My 74 302 block is gettin ready to go to the machine shop and be bored 30 over to 306 and im going to be ordering all of the parts for it soon and I was wondering what a good rough sounding cam would be. It isnt a roller block so it will be a flat tappet cam. I want a real nice choppy cam. And another question is that i have a 88 Thunderbird with a 5.0 SO in it and would a ford racing e303 cam be able to clear the pistons
ff
Overlap and lobe centers make an engine LOPY @idle. With a flat tappet cam making it LOPY is easy. Increase the duration and decrease LS. That will accomplish what you want. Personally i would rather pick a cam that perform well rather than impressing someone with a LOPY CAM. People ask me why some of my engines make so much HP put idle rather smoothly. My standard answer is the fire has to stay in the cylinders as long as possible to some extent. Personally i would build a torquey 306 rather than one that has to be reved to the moon to accomplish good drive ability and broad power. As far as the alphabet cam goes. I thing the E will be fine but check it.
E303
Camshaft, Hydraulic Roller Tappet, Advertised Duration 282/282, Lift .498/.498, 110 LS
This is a good street cam but i normally advance them several degrees as they lay back on the bottom end. PV must be checked as sometimes they are to close for comfort. I never take it for granted that a cam will not hit a piston. ALWAYS CHECK.
An alphabet cam won't work in that block..
Tell your machinist to drill it for Ford Racing roller lifters, then slap an E cam in there. A few guys here have 'em and love 'em. Decent power, good lope, and torque. Always some floating in the FS section of mustang forums.
As moneybags mentioned, check the clearance yourself, or watch the shop guy do it. Doesn't take but a minute or two and well worth it not to trash a brand new engine.
I guess you mean me. I am not even going to answer this. Did a stray dog barked at you today?? Or is your underwear to tight?? WHEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
The stock length 5.0 standard type of roller lifters will work in that non roller block but you MUST use a small base circle cam and install the dog bone lifter holder kit. This kit requires drilling and tapping the block in the lifter valley. Don't drill too far or you will drill into your cam bearing. You can special order the small base circle version from Comp Cams.
I know this was not what you were asking. Personally the alphabet cams are cheap and dirty. You can buy better cams from COMP that work a whole lot better. They have roller cams for non and roller blocks as well. Up Dating that cam would be what i would do for what it is worth. The cam and kits are getting cheaper.
COMP Cams® has developed new Pro Magnum™ hydraulic roller lifters that will eliminate the need for the different base circles. This lifter, Part #8931-16, is a captured link bar style lifter that is a simple drop-in design for most Small Block Ford applications.
So you can use an alphabet cam in an early block. But the kit is expensive and that cam is not worth the expense. So i would use a reduced base circle cam and be dun with it. And drill the block in the valley. SO YOU CAN USE A ALPHABET CAM IN A NON ROLLER BLOCK. The above statement is in fact INCORRECT.
I believe he asked if he can use it in the 88 block. He can but clearance may be an issue, I think Vinny bent a valve doing it with an E cam.
That is exactly what he asked. And i think i answered his question . Bottom line on any cam swap is PV clearance. It has to be checked and many people do not do it. Now there are many cams i use in all types of motors that i know CLEAR. If the person does not want to check it that is his problem. Also a problem that many do not take in to account is retainer to seal clearance or guide height. Example a 2.3 will only take a cam of app 370L without hitting the retainer in to the seals. So what has to be dun on that motor is the retainers have to be trimmed. That is of course if you use stock valves and retainers. When i do a cam change on a stock Turbo Coupe for example using a cam under 400 L is basically a waste of time in my view. So what i do is remove the retainers from the engine and i cut the back side down .060 on the magnetic surface grinder. I have to remove them any way because the STOCK TC valve springs are so bad they float. So just checking PV clearance is just one step and there are other clearances that must be also checked. To many people take blueprinting an engine for granted. That is how they get in trouble and engines FAIL. Also every aspect of a rebuild must be double checked and in some instances TRIPLE CHECKED. Just ME!!
Old post, but I'll dig it up anyway.
Vin was using a roller block with true flat tops (no valve reliefs). I want to say he was running GT-40 heads, but honestly I cannot remember. I do recall there MAY have been an over-rev involved in that as well.
To answer the other thing that popped up:
There are TWO ways to use a roller cam in the OP's 1974 block.....
One is the way Tom Renzo mentioned:
For years this was IT......
There is another way though. Retrofit lifters. They are meant to be used with a standard base circle camshaft in an older block meant for flat tappet lifters.
They aint cheap, but they open up your camshaft options if you wanted a roller cam in a non-roller block.
Or you could be in my situation. Got a non-roller 351 here in pristine condition aching for the parts from my 302 in the Cougar..... Could always port the heads before I swap everything over....
The original poster asked 2 questions. the 88 so and a E cam, not an old non roller. So and a e- cam ,Maybe maybe not. to close to call.
I got that. Retrofitting a roller cam into a non-roller block came up afterward though. Just expanding on it was all.
the thread about vinnie and what caused it was nevery really revealed. it was about 2 1/2 years ago if i recall correctly. to me the conversation about the valve reliefs were a main topic because at one point in that conversation, he indicated he had flat tops with valve reliefs but then for some reason i think it had more to do with the actual geometry of the valve reliefes combined with the shaving that happened.
i never really clearly understood what the root cause was other than what kitz says, someone rev'd and floated the valve train...