Mustang Camshaft vs. Ranger

[60F100]

I am building a 60 model F100 and using an industrial 2.3 that I had on a blown up generator. I have done some part research and it has the good flowing e6 manifold and supposedly has stainless valves. So, I am turbo charging it. And, since it was already on LPG I am going to run it on propane. My questions come in with the camshaft. It has a slider cam of undetermined grind. I have found an 8 plug mustang head with roller cam and followers but no Ranger cams. Are these mustang cams roughly equivalent?

 

[4b316]

If it is a roller,they are the same

 

[60F100]

Sweet, thank you. I had read several posts that insinuated as much but never a clear 1+1=1 statement. ( I never was good at math)

 

[Earl43P]

Sounds like a nice project. Throw some pics up!

Welcome to The Ranger Station.

 

[60F100]

Uh..not sure how to. I have video of the progress so far on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/user/litningrod74



The picture (if it attaches) is from the last rebuild which was a rushed patch and spackle job.

 

[charliebrown60]

Hi 4b316,
I have a 95 2.3 that I'm going to replace the cam, bearings and followers.
Do you know where I can find info on how much cam the stock electronics,fuel and
piston clearance can handle.
My goal is to gain across the board but without driveability issues and
keep the reliability.

Thank you,
Joe

 

[DJ2.3]

Joe,
I might be able to help a little. I don't know how big of a cam the electronics can handle, but i will tell you that piston/valve clearance is not an issue on these motors. For daily driven vehicles i would recommend not going too big. I have a ford motorsport a237 cam (.420 lift) in my dd and it works very well. There is a noticeable loss in power below 2000rpms, but from 2500 up it pulls alot harder. If you go with a bigger cam than that, aftermarket valve springs would be recommended. Hope this helps a little, maybe someone else can chime in with more info.

 

[charliebrown60]

Thank you DJ,

This is what I'm looking for, what works in a "normal use" truck.
It is really just basic transport that comes in handy for small truck
stuff. It just needs a little more grunt to deal with hills & headwinds
at highway speeds.

Have you made any other modifications? I think I've found the best
way to modify the air duct from the filter housing to the throttle
body on daily drivers.

Thanks again DJ,
Joe

 

[DJ2.3]

For your application i would go with a mild cam, adjustable cam pulley and long tube header. That should get you a decent bump in power. If you advance the cam timing several degrees it will help you your power down low so you don't get the low speed power loss from a cam. With a stage one cam you should be able to use your stock valve springs as long as they don't have too many miles on them. If you want more power, pull the head, do a basic port/polish, and get the head milled .030-.050. This will bump the compression up a little. With a performance cam you will actually loose cylinder pressure (dynamic compression) due to the valves being open longer, so if you mill the head you will help combat the loss in cylinder pressures and you should still be able to run low or mid grade fuel if you don't mill the head too hard. Is your truck a 94 or 95?

 

[charliebrown60]

Hi DJ,

My Ranger is a 95 dual plug with 180k miles so I dont think I'll be
doing anything that extensive. The engine still uses no oil & I
don't think those old rings would handle much increased compression.
I'm trying to find a 2.5 and see what kind of stroker I could build.
This all started 'cause my engine would "dry start" intermittently
then continued to get worse. Discovered the oil pump clearances
were so far out the pump just lost its prime after sitting overnight.
Since I had the engine out & the pan off I replaced the main & rod
bearings. Would you believe after polishing the crank standard size
bearings plastigaged @ .0015-.002. So cam bearings are next.
I think I'll try the motorsports cam you mentioned, since I'm running
a 4.10 axle that should help offset the loss of low end. I'ts easy to
keep it turning. While I have it apart I'm gonna port match both
up & low intake & head & intake.

Thanks DJ,
Joe

 

[4b316]

A little problem with running a stage one roller in a 95 or newer is that the cam is designed to run with the 94 or older head with the wider roller rocker.The problem there is that the valve stem is smaller in the 95+ motors and the 95-rocker has a tendency to move around and sometimes fall off with substained rpms.A answer is to run the older head but then you have some issues with that.Maybe in a every day driver you won't have the rocker problem but something we ran across racing.Any body esle tried running a stage one Walsh roller in a 95+motor?

 

[DJ2.3]

4b, what valve springs were you running? I have heard of guys running stage 1's on 95 up heads with no problem, but i would like to know if this is an issue at sustained high rpms.

 

[4b316]

I have never had a spring problem,just the above situation.The 95+ valve stems are quite a bit smaller than the 94 down.If you talk to Esslingers,they will tell you of the problem and it doesn't hapen every time you hit 6200.We raced every weekend last year and only had the problem twice.We never tried to run the 95+ rockers with the older wide surface cam but I think we will try that next year.