• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech

2.3 Compression/Cam

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwrose
  • Start date Start date Jul 12, 2005
R

rwrose

New Member
Mar 10, 2004
8
0
0
Jul 12, 2005
#1
  • Jul 12, 2005
  • #1
According to the shop manual the 87 NA 2.3 has a combustion chamber volume from 59.8cc to 62.8cc. According to the shop manual and AllData the Bore is 3.780/3.781, Stroke is 3.126 and Compression Ratio is 9.5:1. The post that I have seen here tends to suggest that 9.5 is incorrect.

My plan is to mill the head to reach around 10.5:1, however, I want to maintain the proper valve clearance without modifying the piston. I am also planning on changing the cam to one with a little higher lift. One post stated that for every .07 milled it would reduce the volume by 1cc. According to my figures I would need to mill about 0.49 from head. I’m pretty sure that I could take 0.60 and not have any problem with any cam, however, I don’t want to find out the hard way.

I have not CC’d my head (don’t have the tool) but would like to get a rough idea on how much to remove. I believe the volume on mine is around the 59.8cc range and doing the math would confirm this. (numbers.txt, chamber.jpg)

I have seen posted that the roller cam from the Ranger was the same lift/duration as the hydraulic cam. Does that also apply to the ones found in the turbo 2.3’s? I want to put a roller in for friction reduction and want to get a little more power and still meet emissions. I have seen a few on e-bay but I’m not sure if one out of turbo motor will work in a NA or will help or hurt. I’m not planning on spending two or three hundred bucks on a cam for a street driver.

Any help or suggestions?

Randy
 

Attachments

  • 2.3 Chanber.webp
    16 KB · Views: 141
  • numbers.txt
    numbers.txt
    1.8 KB · Views: 186
T

Touring23

Founding Member
Dec 29, 2001
294
0
0
Washington
Jul 12, 2005
#2
  • Jul 12, 2005
  • #2
The calculations look correct to me.
I think you mean to mill 0.049", not 0.49"...!
1 Teaspoon=5cc, Linky. Now you can cc your head.
I would not mill the head .050" if it were mine. An 87 speed density computer won't tolerate much cam; the loss of vacuum at idle causes the idle to hunt/surge/die. Worse, a "small" cam will close the intake valve early and capture more volume, therefore you can't get too crazy milling the head. It's called Dynamic Compression.
*edit*
You didn't say where you're headed with this project, so I'm supposing the goal is simply "more". If that's the case, I would suggest an adjustable cam gear instead of milling and cam. Retard the cam to move the powerband up.
I reckon if you mill the head .050" with a factory cam it's going to go blammo.
Hope this helps. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
 
R

rwrose

New Member
Mar 10, 2004
8
0
0
Jul 12, 2005
#3
  • Jul 12, 2005
  • #3
Your right

Thanks, and you are correct, I left out the zero.
 
1

140CILX-Coupe

New Member
Mar 30, 2005
189
1
0
Jul 12, 2005
#4
  • Jul 12, 2005
  • #4
by accident or other?
 
V

VisChaos

New Member
Jun 25, 2005
14
0
0
Jul 12, 2005
#5
  • Jul 12, 2005
  • #5
What is the benefit to the Ranger cam?
With my n/a can I just yank my cam and slide a ranger cam in?
 

Turbo_Raccoon

New Member
May 28, 2005
14
0
0
Del Rio TX
Jul 12, 2005
#6
  • Jul 12, 2005
  • #6
the ranger if you use the rollers you will have less friction so less cam wear and somewhat cooler oil temps. and yes it will just slide in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Cam for 1989 2.3 4 plug
  • Jaycee1964
  • Dec 12, 2025
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech
Replies
3
Views
193
2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech Dec 14, 2025
AeroCoupe
A
Discussion on mild budget build/ top end
  • Acesario
  • Feb 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
644
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 23, 2026
General karthief
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
665
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
Noobz347
B
SN95 New Heads
  • Blakeknight
  • May 30, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
911
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 30, 2025
Noobz347
Progress Thread Progress Thread- From6to8's 95 GT/Saleen Supercharged 331 install
  • from6to8
  • Mar 22, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
24
Views
712
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?