Using the gt-40 cam for ho conversion

[matthew]

Will I have any problems if I use a explorer HO cam for my HO conversion instead of a mustang or mark 7 cam? Clearance issues/not running right with SD?

[Grand Marquis GT]

Scott is going with the Exploder cam with a project he is worknig on, but he hasnt gotten the engine it yet.

My guess, it will work right, but the exploder cam isn't as agressive.

[matthew]

may not be as "aggressive", but it is more of a torquer, which is good in our massive beasts!

Mostly, I just want to make sure there are no clearance issues since I don't have reliefed pistons.

[89LincolnTWNcar]

I gots the mustang cam in mine, and the car picks up at ~4000rpms and really flies
Oh and BTW it will fit fine b/c is has lower lift then the mustang cam.

[89GrandMarquis]

Using the gt-40 cam for ho conversion

Actually, the exhaust lobe on the Explorer cam provides slightly higher lift:

'96-'98 5.0L Explorer cam specs:

.264" intake cam lift
.280" exhaust cam lift
256º intake duration
266º exhaust duration
intake valve opens 10º BTDC
intake valves closes 66º ABDC
exhaust valve opens 66º BBDC
exhaust valve closes 20º ATDC
30º overlap

'85-'88 5.0L HO cam specs:

.278" intake cam lift
.278" exhaust cam lift
266º intake duration
266º exhaust duration
intake valve opens 17º BTDC
intake valves closes 69º ABDC
exhaust valve opens 67º BBDC
exhaust valve closes 19º ATDC
36º overlap

In the though, I agree - the amount of lift is not too much (0.448" exhaust valve lift).

What's the schedule for this motor? I'm doing the exact same thing later this year - after it gets WARM.

[matthew]

I've had the heads, intake, exhaust etc. installed for some time now, I'll probably get around to the cam injectors and computer sometime in spring. I just feel like I'm leaving a lot of power on the table without using the ecm and cam to go with the more free flowing set-up.

[Freshmeat]

I'd say spend the money and use a real HO cam, like for a 4x4 or RV. You can get one that's SD-friendly, too.
I just couldn't justifty all that work for an Explorer cam.

[mrltd]

I'm running a com cams Xtreme Energy 264 cam. It runs incredibly. Kinda pricey though. There are smaller less expensive cams you can get that will perform better than the HO and the explorer cams. Chossing between the two (hp vs. explorer) I'd put the HO cam in.

[89GrandMarquis]

Using the gt-40 cam for ho conversion

In comparing cams, it would be nice to get at least some impressions/facts.

mrltd - when does your engine hit its torque peak? Some would say, when does it (what RPM) does it "come on the cam"?

89LincolnTWNcar recently posted that his motor really picks up at 4000 RPM.

Here's my point - cam selection depends on what you want. Torque down low? Torque in the middle? Torque up high? If my motor didn't come on the cam until 4000 RPM, I would be disappointed, because it is way too high for me.

I want torque down low to middle. I don't want to change my transmission governor to shift at higher RPMs. I actually LIKE having it shift at about 4400 RPM. I don't want to change out my converter for a high stall unit (to best match a higher RPM cam). I may put in an RV converter - where the torque multiplication is design for towing - MORE TORQUE. In fact, I'm still considering changing my governor to a lower speed unit (I know that puts me WAY outside of the mainstream - but that's me). I'm not in any way claiming that my answer is the only one, or the best one, it's just the best one for me.

For example, this morning, pulling into the parking lot, I goosed it from idle. That's where I want my torque. I'm not wanting to win any races, or go to the drag strip. For me, torque is king! I want my torque available at any moment, which for me, is the lower RPMs.

THEN, you combine that with the fact that I'm limited, from what I understand to 0.500" lift (limited due to my lo-po pistons and planned E7 heads). So far, I haven't found a good selection of "low lift" cams. Some exist, yes - but not many compared to the "over 0.500 inch lift crowd".

So: torque down low; less than 0.500" lift. HMM, the explorer cam may be exactly what I want after all.

[mrltd]

the stock HO cam would take off around 2200rpm. (if you have seen any of my drag racing vids you can see it) This Comp cams one hit's like crazy around the same RPM. It pulls really well under that also. but once it gets over 2K or so it's like hitting nitrous. It just friggin takes off. The cam I have won't work for you anyway...512 lift.

Just go with the explorer cam. should work well for what you want. Or just leave the stock lopo cam in it...and put in 1.7 rockers on the e7's . Wouldn't have to change anything but the heads...

[Roach III]

89GrandMarquis:

Torque is exactly what I'm wanting. What are your thoughts on the E303 cam?

[mrltd]

Ford letter cams are old news....TFS stage one or something like what I have. I have TONs of torque. My car pulls like crazy. Cams with asymetrical patterns favoring the exhaust work the best with ford motors. Which is strange when you look at thier cams....all of them are symmetrical.

There are tons of 4x4 cams and others that work great. Of course most cost a bit more than the ford cams....kinda sucks. But you do get what you pay for.

[89GrandMarquis]

mrltd - can you post the specs on that Stage 1 cam?

I'd like to plug it into my Engine Analyzer software and see what it spits out.

Roach III - E303 cam? Not for me. I spent about an hour today playing around with my Engine Analyzer software. If you'd like, I can send you the dyno charts via e-mail. Anyway, as you may have figured out, I'm looking for torque down low. In addition, I'm very tight on car-money, so I'm looking for HP for nothin'. So, with my goal of maximum torque band in the 1500 to 4500 RPM range, the software indicates that the Explorer cam wins. The stock mustang cam was a surprising second. The E303 torque band was not as quite as wide (peakier), and looked to be shifted up the powerband slightly, too. All of these software runs were with stock E7 heads. Nothing fancy (expensive), just off-the-shelf (and cheap) stock parts. As a disclaimer, I don't claim this software to be the best, or highly accurate, BUT I do believe the results can be used to compare one engine combination against another (within reason). This software is free for download from:

http://www.themustangshop.com/index.cfm?pg=/downloads.cfm

For the price, it can't be beat. I have read some reviews on this software which indicate that it is comparable to others out there.

The results of the software are as follows:

Roach III - also - the 0.500" lift limit came from another member of this board. I don't know (yet) if it is a real, hard and fast limit, or a guideline. In other words, with the E303 0.498" lift, is it necessary to check for clearance with our stock no-valve-relief pistons? I don't know that answer. That's one of the first reasons that the Explorer cam appealed to me (other than price) was its conservative lift. At its lower lift values, I'm not worried about clearance issues. If I didn't have to limit myself to the 0.500" lift, I'd be looking at other cams that would definitely be better than the Explorer.

Lastly, my used set of 40k E7 heads - I plan on using the stock valve train. No new springs, etc. See? Cheap reigns supreme here. I feel very comfortable with the E7 heads "handling" the Explorer cam lifts.

[mrltd]

The .500 is a guidline. It's a good idea to check the P/V clearance...

The specs on the TFS cam... 275/279 499/510

Run the specs on my cam 264/270 512/512 with a 114 lobe separation...it's a small cam.

[gadget73]

I agree about the stock HO cam really coming into it's own around 2200-2500. Mine has ok acceleration but once the tach crosses the 2500 rpm point it will actually shove you into the seat a little bit.