mercury Marine/ Indar Marine Cam is, same as the D2 Windsor 351 Marine.

    The cam was also the emissions 1980 E0OZ 6250-A cam G VIN HO 351 cam for Panthers, used for two years, and possiably as the Police car option till 1991 in Canada

    If you shop around, you can have it supplied in the pre 1982 early 302 firing order.

    Its based on the so called 1972 Marine Cam master.


    It was developed from extensive work stemming form the aggressive cam the 1969 Phase I 351 Windsor 4V GT Falcons and the aftermarket Shelby cam for 1969 cars.

    Ford toned it down for the emission era, and split the intake lobe duration and lowered the peak lift to avoid needeing new valve gear...remastered for a Windsor 2V head, its exceptionally good at the medium to high range, with no loss of torque on the 351 W, a little bit on the 302W


    This is not the D3OE-6250-AA Hydraulic flat tappet Torino 351 W 1973 cam grind used in the Fox 5.0 82-85 GT's and RS's and 5.8 Lightening, but a much more aggressive cam.

    This was born the D2ZZ-6250-B 1972 351C Cobra Jet cam profile on a Windsor 351 master, but its actually a 351 C 4V remaster of the 1971 Cleveland Cobra Jet cam D1 ZZ 6250-A used in the DeTomaso Pantera.

    Lift differences are the rocker arm differences of the Cleveland 1.73 verses the Windsors 1.6:1 nominal ratio. Its just the same grind designed for the 351 W firing order.

    270 intake /290 exhaust duration,
    hydraulic,
    and 206/221 duration at 50 thou lift,
    and 443 and 453 lift,
    115 lobe

    Based on 80 and 81 LTD's and 5.8 High Output Crown Victorias, that same cam is worth about 14% more power on what you have with no other modifications.





    The basic Cam profile is 11 and 12th line down in this chart




    Note well. If you are wanting to go roller cam, find Ethyl Cat, and ask him. He has access to best cam masters around, many of whom post here.

    No modification engines can use one of 13 masters Ford uses, and they give good results, but a custom cam will wake up a stock 79 302 W very well, its a super responsve engine, even on an 8.4:1 compression ratio

    The Explorer 5.0 roller cam is just a rip off "335" 351M/400 cam profile which cam out in the base 351C 2V, but was given extra duration on the exhaust. You can use it anywhere, and its always a safe bet.

    Fords letter roller cams work, and are a safe bet, but I'd personally loose a little torque on a 5 liter engine in a Fox, and gain a little extra hp high up. The thing is, the extra grunt the GT and RS pre production promation cars Ford showed in fall 1981 were not 100% stock Torino 351W cammed engines; the acceleration figures were never again matched untill the 1986 EFI 5.0 Mustangs, and the press were told by Ford that the preview 5.0's weren't 100% the same as the prodcution cars whould be. The Marine cam spec is the cam duration and lift of the D2, EO and 1995 Mustang Cobra "R" hyd non roller camshaft
    Duration 208 int./224 exh. @050
    Valve Lift 0.453 int./0.453 exh but used 1.7 ratio rockers that basically made the cam a 0.481 lift

    In a similar way, the G VIN HO 351 cam, E0OZ 6250-A, for 1980-1981 HO cam for the 351 Windsor in Panther platform cars actually had 10 thou less intake lift with 1.6:1 rockers, 0.443 vs 0.453" and 2 degrees less 50 thou lift than the Marine 351w and 1995 cam. It was a reprofile to suit the emissions and CAFE requirements, but essentially the same cam.


    sources

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...Identification
    https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=71872
    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...7-Cam-for-351w

  6. #6

    Default

    OP didn't state whether this engine has a manual or auto box behind it, but especially if it's auto, I would suggest
    using Ford's blueprint for the '85 4V HO engine as a guide.

    The E5AE heads used on the 85 4V engine, apart from the clearancing to allow removal of the roller lifters with the
    heads still in place, are remarkably similar to the D9AE heads. The '85-spec roller cam sports .444 lift and 266º
    duration on both intake and exhaust. It's a very flexible cam, and perhaps more important, it's got a carb-friendly
    115º LSA.

