Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2018 Contributors:
StarDiero75, curts56, DannyG, B RON CO, wsa111, Captainslow42, falconcritter
Econoline, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, 95FordFleetside, turbo6, Max_Effort, WorldChampGramp
cr_bobcat, C.S.Designs, pmuller9, gus91326, rwbrooks50, rocklord, drag-200stang, Big64my79Effie, CNC-Dude, gb500

2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry

Unknown->> M.Ketterer, T.Smith, J.Myers, P.McIntire - Please PM me (1966Mustang) and lemme know who you are!

Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Moderator: Mod Squad

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #1 by StarDiero75 » Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 am

Howdy guys,

I'm in the process of getting my 2V head ready still and started thinking, should I put a new cam in it when i do this or just go to a 1.6 rocker setup?

What i currently have and will have with the 2V head on:

Dual outlet VI headers
1.5 exhaust valves
1.75 intake
Will get HEI dizzy recurved
1.08 Autolite 2100
4cyl WC T5 (4.03 first and .81 OD)
2.8 8" rear
9.1:1 Static or whatever i can run on 87 octane (College kid can't afford premium)

Would you all recommend replacing the cam or doing the rockers? If i do the cam, I'll do the dual roller VI timing chain. Or, should i do both? This is a street driven, daily car that I'm looking to get the most power from, but keep or increase mileage as much as possible and have a good idle. I will sacrifice a little mileage though for power hehe.

Let me know what you all think, I have plenty of time to figure this out, I wouldn't be getting the head on till at least the end of summer.

Thanks,
Ryan
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
Econoline
Registered User
Posts: 1197
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Anacortes, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #2 by Econoline » Mon May 13, 2019 3:20 am

I would for sure check the condition of the timing set while you have it that far apart. I can't comment on the other stuff other than to say if you want to swap the cam, the time to do it is when the head is off but you may have to either at least partially pull the motor or dismantle the grill to get it out and in. And don't wait until the last minute to decide on a cam swap, b/c it can take a while to get the cam ground and to your door once you order and are put enque if the cam you want isn't laying on a shelf.
It ain't gonna fix itself

Creechn32
Registered User
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:53 pm

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #3 by Creechn32 » Mon May 13, 2019 6:07 am

I'm going to say you would see better gains taking a step up with a nice street cam. I've considered a cam swap myself. Rocker arms are quite pricey and they won't increase the duration as much as the cam will. I've been trying to do as much reading through previous posts to figure out which manufacturer to go with. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the Clay Smith and Schneider cams seem to be held in high regard around here. You will take better advantage of the head work and compression with a step up in camshaft.....
1963 Ford Falcon 4 door: 170/2sp automatic, all original except paint, in need of front and rear bumpers and brackets, soon to upgrade suspension
Newton, NC

User avatar
wsa111
FSP Moderator
Posts: 3145
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #4 by wsa111 » Mon May 13, 2019 8:48 am

Ryan, if you want a smooth idle you best call Jerry @ Schneider cams. He will advise a cam with shorter intake duration & higher lift, with at least a 112 L/C.
Make sure you get the valve springs & retainers from him. Don't use the stock ford junk.
How many cc's are in the combustion chambers???? Bill
67 mustang,C-4, with mod. 80 hd, custom 500 cfm carb with annular boosters, hooker headers, dual exh.-X pipe, flowmaster mufflers, DSII dist. MSD-6al & MSD-Blaster 8252 Coil. Engine 205" .030" over with offset ground crank & 1.65 roller rockers. 9.5 comp., Isky 262 cam.
2003 Ford Lightning daily driver. Recurving Distributors. billythedistributorman@live.com
Image

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #5 by drag-200stang » Mon May 13, 2019 9:10 am

Cam, and then down the road you could always change the rockers to fine tune how you felt it would work best.
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #6 by StarDiero75 » Mon May 13, 2019 1:10 pm

Econoline wrote:I would for sure check the condition of the timing set while you have it that far apart. I can't comment on the other stuff other than to say if you want to swap the cam, the time to do it is when the head is off but you may have to either at least partially pull the motor or dismantle the grill to get it out and in. And don't wait until the last minute to decide on a cam swap, b/c it can take a while to get the cam ground and to your door once you order and are put enque if the cam you want isn't laying on a shelf.

