Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks Discuss the Early Eighties Bullnose Ford Truck

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #16  
Old 10-22-2009, 03:44 PM
brett_d brett_d is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: washington
Posts: 662
brett_d is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kermmydog View Post
I understand the lifter bore being longer, I wasn't aware of that. But where do these spider plates connect? Where can I find a picture of what your talking about. I never fail to learn something. Also what years & was it just the 302 that had this? I know the last year for the 302 at least in the Mustang was 1995, I owned a 95 Mustang GT that I bought new & in 96 they went to the 4.6. I really didn't think the 95 had a roller cam.
Thanks for the info, again I never fail to learn new stuff.
I agree with you on the roller cam. IMHO Flat tappet cams are OLD SCHOOL. With all the design changes in modern engines, oils, & etc roller is the way to go. I mean heck $10 for ZDDP every oil change, Not for me if I'm building a motor. My 86 F250 4x4 460 has close to 200,000 miles when I rebuild it I will go roller cam.
I do not believe that the 302's have a longer lifter bore. I have never seen it. The only difference is the roller blocks have two holes that are drilled and tapped in the valley pan This allows the spider plate to screw down and hold down the lifters. I didn't mention it for this poster because he said he was on a budget, which is extra $$$ for the conversion kit! Ford started tapping the blocks sometime in 87 I believe, someone else may have a better guess!
__________________
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/User_files/3c08b4ce6d69304e.jpg
1985 Ford F150 2wd, Brand New Roller 5.0 with GT40P heads, AOD tranny.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-22-2009, 04:05 PM
bashby's Avatar
bashby bashby is online now
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charles Town, W bygod Va
Posts: 6,007
bashby has a great reputation on FTE.bashby has a great reputation on FTE.bashby has a great reputation on FTE.bashby has a great reputation on FTE.bashby has a great reputation on FTE.
I'm with Conanski... A torquey 302? 351w would be a lot better choice
__________________
92 F250 4x4 7.3idi zf5 3.55's Meyer plow
86 F350 2wd C&C Dump 351w C6 4.10s Meyer plow
The rest of my signature changed as to not offend some liberal crybaby.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-22-2009, 05:01 PM
stanggt84's Avatar
stanggt84 stanggt84 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Selkirk NY
Posts: 153
stanggt84 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Personally I would go with the roller from a longevity standpoint. If you are able to find a wrecked 5.0 explorer in your local boneyard they have the ideal donor components they have the roller components and the crank that has the 5.0 HO/351 firing order. They also have the GT40 heads. There are carbureted intakes for these heads then all you would need to get really good power is the ford motorsport E303 cam or perhaps the B303 cam. I am going to be building one of these shortly.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-22-2009, 07:14 PM
4bars13stars's Avatar
4bars13stars 4bars13stars is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North West Oklahoma
Posts: 39
4bars13stars is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bashby View Post
I'm with Conanski... A torquey 302? 351w would be a lot better choice

One reason for sticking with the 302 is that the engine im building was given to me with low miles.. and the pickup already has a 302 in it.. and when i run it (either in the mud runs or just playing) it blows people minds that it has just a plain jane 302 in it.. the 302 has served me well both in this pickup and in the old cougar i had.. i may have misrepresented what i am after out of this engine.. im needing my power from the area of 1500 up to around 5500 rpm.. that is where that engine spends most of its time running is at least 3000.. but i do drive it on the street as well.. so that is why i was looking into the cam that is rated from 1300-5600.. and from what i have read (being on a budget) than this one seems to be my best bet until i can get the funds stored up to build a better engine from a later block.. that is if im not pleased with what this one is doing.. but my other engine is getting a little tired.. been abused to much and to long... so that is the only reason im really looking into replacing it... and if this one doesn't do what i am after (just a little more power than i already have) and turn those 35" tires a little better.. than i am looking at the next block to be a 351...

thanks for the info everyone...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-22-2009, 08:44 PM
ctubutis's Avatar
ctubutis ctubutis is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denver Metro Area, CO
Posts: 15,546
ctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputationctubutis has a superb reputation
ctubutis ctubutis ctubutis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conanski View Post
So in my opinion it's not worth it to convert an older motor, just select a flat tappet cam and forget about it.
This is exactly what I did when I rebuilt my 400; the cost of parts & labor (several
hundred dollars) aren't justified in my mind on a truck that has approx 1k miles
per year put on it (mine is mostly a utility vehicle that I use for hauling firewood
in the winter, all this fix-up stuff is just cuz it's fun).