    With induction and exhaust upgrades, you can expect the engine to pull cleanly from 1500 up to around 5-5500 RPM,
    regardless of transmission. The engine works very well with a stock C4 converter, or something in the 1800-2200 RPM
    stall range. It will pull fine off the line with the stock 2.79 rear gears, but it really likes 3.27s.

    This was the recipe for the second iteration of my first 5.0 Fairmont wagon, after making the mistake of giving it a bit
    too much cam. With the '85-spec 5.0, that car was always a blast to drive around town or out on the highway. I've
    kept my '85 hatch reasonably close to the same blueprint, and I love how flexible it drives. Almost EFI-like when I'm
    cruising, but unleashed, it pulls strong to 5800.

    Ford really nailed the combination on the last of the carbureted 5.0s.
    Cheers,
    Jeff Cook

    '85 GT Hatch, 5-speed T-Top, Eibachs, Konis, & ARE 5-Spokes ... '85 GT Vert, CFI/AOD, all factory...
    '79 Fairmont StaWag, 5.0, 62K original miles ... '04 Azure Blue 40th Anny Mach 1, 37K original miles...
    2012 F150 S-Crew 4x4 5.0 "Blue Coyote"... 65 coupe, 289 auto, Pony interior ... '67 coupe 6-cyl 4-speed ...
    '68 Vert, Mexican block 307 4-speed... '71 Datsun 510 ...
    And a 1-of-328 Deep Blue Pearl 2003 Marauder 4.6 DOHC, J-Mod, 4.10s and Lidio tune

  7. #7

    Default

    Hey Jeff, its a T5 conversion from a 98 mustang with a 3.08 posi from a 94 cobra so a bit of a frankenstein. My kid loves the manual and it certainly improved the performance/driveability of the car IMO. Its also a factory 2bbl intake and carb which is a limiting factor as well. I have an Edelbrock F4B I could put on but its the kids car and i didn't want too much gusto for a young driver all at once...small steps...haha !!

    Do you think the HO roller cam will work OK with my current stock heads/pistons ? I won't hold you to it by any means.

    I would hate to find out later the pistons need notched or something. Like I said I cant be sure, the engine was built by a mechanic buddy of mine and is most likely a 79-80 vintage 302 and probably not from a mustang.

    Just for the hell of it I went to the JY today and pulled a cam out of a 88 crown vic non-HO roller. It was cheap enough and it looked and measured fine with all lifts around .244 which is almost exactly what my haynes manual states for a stock 79. So I am pretty sure I could just run that cam no problem but also no real gain in performance for the effort either....so HO is more appealling at the moment

    Curiously i was checking out the Rock Auto catalog and it lists the same springs for a 79 mustang and an 88 crown vic so thinking my stock springs would hold up fine for sure with this cam. Surprisingly it also lists the same spring for an 86 mustang so I am wondering if they would also hold up with a HO cam. I was hoping not to have to touch the heads but could pop new springs on if I knew what to get etc.

    Thanks all for the discussion and information !!

  8. #8
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    HO firing order shows more power output - especially torque - with no other changes. I think it was either HotRod or CarCraft that did a write up on SBF builds back in the 80's.

    They started with a run of the mill 302 and a run of the mill 351W. I don't remember the numbers anymore but with stock cam specs found in the 74 engines they were playing with they saw 10-15% increase in torque and more peak HP with the HO / 351 firing order.

    They did dyno pulls on each mule then tore down. Cam degree was checked to eliminate variables. Dizzy was marked and put back where it was upon re-install. Cams were swapped and retested with 302 order in the 351W and HO/351 order in the 302.

    Charts of all four combinations show on multiple pulls both V8's ran better in every usable way with the HO order. One thing they did note is that the 302 order didn't carry as much vacuum at idle and couldn't be slowed down as far without stalling either.

    Pretty much summed up what I've observed for what it's worth.

    Some of the old hipo 289 cam profiles did well for what they were as another thought.

    imo - Best bet is to call up comp or similar companies and get their expert advise.

  9. #9
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Roseburg Oregon
    Posts
    3,308

    Default

    In my opinion , roller 302 core engines are pretty cheap.
    After the expense of converting to a link system , you can build a roller motor for less .
    clowns to the left of me , Jokers to the right

  10. #10
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Good point there!