I just changed the front mail in October so i got to see how the timing stuff looked, the timing chain was in pretty good shape. Hardly any slack.
I anticipated to have to take the grill out, i really dont want to have to yank the engine again.
And thats why I'm starting to talk about this now. I may not get the head on before the end of summer. I'm working on trying to get the T5 in too. I'm not in a rush to get it in.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #7 by StarDiero75 » Mon May 13, 2019 1:13 pm

Creechn32 wrote:I'm going to say you would see better gains taking a step up with a nice street cam. I've considered a cam swap myself. Rocker arms are quite pricey and they won't increase the duration as much as the cam will. I've been trying to do as much reading through previous posts to figure out which manufacturer to go with. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the Clay Smith and Schneider cams seem to be held in high regard around here. You will take better advantage of the head work and compression with a step up in camshaft.....

Yeah I've seen a lot of Schneider cams recommendations. And I'd definitely like to get the most out of the head im putting on. The cams I've seen are a lot cheaper than the rockers, but after the cam and double roller stuff it costs about the same.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #8 by StarDiero75 » Mon May 13, 2019 1:19 pm

wsa111 wrote:Ryan, if you want a smooth idle you best call Jerry @ Schneider cams. He will advise a cam with shorter intake duration & higher lift, with at least a 112 L/C.
Make sure you get the valve springs & retainers from him. Don't use the stock ford junk.
How many cc's are in the combustion chambers???? Bill

I will be calling him. I've seen you recommend him several times on here.

So for a smooth idle, I'm gonna want less duration? So duration is what causes the lopeiness? I'm just figuring out what all the cam stuff means so i apologize if I'm asking about stuff i don't know about.

I planned on changing the valve springs at least but I'll look into the retainers as well.

I will be measuring that soon. I'm waiting to finish my work with it at the shop at school then i csn take it home and check the CC of the chambers or ask the machine shop when i have the exhaust valves upped. But it is originally a 1980 head, so i know if it hasnt been cut its gonna need a lot of cutting.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
wsa111
FSP Moderator
Posts: 3145
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #9 by wsa111 » Mon May 13, 2019 2:37 pm

StarDiero75 wrote:
wsa111 wrote:Ryan, if you want a smooth idle you best call Jerry @ Schneider cams. He will advise a cam with shorter intake duration & higher lift, with at least a 112 L/C.
Make sure you get the valve springs & retainers from him. Don't use the stock ford junk.
How many cc's are in the combustion chambers???? Bill

I will be calling him. I've seen you recommend him several times on here.

So for a smooth idle, I'm gonna want less duration? So duration is what causes the lopeiness? I'm just figuring out what all the cam stuff means so i apologize if I'm asking about stuff i don't know about.

I planned on changing the valve springs at least but I'll look into the retainers as well.

I will be measuring that soon. I'm waiting to finish my work with it at the shop at school then i can take it home and check the CC of the chambers or ask the machine shop when i have the exhaust valves upped. But it is originally a 1980 head, so i know if it hasnt been cut its gonna need a lot of cutting.

Lobe center & intake duration over 260 & @ 210 degrees @ .050"
You running 87 octane will require all your engine #'s for recurving. You can get a little more power by running higher octane via distributor recurving.
67 mustang,C-4, with mod. 80 hd, custom 500 cfm carb with annular boosters, hooker headers, dual exh.-X pipe, flowmaster mufflers, DSII dist. MSD-6al & MSD-Blaster 8252 Coil. Engine 205" .030" over with offset ground crank & 1.65 roller rockers. 9.5 comp., Isky 262 cam.
2003 Ford Lightning daily driver. Recurving Distributors. billythedistributorman@live.com
Image

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #10 by StarDiero75 » Mon May 13, 2019 4:00 pm

wsa111 wrote:
StarDiero75 wrote:
wsa111 wrote:Ryan, if you want a smooth idle you best call Jerry @ Schneider cams. He will advise a cam with shorter intake duration & higher lift, with at least a 112 L/C.
Make sure you get the valve springs & retainers from him. Don't use the stock ford junk.
How many cc's are in the combustion chambers???? Bill

I will be calling him. I've seen you recommend him several times on here.

So for a smooth idle, I'm gonna want less duration? So duration is what causes the lopeiness? I'm just figuring out what all the cam stuff means so i apologize if I'm asking about stuff i don't know about.

I planned on changing the valve springs at least but I'll look into the retainers as well.

I will be measuring that soon. I'm waiting to finish my work with it at the shop at school then i can take it home and check the CC of the chambers or ask the machine shop when i have the exhaust valves upped. But it is originally a 1980 head, so i know if it hasnt been cut its gonna need a lot of cutting.

Lobe center & intake duration over 260 & @ 210 degrees @ .050"
You running 87 octane will require all your engine #'s for recurving. You can get a little more power by running higher octane via distributor recurving.