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-22-2009, 11:33 PM
4bars13stars's Avatar
4bars13stars 4bars13stars is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North West Oklahoma
Posts: 39
4bars13stars is starting off with a positive reputation.
i agree... im not doing high speed drag racing.. just mud bogs.. so i dont really need the really high power... just some acceleration and keep those tires digging... this pickup may get 3000 a year on it.. and that is if we are having a good wet year... i have a few friends (with mud trucks as well) that are running 400+ horse engines.. and i dont see where they are accomplishing much other than throwing a bunch of money at something that will never pay for itself... now i make a little money with mine.. go to the sand dunes.. pull people out.. and people pay for it no matter how much you argue (came home $30 richer last weekend from one pull).. but i dont go very often.. as well as people just being stupid int eh mud... they "donate" as well.. so i cant justify a 1200+ dollar engine.. just the basics with a few extras to help.. my good pick.. it makes money.. so more gets spent on it.. but needing a $1500 4.6 to put back in it... this will be engine #3...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-23-2009, 12:17 AM
kermmydog kermmydog is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,265
kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.kermmydog has a spectacular reputation.
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by brett_d View Post
I do not believe that the 302's have a longer lifter bore. I have never seen it. The only difference is the roller blocks have two holes that are drilled and tapped in the valley pan This allows the spider plate to screw down and hold down the lifters. I didn't mention it for this poster because he said he was on a budget, which is extra $$$ for the conversion kit! Ford started tapping the blocks sometime in 87 I believe, someone else may have a better guess!
Thanks for this info. It is great to be able to learn even when I'm an old man. Is this true with the older 460 blocks like in 1986?? I believe the newer 460s not sure what year used roller cams. Because that would make a difference if I ever rebuild mine. The cost of cam & lifters OK but add several hundred for machine work maybe a flat tappet cam will be OK.
Thanks, Craig
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-01-2010, 06:06 PM
xnutt xnutt is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2
xnutt is starting off with a positive reputation.
sorry guys my first post. the 302 "valley tapping" started in 85. mustangs, crown vics, and grand marq. they used a 302 roller up to 95 in the mustangs. the 96-01 explorer's also have the roller 302 as well as gt40 and gt40p heads.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-01-2010, 11:14 PM
Franklin2's Avatar
Franklin2 Franklin2 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Staunton VA
Posts: 32,810
Franklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant futureFranklin2 has a brilliant future
Since you brought this old post up, I will have to disagree with the previous post that says "the roller blocks do not have longer lifter bores". They do in fact have longer lifter bores to support the lifter, since it sits higher in the block. Why? Because it now has a wheel on the bottom of the lifter and you need room for that and the base circle of the roller cam is larger also. And of course all this requires it's own special length pushrod. Also the top of the lifter bores in the engine I had looked like they were cleaned up a little bit to give a flat area for the dog bone piece to lay in.
__________________
Dave F

1989 F250 XLT Diesel
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-02-2010, 07:33 PM
fordsgofaster's Avatar
fordsgofaster fordsgofaster is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
fordsgofaster is starting off with a positive reputation.
Roller cam will give you more low RPM torque than equivalent duration flat tappet. Rollers can handle steeper ramping, which means they can hold the valves at max lift value for longer than a flat tappet, but because this doesn't physically increase the duration of the cam you just get an enhanced power curve across the same range a similar spec flat tappet will run. It doesn't move the power up the power curve just because its a roller.

very vague generalisation but I think you get the idea, whether the gains are worth the conversion cost & hassle to you is the question. I'm having a similar debate with myself on a cleveland build atm.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-02-2010, 08:03 PM
hittman1422's Avatar
hittman1422 hittman1422 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Blue Eye, mo. hwy 86 & JJ
Posts: 711
hittman1422 is starting off with a positive reputation.
a cleveland, you lucky *******...
__________________
-Allen