    Advantage of core swap is you will get a one piece rear main along with the revisions for the roller cam.

    Not saying flat tappet cams don't have their merits ..... just that the roller cams have more. the roller engines do tend to last longer too. Especially with a working EFI system (or a very well dialed in carb) on them.

  11. #11
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The Sub Letter Roller Cams are an area Ford didn't explore for carb 2 and 4bbl 5.0's.

    In a very similar to the SBF 5.0 engine, the Australian GM Holden 5.0, the cam of choice was a single pattern 270 or 280 cam with around 410 thou lift.



    The E5ZE-6250-AA 266°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift HO cam is very, very good, but I'd say its still quite mild.


    The split duration D2 Marine cam lift and duration specs transfered to a roller cam would suit any 4-bbl 5.0 for a good son.

    Ford really couldn't add too many extra camshaft suds to the Speed Density 1986 5.0 cam, as the exhaust was very low restriction, and the EFI got higher compression anyway. Most of the tuning engineers thought EO certified long tube 1-5/8" and bigger header exhaust mods were going to be done to any hot 5.0, but not many people delved into that. The HO cam is not a patch on the 5.8 HO flat tappet cam.

    Without a free flow exhaust, without compression upgrades, the 79 5.0 with a 4-bbl would use the extra lift and duration of a bigger than 85-90 EFI roller cam, and the cam specs that work are actually the ancient Marine master. Even the little 4.2 4-bbl mentioned above lapped it up....

    The Explorer F4TE-6250-BA 256°/266°at lash 422/448 thou lift cam is milder, and common but way too mild. The stock non HO 5.0 roller cams are insufficent to be of any benefit, IMHO.

    For sure, camshaft tech has moved on greatly, with very special split duration cams that fit the dsiplacement and cylinder head, exhaust and intake systems so much better than they did in the 1985 to 1995 development era,


    but the roller cam basics of the Bunch of Fives Killer Letter cams remains intact.

    They are our guiding lights, and you ignore them at your peril.

    Just remember, the later 1996 model year to 2000 model year demise, the Explorer 5.0 ran a split duration roller cam of very low lift, and short durations, F4TE-6250-BA Hydraulic Roller 256° intake, 266° exhaust, 422/448 thou lift profile at 1.6:1 just like the just like the lame old 456/ 485 thou lift at 1.73:1 of the hoary ole 351M/400 engines. It was a pure emissions cam, and you don't see any power increase with it over the 5.0 HO spec engine with E6 or E7 heads , even with its later GT40 spec lower and upper intake the Explorers had.

    Fords rationale on cams was that Sedan and production racing improves the breed.

    Edsel Ford II saw first hand how an Australian production V8 sedan in the 620 mile endurance racers (Toranas and Commodores) could be modified to take a little 5.0 V8 from a 168 hp plodder to a 295 hp firebreather in five steps. After 3 years in Australia from 1977 to 1980, EFII ensured Ford USA's directive was Peformance!.

    Using existing masters, Dearborn absolutely copied the Holden Australias L31, L34, and A9X/A9L flat tappet hydraulic cam shafts used in the 168 to 295 hp 308 and 304 Holdens, and then used the Cleveland and Windsor Total Performance and SVO masters to get intense valve lift with reduced duration. Then it was all quickly made on SVO roller cam profiles shafts.

    In Australia, the stock 308/304 V8 GM Holden cars were either 270, or 280 degree cams based on the L48 Chevy 350 cam with 5 different cam sprockets, and retard placed in or taken out, and the peak lift varied. There was suddenly an optional Race Only solid lifter Wade 140 or Isky Z50 "L34" cam with 314 degrees at lash, then the Wade 169 hydraulic cam was used with 276 degrees at lash, and a Wade 242 with 295 degrees duration. 50 thou figures would vary from 192 to over 220 degrees at 50 thou.

    Ford really didn't have to try very hard to make the 302/5.0 go so stout.