So I'm gonna take it you recommend running 92 octane? Thats what I'm doing now. Its just expensive. But if it squeaks about a bit more noticable power with the recurve I can stand that. I'll get the dizzy to you when I'm about to tear it all down and get the head on. I think I'm gonna do the cam over rockers.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #11 by StarDiero75 » Mon May 13, 2019 5:06 pm

So Jerry recommended the 248/56H

Part Number: 13721
Grind Number: 248-56H
Intake Duration (gross): 248
Exhaust Duration (gross): 256
Intake Duration (.050”): 194
Exhaust Duration (.050”): 204
Intake Valve Lift*: .400"
Exhaust Valve Lift*: .420"
Lobe Separation: 110
Intake Valve Lash: .000"
Exhaust Valve Lash: .000"
RPM Range:
1000-4000


Or the 256 H

Part Number: 13720
Grind Number: 256H
Intake Duration (gross): 256
Exhaust Duration (gross): 256
Intake Duration (.050”): 204
Exhaust Duration (.050”): 204
Intake Valve Lift*: .420"
Exhaust Valve Lift*: .420"
Lobe Separation: 112
Intake Valve Lash: .000"
Exhaust Valve Lash: .000"
RPM Range:
1250-4500

He said these would give me the extra low end torque I'm looking for since my cruise with the T5 at 60 will be about 1829 RPM. The 248/56H he said will give me better mileage for the compression i want to run (9-9.1). While the 256H will keep me at about what my mileage is now.

Being this is a daily, I'm leaning towards the 248/56H, what do you all think?
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
wsa111
FSP Moderator
Posts: 3145
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #12 by wsa111 » Mon May 13, 2019 7:53 pm

Neither, go with the intake 256 & the exhaust 260 @ 112 L/C & advance it 4 degrees.
67 mustang,C-4, with mod. 80 hd, custom 500 cfm carb with annular boosters, hooker headers, dual exh.-X pipe, flowmaster mufflers, DSII dist. MSD-6al & MSD-Blaster 8252 Coil. Engine 205" .030" over with offset ground crank & 1.65 roller rockers. 9.5 comp., Isky 262 cam.
2003 Ford Lightning daily driver. Recurving Distributors. billythedistributorman@live.com
Image

User avatar
Econoline
Registered User
Posts: 1197
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Anacortes, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #13 by Econoline » Mon May 13, 2019 9:44 pm

Either one of those is going to wake that engine up. I hate to give advice on cams but I do tend to warn against going to far. As you go up you will lower your dcr, that can be addressed with milling the head. As you go up you will also push the powerband up. With a 5 speed manual that could be good, with an automatic not so much. I'm running a Schneider 256/262/112(256-2H) with 2 degree's ground in advance. Installed it came in at 3 degree's advanced. It's been a great cam for my 250 in the van. I needed to bleed some pressure off b/c I planned my build around a longer duration cam that was flawed and had to switch mnfrs midstream. Jerry initially recommended the 256H but after hearing my concerns about my compression issues he advised the larger split cam. I'd go with what he recommends. It's a daily driver right? Not a race car. If you like how it performs now, you'll love it with a modern cam with steeper lobes and more lift. It comes down to how you use your ride 90% of the time, if that's below 4000 and you don't plan to go to the track on the weekend, I personally don't see the point in making more power at the top end at the cost of what you use most of the time. Which is 1-3K. I think what Bill is getting at is that if you go with the larger split duration cam I used, the 256-2H, you can advance the cam more and bring the powerband back down a bit. I think the 256H for a 200 would be ideal. This is the problem with asking for a cam recommendation, everyone has a different idea about what you should do. You've got to figure it out for yourself based on what you need and want out of the engine/car.
It ain't gonna fix itself

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6732
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #14 by xctasy » Mon May 13, 2019 11:43 pm

Engines with poor flowing heads need the Windsor 5.0 prescription of wilder cam, and if they go to greater than stock rocker ratios, you can drop in a milder cam and get a better result.


Do both, but don't do it twice, and Only Do What You can Afford.

Past 490 thou lift at the valve, unless you use a special piston dish, you'll get piston to valve contact.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #15 by StarDiero75 » Mon May 13, 2019 11:53 pm

Econoline wrote:Either one of those is going to wake that engine up. I hate to give advice on cams but I do tend to warn against going to far. As you go up you will lower your dcr, that can be addressed with milling the head. As you go up you will also push the powerband up. With a 5 speed manual that could be good, with an automatic not so much. I'm running a Schneider 256/262/112(256-2H) with 2 degree's ground in advance. Installed it came in at 3 degree's advanced. It's been a great cam for my 250 in the van. I needed to bleed some pressure off b/c I planned my build around a longer duration cam that was flawed and had to switch mnfrs midstream. Jerry initially recommended the 256H but after hearing my concerns about my compression issues he advised the larger split cam. I'd go with what he recommends. It's a daily driver right? Not a race car. If you like how it performs now, you'll love it with a modern cam with steeper lobes and more lift. It comes down to how you use your ride 90% of the time, if that's below 4000 and you don't plan to go to the track on the weekend, I personally don't see the point in making more power at the top end at the cost of what you use most of the time. Which is 1-3K. I think what Bill is getting at is that if you go with the larger split duration cam I used, the 256-2H, you can advance the cam more and bring the powerband back down a bit. I think the 256H for a 200 would be ideal. This is the problem with asking for a cam recommendation, everyone has a different idea about what you should do. You've got to figure it out for yourself based on what you need and want out of the engine/car.

Most of my driving is below 4000 RPM. I'd probably shift lower if i didn't have my 3 spd and the 2.8 rear. I honestly want more power than what I got and i want drivability, thats most important to me, If you think the 256H will most fit that over Bill's recommendation than I'll try that.

Also, I'm not seeing Bills 256/260 on Schneider cams. It goes from the 256H to 262/70H

So what does advancing the cam do? And why is it beneficial
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
Econoline
Registered User
Posts: 1197
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Anacortes, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #16 by Econoline » Tue May 14, 2019 11:41 am

The 256/262 112 is a custom grind. The 256-2H. Advancing the cam 2 more degrees will bring the power band down a little bit. Bringing it back closer to the powerband of the 256H installed as ground. They are almost the same cam, same lift but with a longer duration on the exhaust side with more overlap. A split duration cam can cost you low end power and torque, with the benefit being better exhaust scavenging at the high end of the powerband. Like I said I only went with the split cam b/c I felt I had to b/c of compression issues. It helped lower my dcr a touch. If fuel economy, drivability and low end torque are the biggest concerns, smaller is better, jmo.

The stock cam in a 66 200 is a 246/246 advertised, 180/180 duration @ .050" w/.349" lift and lazy lift profiles. That's where you are coming from.

In 79 they were 256/256 advertised, 185/185 @ .050" w/.366" lift.

The 256H is 256/256 advertised, 204/204 @ .050" w/.420" lift and much steeper lift profiles.

The 256-2H is 256/262 advertised, 204/208 @ .050" w/.420" lift

If you wanted to go with a bigger cam than the 256, I'd ask Jerry about a 262/262/112. It would be a 208/208 duration @ .050" with likely a bit more lift.
It ain't gonna fix itself

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #17 by StarDiero75 » Tue May 14, 2019 1:24 pm

Econoline wrote:The 256/262 112 is a custom grind. The 256-2H. Advancing the cam 2 more degrees will bring the power band down a little bit. Bringing it back closer to the powerband of the 256H installed as ground. They are almost the same cam, same lift but with a longer duration on the exhaust side with more overlap. A split duration cam can cost you low end power and torque, with the benefit being better exhaust scavenging at the high end of the powerband. Like I said I only went with the split cam b/c I felt I had to b/c of compression issues. It helped lower my dcr a touch. If fuel economy, drivability and low end torque are the biggest concerns, smaller is better, jmo.

The stock cam in a 66 200 is a 246/246 advertised, 180/180 duration @ .050" w/.349" lift and lazy lift profiles. That's where you are coming from.

In 79 they were 256/256 advertised, 185/185 @ .050" w/.366" lift.

The 256H is 256/256 advertised, 204/204 @ .050" w/.420" lift and much steeper lift profiles.

The 256-2H is 256/262 advertised, 204/208 @ .050" w/.420" lift

If you wanted to go with a bigger cam than the 256, I'd ask Jerry about a 262/262/112. It would be a 208/208 duration @ .050" with likely a bit more lift.

Thank you Econoline for laying all that out. As compared to the stock cams, you're right, any new aftermarket cam will wake my engine up lol. I think I'm gonna do the 256H then. I'd like to try to get as much power as I can out of all this, especially since its a lot of work to put in but keep my low end. I won't be trying to bleed off DCR so it should be fine. Now, what would happen if i advanced the 256H? And how many degrees would i want to advance it? Like i said earlier, most of my driving is gonna be under 3k. I live in a hilly area, so I'm kinda worried about my highway cruise at 60 being 1829 RPM. Thats low. I mean i probably drive 65-70 but its still gonna be low and I'd like not to have to down shift. Would advancing that cam a little help give more torque down there? Or should it be fine as is?

Thanks,
Ryan
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
Econoline
Registered User
Posts: 1197
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Anacortes, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #18 by Econoline » Tue May 14, 2019 11:53 pm

I'd ask Jerry about that when you order the cam. I don't think it would hurt to advance it a couple of degrees more but he knows alot more about it than I ever will.
It ain't gonna fix itself

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #19 by StarDiero75 » Wed May 15, 2019 2:41 am

Econoline wrote:I'd ask Jerry about that when you order the cam. I don't think it would hurt to advance it a couple of degrees more but he knows alot more about it than I ever will.

Will do man. I'll be getting it after I have my head work done. I'm trying to focus my money on 1 thing at a time. But I'm glad i know what I want now.

I'll post on this again when i order it and install it.

Thanks guys,
Ryan
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #20 by drag-200stang » Wed May 15, 2019 9:17 am

Please post your intentions before you order , maybe we could catch a problem...Cannot hurt.
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4553
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Cam or higher ratio rockers

Post #21 by chad » Wed May 15, 2019 11:07 am

rhomb also has some pretty deep cam knowledge & experience. Perhaps he's lurkin?
RichCreations, pmuller ?
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #22 by StarDiero75 » Wed May 15, 2019 1:17 pm

drag-200stang wrote:Please post your intentions before you order , maybe we could catch a problem...Cannot hurt.

I thought I said what my intentions are with the car. But I'll repost them since they're hiding in a paragraph

This is a street driven, daily car that I'm looking to get the most power from, but keep or increase mileage as much as possible and have a good idle. I will sacrifice a little mileage though for power hehe.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4553
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #23 by chad » Wed May 15, 2019 2:32 pm

"...Would advancing that cam a little help give more torque down there? Or should it be fine as is?..."
not sure - but would the on-line gear / RPM calculaters help U decide?
(tire dia, rear gear, tranny, rpm)
Last edited by chad on Wed May 15, 2019 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #24 by drag-200stang » Wed May 15, 2019 3:57 pm

StarDiero75 wrote:
drag-200stang wrote:Please post your intentions before you order , maybe we could catch a problem...Cannot hurt.

I thought I said what my intentions are with the car. But I'll repost them since they're hiding in a paragraph

This is a street driven, daily car that I'm looking to get the most power from, but keep or increase mileage as much as possible and have a good idle. I will sacrifice a little mileage though for power hehe.

I was not clear. What I meant was, the parts that you plan to order before you order.
Kind of like the guy that just bought a rebuilt 66 head and asks how he can get more power out of his engine.
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4553
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #25 by chad » Wed May 15, 2019 7:54 pm

sorry to interject - but seems like gettin into my fav subject on frd6:
"the auto is a system"
power v MPGs
or my wrd for: performance.
Can't we have both...
Here our bra is mid way in the plannin (head gettin near optimal, stuff yet ta do...
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6732
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #26 by xctasy » Thu May 16, 2019 2:13 am

Ryan, your planning is perfect.

Ive driven a 78 hp net 138 cubic inch car with 2500 pounds and a 3.45:1 axle with 3.19, 1.93, 1.31 and 1:1 top. It had a 260 degree cam on 350 thou lift.

I cant think of better cam, carb and gearing choices.

Keep on with it dude. :thumbup: :beer: :mrgreen:
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4553
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #27 by chad » Thu May 16, 2019 10:25 am

top left corner
https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... 82&bih=708
thats some good info X.
Wondering abt comparison to Ryan's rig w/RPM'n MPH his tire sz, etc...
Guys told me I couldn't run an i6 in my bronk w/411 rear, 33X15 inch tires. A gear caculator & above
gave a different answ.
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #28 by StarDiero75 » Thu May 16, 2019 12:33 pm

chad wrote:"...Would advancing that cam a little help give more torque down there? Or should it be fine as is?..."
not sure - but would the on-line gear / RPM calculaters help U decide?
(tire dia, rear gear, tranny, rpm)

Using the calculator is what made me think about advancing the cam. At 60 I'm turning 1829 rpms. I need my torque low to hold that.

My specs are:
2.8 or 2.79 rear (i heard 2.8 is rare so maybe 2.79)
25" tires
.81 5th

1822 with a 2.79 or 1829 with 2 8

Or if i need to, i can go down to a 24" tire and that ups it to 1898 with 2.79 or 1905 with 2.8
Last edited by StarDiero75 on Thu May 16, 2019 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #29 by StarDiero75 » Thu May 16, 2019 12:40 pm

drag-200stang wrote:
StarDiero75 wrote:
drag-200stang wrote:Please post your intentions before you order , maybe we could catch a problem...Cannot hurt.

