Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and 
PetroleumJunkie412
Official TRS EV Taunter
Supporting Member
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2018
- Messages
- 7,826
- Reaction score
- 6,565
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Dirtman's Basement
- Vehicle Year
- 1988
- Make / Model
- Ranger
- Engine Size
- 2.9l Trinity
- Transmission
- Manual
- 2WD / 4WD
- 4WD
- My credo
- Give 'yer balls a tug. Fight me.
So, I have the front end of the 1996 2.3 torn apart for a timing belt, and had a question about cams.
Found this while searching for cam info:
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.
Bottom View: end needs to be widened for the wider valve stems of the 89-94 engines.
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!"
Source: https://www.route66hotrodhigh.com/2300Cams.html
So, my question was, would I be able to use a 89-94 camshaft with the 1996 engine? They never clarified with the CPS issue...
Found this while searching for cam info:
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.
Bottom View: end needs to be widened for the wider valve stems of the 89-94 engines.
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!"
Source: https://www.route66hotrodhigh.com/2300Cams.html
So, my question was, would I be able to use a 89-94 camshaft with the 1996 engine? They never clarified with the CPS issue...
Last edited:
