'88 GT Convertible - Croatia, Europe

Camshafts are so cheap here that I would just replace it. I don't know how expensive it would be for you over there.
Yap, would agree totally if I would have mass air, but I don't so I need a stock HO cam due to ECC and I find it hard to find....
Rockauto has item "Melling SYB51", but I am not 100% positive it is 1:1 as OEM....
Just for the info: delivery for camshaft is almost worth as just a second one :-(
 
  • Like
  • Surprised
Reactions: 1 users
  • Sponsors (?)


A machine shop could turn the journals on that crank and you'd just need oversized bearings. It would be a lot cheaper if you have services near you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@90sickfox I know for the crank, camshaft worries me, there are no oversized bearings...

Head and block painted to prevent rust. I will use this gray after machining also. The code is RAL7005, I used 2k paint.
Similar to factory or not I don't know cause I found only a small traces of original colour...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220115_184218.jpg
    IMG_20220115_184218.jpg
    311.4 KB · Views: 55
  • IMG_20220115_184100.jpg
    IMG_20220115_184100.jpg
    245.5 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_20220115_181559.jpg
    IMG_20220115_181559.jpg
    273.3 KB · Views: 46
Snovac,
I see no reason to replace the cam or get the crank turned
Spend your money on some nice pistons
Not a fan of the hypereutectic pistons but depending on manufacturer you might find some speed pros or something that will hack the mission

Camshafts are too cheap these days IMHO it's the metallurgy
If you cannot find a factory Ford grind leave your OEM cam in it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I thought they had camshaft bearings in different sizes. Did a quick search and no such thing found. Smh

I guess they are so cheap people just replace them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I started polishing camshaft.
Three lines You can feel with fingertip are present on second and fourth journal (red arrow).
The ones on third are more aesthetical if You like (orange arrow).

Is this safe to use?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220118_102448.jpg
    IMG_20220118_102448.jpg
    190.3 KB · Views: 47
  • IMG_20220118_105356.jpg
    IMG_20220118_105356.jpg
    334.7 KB · Views: 43
  • IMG_20220118_105610.jpg
    IMG_20220118_105610.jpg
    168.5 KB · Views: 46
  • IMG_20220118_105617.jpg
    IMG_20220118_105617.jpg
    149.4 KB · Views: 51
  • IMG_20220118_105622.jpg
    IMG_20220118_105622.jpg
    138.4 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_20220118_101652.jpg
    IMG_20220118_101652.jpg
    141.1 KB · Views: 46
Hi guys!

Long time no refresh:

BLOCK:
- is in machining facility, waiting in row to be bored/honed.. I am eager to hear is it .02 or 03 or even more to order pistons
- I am leaning towards Sealed Power H273CP Hypereutectic, cast pistons with Hastings 2M139 rings
CRANK:
- it could have been poslihed to .001 with a little bit of gamble but to make it 100% okay, machining facility suggested grinding when I have it all out... I am also waiting for info, but it should be .01
CAM:
- I polished journals to mirror shine, now there is no trace of nothing but bare nice shiny metal
- as I work in cylindrical grinding company (cutting tools) I put camshaft on one of our machines between centerpoints where cam was originaly made at least 34 years ago:
First of all I checked RUNOUT:
FRONT
J1 0.0001
J2 0
J3 0.0001
J4 0.0006 ***largest runout (15microns in mm)
J5 0
Specification or book says for crank journal diameters folowing:
J1 2.081 ±0.0005
J2 2.066 ±0.0005
J3 2.051 ±0.0005
J4 2.036 ±0.0005
J5 2.021 ±0.0005
We have measured this:
FRONT
J1 2.0803 2.0804
J2 2.0639 2.064
J3 2.0499 2.0501
J4 2.034 2.0342
J5 2.0201 2.0202

So I am with all yournals slightly below lower tolerance, all measures are from middle specification value (tolerance 0.0005"), DIFFERENCE:
J1 -0.0002 -0.0011
J2 -0.0016 -0.0025 ***worst .002" below min
J3 -0.0006 -0.0014
J4 -0.0015 -0.0023 ***worst .0018" below min
J5 -0.0004 -0.0013
- journals #2 and #4 are out of tolerance big time (.001 to .002 more than specified)
- jorunal #4 additionaly has 0.0006 runout - if I correct that i diameter will be at something like .0021 to 0.0029 below minimum

Whoever built an engine and measured old cam's I need HELP.... I don't know it this is good enough.
There is no runout tolerance in books, and I am roughly and at least at -0.001 below specified diameter tolerances... I don't know if I will loose oil pressure...
Is this worth a try, or shall I look for new CAM?


Thx in advance guys for help
 
If you check a new cam that close you may find the tolerances are not up to snuff
Over here we can readily get a new Melling for about 225 from Autozone
I think if you were to measure out one of those brand new ones you would see similar numbers

Snovac,
You are a perfectionist
Means you will most likely sweat the shaft if you run it
You will always be wondering if it is okay down there (running in the motor)
If that is the case
Then I lean towards replacement
I would have ran it without measuring it
The old run what cha brung racing adage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You are a perfectionist
Means you will most likely sweat the shaft if you run it
Yeah, I even mentioned that here a while ago... NOW I will tell You one thing @manicmechanic007:
I have such a luck that I buy a runnin' 302 and 2000 miles later find a knock from damaged bores #1 and #5!!!
BUT YOU guys, you are chasing thoose 302 on destruction derbies without half an engine and can't kill'em. You push them down the street to blow the MF engine and just get and excuse to build a stroker.... Well, I envy all of You whom did that. I just want to have and keep a runnin engine for next 20 years I plan to live ;-)

Nevertheless, all this abocv is a picture of "my luck" and why I am careful with all the clearances... :)

Eitherway, I have in hands brand new Sealed Power 1204M cam bearings.
While cam was on grinding machine I sleeved bearings on and put a dial gauge on zero. I pushed them from bottom, then turned bearing for 90 degrees and repeated measuring in order to find a "vertical oil clearance". Specification says from .001 to .005", and this is what I got:
min max
J1 0.005 0.008
J2 0.005 0.006
J3 0.008 0.01
J4 0.007 0.008
J5 0.008 0.01
**Clearances are all on loose side, some of them (journal #3 and #5) almost a double.**
I understand that thoose are maximum values as bearings are held in hands, once fitted in block they should "tighten" a bit, but certalny not 0.005".

How bad are all this measures and facts?
From Your post @manicmechanic007 I guess You would just run it as it is...

Thnx!
 
Hell, I'd buy a used engine without hearing it hit a lick and if it doesn't smoke after hammering on it for a month or so I call it a win. I rarely check compression unless a miss can't be resolved with a plug or wire change, 5-6 psi at worm idle don't worry me for a second. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I will say this. I've rarely ever seen a camshaft in a 302 cause an oiling issue so bad it messed with the engine. The only way to do it right would be to get a new camshaft.

If the labor and gaskets to replace the current camshaft ( if it doesn't work ) are more than the new camshaft cost then I'd get a camshaft now. If the labor and parts to replace the camshaft are cheaper than a new camshaft I'd run the current one and chance having to replace it.

What were the clearances with the old camshaft and the old bearings ? I guarantee the new bearings are tighter than the old ones were.

Can you get away with using the old camshaft... I'm sure you may not have an issue. Is it the right way with the info you have given..... No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Info:
While thinking about to replace cam or not and waiting for machinist to start with block, I am zinc plating all nuts, screws and bolts I can get out of engine bay and also stripping engine bay for 2K rattle can paint refresh...

I also finished "home made" cam bearing install tool, pictures attached. I have 3D model files if anyone has interest....
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220208_102332.jpg
    IMG_20220208_102332.jpg
    271.1 KB · Views: 63
  • IMG_20220208_102326.jpg
    IMG_20220208_102326.jpg
    303.2 KB · Views: 54