Close



Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: 93 roller motor

  1. #1

    Default 93 roller motor

    Going to put a 93 roller motor in my 82 GT. Taking off the efi and going with my carb. Suggestions on what would be the best cam/intake combo. Nothing radical just something a little bit better than stock and run on pump gas. My Windsor I had in the car has a Edelbrock Performer. Probably put a Performer on the 5.0.

  2. #2
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    HO cam with 1.7:1 rockers would run good.

    I would discuss the combo with Comp Cams.

    I would not bother with a letter cam, unless you want one made out of rock by Fred Flinstone himself. There are endless options that are far more modern and effective.

  3. #3
    FEP Super Member bwguardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston (Clear Lake), Texas
    Posts
    4,668

    Default

    The letter cams get alot of bad juju, but the E-303 cam has an LSA that is good for a carb setup and not too radical over stock. The stock cam is good but runs out of steam at 5K, whereas the E-303 cam will pull past 6K. I have this in my car with some GT40p heads that bump the compression up a point over stock with the 59cc chambers. I also have a Ford Racing dual plane high rise intake which is similar to the Edelbrock Performer. I just wanted something better than stock, but keep everything Ford and have been very happy with the combination. Are there better cams, heads, intakes, etc. out there...absolutely; but the car runs hard for a weekend play toy. I have too many other toys to worry about to have this one not be nice and reliable.
    Last edited by bwguardian; 04-06-2018 at 11:26 AM.
    HAD
    '82 GT monochromatic (red)...black cloth

    HAVE
    '85 GT vert two tone (white on charcoal)...white leather
    '00 F350 two tone (white on silver)...gray cloth
    '00 Excursion Limited two tone (white on tan)...tan leather...wifes ride
    '08 Taurus Limited ice blue...tan leather...daughter ride
    '08 Edge Limited white sand tri-coat metallic...tan leather...other daughters ride

  4. #4
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    The Ford Alphabet cams are hard to beat for the price since most can be had for $200 or less.

    There are better more modern cams available from Comp Cams, Crane, and others.

    If you are serious about maximizing your combo, then a custom camshaft is the way to go. Yes, it will cost you a bit more $$ but compared to leaving HP/TQ on the table the cost difference is negligible IMHO.

    Check this out here for one option. http://www.flowtechinduction.com/fti...ord-austemper/

    If you feel you need a billet core, then you want this option. http://www.flowtechinduction.com/fti...t-ford-billet/

    Good Luck!
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  5. #5
    FEP Super Member 84StangSVT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    4,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bwguardian View Post
    The letter cams get alot of bad juju, but the E-303 cam has an LSA that is good for a carb setup and not too radical over stock. The stock cam is good but runs out of steam at 5K, whereas the E-303 cam will pull past 6K. I have this in my car with some GT40p heads that bump the compression up a point over stock with the 59cc chambers. I also have a Ford Racing dual plane high rise intake which is similar to the Edelbrock Performer. I just wanted something better than stock, but keep everything Ford and have been very happy with the combination. Are there better cams, heads, intakes, etc. out there...absolutely; but the car runs hard for a weekend play toy. I have too many other toys to worry about to have this one not be nice and reliable.
    I really like this reply!

    If money is not an issue, then shoot for the moon with all of the aftermarket stuff out there. If it is a simple budget minded build that is reliable and proven, then it's hard to beat the letter cams and better stock heads for a bump in performance.
    Brock
    1984 Mustang LX Convertible 3.8L V-6/Auto (SOLD)
    1984 Mustang GT Hatchback 5.0 V-8/5 Speed

    I'm an FEP Supporter and proud of it. Are you?

  6. #6
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    A stock cam even with 1.6:1 does not give up before 6K if its fed by a decent throttlebody and intake and has headers helping it along. Just to be clear, the cam is not the problem with the HO stock, its the intake.

    Talk to anyone else who has put on an actual GT40 tubular or a Edelbrock or a Typhoon. Now talk to guys running a 1.7:1 rocker or a mild cam too.

    hell -- a few friends made fun of my E6 heads until I intake swapped then wrapped the old gal up to 60 in low gear and threw a powershift while sideways and ran that to 87.

    Its not the cam. Just sayin.

  7. #7
    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 erratic50 View Post
    A stock cam even with 1.6:1 does not give up before 6K if its fed by a decent throttlebody and intake and has headers helping it along. Just to be clear, the cam is not the problem with the HO stock, its the intake.

    Talk to anyone else who has put on an actual GT40 tubular or a Edelbrock or a Typhoon. Now talk to guys running a 1.7:1 rocker or a mild cam too.

    hell -- a few friends made fun of my E6 heads until I intake swapped then wrapped the old gal up to 60 in low gear and threw a powershift while sideways and ran that to 87.

    Its not the cam. Just sayin.

    So true. The Ford cams from 1992 to 2002 in 5.0 or 5.6 liter performance Fords gave 225 to upwards of 335 hp, and great dollops of axle tramping torque. The ultimate improvemnets were in intake flow, rocker ratio and a return to the kind of heads the 302 J code and 351 M code Windsor 4V High Performance engines had in 1968 and 1969. It took years for Ford to go back and get the same cfm figures that those 230 and 290/300 horepower engines had from the factory.

    The 1993 5.0 is the most well developed engine, and its only the total package cfm with the rockers, intake and fuel delivery to suit that needs to be targeted. They got it right in 1993.


    The E6 head was restricted in its peak cfm flow by the non GT40 lower and upper EFi intake. Just adding the Typhon style lower and upper intake makes it like the 2002 T3 TE50 5.6 liter intake, and that makes a stock GT40P headed engine able to climb tall bouldings and eat LS Chevy engines for breakfast. Even the last 2000-2002 5 liter non stroker engines in Australian XR8's and Tickford TE50's used the same kind of 1993 cam and head flow figures...it was the intake and fuel delivery system that was upgraded to turn it into "All Killer" from a production line "All Filler" 1993 style 5.0 block.



    Production Cam selection isn't about anything except finding the correct balance between low end torque and high end power.


    My roller cam pick? If it has headers and a better than 1978-1981 5.0 cylinder head, then the more aggressive cam is the stock 89-95 HO 5.0.


    Its wilder than the Version 3 1993-1995 "Cobra R" roller cam. As Walking Tall said, even that cam was , the F3ZE-CA camshaft, was snuck into some '93 Thunderbirds and Cougars...and Aussie 5.0 EFi Falcons.

    The Stock 1988 HO 5.0 276/266 cam

    E8ZE-6250-CA for 1989 5.0 HO
    F1ZE-6250-AA (1991-1994)
    F4ZE-6250--EA part number from a 1995 model year 5.0

    This "Version 2" roller cam, the 1989 on wards HO cam, is IMHO, the most wonderfull Ford cam ever made. Its versitile, and it gets great results with tubing headers, 2 bbl 1.21 or bigger carb, any or 4-bbl carb or CFi twin point injection, or truck style bank fire or HO style SEFi. Its designed for an engine with very little exhaust backpressure, and a good power to weight ratio.

    Manual stick shift, or Automatic Overdrive

    Stock C4 or AOD without a stall coverter

    5 liter, or 5.6 Liter.

    Stock 1.6 rockers, or 1.72:1 rller rockers

    Stock heads or E7's, GT40, GT40P, or alloy GT40X.


    Best accolade for the cam? Its ability to be used in 347's and 351's!

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...94#post1870694

    https://www.motormag.com.au/features...5-6-windsor-v8

    335 hp and 369 lb-ft in the last 14 second and below 1/4 mile, 3850 pound Falcon TE50 5. 6 liter engine, based on the humble old Explorer and Mountainer engine, but with power at 5250 rpm,. and the rev limiter set to 6000 rpm.



    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...s-in-any-351-s
    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...h-stock-79-302

    Here is a smattering of the 12 most Revolutionary Roller and Solid cams for post 1986 Port Fuelie 5.0and 5.8's.

