Mustang Cam opinions

[Boost-n-Juice]

Mixed opinions are just that...facts on the other hand are, well....facts. OK.

 

The stock cam is not junk and it was the same in all the HO motors from '87-93. 93 was the first year they didn't use forged pistons, that was the only difference that year.

 

The stock cam has great overlap and duration for drivability and boost. Spend your money on 1.7 rockers for now.

 

Decent ported E7's will add anywhere between a 15-30 hp gain. ($150-200)

 

Decent aftermarket heads add 50+ depending on the intake etc. ($1000 +)

 

What's in your wallet?

 

What's the bottom line? Ported E7's + 1.7 Rockers + adjustable fuel regulator + dyno time ='s more than 50hp for $4-500

 

You do the math.

 

Now, with that in mind and not forgetting the fact he may not have $1000+ to spend...which is a waste of his money?

 

[excell]

Those look like opinions to me.

 

The stock cam was not the same in 88-93 cars, in 93 it was a tad milder for emissions... although this not documented by Ford because it was such a mild decrease.

 

15-30HP out of ported E7's? Heh, OK. MAYBE 15, but even that is pushing it.

 

With Ported E7's, 1.7 rockers, an AFPR, and dyno time I still don't see 50+ HP.

[20G TSi]

the 302HO cams changed in 1993 for sure, they reduced the lift to quiet the lifters (slower ramp speed) and to help with emissions. I think they may have been different in the 86-87 speed density cars as well, but I'm not 100% sure of that one.

 

BC: You think the stock cam is soo good because you obviously still have the E7 heads. In that case, I'd agree with you, its the best cam for stock heads. Do some work to the heads or swap on any other type of head with different flow characteristics and the stock cam SUX.

 

We can debate this till next year, but OneBadBlowDryer knows what he's talkin about and I havent been running 11's (10's now) for 6 years because I'm FORD ignorant. Dont want to listen to us, go to Stangnet.com and say E7's rock and aftermarket heads are a waste.

 

[ 18 December 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

[DKilbourne]

I have one thing to say, blown head gaskets. tuning a supercharged car can be tricky for most people. Speaking of tuning, WHEN YOU PUT HEADS ON A CAR IT NEEDS A NEW TUNE. Timing, fuel, a good combo to go along with the heads. When it comes to 5.0s it is never just adding a part and having it work perfectly. I went from 102 mph to 108 mph by just messing around with a few things, not adding any parts, just tweaking the combo. Oh, I guess you missed the part in 5.0 about what happened when they combined the supercharger with the rest of the combo, hmmmm I think they made even more power and they probably could have made alot more with more fuel and timing, but what do know about any of this

[excell]

Tuning, very true. smile.gif

[Guest aftermidnight]

what would you do if a phycotic bitch kept trying to fuck with your girlfriends head over pittily horse shit. any suggestions?

[Guest aftermidnight]

sorry about that. hit reply instead of new post... disregard for cam ideas..

[20G TSi]

Originally posted by aftermidnight:

what would you do if a phycotic bitch kept trying to fuck with your girlfriends head over pittily horse shit. any suggestions?

beat her with an otherwise useless stock cam?

 

[ 18 December 2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

[DKilbourne]

Originally posted by Jasons TSi:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aftermidnight:

what would you do if a phycotic bitch kept trying to fuck with your girlfriends head over pittily horse shit. any suggestions?

beat her with an otherwise useless stock cam? </font>I've got a stock cam that I can donate.

[Boost-n-Juice]

Although there were no mechanical changes from 1992 to 1993 (aside from hypereutectic pistons replacing the previous forged aluminum pistons), both the horsepower and torque ratings dropped for ‘93 - horsepower by 20 and torque by 25. The reduced ratings were influenced by a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and by changes to Ford’s engine evaluation processes. Dictated mainly by emissions, fuel economy and customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions had been made since Ford initially assigned the engine’s 225-horsepower rating for 1987. These include a restrictive resonator added to the inlet tract (1987-1993) that produced a 5-7 horsepower loss. The small camshaft profile change in 1989 reduced HO output by 3 horsepower. The restrictive mass airflow meter in the inlet tract introduced in 1989 yields 2-3 horsepower less than the speed density system. Some minor exhaust system revisions made between 1987-1993 also add up to another small reduction in engine output. The second contributing factor in the re-rating of the ‘93 V8 involved changes in the processes that Ford used to select engines for testing and the engine’s state of dress (with all engine-driven accessories) during testing. Combined with the ‘87-93 mechanical revisions, the revised-for-1993 testing procedures add up to the ‘93 model year’s reduced output ratings.

[Boost-n-Juice]

Here are some part #'s for you. The one is the California cam...

E8ZE-6250-CA (89-93)

F1ZE-6250-AA (89-93)

 

[ 19 December 2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: BC ]

[Boost-n-Juice]

Steel cam, roller lift

 

Type Steel cam, roller lift

 

I.O./I.C./Lift 20°/76°/0.278

 

E.O./E.C./Lift 67°/19°/0.278

 

Duration - Int/Exh 276°/266°

 

Valve Lift - Int./Exh. (1.6 rocker arm ratio) 0.444"/0.444

 

Overlap 39°

[kenny]

http://thelittlebaby.dhs.org/kenny/sweet/bigownedpic.jpg

[20G TSi]

yup, those are service replacement cams. many applauds for the effort!

 

[ 19 December 2002, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

[Boost-n-Juice]

Actually those are factory part #'s from the GT registry. It's ok, you can be wrong once in your life. It won't kill you.

[20G TSi]

5.0L HO 85-88 E5ZE-6250-AA Hydraulic Roller .444 .444 266 266 115

 

5.0L HO 89-92 E8ZE-CA,F1ZE-AA,F4ZE-DA Hydraulic Roller .444 .444 266 276 115.5

 

5.0L HO 93-95 F3ZE-6250-CA Hydraulic Roller .479 .479 270 270 209 209 118

 

ok, so you had wrong info. you can be wrong too

 

[ 19 December 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

[excell]

Damnit Jason, beat me to it... tongue.gif

[20G TSi]

edit: too much to drink this fine eve.

 

[ 19 December 2002, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

[20G TSi]

kenny: you've been slackin here lately. Where's all the NEW OW3N3D pics?

[Boost-n-Juice]

The cam you listed as 93-95 is the Cobra cam. Nice try.

 

5.0L HO 89-95 E8ZE-CA,F1ZE-AA,F4ZE-DA Hyd Roller .444 .444 266 276

[Boost-n-Juice]

5.0L Cobra F3ZE-6250-CA Hyd Roller .479 .479 270 270 209 209 118

[20G TSi]

ok, so we got conflicting information..... either way, going by that we're both wrong... You said they never changed for HO motors, and I said they changed in '93. I'm piss drunk tonight and i'm not odin any more research. blah.

 

[ 19 December 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

[20G TSi]

Originally posted by BC:

The cam you listed as 93-95 is the Cobra cam. Nice try.

Either way, It changed in 1993, which was the first year of the cobra tongue.gif

[rl]

I use a f303 cam with my STOCK e7's (I removed the exhaust hump, milled them to 58cc, and put TFS locks, retainers, and double springs on) with a cobra intake and a 65mm throttle body I made 253rwhp/280rwtq, infact 30 more RWHP then I made with the SAME engine combination and a STOCK cam. I make power to 5800, and shift at 6000. That was 100% Untuned, no AFPR, no chip, nothing. I run 94 octane gas and my base timing is 17*.

 

I'm not saying E7's are GOOD heads, they are junk. I am saying that you can make DECENT power with them if you have any clue what you are doing. If I had some afr's or TFS heads I'd be close to the 300rwhp mark.

 

for comparison, With all the bolt-ons I have I made 200rwhp. I put my E7's on, with a cobra intake 65mm throttle body, STOCK rockers, f303 cam and a 70mm MAF and I picked up 53rwhp. This was on a new shortblock too, which was much tighter at the time, I bet it makes 260 or so RWHP now. It traps 102-101mph in a 4,000lb car

 

[ 19 December 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: rl ]

[Nitrousbird]

Well, since I'm not a Ford guy, I have nothing big to add to this thread, other than heads are THE place to put money into an N/A and Nitrous fed motor, period.

 

All this talk has made me curious about some stuff on the 5.0's, though, so I figured I'd ask, since I'm sure someone will find the answers useful (not me, just curious):

 

- All I know of the ECU is that it requires burning new chips each time (not an EEPROM). My real question is how high can you rev the factory PCM (reprogrammed of course). How high do the fuel tables go, is there a limit to where the rev limiter can be raised, is there a limit to how fast the PCM can process to rev higher, etc. Basically, how high can you SAFELY take the factory PCM before you have to go aftermarket

 

- How high can you safely spin the stock shortblock (on say, an 88-92 Forged piston motor). I'm not sure what the bore/stroke of a 302 is, but if it is a short stroke, I'd assume it would be fairly high. That being the case, I'm curious why no one has suggested perhaps going to a solid roller. Yes, solid roller isn't for everyone (in terms of increased maintance, shortened valve spring life, and most likely killing off any chance of using the knock sensor).