adsm08
Senior Master Grease Monkey
Supporting Member
Article Contributor
Ford Technician
TRS 20th Anniversary
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 34,623
- Reaction score
- 3,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Dillsburg PA
- Vehicle Year
- 1987
- Make / Model
- Ford
- Engine Type
- 4.0 V6
- Engine Size
- 4.0
- Transmission
- Manual
- 2WD / 4WD
- 4WD
- Tire Size
- 31X10.50X15
So I picked up a 92 Mustang, 2.3 5-speed, a few weeks ago. It's mostly supposed to be the wife's DD for a while, since it about doubles the MPG of the Expedition, and stops me from hearing about how she misses driving stick.
But me being me I can't leave anything alone and want some more power. Her being her, she wants to work on her new car. I know the 2.3L will never be the power house a 4.0 or 5.0 will be, without a turbo at least, I want to squeeze a tad bit more out of it. I actually feel like it needs more bottom end, because she goes good, but I stall it more than I'd like.
I've been looking around at power upgrades for this engine, and this one caught my eye, because it seems like a good, simple, place to start and might just make a noticeable difference.
I found an article about doing some mix'n'match on the came and rollers and just wanted to see if anyone here had seen or done this before.
http://www.route66hotrodhigh.com/2300Cams.html
But me being me I can't leave anything alone and want some more power. Her being her, she wants to work on her new car. I know the 2.3L will never be the power house a 4.0 or 5.0 will be, without a turbo at least, I want to squeeze a tad bit more out of it. I actually feel like it needs more bottom end, because she goes good, but I stall it more than I'd like.
I've been looking around at power upgrades for this engine, and this one caught my eye, because it seems like a good, simple, place to start and might just make a noticeable difference.
I found an article about doing some mix'n'match on the came and rollers and just wanted to see if anyone here had seen or done this before.
http://www.route66hotrodhigh.com/2300Cams.html
The hot setup is to use a 95+ Rocker Arm (1.86" ratio) with a 89-94 Roller Cam (0.2381" lobe lift). This will give you a valve lift of 0.443" which is pretty dam hot! If you have an 89-94 2.3L, you will have to widen the valve stem ends (0.2750") of the 95+ rockers to fit the 0.343" valve stems.
If you have a 95+ (94+ in Calif) 2.3L engine, it may not be just as easy to replace your cam with a 89-94 roller cam as the 95+ cam has a position sensor. Maybe someone with a picture of the 95+ cam can send one in so we can check the differences?
I had a chance to hit the wreckers and picked up a set of eight 1997 rockers for $16! I've just measured the rockers and they have a clearance of 0.010" (measured 0.285") over the valve stem (0.275"). It looks like you need to widen them to 0.343" to fit the 94 and earlier engines. 0.343" - 0.285" = 0.058" overall which is 0.029" each side.
I did some calculations and figured that changing to the higher ratio rockers will increase the duration of the intake and exhaust by 4 degree overall (2 degrees for the rise and 2 for the fall). The overlap will decrease proportionally by 4 degrees. Putting the new cam specs into DynoSim (engine simulator), it comes out to about 12 hp increase at 4500 rpm and 10 ftlb of torque. Can't wait to find the time to swap in the higher ratio rockers!
I checked with the local Ford parts counter to see if the camshaft sprocket gear (timing gear), the lifters and the heads had the same part number and they did. That means that they are the same part for all years: 1989 - 2000. This should be a simple bolt-in upgrade. The nice thing about the roller cam is that it just doesn't wear. Junkyard cams and rocker arms look like new after 100,000 miles and cost little!
Note: With any cam/lifter upgrade, you should check for piston to valve clearance and for valve spring bind at full lift. I don't expect any clearance problems but it is always good to check.