"Hot Cam" mod

[adsm08]

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

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.

 

[Fredness]

Thread Necro!!!

OK, I have 3 2.3L heads:
1989 slider cam D-Port (Mustang)
1994 Roller cam D-Port 8 Plug (Ranger)
1995 Roller cam D-Port 8 Plug (Ranger)

I bought a 1998 Ranger 2.3L follower (for the 7mm valves) because I was going to do this on my '89 'Stang.
Figured I'd do 1998 valves, 1998 bronze valve guides and skip the whole grinding a follower tip to fit deal.
It arrived yesterday.

All I'll say is, there is NO information on this for a reason.
Someone needs to "cite their sources" as BOTH followers are the same physical dimensions (1.475" from adjuster socket center to roller and 1.050" from roller to tip), so I don't see how the ratio can be different.

 

[BPLP]

Wouldn't be the height of the followers that would be the concern? I'm well aware of this mod and I'm planning on going to the JY to pick up a 94 cam to put in my 96 2.3 which would give me that "hot cam" that is mentioned. When I do that I'll takes some calipers and measure the height of the roller the cam rides on. If I'm not mistaken that is what would make a bigger difference compared to the length of the followers unless I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[BPLP]

Also something to look into if you want to spend some extra coin, go to Esslinger Racing's website, they have all sorts of 2.3 parts including camshafts with over .500" lift and whatnot. Some over .600" lift too lol.

 

[turbo91xlt]

That info has been around for years and has been proven multiple times to be complete BS.. Its amazing that site is still up after all these years. The ratio is unchanged between the early & late dual plug heads.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

So, I'm kicking the dirt off of this one again; I'm looking into a cam swap on my 1996 2.3l Ranger.



Sealed power catalog lists a bunch of different cams for the 2.3 Lima, but none for the 1995-1997 models:

CS-767W11 1990-1982 FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L SOHC; 1988-1983FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L SOHC Turbo; 1988-1983 FORDTL/D L4 122CI 2.0L SOHC; 1987-1983 FORDT L/D L4140CI 2.3L SOHC

CS-835W11 1993-1991 FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L SOHC; 1997-1987FORDT L/D L4 140CI 2.3L SOHC

CS-666W11 1986-1974 FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L SOHC; 1988-1983FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L SOHC Turbo; 1982-1977 FORDTL/D L4 140CI 2.3L SOHC

CS-788W11 1991-1984 FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L OHV HSC; 1990-1986FORDC L4 153CI 2.5L OHV HSC

CS-789W11 1991-1985 FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L OHV HSC

CS-1504W11 1994-1992 FORDC L4 140CI 2.3L OHV HSC



The one that was of interest to me was the CS-767 cam, since its the one the earlier Rangers may have used (this is really confusing when doing research)

From Summit Racing:
Summit Racing Part Number: SLP-CS-767
UPC: 053059122124
Cam Style: Hydraulic follower
Basic Operating RPM Range: Stock
Intake Duration at 050 inch Lift: 187
Exhaust Duration at 050 inch Lift: 189
Duration at 050 inch Lift: 187 int./189 exh.
Intake Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio: 0.390 in.
Exhaust Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio: 0.390 in.
Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio: 0.390 int./0.390 exh.
Lobe Separation (degrees): 112

From NAPA:

Cam Type	Hydraulic
Exhaust Duration	189 Deg.
Exhaust Lift (Inches)	.238 in.
Exhaust Lift (mm)	6.048 mm
Intake Duration	187 Deg.
Intake Lift (Inches)	.238 in.
Intake Lift (mm)	6.048 mm
Lobe Centerline (Exhaust)	116 Deg.
Lobe Centerline (Intake)	108 Deg.
Lope Separation	112 Deg.
Overlap	28 Deg
UNSPSC	26101903

I looked for the Sealed Power version for a 1996, and the best I could come up with was the Enginetech equavalent of the Sealed Power cam (Federal Mogul typically makes Enginetech's parts, not sure if its the case here, though). The part number for it was ES-835

Cross Reference with the Enginetech specs:

ES/CS 835 Camshaft

Cam Type	Stock
Exhaust Duration	188
Exhaust Duration at .050 inch Lift	188
Exhaust Lobe Centerline	104
Exhaust Valve Lash	Hyd.
Exhaust Valve Lift	.215
Exhaust Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio	.353
Intake Duration	188
Intake Duration at .050 Inch Lift	188
Intake Lobe Centerline	120
Intake Valve Lash	Hyd.
Intake Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio	.354
Lifter Type	Hyd.

So, to me (and in my specific case) the question remains of which cam would produce more power.

Need an expert on this one, I'm over my head on cam stuff.

 

[Fredness]

Watch the years - you are trying to put a "Hydraulic Follower" (Slider) cam in a "Hydraulic Roller" head.
There are anecdotal account that this does work, but I would NOT recommend it.

The ES835 you mention is the "STOCK" REPLACEMENT cam for a 1997-2001 Roller 2.3L engine. You already have that cam.
This cam is "homogenized" - the specs are set to work with ALL those years, and there are at least 2 ford versions to cover those years.
Do NOT trust the specs on that cam to be the "Factory" specifications - they are not.

For the "alleged" Hot Cam set up, you would need an actual 1989 to 1994 Ranger Roller camshaft and a LATE head with 1995+ Head (.2750" valvestems), do not modify the cam followers... seriously.
1995-2001 Cam Follower (Incorrectly called a rocker arm) is stamped steel: F57Z-6564-A
1987-1994 Cam Follower is cast iron with a steel roller and pin: F1ZZ-6564-A

Please approach with caution - potential issue:
The ES767 is the 1989 Mustang "Slider" cam.
The ES666 is the 1986 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe "Slider" cam.

Do not use:
HSC cams are for the WRONG ENGINE.

I'm pulling a 2001 head and installing low tension springs and modified solid "lifters" to do an actual test to confirm.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Watch the years - you are trying to put a "Hydraulic Follower" (Slider) cam in a "Hydraulic Roller" head.
There are anecdotal account that this does work, but I would NOT recommend it.

The ES835 you mention is the "STOCK" REPLACEMENT cam for a 1997-2001 Roller 2.3L engine. You already have that cam.
This cam is "homogenized" - the specs are set to work with ALL those years, and there are at least 2 ford versions to cover those years.
Do NOT trust the specs on that cam to be the "Factory" specifications - they are not.

For the "alleged" Hot Cam set up, you would need an actual 1989 to 1994 Ranger Roller camshaft and a LATE head with 1995+ Head (.2750" valvestems), do not modify the cam followers... seriously.

Please approach with caution - potential issue:
The ES767 is the 1989 Mustang "Slider" cam.
The ES666 is the 1986 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe "Slider" cam.

Do not use:
HSC cams are for the WRONG ENGINE.

I'm pulling a 2001 head and installing low tension springs and modified solid "lifters" to do an actual test to confirm.

Good to know.

I picked up a sealed power CS-767 cam for $30. Its advertised as a correct stock replacement for the 2.3l turbocoupes, but no idea. So you're saying the CS-767 is the wrong one for the "hot cam" modification?






Cologne is my comfort zone, these 4 bangers are not. So please don't take anything I post as fact. Trying to figure this out as well haha.

 

[Fredness]

You can try it - no guarantees...
But you need the 1995+ head to avoid modifying the 1995+ stamped steel cam followers.

The CS-767 is a "Generic" 2.3L/2.5L SLIDER (non-Roller) cam with near stock specs.
They list the turbo variants, it will run, but it won't run better....
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/slp-cs-767/applications

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

You can try it - no guarantees...
But you need the 1995+ head to avoid modifying the 1995+ stamped steel cam followers.

Experiment is happening in a 1996 ranger with 1996 head

Just to clarify though... The CS-767 cam would be a slider cam, and not a roller. Hm.

 

[Fredness]

The RANGER cams are ground in 8* retard - I highly recommend an adjustable cam gear and run the cam "straight up" on the street.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

The RANGER cams are ground in 8* retard - I highly recommend an adjustable cam gear and run the cam "straight up" on the street.

What is the end result?

 

[Uncle Gump]

Retard the cam... peak numbers move up the RPM scale.

Advance the cam... peak numbers go down the RPM scale.

At least everyone I played with...