    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 ( Version 1 and Version 2 again, Roller cam)

    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)................................................ ..1st
    89-90 5.0 : E8ZE-6250-CA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 2)................................................ 2nd
    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)...3rd
    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)....................................4th



    A-cam (Ist flat tappet hyd ) is 204°/214° at 50 thou 448 in. 472 ex...............Deadly Letter A'.....................5th
    A-cam (2ndflat tappet hyd ) is 204°/214° at 50 thou 472 in. 496 ex..............Deadly Letter A''....................6th
    E-cam is 220°/220° at 50 thou 498 in. 498 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter E.....................7th
    B-cam is 224°/224° at 50 thou 480 in. 480 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter B......................9th
    F-cam is 226°/226° at 50 thou 512 in. 512 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter F......................10th
    X-cam is 224°/224° at 50 thou 542 in. 542 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter X.....................11th
    Z-cam is 228°/228° at 50 thou 552 in. 552 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter Z......................12th
    Last edited by xctasy; 05-08-2018 at 01:52 PM. Reason: Cams from 1992, not 1982. Although the 1988-1981 HO 351 cam used in the Crown Vic was a SVT CobraR 351 spec cam and can make over 300 hp with ease

  8. #8
    FEP Super Member bwguardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston (Clear Lake), Texas
    Posts
    4,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nitemarestang82gt View Post
    Going to put a 93 roller motor in my 82 GT. Taking off the efi and going with my carb. Suggestions on what would be the best cam/intake combo. Nothing radical just something a little bit better than stock and run on pump gas. My Windsor I had in the car has a Edelbrock Performer. Probably put a Performer on the 5.0.
    Will you be leaving the stock heads on the short block or are you considering looking at something a little better than stock like the intake and cam for this carbed setup?
    HAD
    '82 GT monochromatic (red)...black cloth

    HAVE
    '85 GT vert two tone (white on charcoal)...white leather
    '00 F350 two tone (white on silver)...gray cloth
    '00 Excursion Limited two tone (white on tan)...tan leather...wifes ride
    '08 Taurus Limited ice blue...tan leather...daughter ride
    '08 Edge Limited white sand tri-coat metallic...tan leather...other daughters ride

  9. #9
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Edelbrock makes an outstanding carb intake for the SBF and would be my first pick. If you do not need emissions then Airgap is the route to go. Otherwise a CARB 50 state legal Performer is a great option.

    As for carburetors - personally I’ve always liked the Edelbrock (AFB) style carbs more than the Holley’s. At the end of the day there are guys here willing to help make a SBF run perfectly with any flavor of controlled fuel leak you pick. The threads on here are absolutely the best I’ve seen bar none when it comes to carbs.

    You cannot make some parts of the carb tube decision until you have an idea on how much duration your cam has as that influences carb calibration due to idle vacuum, etc. it’s all just a balance of several compromises as you know.

    There are magazine builds with 1.72:1 rockers and AFR or Edelbrock heads and a good intake that made 400 HP and 400 Lbs of torque at the crank on a Stock shortblock - including cam - 89 HO motor. You don’t particularly NEED a “better” cam as much as a good set of heads and intake. There is power to be has also with a better cam of course too. There are lots of builds that over cam and ultimately never realize the true potential of their combination. They would be better off with a stock HO cam and 1.72’s.

    The badass street/strip combo back in the day was intake, heads, E cam, and 1.72’s offset with 3.73’s out back. The next to rule was the same with pretty much the same but with a stroker kit.

    that said, those guys sometimes got their butts drug down the strip by guys on the stick who had done very basic things to open up power potential in a car that looks and drives completely stock until the hammer is dropped.

    There are modern cams now that will yield all the power of those combos and more without any of the drivability drama and loss in part throttle economy, etc.

    Good luck with your build!
    Last edited by erratic50; 04-07-2018 at 05:10 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Hi,
    Just retired at 67 and needed something to do so, I'm putting together a stout 5.0 roller for my 1979 Hatchback.
    I have a set of worked early 351-W heads (heavy porting, welded ports, 1.94int. 1.60ex., screw in studs, guide plates, springs) the works, they were state of the art in late 70's, when I raced a pinto in brackets. These have been stored with my 1979 hatchback for 15 years, until now as both coming out of storage.
    But back to cam choice I am going with the X-303 as it's less deration and more lift, so that should relate to more vacuum?. With heads, matched torker intake, 730 Holley, Flat tops w/ 3/8" rods, 3.73 gear, T-5 and looking at 6500 rpm, So to me it seems that the x-303 with new kit is the way for me to go. What do you think??
    Ed
    Last edited by ThunderStruck; 04-10-2018 at 12:12 AM. Reason: Brain Fart

  11. #11

    Default

    This month's issue of Muscle Mustang magazine has a test of the E cam and rockers in an otherwise stock HO engine. They gained a total of 4 HP and LOST 8Ft Lbs of torque. Lot of work for overall a loss just your idle sounds cool. As stated above, the cam is not the bottleneck on a 5.0. The heads are.

  12. #12

    Default

    What are the advantages and disadvantages to going to 1.7 rockers? I know the '93 Cobra had them from the factory. My engine is otherwise very close to '93 Cobra spec, GT40 heads/intake and 24 lb injectors.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZephyrEFI View Post
    What are the advantages and disadvantages to going to 1.7 rockers? I know the '93 Cobra had them from the factory. My engine is otherwise very close to '93 Cobra spec, GT40 heads/intake and 24 lb injectors.
    Increased valve lift for potentially increased intake/exhaust cylinder head port flow. Ie.: 0.480" valve lift with 1.6:1 rockers... installing 1.7's theoretically increases the valve lift to 0.510", or 30 thou... 0.030"... not much. The 1.7's moves the push rod cup closer to the rocker pivot to increase the rocker ratio, so examination whether the closer push rods is an issue for bumping into other things isn't a bad idea. IMHO, in the neighborhood of 30 thou increased valve lift is somewhat gimmicky as effective and meaningful power-increasing modifications go.
    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/

  14. #14

    Default

    Thanks! What about practical effects, like stuff you'll notice behind the wheel? Does it increase power at a certain RPMs or something or have a downside like making the idle too rough or something like that? I just pulled those examples out of my ass, I really have NO idea.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  15. #15
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Rocker ratio adds around 15 degrees of effective duration degrees at 0.050 or more lift if memory serves.

    I believe I read once that the best combo with a good intake and stock heads without swapping cams is 1.7 on the exhaust side only. You give up zero torque down low, add to the RPM range, and increase area under the curve across the board. Peak torque and HP increases.

    For a racier setup, retard the cam 4 degrees the run 1.7’s on both and move up the rev limiter. Moves power up so the peak is hit past 6250.

    Better heads love that setup even more. They’ll make as much torque at 1800 as the motor made stock at it torque peak and carry over 350 lbs from 2000 to past 6500.

    Advance the timing to 13.5-14 degrees BTDC. Turn the idle to 650. The motor will sound like it has a lumpy cam in it then flatten out immediately when the gas is stabbed.

    Or if you like, swap cams.
    Last edited by erratic50; 04-14-2018 at 12:47 AM.

  16. #16
    FEP Senior Member droopie85gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Cordova, TN
    Posts
    994

    Default

    Heads heads heads. Iron heads now a days are a waste of time. I have some Strike Force heads, which are probably some version of ProComps. They were like $600 assembled about 6 years ago. I didn't do an after dyno but they were worth .7 in the 1/8th mile. Are TFS or AFR heads a lot better? By 10 miles probably...especially on longevity. But I don't DD my car (well no drive at all in 3 years) so I just wanted lighter and better. On Ebay Skip White Performance has some decent looking aluminum heads, very affordable. They are offshore castings, but they use Comp components. If they had a 210cc intake version I'd go with them for my 351 build.
    1985 GT, Sunroof, 5 Lug, Rear Discs, 01 Graphite Bullets, 88 forged piston shortblock, 2.02/1.60 Alum heads, Weiand Stealth, Holley C950 TBI, BBK Long tubes

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    I believe I read once that the best combo with a good intake and stock heads without swapping cams is 1.7 on the exhaust side only. You give up zero torque down low, add to the RPM range, and increase area under the curve across the board. Peak torque and HP increases.
    Are you saying that normally going to 1.7s on all valves loses you torque?
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

Posting Permissions

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