Factory Camshaft Theory

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#1

• Sep 2, 2005

• #1

Don't know if anyone can confirm or dispell this theory I have. Ford is notrious about mixign and matching parts. For example, almost all 2V modular engines from about mid 99-current use the exact same cylinder heads and the exact same camshafts. If it's in a truck or a car or a Mustang doesn't matter.

The '93 Cobra camshaft was different than the regular 5.0 cam and used 1.7 roller rockers. Was it a special camshaft? Nope. It was just the camshaft out of the 5.0 T-bird/Cougar of the same era.

So I got to thinking that the cam in the 5.0 HO might in fact just be a 351W pickup truck cam. THey have the right firing order and the cam is a little tame for a 351W, but in a 302 it's a little bit agressive (by OEM factory standards).

What do you guys think?

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#2

• Sep 2, 2005

• #2

Also does anyone know (for sure) where I can find the OEM cam specs for the 5.0 HO? I know they got tweeked a bit through the years.

I've been trying to locate this info for a long time, but no luck.

 

txstang84

15 Year Member

May 21, 2005

1,639

42

69

Tuscola, tx

Sep 2, 2005

#3

• Sep 2, 2005

• #3

I don't know exact numbers, but IIRC, it was 260* total duration, and 204* @ 0.050" with 0.444" lift, and I'm pretty sure it stayed that way from '87-'95. I know the "Mustang Handbook" (HPBooks) I used to have had all the cam specs for factory 5.0's including the carb'd versions (they used a marine cam).

the bit about the 351W truck cam though...I don't think that's quite right, the 351W didn't inherit the roller cam until '94, and was only used until '95. Prior to that all the truck engines, 302 and 351, used high torq flat tappet cams-but in a roller block, and the base circle was bigger due to the taller lifter bores in the roller blocks. I've pulled a couple of truck 302's apart before (94's) and they both had flat tappet cams.

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#4

• Sep 2, 2005

• #4

txstang84 said:

I don't know exact numbers, but IIRC, it was 260* total duration, and 204* @ 0.050" with 0.444" lift, and I'm pretty sure it stayed that way from '87-'95. I know the "Mustang Handbook" (HPBooks) I used to have had all the cam specs for factory 5.0's including the carb'd versions (they used a marine cam).

Click to expand...

Yeah I knew about the '83-'84 HO 302 using the flattappet marine/'69 Torino cam.

Thanks for the tip on the book. I'll have to find that and check it out.

 

kck6894

Advanced Member

Mar 18, 2004

0

0

66

Paradise

Sep 2, 2005

#5

• Sep 2, 2005

• #5

5.0L HO GT cam was used in:
CAPRI 85 8-302 (5.0L), MT
CAPRI 86 8-302 (5.0L)
COUGAR 91-92 8-302 (5.0L)
LINCOLN MARK SERIES 86-88 LSC
LINCOLN MARK SERIES 89-92
MUSTANG 85 8-302 (5.0L), MT
MUSTANG 86-92 8-302 (5.0L)
MUSTANG 93 8-302 (5.0L), exc. Cobra
MUSTANG 94-95 8-302 (5.0L), exc. Cobra and Pace Car
THUNDERBIRD 91-92 8-302 (5.0L)

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Sep 2, 2005

#6

• Sep 2, 2005

• #6

This might help.........

Take the specs with a big grain of salt - they varied significantly from one cam to the other..................

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#7

• Sep 2, 2005

• #7

Is this the book you spoke off?

 

Attachments

• M1832Z4.webp

  351.4 KB · Views: 302

H

hrspwrjunkie

Member

Dec 15, 2004

165

0

18

Sep 2, 2005

#8

• Sep 2, 2005

• #8

tjm73 said:

Don't know if anyone can confirm or dispell this theory I have. Ford is notrious about mixign and matching parts. For example, almost all 2V modular engines from about mid 99-current use the exact same cylinder heads and the exact same camshafts. If it's in a truck or a car or a Mustang doesn't matter.

The '93 Cobra camshaft was different than the regular 5.0 cam and used 1.7 roller rockers. Was it a special camshaft? Nope. It was just the camshaft out of the 5.0 T-bird/Cougar of the same era.

So I got to thinking that the cam in the 5.0 HO might in fact just be a 351W pickup truck cam. THey have the right firing order and the cam is a little tame for a 351W, but in a 302 it's a little bit agressive (by OEM factory standards).

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

Well, the 5.0 HO cam from '85-'88 is different from the 5.0 HO cam from '88-'95. I've heard a lot of different cam specs, but Ford Racing states the early HO grind has a duration of 210/210 at .050...the rest of the cam specs are in an attachment in another post.

They are different from a 351W grind. The later 351W, which was a roller cam block used the same cam as the late truck 5.0 and the explorer 5.0 which was more aggressive than the early truck cam, which was the same as the non-HO car cam.

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#9

• Sep 2, 2005

• #9

tmoss said:

This might help.........

Take the specs with a big grain of salt - they varied significantly from one cam to the other..................

Click to expand...

Variations aside...thanks for the pic. Just exactly what I was looking for.

Don't you just love manufacturing tolerences?? LOL

 

9

9 Deuce GT

Member

Dec 10, 2003

550

1

16

Geneva, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#10

• Sep 2, 2005

• #10

If any readers of this post do NOT have the book pictured earlier, I suggest they buy it. It is a great book filled with every detail of the Fox body Mustang. Deff. worth the price.

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#11

• Sep 2, 2005

• #11

Anyoen know what the cam manufacturing tolerances were? Like duration and lift must be plus or minus "X" ammount from the spec? Example, E1ZE-AA is lift spec'd at .278" lobe lift. COuld they be OK if they were +/- .010" or some other number? What's that number?

.010" would be a lot.

With 1.6 rockers a varience of .268" to .288" would end up being .4288" and .4608" lift at the valve respectivly. A pretty substantial difference.

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Sep 2, 2005

#12

• Sep 2, 2005

• #12

I firmly believe that more guys should be taking off their stock cam data and sharing it - would answer some of those questions for us.

My 87 SD cam (2/88 build date) spec'd out at:

219°I/212.5°E @.050" lift and had 212.5° lca. Lift was .280I/.273E

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#13

• Sep 2, 2005

• #13

tmoss said:

I firmly believe that more guys should be taking off their stock cam data and sharing it - would answer some of those questions for us.

My 87 SD cam (2/88 build date) spec'd out at:

219°I/212.5°E @.050" lift and had 212.5° lca. Lift was .280I/.273E

Click to expand...

WOW!!! Real cam data!! I love this idea tmoss.

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Sep 2, 2005

#14

• Sep 2, 2005

• #14

Also interesting that Ford used less exhaust lift than intake, as well as less duration on the exhaust.