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

Roller cams

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr_EluSivE
  • Start date Start date Apr 1, 2005

Dr_EluSivE

Founding Member
Apr 24, 2002
2,155
0
56
Central Illinois
Apr 1, 2005
#1
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #1
I need to change out the valve cover gasket before i drop the motor in so i thought i would get your guys opinion on the roller cam. The Turbo motor has the Stock 88tc cam in it, and i have my DP motor with a roller cam so i would not have to buy any parts, but is it really worth switching to the roller cam? I was planning on just running the stock slider, but if its truly worth it i will swap the roller from my DIS motor before i put the Turbo motor in. What do you guys think?

Dr.
 

gio_momma

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
89
0
0
Corona, CA
Apr 1, 2005
#2
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #2
If you have a pre-95 roller setup...there's no reason not to do it. The rollers are really nice to have and you never have to worry about killing a cam.

Just don't look for any performance gains, because it's the same cam you already have.
 

realtripp

New Member
Mar 1, 2003
202
0
0
Ft. Madison, IA
Apr 1, 2005
#3
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #3
I thought the roller cam had a shorter lift height.

I put one in mine after running the 85 TC cam for a while and liked it better. It seems to make more low end power which really helps to get it going from a stop.

I feel I lost some top end though, my engine does not seem too strong after 5Krpms.
 

gio_momma

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
89
0
0
Corona, CA
Apr 1, 2005
#4
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #4
The mind is a powerful thing. It tends to feel what you think you should feel.

The cams are the same. One has roller followers, one doesn't.
 

realtripp

New Member
Mar 1, 2003
202
0
0
Ft. Madison, IA
Apr 1, 2005
#5
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #5
I am feeling that the roller cam should in and of itself turn my car into a 768horspower, flame spewing machine of death.

Does it work yet?
 

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,896
73
129
Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom
Apr 1, 2005
#6
  • Apr 1, 2005
  • #6
gio_momma said:
The mind is a powerful thing. It tends to feel what you think you should feel.

The cams are the same. One has roller followers, one doesn't.
Click to expand...


Somebody directed me to a website with "specs" on it the other day, and this website said that the Turbo Coupe's stock cam had .400" lift while the Ranger Roller had .355"
 

gio_momma

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
89
0
0
Corona, CA
Apr 2, 2005
#7
  • Apr 2, 2005
  • #7
Red_LX said:
Somebody directed me to a website with "specs" on it the other day, and this website said that the Turbo Coupe's stock cam had .400" lift while the Ranger Roller had .355"
Click to expand...

Yeah, they get smaller every year...they started out at .400, then went to .390-something...then .380-something...now they're down to .355.

Wait a couple more years and they won't even open the valves at all.

You can't check a 2.3 cam (or other slipper follower apps) with a "Cam Doctor" unless it's done IN a 2.3 head with solid lifters and proper valve length. Anyone who says different is full of "sheet". Even checking it in an instrumented head (like Esslinger has) is only good for comparison between other cams measured on the same head. I think they have good numbers (done in their checking head) for it in their catalog.

The bottom line is that it's no different than the flat tappet "base" NA/turbo cam, spec-wise. They were a mid-year, running change in a speed-density vehicle...and there was no calibration or ECU change whatsoever. NO reference to it anywhere besides the engine catalog...and then only the cam and rockers. They change calibrations for ANYTHING that might possibly effect the emissions profile...and they didn't change it for this cam.

It's just a friction thang...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
4
Views
1K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
Oil choice for after break in period.
  • Sask84gt
  • Feb 28, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
26
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 14, 2026
Praetorious
P
D
Engine HO cam in non HO roller block ‘93 f150
  • DanC1993f150
  • Mar 21, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
356
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Mar 29, 2026
General karthief
Ford truck engine swap issues
  • keel
  • Jul 7, 2026
  • Other Auto Tech
Replies
17
Views
415
Other Auto Tech Jul 13, 2026
General karthief
B
SN95 New Heads
  • Blakeknight
  • May 30, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
983
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 30, 2025
Noobz347
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?