85 F-150 Flairside 2wd 300 I6 T-18 4 speed granny low
-hooker headers -offenhauser DP -490 carb

79 Corvette, 350, Automatic, 4.11 gears
TAKE THAT DAMN TOWEL OFF YOUR HEAD
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-03-2010, 03:03 AM
Handegard's Avatar
Handegard Handegard is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 648
Handegard is starting off with a positive reputation.
bluereptile roastgecko RoastGecko bluereptile
Quote:
Originally Posted by kermmydog View Post
I understand the lifter bore being longer, I wasn't aware of that. But where do these spider plates connect? Where can I find a picture of what your talking about. I never fail to learn something. Also what years & was it just the 302 that had this? I know the last year for the 302 at least in the Mustang was 1995, I owned a 95 Mustang GT that I bought new & in 96 they went to the 4.6. I really didn't think the 95 had a roller cam.
Thanks for the info, again I never fail to learn new stuff.
I agree with you on the roller cam. IMHO Flat tappet cams are OLD SCHOOL. With all the design changes in modern engines, oils, & etc roller is the way to go. I mean heck $10 for ZDDP every oil change, Not for me if I'm building a motor. My 86 F250 4x4 460 has close to 200,000 miles when I rebuild it I will go roller cam.
The "spider" sits in the valley above the camshaft, and it has arms that reach over to each lifter.

The roller blocks I believe started in '85. And I think thats when they switched to "5.0" from "302", as well as a one piece rear main seal, and I think at the same time they went from a 28 oz imbalance to a 50 oz.

The '95 was the last year for the 302/5.0 in Mustangs (until 2011) but it continued into this century in Explorers.
__________________
1968 F350 undergoing restoration
I'm a crazy son of a <bad word>
And I know I'm gonna make it Big & Rich....

Chris --The One--
Keep on Truckin'
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-03-2010, 03:15 AM
LARIAT 85's Avatar
LARIAT 85 LARIAT 85 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,227
LARIAT 85 has a great reputation on FTE.LARIAT 85 has a great reputation on FTE.LARIAT 85 has a great reputation on FTE.LARIAT 85 has a great reputation on FTE.LARIAT 85 has a great reputation on FTE.LARIAT 85 has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handegard
The roller blocks I believe started in '85. And I think thats when they switched to "5.0" from "302"...
Yes, the roller blocks started in 1985. Even though the F150 came with a roller block, they still used flat tappet cams well into the 1990s. The Ford Mustang, however, got the roller block and a roller cam for the 1985 model year. 1985 was the last year for a carbureted Mustang, and 1985 was the ONLY year that the Mustang offered both the 4V carb AND roller cam.

As for when Ford started calling the 302 a 5.0, that came much earlier. I do know that in 1982, the Ford Mustang GT still used a flat tappet cam and 2V carb, and the car came with the famous "5.0" emblems on the side. I think the "5.0" and "EFI" moniker was placed on the F150 intake starting with the 1987 redesign, however.

For some reason though, I noticed that most people tend to call the Mustang motor the "5.0", and the truck motor the "302," regardless of the year, even though they are basically the same.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-03-2010, 03:17 AM
fordsgofaster's Avatar
fordsgofaster fordsgofaster is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
fordsgofaster is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittman1422
a cleveland, you lucky *******...
lol, clevelands are dim a dozen here. Ford Oz put them in everything including the family shopping trolleys of the day, even our 302's are clevelands aside a couple of exceptions. Until the mid 90's a windsor was a rare commodity here. When Ford US stopped supplying clevelands due to them as I understand it not been used in any US vehicles anymore ford Oz cast their own 2V headed version till 1986. They came factory fitted with 4bbl carter thermoquad carb & bosh electronic ignition. That's the factory spec motor for Oz F100's 1980 to 1986 .
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-03-2010, 03:25 AM
fordsgofaster's Avatar
fordsgofaster fordsgofaster is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
fordsgofaster is starting off with a positive reputation.
On the roller cam cam issue comp cams has a free down load called cam quest or something I think lets you play with a couple a variables & swap flat tappets for roller spec cams & give an estimated dyno graph ......... how their dyno stats compare to real world engine outputs I don't know but the comparisons from one combination to the other is interesting.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2010, 03:25 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks

Tags
302, 400, cam, camshaft, conversion, converting, flat, ford, gas, hp, mileage, motor, roller, sb, tappet

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ordered camshaft too early! HELP! f-150_1993 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 63 12-23-2013 01:27 PM
Crankshaft 77 2wd 1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 9 09-23-2012 12:57 PM
93 bronco cam? jhg_12 Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 1 07-28-2011 07:02 AM
Hyd.Flat or Hyd Roller 77custom408 Big Block V8 - 385 Series (6.1/370, 7.0/429, 7.5/460) 13 12-01-2010 06:50 AM
All about Cams-- F-250 restorer Ford Inline Six, 200, 250, 4.9L / 300 0 10-05-2010 07:24 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup