Close



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32

Thread: Heads and cam

  1. #26

    Default

    I don't believe we are off topic at all. That's totally my point. They weren't certain at that point which one to go with. But it for sure was not for you the fan. It was for CAFE and MPG.
    Last edited by homer302; 10-09-2018 at 08:58 PM.

  2. #27
    FEP Member bkm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    House Springs MO
    Posts
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homer302 View Post
    I don't believe we are off topic at all. That's totally my point. They weren't certain at that point which one to go with. But it for sure was not for you the fan. It was for CAFE and MPG.
    While I believe that was was a major factor, I disagree it was the sole factor. If the op and a few guys still living in the stone age wanna run flat tappet cams, be my guest. It doesn't effect me one way or the other.

  3. #28

    Default

    1. Everybody knows roller cams are superior to flat tappet cams. If the advantages of the roller cam are worth the extra money is a decision the person signing the checks will have to make. 2. Buying the cheapest set of cylinder heads you can buy, well that can work, and many people have done it successfully. However there are also many people who have done it and ended up spending a lot of money getting those cheap heads fixed. Sometimes spending a few extra dollars on a quality product is much better than dealing with some subpar bargain bin product especially when it is a part that you are counting on to perform for years to come. 3. As far as using Ford heads to make 400hp, I wouldn’t try that route. You will have more money getting those heads reworked to make that kind of power than you would just buying a set of aftermarket heads. I have a set of CNC ported E7s on my car right now. They have 1.90/1.60 valves and are ported to the max. I can’t see any other Ford production head making any more power than these and I would be shocked if they would support 400hp. I am using them because I got the heads and the valve train cheap. But I still had 300.00 in getting them checked and cleaned. As the saying goes you can have fast, cheap, and reliable. Pick two. Now if you are looking for ETs at the drag strip and not HP numbers, then you have some options as to how you go about doing it. There are a lot of mustangs out there running really quick with less HP than what you would think. People have been building 302s for years and years, there is so much information on proven combinations that it should be fairly easy to decide which route suits you best.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkm View Post
    Hype and BS? Why did the oem go to roller? You mean to tell me the bean counters were perfectly fine with spending the extra cost of the roller cams if they weren't superior? The break in procedure alone is reason enough to never run another flat tappet.

    Call any cam guy or camshaft manufacturer and get their opnion. Then report back and tell me about the bs lobe technology.

    Do you realize how hard it is to achieve good compression with a 302, let alone a turd from the 70's? You start milling heads, then create other unforseen problems the average guy has no clue how to correct. There is a reason you are suggesting throwing the kitchen sink at a flat tappet 302 to try and make 350 hp, it's because they suck. The only redeeming quality of a late 60's/early 70's 302 is the blocks are marginally stronger and they're 28oz imbalance. But at 300-350hp, this is moot.

    Spend $400 on a JY exploder roller motor
    $300 roller cam cam, or $150-200 used
    Weiand xcelerator intake for $100
    Good springs for $200
    $60 for good pushrods
    $150 used carb

    And it will fall out of a tree and make 300-350 flywheel hp

    This isn't reinventing the wheel here. It's been done a bazillion times and is a proven combo and the best part is you don't even have to lift the heads.
    Yes, hype and BS. Because OEM's always have and always will produce compromised mediocre contraptions, and have nothing but dollar signs in their eyes... decreased bottom dollar expenditure (no more having to break in cams and lifters) and SALES, is why. Bean counters aren't perfectly fine spending anything, and they sure as hell don't know anything about or give a hoot whether any one thing is superior to another or not... you're dreaming if you think any corporation has your best interest at heart... bean counters, and marketing and sales don't know anything about or care whether anything works or functions at all, like pet rocks... a $hit only given that LOTS of them SELL. Connection of man and machine (knowing how and why camshaft and lifter break-in is necessity), as opposed to what we have today, disconnection (put gas in it and turn the key and go), is at the root of the dying breed of the hot rodder and the do-it-yourself-er, who are ALWAYS able to up the ante beginning with the raw material that the manufacturer puts out.

    You suppose any "cam guy" or manufacturer is going to (shoot themselves in the foot and) be honest about the minimal benefits of said technology?