I thought I said what my intentions are with the car. But I'll repost them since they're hiding in a paragraph

This is a street driven, daily car that I'm looking to get the most power from, but keep or increase mileage as much as possible and have a good idle. I will sacrifice a little mileage though for power hehe.

I was not clear. What I meant was, the parts that you plan to order before you order.
Kind of like the guy that just bought a rebuilt 66 head and asks how he can get more power out of his engine.

So if I'm getting what you're saying, like

256H Schneider cam
Dual roller timing chain
Cam bearings (if you all think i should do it)
Break in lube and oil
New springs and retainers from Schneider (probably 302 or whatever they have that'll match well)
Victor or Fel pro head gasket (I'll find out when i CC the chambers on my 2V head)
ARP head studs
1.50 exhaust valves

This is all for the head swap and cam install.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200 and 3.03 column shift, 8" rear 2.8 (Yes I know the gearing sucks), 1968 1.08 Autolite 2100 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6732
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #30 by xctasy » Thu May 16, 2019 12:54 pm

Towing a maximum legal load boat up an 8% incline at a boat ramp with a unibody sets the 1st gear ratio and axle ratio. Torque to weight sets the scale factors on those.

Ford had an internal memorandom on these in Australia. A 316 ft lb 351 4bbl could cope with a 2.46 1st, a 2.75 axle and 3850 pounds of car. A 160 ft lb 200 1bbl could cope with a 2.95 1 st, a 2.92 axle and a 3150 pound car.

My 2450 pound Cortinas 200 had optional 2.53 or 2.77 axle gears even with a manual gearbox with 2.95 first. As weight and heft is removed, even little 200's can cope with the same moonshot gearing the 1980 to 1981 255 Foxes and Panther based cars got.

With a 2.46 Ist, a just an old formerly 120 hp 255 can run 3.45 gears, a 0.67 overdriven top, and do the same 1898 rpm at 60 mph, then 132 mph at 4100rpm with the 1980 G vin 351 HO 165 hp 260 in /274 ex cam in an automatic 1981 Mercury Capri weighing 2800 ponds. That hoary old Marine 351 cam was also used in the 300 hp 1994 SVT 351Mustang.

Ford aced the class at gearing with the reduced weight Foxes from 1978 to 1993. Overal top gears of 2.05 were had on the automatic overdrive 5.0 and 4.2 Thunderbirds, the smaller 4.2 Foxes got 2.29 axles, the 2.3 Foxes got 4.03 and 3.97 firsts to cope with trailer park and traffic jamb duties.

The last 2650 pound 1981 3.3 Foxes got 2.47 axles and optional T4 versions of the T5 with 4.03 firsts gears and at 60 mph, they did 2023 rpms with 14 inch or 390 mm TRX wheels. Or the same geared 1980 or 1981 model year SROD option with 3.08 gears, and every ratio re-adjusted to give a 2.49 ratio effective top with the same 0.81 top gear found in some truck SROD's.

The overdrive Tremec 140 5 speed of 1980 had the same gears as the later 4 cylinder T5 you plan on using Ryan.

On a light car, but now with really good power and torque to weight figures, your copying what Ford did with the 1980-81 "Second Gas Crunch" 3.3 Foxes.

You can go up in exhaust duration and not hurt fuel economy. Ford did just this with the 73 Torino cam in the 82-84-1/2 Mustang 5.0's, and the marine cam the G vin 1980 5.8 2bbls used.

With so little mass, you could even use Crosley's 274 solid Clay Smith cam, and still be able to cruise and stay in high gears in yield snd take roads. Anything less than 274 or 278 is a waste on log heads with direct mounts. Gas mileage hike happens when you fail to add compression, fail to take extra base advance, fail to drop back the total advance. 34 is often too much.

The bigger 2150 carbs can be used if the base idle air and transfer slot needle profiles are tuned right.

Economy is two edged. The Falcon based Chero is lighter, and if the tray deck is covered, even the blunter 64s snd 65s are slick bricks.

