Engine What a Conundrum we find ourselves in.

#61
Comp Cams 21-238-3, $143, Duration 262/270, lift .493/.500, lobe sep 110
Melling 24203, $107, Duration 302/308, lift .538/.562, lobe sep 112
 
#62
The Melling cam specs are:

Duration @.050 214/224
Advertised Duration: 288/300
Valve lift (With 1.6 rockers) .473/.497
Lobe Center Degrees 108/116
LSA 112

In my car, I used 1.72 roller rockers. So my total valve lift is higher than what is advertised. Basically just divide the valve lift by 1.6 then multiply the result by 1.72. So in my case valve lift is .508/.534.

Here is a link to the PDF for the Melling Performance Catalog:
 
#65
I'm slightly biased since I have Trick Flow Twisted Wedge heads and have never run AFR, but I don't think you'd go wrong with either set. The Trick Flows will require a little more work as the AFRs are inline valves whereas the Trick Flows are slightly out of line which requires checking push rod length and making sure your valve train geometry is correct. They supply directions to do so, so it's not a horribly big deal.

Here is one magazine article that compared the 2 along with a few others.

Testing the AFR Small Block Ford 165cc Aluminum Cylinder Head - FordMuscle

A look at how the popular Air Flow Research small-block Ford 165cc heads fare against the rest of the aftermarket offerings.
www.fordmuscle.com

As it shows, the TF heads flow more across the whole range that the cams you've been looking at can provide. The article also mentions how the valves are unshrouded due to the slight "twist" of the way the valves have been placed AND the TFs have larger valves which allow them to flow slightly more. BUT, the AFRs are right there with them even though they have slightly smaller valves. And there would be no special steps involved to install them, such as measuring for pushrod length, checking rocker arm geometry, etc.

Really, either one would serve you well. I guess, if it were me, I'd go with which one costs a little less.
 
#66
I’ve read through this whole thread.
It seems crazy to suggest rebuilding a non roller engine and at the same time recommend converting it over to a retro-roller system. The engine is as old as it is, and the combo is getting a complete rebuild. I’d suggest that he dump the whole thing for something that is already done, and rebuilt to factory spec. Just from reading, the OP has limited understanding of the processes to rebuild the engine correctly. Id also venture a guess that his tool collection is equally limited. There are numerous rebuilders offering complete engines in a crate for far less hassle than what rebuilding a 70’s era 302, then converting it over to a roller setup entails.
Then add in the specialized process of installing rings, and then putting each piston combo in the hole using a compressor. (I’ve done this dozens of times, and installing a piston in the cylinder has always been an arduous process. Only in the last few years did I wise up, and buy a 50.00 sleeve style compressor so that the piston would go in nicely. That’s 50 Bucks for a tool that he’ll use once. Add in 50 bucks fo a Decent torque wrench, ( Another one time tool) an understanding of how to check bearing clearances, Checking for pushrod length.. ( if he changes the heads, and especially if converting over to a retrofit roller combo). And this requires yet another single use tool. And along those same lines, How many of us get tripped up when adjusting valves for zero lash? The hoist that will have to be rented, which is cheap enough, but has to be rented, transported, taken back, then rented again when install time comes ( if he rebuilds the existing engine) All add up to: No brainer. Buy a crate engine, wait till it gets here, rent the hoist, install the engine, and bolt back on the stuff you took off.
No imbalance to worry about, a warranty, no wasted money on one use tools, Or back-n-forths renting hoists twice. A swap out process that most first timers can actually tackle that doesn’t go beyond the average skill set.
Comes complete...with a front sump pan, rebuilt e7 heads, new balancer and flexplate. only needs a carb to run. Rated to 300 hp/ 336 tq.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 1 user
#67
While I don't disagree, he has all but said directly that he wants to rebuild it himself. And I've said repeatedly that it wouldn't make sense to go retrofit roller cam, so I agree with all of that too - but it's his decision. If he were to go with a reman or crate engine he'd definitely need to make sure it's properly balanced for his flywheel as it looks to be that he intends to reuse it and II flywheels aren't an easily obtained item. He'd definitely need to have the flywheel rebalanced for a new engine if he isn't able to locate a 28oz engine within his budget, that much is certain. A crate engine is definitely the easiest way to go, and maybe the cheapest? I wouldn't know if it'd be the cheapest, I've never tried to compare costs. But you're right, there are definitely going to be specialty tools needed and that needs to be a consideration, it all adds up.
 
Reactions: 1 user
#68
Oh, and not that it's a huge issue, but the front sump pan in the engine you linked wouldn't work, he'd need to swap it for the II front sump. Standard front sumps don't clear the rack and pinion.
 
Reactions: 1 user
#69
I believe that a t 5 was mentioned too wasn't it? Again,.this is where I get a bad rap. Anybody that hasn't at least dabbled in this, or been involved in something similar needs to look at the bigger picture. All the want to in the world won't change things one bit when something don't work, or fails prematurely because it was a process best left to somebody else. I can nail two boards together, I can even build a deck. That doesn't qualify me to build a house though.
 
Reactions: 1 user
#71

The problem with the T5 swap is the IIs transmission tunnel which is pretty narrow. It IS possible to use a different bell housing to facilitate a 50 oz flywheel, but the starter is clocked in such a way that his headers won't fit and some bellhousings just plain out don't fit. So, in his case, using the II bell housing will allow him to keep the headers he already has. But to use the stock II bell housing requires the stock II specific flywheel and clutch assembly, which he has already replaced recently. So, he CAN use a crate engine and it would simplify A LOT of what he's asking, but there will be more work involved with other aspects, such as having his flywheel balanced to the engine you suggested should he choose to go that route. And I'm not suggesting your suggestions aren't good, it's just not what I understood him to be asking. It seemed like he wanted to dig in and rebuild his engine himself and what components would work for his desired outcome. The suggestion had already been made about a different engine and he indicated that he was more interested in rebuilding than he was a crate engine, so that's the direction I was going with my answers.

Enzio said:
I'm not opposed to buying a pre-built engine.
Click to expand...

Now, as far as all of this goes, if you want to do some of the work you could check into a short block. It would eliminate the piston installation and you could easily customize the rest of the components as you'd like. This one comes with a roller cam already installed and is a 50oz engine, so you'd need to have your flywheel rebalanced. Basically you'd end up installing whichever set of heads you'd like and go from there.


But the same would apply to the crate engine that Mike suggested - you'd have to have your flywheel rebalanced. It all depends on what you want to do! Everyone has their own ideas and ways to go about these kinds of things and no one is really wrong. It's just that there's a TON of things to keep in mind. For example, as Mike said, tool rentals, specialty tools that you may not have, etc. So much of this would be easier if we were all sitting around someone's garage having a cold drink and brainstorming different ideas! Lol
 
#72
I really appreciate all input on the subject. I'm here posting for that very reason. Thus the reason for this thread. I was just thinking last night that it all seemed daunting. And what do you know but in the morning a different opinion was posted.
Yes I'd love to be able to say I rebuilt it all myself but I think that the final result should be a good solid long lasting engine/drivetrain that would last me long into my retirement. I'm still open to both options.
I'm up for the garage and a beverage or several. I'm still on self quarantine but should be off in 6 or 7 days.
 
Reactions: 1 user
#73
LILCBRA said:
Oh, and not that it's a huge issue, but the front sump pan in the engine you linked wouldn't work, he'd need to swap it for the II front sump. Standard front sumps don't clear the rack and pinion.
Click to expand...
They sure don't.... but a Milodon 8qt will if you either have a manual rack or have 1" spacers between the motor mounts and the block!

I shouldn't know that... but I do.
 
Reactions: 1 users
#74
I would start with a newer roller block at this level of power. The roller cam will be new oil friendly and give you better street performance options.
If you are going with Edelbrock heads, why not stick with their intake, carbs, headers, maybe even their cam for an enjoyable package?
I think almost any aftermarket aluminum heads are going to flow better than D5 or stock E7 heads. Gt-40 plain or P heads are better than most other Ford heads, but the P heads have a fun spark plug angle that need to be accounted for in header design.

 
Reactions: 1 users
#76

If I was going to build another pushrod V8 for ElSuperPinto, it'd be an Explorer shortblock, AFR 185 heads, and a cam to match. It's just too damned easy to build a screaming 302 that way. With the right supporting parts you can push it past 400 horsepower while staying naturally aspirated, and 500 with nitrous or forced induction.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 1 users
#77
In the before the Exploders hit the salvage yards, a Turbo 4 was a surprisingly quick motor in the Pinto and similar body cars. An ecoboost would still be a blast. But for the $ and reliability, a roller block 302/347 would be better to drive, and plenty to require suspension and brake upgrades. Have fun!
 
Reactions: 1 user
#78
7991LXnSHO said:
and plenty to require suspension and brake upgrades
Click to expand...
And the driveline...
I would perhaps use a production head for the start. Then you don't have to mess with the valve train and you can buy a long block. I would focus on the T5 swap. You can swap to aftermarket heads later on and spend the $$$ now for a z-spec T5 and a limited slip diff, which you will need, when you upgrade to aftermarket heads IMO. For a swap in the car, I would recomend the AFR165cc heads because they are know, that they will work with the stock bottom end (stock cam and valve-to-piston clearance). They perform also very well with the stock cam. Good torque trough the whole RPM range and good fuel economy.
I would reuse you intake and carb in the beginning. When you swap to aftermarket heads, I would perhaps buy a higher intake weiand stealth, but then you have to mess with the hood clearance. For carburator I would buy a remanufactores holley 4180 from rockauto, that was original on the 85 mustang 5.0 HO. This will work out of the box. Another option is a 650 cfm holley, perhaps with mechanical secondarys, but the holley will need more work. The holley 4180 will be the better part-throttle carb.
I never have missed the AFR heads on my roller engines, they are strong enough to have plenty of fun. Steering, brakes and suspension are the limiting factor on my 66 coupe.
 
Reactions: 1 user
#79
Meh, ya'll haven't lived until you've tried to stop a II with 9" rotors before running out of pavement at the dragstrip from 110mph...
 
Reactions: 3 users
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Engine Does anyone elses engine cough?
Replies
7
Views
400
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Mindseye007
D
Electrical Grinding when starting car, now car won't start at all
Replies
2
Views
227
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
dqureshi06
D
What in gods green earth happend to my N/A 2.3?
Replies
7
Views
668
2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech
Piranahbite
5
What's it Worth? 1990 Notchback 5.0
Replies
4
Views
451
What is it Worth?!?!?
50notch90
5
R
Fuel Pressure Loss
Replies
0
Views
505
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Ricco Suave
R
Menu
Log in
Register