    It's not "hard" at all to arrive at a 10+:1 compression ratio with a 302. I suggested NOT throwing the kitchen sink at a flat tappet 302... quite the contrary... minimal dollar outlay, maximum performance per dollar... you're the one suggesting throwing way more $ and parts (there's a conversion factor to convert a flat tappet scenario to a roller scenario = MORE $$$) than is necessary for the original poster's situation and goal (TOPIC) of a flat tappet engine street car and 300-350hp sought. Ask Shermin Racing Engines how much the 400hp, EARLY iron Ford headed, hydraulic flat tappet camshafted 302, that numerous folks have duplicated... go research and find out just how much that sucks.... LOL!

    Roller = increased expense for camshaft itself, for steel distributor gear, for lifters, and for increased capacity valve springs... and for what? ... a minimal, not worth all of the extra expense at all amount of low and/or mid lift port flow difference with less duration, and incredibly less rpm capability. There's no stone age (doesn't affect you either way? then why the insult... us apparent dumbasses in the stone age?) or new age about it... you want a small block anything to make good power, it needs to rev higher than hydraulic roller lifters allow, period. Valves that float because of hydraulic roller "technology" at ~6000rpm does not cut it... unless at the end of the day a factory-like mediocre turd with tonnes of potential power left on the table is what you're after.

    Borrowing your summation text:
    Spend $0 on a JY exploder roller motor... use what OP has...
    $150 flat tappet cam & lifters
    Weiand xcelerator intake for $0... use what OP has...
    Good springs for $200... shop around for less...
    $60 for good pushrods ... shop around for less...
    $150 used carb... shop around for less...

    And it will easily make 300-350 flywheel hp... and work real good and last trouble-free for a long, LONG time.
    Last edited by Walking-Tall; 10-10-2018 at 11:19 AM.
    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/

  5. #30
    FEP Member bkm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    House Springs MO
    Posts
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walking-Tall View Post
    Yes, hype and BS. Because OEM's always have and always will produce compromised mediocre contraptions, and have nothing but dollar signs in their eyes... decreased bottom dollar expenditure (no more having to break in cams and lifters) and SALES, is why. Bean counters aren't perfectly fine spending anything, and they sure as hell don't know anything about or give a hoot whether any one thing is superior to another or not... you're dreaming if you think any corporation has your best interest at heart... bean counters, and marketing and sales don't know anything about or care whether anything works or functions at all, like pet rocks... a $hit only given that LOTS of them SELL. Connection of man and machine (knowing how and why camshaft and lifter break-in is necessity), as opposed to what we have today, disconnection (put gas in it and turn the key and go), is at the root of the dying breed of the hot rodder and the do-it-yourself-er, who are ALWAYS able to up the ante beginning with the raw material that the manufacturer puts out.

    You suppose any "cam guy" or manufacturer is going to (shoot themselves in the foot and) be honest about the minimal benefits of said technology?

    It's not "hard" at all to arrive at a 10+:1 compression ratio with a 302. I suggested NOT throwing the kitchen sink at a flat tappet 302... quite the contrary... minimal dollar outlay, maximum performance per dollar... you're the one suggesting throwing way more $ and parts (there's a conversion factor to convert a flat tappet scenario to a roller scenario = MORE $$$) than is necessary for the original poster's situation and goal of a flat tappet engine street car and 300-350hp sought. Ask Shermin Racing Engines how much the 400hp, EARLY iron Ford headed, hydraulic flat tappet camshafted 302, that numerous folks have duplicated... go research and find out just how much that sucks.... LOL!

    Roller = increased expense for camshaft itself, for steel distributor gear, for lifters, and for increased capacity valve springs... and for what? ... a minimal, not worth all of the extra expense at all amount of low and/or mid lift port flow difference with less duration, and incredibly less rpm capability. There's no stone age or new age about it... you want a small block anything to make good power, it needs to rev higher than hydraulic roller lifters allow, period. Valves that float because of hydraulic roller "technology" at ~6000rpm does not cut it... unless at the end of the day a factory-like mediocre turd with tonnes of potential power left on the table is what you're after.

    Borrowing your summation text:
    Spend $0 on a JY exploder roller motor... use what OP has...
    $150 flat tappet cam & lifters
    Weiand xcelerator intake for $0... use what OP has...
    Good springs for $200... shop around for less...
    $60 for good pushrods ... shop around for less...
    $150 used carb... shop around for less...

    And it will easily make 300-350 flywheel hp.
    You complain about the cost of a roller cam, then suggest milling and porting junk oem heads. Sorry if I can't wrap my head around that. I guess this is just something we have to agree to disagree about. Happy Hotrodding.

    I suggest you take a look at what the NMRA Factory Stock guys are doing with an oem hydraulic lifter.
    Last edited by bkm; 10-10-2018 at 12:42 PM.

  6. #31

    Default

    I didn't even mill my gt40 iron heads, sitting at 8.8:1 compression (shaved block) with a CFI and I am easily at 250 hp at the flywheel. I suspect simply adding a modern EFI or a carb would put me at 300. Flat tappet of course, revs quite nicely past 6k. Will be back to the Dyno soon, since I fixed that huge vacuum leak and added the KandN, best improvement per dollar spent so far by the way.
    1984.5 G.T.350 5.0 CFI AOD Convertible (TRX package, loaded)
    K&N filter in a stock dual snorkel, GT40 heads, Edelbrock 3721 intake, MSD 8456 Dist., MSD 8227 coil
    Comp cams XE254H, hypereutectic pistons
    Hooker Super Comp Shorty Equal Length Headers, catted BBK H-pipe, full custom duals
    Maximum Motorsports caster/camber plates and strut tower brace, 3.73 rear, dura grip (both Yukon)
    Ford Performance Springs, Firehawk A/S 225/55r16 on LMR TRX r390 wheels (street)
    Federal 595 rs-rr 245/40r17 and 255/40r17 on OE cobra r wheels (race)
    AOD rebuilt with a 6 clutch direct drum, Koline steels stacked with 8 clutches, Kevlar band, superior shift kit, new torque converter. --Everything else stock and fully functional.

  7. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkm View Post
    You complain about the cost of a roller cam, then suggest milling and porting junk oem heads. Sorry if I can't wrap my head around that. I guess this is just something we have to agree to disagree about. Happy Hotrodding.

    I suggest you take a look at what the NMRA Factory Stock guys are doing with an oem hydraulic lifter.
    No complaint, just far more investment $ necessary in the OP's situation than JUST jamming in a roller camshaft. OEM cylinder heads, inexpensively reworked, would easily get the OP to their goal. Absolutely, agrees to disagree. Likewise.

    ... and yet... the debate rages on, lol.... *took a look*... ... Cheating? According to the following (will link below) NMRA rules...

    "Unmodified Ford OEM replacement lifters/lash adjusters are the only style permitted. All lifters/lash adjusters must be Ford OEM functional and may not be converted or modified to perform as a solid lifter/lash adjuster."

    As well, no limit on duration or separation, but a 0.480" valve lift rule.

    One solution I have seen to counter the heft of hydraulic roller lifters is with the use of a "rev kit", where additional parts (more $) are added so that additional springs (more $) can be in place between the lifter tops and the undersides of the cylinder heads. What do you suppose happens to horsepower when additional spring pressure is added to the valve train, either/both at the valve or with a "rev kit"? I say there's a trade off, because of additional parasitic horsepower loss necessary to just drive the additional springs' pressure/s, and some added horsepower up top (well, at least the ABILITY to rev higher) having circumvented the heavy lifter scenario... and at a certain point, the strength of the roller lifters' axles would become the weakest link (remember those bean counters, and the corporation itself... where certain overage amounts of shear strength/toughness of lifter axles is on nobody's mind over there above or beyond what was necessary for stock toleration amounts of shear forces)... regardless, there's no mention of these or any other modifications to lifters being legal within NMRA (besides, I don't believe "NMRA Factory Stock guys" are doing much of anything that we could call low-buck, lol)... let alone having anything to do with a low-buck approach to achieving 300-350hp with a 302, which is what I've been suggesting from the start in this thread.

    Rules PDF link: http://www.nmradigital.com/dl/rules/fs.pdf

    Please, if you would, link me to whatever hydraulic roller lifter modifications you are referring to? I'd be interested to see/learn. Thank you in advance.
    Last edited by Walking-Tall; 10-12-2018 at 05:32 PM.
    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/

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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