The 5.0 4bbl and HO 2v Fox's with the stick shifts were the ultimate economy cars. Geting high 25s, and still being able to shut down fat 305 msnuals and 350 autos is what the 5.0s did. 3.3 without the Falcon Six perfirmsnce mods are thirsty and slow....
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
Econoline
Registered User
Posts: 1197
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Anacortes, WA

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #31 by Econoline » Thu May 16, 2019 4:11 pm

The cam bearings should be ok. Just be very careful not to nick them pulling the old cam or when inserting the new one. You will need a new set of lifters.
It ain't gonna fix itself

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4553
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Cam or higher ratio rockers

Post #32 by chad » Thu May 16, 2019 6:32 pm

"I cant think of better cam, carb and gearing choices."
"Anything less than 274 or 278 (cam) is a waste on log heads with direct mounts. Gas mileage hike happens when you fail to add compression, fail to take extra base advance, fail to drop back the total advance. 34 is often too much."

Forgodabout how light the lill chero is. Just thinkin "ol cars" (not unibody, heavy frame, "open tray", solid sheet metal).
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

User avatar
wsa111
FSP Moderator
Posts: 3145
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #33 by wsa111 » Thu May 16, 2019 10:53 pm

With the iron head you need 36-38 degrees total @ WOT.
67 mustang,C-4, with mod. 80 hd, custom 500 cfm carb with annular boosters, hooker headers, dual exh.-X pipe, flowmaster mufflers, DSII dist. MSD-6al & MSD-Blaster 8252 Coil. Engine 205" .030" over with offset ground crank & 1.65 roller rockers. 9.5 comp., Isky 262 cam.
2003 Ford Lightning daily driver. Recurving Distributors. billythedistributorman@live.com
Image

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6732
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Cam or higher ratio rockers?

Post #34 by xctasy » Sat May 18, 2019 9:40 pm

Three pieces of advice before the ink dries on your cheque.

1. If you cannot run 14*-16* base advance on 87 octane without pinging at 1500 to 4500 rpm, then you need to peg back the peak advance, and if
you are running premium fuel on a stock 3.3 or any other 4.1 or 4.9 Ford, then your pi%%ing your money away.


2. Anti Detonation Injection . Mike1157's Gila Monster is a turbocharged X flow. He miscalculated his chamber volume, and is now living with a 10.7:1 CR.

Mike1157 wrote:...there was seemingly nothing I could do on pump gas to control detonation. ( I take the 5th on not knowing that,...it's not like there's a whole lot of info out there on a 1980 head for an Australian Ford 6 banger)
.
In spite of that, a high compression ratio isn't the end of the world....Steve (his MegaSquirt guy), a few others, and I are using water-meth injection .............(whic does nothing to increase octane) the water meth cools the intake charge, bumps the octane of pump gas, and is cheap ( water, and -20* windshield washer fluid mixed 50/50)


https://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums ... st-9174171


It runs great with a 10 degree base advance, and unboosted, its about 32 degrees. Each pound of boost, it gets retarded back a degree, and it "tips-in" to 22 at 10 pounds of boost. Most likely 450 know free horsepower.



3. EGR should be kept with either a 135 or 175 rating valve, and it'll allow you to run really high peak advances if thats what you need.

In my opinion, 36-38 peak is dangerous unless you've got knock detection and the pink wire hooked to the Duraspark or EST unit for a DU1.

For most modified Ford sixes with better intake, carband a common 8.8:1 to 9.3:1 compression bump up from the stock 8.0-8.4:1, 32- 34 is safer.


In my opinion, Ford did ignition advance tuning better than anyone else, but it did some strange stuff you all have to be mindfull of if you want to run 9.3:1 on a 256 degree, 200 50 thou duration cam.

Okay, the examples you need to know before getting into it.

Eg 1. Having too much. The emissions legal California 97 to 100 octane 10.7:1 Boss 302 and 351 4V HO Cleveland engines for late 1969 had 16 degrees of base advance, and could carry 34 total. Those engines were 275 to 300 hp net with an Air Pump Thermactor. The Distrovac system (which was used in the stick shift Maverick till 1973) used a Spark Vacuum signal to control warm up advance, and it was speed related, and worked great.

Downgrading to 91 to 93 octane, it would still run without detonation, but no dice if it was long shelf gas, as a 93 octane isn't still 93 octane after 5 weeks. The problem was the stock 351 4bbls had a 256 cam, while the hotter versions had a raft of other higher duration cam specs which blead off combustion pressure, so some Boss 351's could cope with lower octane , even 91 okay if the peak advance was reduced.

Eg 2. Having too little. The Fly in a Frost compression ratio drop for 1972 ment Ford could go straight away with a stock 10 degree base timing and 38 peak advance on any sub 8:1 compression engine, even the Pantera L's and Mustang 351 HO's for 1973 were still making excellent power and reasonable fuel figures with agressive 270/280 spilt cams. Duraspark I was used in these engines, and it allowed the huge 38% drop in compression not to result in a massive loss on horspower. The loss was from 330 hp net to 266 hp net on the HO version of the Mustang 351, and either 248 or 266 hp on the 1974 non California spec 351 Pantera. That's a 16% power loss, mainly for emissions.