    Overall Roller cam Production figures are effectively four types, revised four times:
    85-88 5.0: E5ZE-6250-AA 266°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 1)
    89-90 5.0 : E8ZE-6250-CA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 2)
    91-93 5.0: F1ZE-6250-AA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 2)
    93 Cobra 5.0: F3ZE-6250-CA 270°/270° at lash 479/479 thou lift with 1.7 rocker arm ratio (Version 3)
    94 Cobra 5.0: F1ZE-6250-AA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou (Version 2)
    95 Cobra 5.0: F4ZE-6250-DA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 2)
    96-01 Explorer 5.0:F4TE-6250-BA 256°/266°at lash 422/448 thou lift (Version 4)

    As the heads were modifed into GT40 and GT40P with better flow, Ford downgraded the cam duration. That makes 9 common counter Roller cams, (4 Regular Production "RPO" Standards, and then the 5 not for road use letter options......and they are pretty well sorted options.

    Fords Engineering bofins had a raft of very special 5.0 engine combinations dyno tested, and the cams were made to suit the kinds of heads and exhausts used and planned. The big 1988 scale back, when Ford buckeled to pressure, and failed to merchandise the 25 th Anniversay 5.8 and the 5.0 only had a few SVO/FMS/FRPP engine options. There were certainly 100% RPO factory alloy heads and much more stuff planned.

    Running the dyno program was interesting for the staff, but Ford had to optimise performance only after passing the durablity and emissions tests, so the engines backed off 50 thou figures and as the headers improved, opted out of overscavinging split pattern cams to reverse split cams. The cams were specific to an optimised combination.

    50 thou figures show a lot more on what was going on.

    Stock 85-90 cam is 204°/204° at 50 thou 444 in. 444 ex thou lift

    A-cam (Ist) is 204°/214° at 50 thou 448 in. 472 ex
    A-cam (2nd) is 204°/214° at 50 thou 472 in. 496 ex
    E-cam is 220°/220° at 50 thou 498 in. 498 ex thou lift
    B-cam is 224°/224° at 50 thou 480 in. 480 ex thou lift
    F-cam is 226°/226° at 50 thou 512 in. 512 ex thou lift
    X-cam is 224°/224° at 50 thou 542 in. 542 ex thou lift
    Z-cam is 228°/228° at 50 thou 552 in. 552 ex thou lift






    Sources:

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...GT40p-question
    http://www.ffcars.com/forums/17-fact...ollection.html
    http://www.gmh-torana.com.au/forums/...ho-cam-quiery/

  12. #12

    Default

    So wouldn't you know it...I head to the other junkyard in town and find a 95 GT with a 5.0 HO that still had the engine intact...not an easy find these days. Someone even had it half dismantled to get the fuel rails and injectors....needless to say I removed the cam which BTW i'm getting pretty good at now The lobes measured good with .275 to .280 lifts according to my caliper.

    Now I am somewhat committed to this project and it just got a lot cheaper if i can use this cam etc. After sifting through the data I am thinking the 95 specs I found are very similar to the 80's HO cams but a dual pattern...perhaps too much cam for my application...not sure ?

    91-95 HO:
    Lift: .278 intake, .278 exhaust
    Duration: 276 intake, 266 exhaust
    Overlap: 39 degrees, 19.51 factor
    Lobe Center: 116 intake, 115 exhaust
    Ford P/N: F1ZE-AA (91-94) F4ZE-EA (95)

    I will measure the PTV clearance when the time comes. Total lift should be around .444 with the stock rockers so from what I gather from xctasy's info it should probably be fine.

    I do have the original 1980 255 sitting on an engine stand...perhaps I could use it to mock up the cam and check clearances or is it different enough compared to a 302 that wouldn't work ?

    The only other question is should I get some better valve springs. I don't really know...any suggestions ?

  13. #13
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Never used the 1989-1990 cam in the 1985 CFi Mercury

    Without the GT40 heads, but with long tubes, 3" single exhaust, and even a 2-bbl intake, it can be a mean killer sounding engine. All roller cams above stock do that.




    The induction system and fuel metering is off on this restricted intake CFi, but especially with a good exhaust, it makes a killer sound.


    The car will need headers, a good exhaust, and a good 4bbl carb to balance the cam. That cam was designed for less restricted heads.

    Valve springs, well, as long as there is no coil binding at full lift, then the whole thing should work.

    Question. Are you

    1. using link bars to run on the stock cam, or

    2. are you going to risk the block drilling to hold the pressed tin spider?

  14. #14

    Default

    Thanks for the info !!

    Actually the car already has a set of factory headers (off a 95 come to think of it) with a BBK 2 1/2 " x-pipe and 2 1/4" tailpipes so probably a lot better than stock as far as exhaust. Its still a 2 bbl factory intake but like I said I do have an edelbrock F4B i could install and then shop for a carb etc.

    I am planning on using the linkbar lifters, maybe howards cam 91168 retrofit. Will probably have to figure out some pushrods too. I know a roller block is probably the way to go but its not in the cards right now. I am willing to pony up for the lifters rather than put a bunch of labor into a block at this point.

    I would certainly like to use the existing heads I have since I know they are good. However are there any heads I should be on lookout for...perhaps someday. would it be worth to grab the heads off the 95 to have ?

  15. #15
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Roseburg Oregon
    Posts
    3,308

    Default

    Look for 69 ,302 or 351 heads if you are determined to live in the last century.
    Last edited by ashley roachclip; 10-24-2017 at 11:16 PM.
    clowns to the left of me , Jokers to the right

  16. #16
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    The working envelope for great easy going stock Ford part street 5 liter engines is now from the lowly 215 hp net Explorer 5.0 to the 325 hp net E cam. To compare, the early 302 J codes 230 Gross and the small carb 4-bbl H code 351 W 4V's 290 hp gross were rerated as 172 hp net and 216 hp net respectivly by the German TUV.

    The early heads flowed more than enough. The single exhast Cleveland 302 2V (Australia) and 4-bbl carbed but 2V headed 351 C were 230 hp Gross and 290 hp gross, but 156 hp net and 216 hp net. The rub here is that the Cleveland heads put another 20 cfm at 400 thou lift verses the two 1968/1969 Windsor heads, but the Cleveland engine had much more conservative cam timing, and missed out on the 4-bbl in the base Australian 302C 2V export engine.

    Above that are aftermarket alloy heads, which have eliminated any one ever having to use a flow bench to get a 430 hp net engine with a custom cam. Ford was probably in that position in well before 2000 with the GT40X and then revised GT40Z alloy heads, but the 4.6 32v was already onfire with a SuperCharger in store, and the 5.0 was dead everywhere except in export markets and SUV's

    The early 1968 4V J code 302 and so called H code 1969 351W 4V heads were simply very good. They weren't cammed with anything notable; it was only when using the aftermarket Shelby cams that the performance got liberated like it was in the ballsy 271 hp K code 310 degree, 460 thou cam lift 289.

    The one version was the overseas export Australian Phase I GTHO 351 W, with the Buddy Bar "Shelby" alloy intake, 600 cfm 4-bbl, and 300 hp gross, an over the counter parts option only for US OEM 351W's. With a C90Z6250-C

    The these two so called "OZ" cams the K code cams became the verille foundation of the 1970 351c 4v GTHO Falcon 310 degree Phase II engine, and downgraded for drivablity 1971-1972 351c 4v GTHO Falcon 300 Phase III "505" and 290 degree Mustang Boss 351 cams


    and the "OZ" H code 351 w 4v aftermarket cam option was the first stab at a proper big cube Windsor.

    The GT40 and GT40P head engines were modern incarnations of the 4V Windsor head which was killed off by the 1970 model year 4V and 2V Cleveland and then the 1983 SVO A3 Yates heads....why it it took 23 years for a proper 4V style Windsor head to re-amerge, and even then, by 1991, Ford got Desert Storm induced cold feet.

  17. #17
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    D0OE heads were last seen on some special ordered 351W motors in 1974. Afaik, most went on Galaxie 500's with a giant 550 CFM 2 barrel sitting on top that was a real weapon on the dirt track. 550 cfm, yea right.

    Shave them down for compression then and add a good intake and exhaust -- they were a runner. Better with a 550 and an adapter plate than a 600 Holley, would run more R's that way too.

    Really snotty little thing once properly tuned for the most part. 14's and high 13's out of a gun boat - sorta nuts really. That same motor in a Mustang stripped down to fighting weight was probably good for 11's.

    then it's time to get serious about cams and turning RPM.

    If I were doing that stuff now it would be AFR 185's or procomp heads or Edelbrock depending upon what's available within budget. Those old heads were notorious for knocking out valves and guides, etc - just not worth the expense needed to correct and maintain.

  18. #18
    FEP Power Member slow84lx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,562

    Default

    By the time you have retrofitted the '95 roller cam into the non-roller engine you may find that you could have pulled the complete roller engine intact and put your carb & intake on it for the same, or less, money. It would provide a matching combination of parts which would be reliable and a good foundation for future upgrades without the need to chase down / troubleshoot each individual part like pushrods, lifters, etc.

    If you would like a set of home ported E7's they are yours for the cost of shipment. They are just taking up space in my garage.

    Good luck with your project.

  19. #19

    Default

    Thanks for the heads offer slow84lx...it is appreciated but I think I would just run the heads I have for now. Like I said its not that important to me to gain a lot of horsepower. The main reason I am pursuing this is mainly to convert to a roller cam for a hopefully better running engine and less worries about the flat tappets and the lack of additives in the oils these days etc. Thinking the HO cam should give me a boost regardless and finding a pick n pull one saved me quite a few bucks.

    I know that ideally the roller block has advantages but the thing is the engine I have, although its older, does not have all that many miles on a rebuild and it runs quite well. Bottom line I know the base condition of it.

    I could pull out a roller motor from a junkyard special which will cost me a minimum of couple hundred and no guarantees it will be any good or at the very least probably have many miles on it. To get a good used one would probably cost minimum $500 and still no guarantees...not to mention all the hours pulling it hauling it and then doing a swap etc. Anything goes wrong or if it needs anything and its even more $$ and I've been down that road before with used stuff. I believe parts for these cars are significantly higher and harder to find up in Canada.

    So when I add that up in my head and the work involved and the fact that the kid uses his car quite regular I feel that the conversion is probably the way to go even with the expense of the lifters, pushrods, and maybe springs etc. It will probably take a few bucks but in the end i will know what I've got too.

    Someday I would like to find a roller engine block to work on at my leisure and if doing a decent build would probably go aftermarket heads and different cam in that case anyway.

    Please don't take this the wrong way I do appreciate all the feedback. Cheers

  20. #20
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by at_the_junkyard View Post
    So wouldn't you know it...I head to the other junkyard in town and find a 95 GT with a 5.0 HO that still had the engine intact...not an easy find these days. Someone even had it half dismantled to get the fuel rails and injectors....needless to say I removed the cam which BTW i'm getting pretty good at now The lobes measured good with .275 to .280 lifts according to my caliper.

    Now I am somewhat committed to this project and it just got a lot cheaper if i can use this cam etc. After sifting through the data I am thinking the 95 specs I found are very similar to the 80's HO cams but a dual pattern...perhaps too much cam for my application...not sure ?

    91-95 HO:
    Lift: .278 intake, .278 exhaust
    Duration: 276 intake, 266 exhaust
    Overlap: 39 degrees, 19.51 factor
    Lobe Center: 116 intake, 115 exhaust
    Ford P/N: F1ZE-AA (91-94) F4ZE-EA (95)

    I will measure the PTV clearance when the time comes. Total lift should be around .444 with the stock rockers so from what I gather from xctasy's info it should probably be fine.

    I do have the original 1980 255 sitting on an engine stand...perhaps I could use it to mock up the cam and check clearances or is it different enough compared to a 302 that wouldn't work ?

    The only other question is should I get some better valve springs. I don't really know...any suggestions ?
    Confirming that this cam was used in the 335 hp 5.6 stroker with 1.72:1 roller rockers and GT40P heads. Its found on the 268 and 295 hp 5.0 Tickford Synergy 5000 engine package in the AU Falcons and Fairlanes

    Its just the basic 5.0 HO 1988-1993 Version 2 cam with a newer part number. It is Fords best ever stock 5.0 HO cam. Great choice. Ford downplayed the Cobra and Lightening cams from this specification....its got quite a chop to it, and its well liked.

  21. #21

    Default

    Well we got er done.

    Thought I would update this thread with details of our HO roller cam conversion install for my sons car in case anyone is thinking of doing anything similar.

    I ended up going back to the junkyard and pulled the E7 heads off of the 95 mustang HO junkyard motor that I got the cam from...price was right...and mainly because the research I did was that the chamber size was going to boost up the compression (69 cc to 62 cc etc) over the existing D8's we already had. Figuring that it would increase compression around 10% from low 8's to low 9's on our 80 stock 302.

    The used heads turned out to be in pretty good shape. Did a clean up and some lapping of all the valves and after reading up on porting E7's I took a die grinder to the exhaust ports and removed the bump and gasket matched the ports. I chickened out on grinding the intake ports and decided to leave them be, as I wasn't really sure if it was worth the extra effort. We upgraded the springs with the trick flow kit as I understand the stock springs are not great especially with some miles on them.

    We installed the howards 91168 retro link bar lifters. They are nice units but disadvantage of being quite expensive and you must have the heads off to install.

    I did a PTV check as I was not sure about the kind of pistons we had. Turns out there was more than enough clearance (at least .150 -.200 from what I measured) with the stock HO cam. We used the stock 6.25 pushrods and rockers as well. The howards lifters are about 0.050 taller than the stock lifters which put my preload a little high at around 0.060 or one full turn on the rocker bolts. I was a bit concerned it was too much but we ended up leaving as is.

    Bought a new 85 mustang duraspark distributor with a steel gear (basically cheaper and easier than buying and installing a new gear), re-installed the factory two barrel intake/carb, switched the wires around for the HO, and fired it up.

    What a difference !!

    Noticed right away that it runs/idles better and the power increase was very noticeable when we took it for a burn.

    I am not sure what kind of power increase was achieved but I am guessing perhaps about 40-50 HP. Its hard to tell what made the most impact as we changed several things besides the cam but a nice upgrade...no regrets.

    Next will probably be an upgrade to a 4 bbl intake etc.

    Thanks for all the input on this from everyone.

    Cheers

  22. #22

    Default

    Thanks for the update. Glad you got her all back together and going again. Usually I end up with an oil leak or something and have to do some of it twice, LOL. I have to say if I'm honest that I am glad you swapped the heads. That probably does make all this effort worth your time and investment. just swapping the cam I think would not have been wise on an otherwise perfectly running engine. We could guess if it was a 4 BBL but being a 2, it's kind of hard to guess how much of an improvement you got. The E7 heads and roller cam was exactly 50HP over a 1983 flat tappet and early HO head. 175 vs. 225HP. I am not sure how much of a restriction the 2BBL really is. It would be fun to dyno it now even with the 2BBL in place even though you didn't before the swap just to see what it has. If your son was helping it was likely a father-son bonding project and there is sure nothing wrong with that. He's probably the only one of his friends that has any understanding of how an engine really works. I have terrific memories of junk-yarding with my Dad on Saturday mornings to keep all our old junk on the road and treasure those memories to this day.

  23. #23

    Default

    If you still wanted to get your lifter preload adjusted down some, I just wanted to make you aware of these rocker pedestal shims:

    https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-6529-a302

    Quick and easy to install.

    - Daniel
    '79 Fairmont Futura
    '79 Mercury Zephyr wagon
    '83 LTD Wagon - future Mustang "Sport" Wagon
    '84 Mercury Capri RS - 5.0 5spd
    Owner of Victory Engines and Machining, LLC
    g2G

  24. #24

    Default

    Yeah I hope the valves/seats/guides hold up as the junkyard heads do have some miles on them. I think they will be OK but need to put some miles on them to see.

    Also, I did some reading up on the lifters and from what I gather it doesn't appear that 0.060 preload is that out of line for these roller lifters anyway. But then again there are many different opinions out there on just how much to set preload...varies from almost none to crank em all the way down LOL. However, I think I will take the advice and get a set of shims just because they are cheap and easy and will get the preload closer to recommended etc.

    And...as mentioned it is really great to work on this stuff with my son and see him taking more of an interest. We are both learning things actually. Next major project he wants to start working on the body and paint...so I know he's close to getting hooked on these cars like I am

  25. #25

    Default

    Oh...and I usually omit any re-work I have to do (been known to happen on occasion) such as oil and water leaks

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •