• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

351W questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter 87Mustang351
  • Start date Start date May 31, 2007

87Mustang351

Member
Sep 12, 2005
220
1
16
Canada, Nova scotia, Cape Breton
May 31, 2007
#1
  • May 31, 2007
  • #1
Hey guys, im on stangnet quite often reading the fourms and such, dont post a whole lot, but heres my question last year my motor 351W had a holley street dominator single plane intake, 1.6RRs unknown cam. 1970 W heads etc

i switched over to my mods in my sig, but i reused the same pushrods and rockers, took the car out and it does have balls, but it doesnt seem to run as strong as last year, i was told to buy the recommned valve springs for the cam, so i have them waitng to be put in.

last year at the track i ran a 13.6@ 103.94 on street tires, a few years back the car ran 12:80s on slicks owner before me. It had solid lift cam and lifters, i beleive the cam was a comps cam 282 S or somethign along those lines, i know if i put slicks on my car it wont go to 12:80s i was wondering whats so much better about solid lift, i was going to put them back in but its my DD too, and i was told you have to adjust them often.

these are my cam specs also, i was thinking maybe it has something to do with the cam
Int Exh
ADV Dur: 272 286
Dur @ .050: 230 236
Valve lift: .519 .523
Lobe sep: 110.

i was wondering if that is enough cam for the 1.6's

first races for the year are june 23/24th im going to run the car on all motor on slicks, and then run with the 150 shot, should be fun

sorry for the post i know it might not make sence, im not good with wording stuff proerply, bare with me..! thanks alot
 
8

86bluecobra

Advanced Member
Dec 20, 2004
4,265
12
69
B.C. Canada
Jun 1, 2007
#2
  • Jun 1, 2007
  • #2
I use that cam and it works great for me. What are your 60' times on street tires? You maybe surprised at how much time can be dropped with traction.

I have also wondered about going with a solid lifter cam myself.

When you say the car doesn't pull aswell have you done a compression test? Perhaps one cylinder is getting low and causing the power lose.
 

vristang

15 Year Member
Mar 31, 2005
4,933
101
124
Seattle
Jun 1, 2007
#3
  • Jun 1, 2007
  • #3
I don't have any experience yet, but I will be installing a 'tight lash' solid roller cam from Jay Allen in the next couple of weeks.

As I was told...
It is worth more power over a hyd roller, and the maintenance does not sound too bad... I was told 2-3 times a year, but that will vary with mileage...


jason
 
8

86bluecobra

Advanced Member
Dec 20, 2004
4,265
12
69
B.C. Canada
Jun 1, 2007
#4
  • Jun 1, 2007
  • #4
vristang said:
I don't have any experience yet, but I will be installing a 'tight lash' solid roller cam from Jay Allen in the next couple of weeks.

As I was told...
It is worth more power over a hyd roller, and the maintenance does not sound too bad... I was told 2-3 times a year, but that will vary with mileage...


jason
Click to expand...

I think I could handle that. The question is why do they make more power? I was thinking probably because they allow you to spin up to a higher rpm? Is this correct? If so I doubt I would want one because I really don't want to spin much over 6500rpm anyways.
 

87Mustang351

Member
Sep 12, 2005
220
1
16
Canada, Nova scotia, Cape Breton
Jun 1, 2007
#5
  • Jun 1, 2007
  • #5
i can deal with adjusting 2-3 times a year, it isnt that hard....my 60 fts last year were 2.1's on street tires best was a 13,6@103.94 and a 13.8!
 

vristang

15 Year Member
Mar 31, 2005
4,933
101
124
Seattle
Jun 1, 2007
#6
  • Jun 1, 2007
  • #6
I am no expert...
I am going on what the true expert (Jay Allen) has expressed to me...

The impression I got was that the power gain would be due to increased stability/accuracy in the valve events, especially at higher rpm's.

Supposedly there is a little more noise (a 'tight lash' setup will not make as much noise as a typical setup), but the lope of my motor should drown that out...

Again, I am no expert in this field.
I am just speculating, based on what I have been told about MY motor, and what I have read from others...

If anyone knows better/more
please speak up,


jason
 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
Dec 15, 2003
1,704
1
0
St.Petersburg,FL
Jun 2, 2007
#7
  • Jun 2, 2007
  • #7
Solid cam = no lifter collapse. You get the full lift,minus the lash.A hydraulic lifter can collapse slightly reducing the lift.And at high rpm,the weak (in comparasion to a solid racing cam) spring required by a hydraulic cam might not be able to control a larger valve as well as one with more pressure,resulting in valve crash (valve hitting the seat,bouncing off agian befor closing).

I dont know what is considered "tight" lash,but I'am runing .024" hot lash.The engine does sound much more "mechanical" compared to a hydraulic.
 

87Mustang351

Member
Sep 12, 2005
220
1
16
Canada, Nova scotia, Cape Breton
Jun 2, 2007
#8
  • Jun 2, 2007
  • #8
do you need to change the valve springs from solid to hydrolic? maybe the guys never ever did this when they swaped to hydrolic lol
 

87Mustang351

Member
Sep 12, 2005
220
1
16
Canada, Nova scotia, Cape Breton
Jun 2, 2007
#9
  • Jun 2, 2007
  • #9
also my valve springs, which im not even sure if they were replaced when the guy owned the car, but if so they would be about 8 years old, and the car was not driven easy
 

Modular2v

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2002
3,222
23
99
oklahoma
Jun 2, 2007
#10
  • Jun 2, 2007
  • #10
with a solid roller ther is ZERO loss of lift due no hydraulic collapse. This would be the most obvious gain i could pull out of the "power gain" if moving from a hyd to a mechanical roller camshaft but i really do not feel it is worth the price unless your spinning the motor up or if u have to buy the linked lifters anyway (older non roller windsors) my windsor build im working on is going to be solid roller due to the hyd rollers costing just as much unless i wanted to go with a smaller base circle cam, drill for the spyder and use stock HO lifters but why 1/2 @ss it? It also takes ALOT stronger of a spring to stand up to a solid roller setup so that is something else to keep in mind when wanting to switch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
First post 289 rebuild question!
  • Ddyer2868
  • Nov 24, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
3
Views
232
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Dec 5, 2025
rednotch
R
351w stroked to 408 CARB
  • Ric4eyedFox
  • Mar 20, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
17
Views
633
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 22, 2025
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
689
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
Noobz347
HP woes with Sniper Sytem
  • Stang_1973
  • Mar 10, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
807
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 13, 2025
revhead347
Specific Cam Questions that Google can't seem to answer...
  • ChillPhatCat
  • Jun 20, 2024
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech
Replies
3
Views
769
2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech Jun 22, 2024
ChillPhatCat
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang 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?