Eg. 3 Temperatures. I'm lucky, down here it gets down to 14 degrees F in neighboring Ranferly, and to 1.4 degrees F in my old home town. In the 265 to 375 hp net area, all my 350 and 351 builds, you should just compare the warm up of an emission controlled heat stoved 750 cfm spread bore 351C March I with Distrovac verses a non emissions 375 hp 351C with 780 Holley. American emissions carb controls are just great for warm up, less so under wide open throttle.

Eg . 4 Ford going back up from 7.9-8.4:1 engines to more. Knock sensor 1980 351 G code HO LTD's and Marquis's had high advances, and then had them pegged back 10 degress if know was detected.
So Ford was way ahead on matching higher duration performance cams with Duraspark systems.


I had a succession ofDuraspark I6 Fords. My 81 Stang was the all time best warming up car I ever had.

an 81 US smog 3.3 to an 1980-81 non automatic choke 1v 126 hp 4.1 Falcon, the mildly emission Aussie spec Falcon wasn't nearly as good.

The next year, with an automatic choke 1982 2v 4.1 Falcon with 141 hp.

Now those later cars were 13 to 15% more economical with quicker cold start light off just via some really basic thermatic valves. The 82-84's were downright fun to warm up even in the snow at 32 deg F in Dunedin where I live.



Regular gas era cars were much better for cold start emmisions and even the 1986 EFi 5.0 Mustang ran 9.2:1 compression, could take a base advance of 10 tO 14 degrees with. It went up to 9.5 for 1993-1995. Same applies.



My 1984 9.7:1 propane alloy head X flow 250 ran 32 degrees total with 9 degrees static.

Stock US emissions era 9-91 octane 250's were 8.0:1 actual compression, the 200, 8.4:1.

The Australian alloy head conversion was done late 1980, and 200 to 250 engines on 89-91 octane were pegged back from 9.35:1 in the 97 octane engines to just 8.7:1 for the regualr gas engines.

The basic advance ramp from idle to full advance was steeper in the regular gas engines, but got pegged back to about 34 degrees from 38. From 1986 to 1993, the realted to 4.1 alloy head cross flow becamew the 4.0 liter OHC. Its compression ratio was bumped right back up to 9.7:1, and the peak advance was kept back at 35.5 degrees, just like the Ford Explorer SOHC 4.0, beacuise they used a really awesome igntion system, allot heads and




Like I say, My 81 3.3 Mustang was stock at 10 degrees, and then looped out to 38 total when cold.

I like to avoid excessive emissions, so I like spark sustain, Cold start Parts Per million emission reduction helps cold start warm up.

The trick to making a high compression, low bleed off, high DCR engine run well is to ask Bill to peg back the peak advance, and don't be affraid to use the 7508-1, 7508-2, 1-684, 1-592 or 9117 Holley 2-bbl 289-302-390 1.19" replacement carb style of Reverse Idle base advance. Those carbs were designed around a Bowl Vent, and work best if the the old Carter 4-BBL Thermoquad system is used.


Eg 5, and my best advice, as EGR and spark advance work both ways to allow detonation to be controlled; you'll get another 4 degrees advance noramlly with EGR present.

I like Fords Australian 79-85 5.8 liter 4bbl system; they did it the other way around to the Equally excellent 5.0/5.8/429/460 4 barrel used in the F Trucks and Mustangs



....a retard lock-out, with ported to manifold switch-over.

35°C = 95°F
55°C = 131°F
107°C = 224.6°F

Image

Best part is that the found Item 3, Green DVCV2 port PVS vaccum switches

And Item 2, Blue TCVV 3 port vaccum switches

and Item 5 (no letter suffix) the Black SDV Spark Delay or Vaccuum delay valve are so easy to get, it makes a hand free Idle warm up while getting Coffee at Toms Diner a way to warm your car up while listing to one Suzanne Vega song..

Image

The Aussie situation was extreme right about 82-83. Even the 188 4.9 and 200 hp 5.8 had even worse than US 5.0 Mustang and 5.8/429/460 Carb truck underhood heat issues, because US V8's always had good radiator servicing air, while the 1982 Australian V8's and I6's had no real hood opening at the radiator, Ford was progressing to other methods of detonation control. The air cleaner had gotten a special adaptor to get cool air in.


The 4180C/4185EG/4190EG system

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ance/page2
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests