Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Seeing I'm not wanting a quarter mile monster or some swamp mudder. Seeing the engine swap is out, I've seem to have found three cams that I might need some help with. Looking for direction and if I'm going the wrong route tell me I'm wrong. You might of guess, ya I'm new to building trucks.

Plus need some schooling on the big difference is between 1.6 and 1.7 roller rockers. My guess one might be an issue with PTV (piston to valve) clearance and they help with keeping the valve open longer. Long with the need to use taller valve covers with these two.

Dont know if this helps though - Will be going with 4.10 gears (front / back) later this year. Right now running on 32x11.5x15 with a 3.55 open differential n it really sucks.

First, back story on the engine in the truck now: in a 1993 truck, Remanufactured engine, round (little less) then 10K miles on it, has a 10% increase in power cam - so I'm told by Jasper, switching over to MAF from SD/MAP (have the kit from Fiveology) and will be using GT40 heads from a lightning. Picking them up this weekend.

I will be dropping off the heads next week to be ported, de burred, decked, and port matched to the intake and headers plus using new 1.85 intake and 1.54 ex valves. I have the original rockers for these heads, still if I'm going new valves, springs, seats, and retainers I might as well go new rockers - right? I know some machine work will be needed to install the new roller rockers if they are not pedestal mounted. Long with this the intake will be cleaned up, glass beaded, and port matched to the t/b and lower.

Cam kits I'm looking at - the Comp Cam kit 35-512-8, the Comp Cam kit 35-510-8, then the Comp Cam kit 35-349-8. Each kit will come with lifters, timing chain, valve springs, etc.

Rocker kit I'm looking at - The Comp Cams High Energy RP1450-16 1.7 Rockers. This kit will come with rockers n push rods.

Have Bassani ceramic coated shorties on order and have Hooker Aero Flow muffler being shipped.

My goal is for the truck to easily tow a 36' boat, use around the house, hauling wood, and a little bit of off road fun from time to time. If I get 325hp with 400 torque, flywheel, that would be well more then I'm expecting. The 185 and 270 is not doing it no more.

I guess my question to yall here is, in your experiences, which cam kit out of the three would I get the most out of and the previous questions on the rockers.
Thanks
 

·
Man of endless projects
Joined
·
9,055 Posts
if your going to swap a cam, then jsut stick with 1.6 rockers. the point of 1.7 is to try and squeeze abit more lift (and arguably duration) out of current cam. o say the 35-512-8 cam has 0.480 lift with 1.6 ratio, with 1.7 it now has 0.510 lift. advertised duration wont change but duration at a specific point (@ 0.050 for example) will increase a tiny bit because it will reach that point a tiny bit earlier and thus also close at that point abit later.

why machine the head for a stud rocker and not use a full roller rocker? you might as well get pedistal roller rockers at that point or stay stock rockers. also do not count of the pushrod length being correct on those inclueded pushrods. you are changing how the rockers mount, resurfacing the heads, changing the rockers, and changing the cam. you REALLY need to get a pushrod measuring tool and measure how long your pushrods need to be before ordering any.

your probably not going to hit 300hp with GT40 heads and mild cams. you have to figure a stock 351w made about 210hp. a Lightning that came with GT40 heads only made 240hp and thats with a differetn cam and better intake. your gonna need low end torque to tow so you defiantly dont want a big cam and you probably wont have enough rpm needed for over 300hp. your also putting quite abit of money into these heads it seems. sounds like your going to around similar cost of entry level aluminum heads.

are you using stock intake. thats gonna be a moderate restriction as the stock 351 intake sucks. many wont even think about buildibng a 351 without getting a new intake. even the Lightnings had GT40 intakes

as for the cam, the 35-512-8 cam is good for a stock engine or even a with GT40 heads. i had it in a 302 with GT40 heads, intake, and headers and it was pretty good. im still using it with E-street heads but with 1.7 rockers and will eventually be replacing it when i rebuild the engine. as for which cam will be best i cant really tell you. i pretty much recommend a custom grind camshaft for most people anymore. FlowTechInduction does them and they dont cost too much more than a cataloge camshaft. maybe Ed could squeeze out what your looking for

instead of using valve springs included in the cam kits, you might get them from AlexsParts. they have spring kits designed for different applications specifically for GT40 and GT40P heads that are what alot of mustang guys swear by. are defiantly the go-to for the GT40P heads
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
wow thanks! I would have went down the wrong road for sure. Price wise with the GT40 heads and some aftermarket aluminum head? I'm buying these heads for 250 dollars with the oem rockers and cam. So right there I'm head of the game. Wont be using the cam like mentioned, though you have me thinking of reusing the rockers now...if they are not 1.7's.

I knew bout measuring the push rods though didn't feel I would have to with everything being Comp Cam and they were included with one kit. This is good to know.

Going to look more into the springs now seeing you put the link up. I still have some time seeing wont get the truck back in two weeks. Getting some body work done on it, cab corners and bed.
 

·
Addicted to Junk
85 Bronco, 309ci I6 w/4bbl, np435, 4" lift, 37" Irok NDs, 4.56 w/ Detroit Locker and tru trac
Joined
·
11,989 Posts
Every cam should specify what ratio of rockers it is designed for.

35-512-8 is a torque monster, but is tame enough to run with speed density. You can go wilder, since you have MAF. I had the 512 cam in my 351 with AFR heads.

Not going bigger valves? My 300 has 1.94" and 1.6" valves, and I could've gone to 2.10 on the intake.

Consider calling Schneider Racing and speaking to Jerry about cams. For my 300, they offered more cams than all other companies combined. Very pleased with mine.
 

·
Man of endless projects
Joined
·
9,055 Posts
the prblem is that you get heads for 250$. you spend about 150$ on valve springs. im guessing you spend about 200$ on new valves. shops charge different amound but i imagine about 300$ for cleaning, resurfacing, valvejob. porting is usually a couple hundred bucks more labor on top of that. so dont be surprized if those heads end up costing over $1k. and they still will only make maybe a couple dozen HP. for abit more you can do some entry level heads and make more power. E-street heads are like ~900$ but need new valvesprings for roller cam so your about the came cost but better heads. apparently AFR now has budegt 'Enforcer' heads for a good price but i dont know anything about them.

just food for thought. ive put alot of money into a pair of GT40P heads just like you did. way more than i should. and ultametly went to aluminums
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
Some good info already shared - but assuming the thread title is correct you have a 302 not a 351..right?

If so - the intake is actually pretty good.

Watch out for sinking money in the GT40 heads. $250 for a set of heads ready to run with just a valve job - sure. But porting, major machine work can easily hit $500 or more. If you have $750 or more in the GT40 heads when done, you'd be better off to buy a set of aftermarket heads that will make more power, weigh A LOT less (aluminum) and have modern combustion chambers and most will have smaller chambers to bump compression ratio up a bit (again more power).

The issue is what your engine is pulling around, and that's a heavy ass Bronco. So you don't care about HP - you want LOW to MID range torque. Seat of the pants wise? You'll see a bigger difference installing gears than you will from redoing the engine.

It's all about effort / money vs gains.

If it were me, since it seems your short block is sound, I'd have the GT40 heads cleaned up with a valve job (unless you're getting a GOOD deal on porting, the end result likely won't be worth the money), save your money and keep the stock pedestal rockers etc and just free up the exhaust, add the cylinder heads and add a cam designed to make torque in the low / mid range.

You might find yourself getting to the 'tipping point' on the 302, where you'd make more power / torque per $ spent by building a 347 stroker or something along those lines.

Here's the thing though - and you can believe me or not, but I've personally experienced it time after time - if your engine is SOUND mechanically, do the gears FIRST. It's the biggest seat of the pants change you can make. It's literally a mechanical advantage you can't argue with.

I changed out the 3.08 gears in my wife's '84 GMC K1500 to 4.10's. With the STOCK 305, it's a TOTALLY different truck and has no issue pulling / towing anything that should be safely towed behind it. My wife literally thought I'd put a new engine in it after riding it after the gear change.

Just my opinion.
 

·
Addicted to Junk
85 Bronco, 309ci I6 w/4bbl, np435, 4" lift, 37" Irok NDs, 4.56 w/ Detroit Locker and tru trac
Joined
·
11,989 Posts
My lightly worked over and lightly raced AFR heads were $1000, with a new valve job and correct springs installed. Used of course.

Yes, this is a 302, but the 302 went to the 351 firing order at some point in the early 90s I think.

Yes, the truck 302 intake is pretty decent. Much moreso than the 351 intake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
Lot's of good info provided already. I'll chime in with a +1 on the 302 intake/TB you already have and not spending a lot on GT40 heads before moving on to Edelbrock, Trickflow or AFR heads.

Real GT40 heads are not as common as they once were (reflected in their price on the market). GT40P's are actually marginally better, but will present some challenges to overcome with exhaust angles in our trucks.

You are on the right track with better flowing heads, cam and freer exhaust though and the MAF conversion opens up even more possibilities.

'93 302/5.0L still had a normal firing order, but check your install; Jasper may have picked up the extra 10hp by putting a 302HO/351 cam in. Not that it makes a hill of beans difference between the two so long as you match the order to your cam choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Yes, its a 302 and I will call Jasper on Tuesday to get the cam specs. My mechanic put the wires back in as for a 302, though if Jasper did put in the 302HO/351 cam, this might be the reason why my truck has been surging and in the winter time stalls if left ideling on start up. I sort of fixed it by installing a MSD car and rotor and a MSD coil. Surge is still there, though stalling has stopped.

I will even call Schneider Racing and Alex's Parts on Tuesday too, to further my search. I thank y'all for the wealth of information!

I plan on gears later this year which from the sounds of it y'all seem to feel this is a better start. Not really looking for seat of pants just something useable. If seat of the pants is part of what I'm doing them I'm not going to cry bout it :)

I understand aluminum heads weight wise though I was under the impression weight is needed for towing. So I looked for a good set iron heads, to keep the weight, without spend 6/700 dollars for them. Everywhere I looked people want 5..6...7 and up for these heads and most in need of rebuild or freshening up.

Just freshen up the heads seem to be consensus and use the oem rockers. I thought of this and had one of those "while its at there....." moments. I like doing things once or when I'm working on something and the "while I'm fixing this I'll...." moment always hits. Looks like in this instance this is not one of those good moments.

I'll get a write up of everything that I'll do to the heads, when I start them. So to help others see as well, if they're looking to go this route.
 

·
Man of endless projects
Joined
·
9,055 Posts
geeze i did it again. assuming info because i try to remeber too many projects form too many groups. also when he said Gt40 heads from Lightning, i assumed 351.

ok ya the original truck intake for 302 is decent. wouldnt go out of my way to change it. the 351 intake is garbage but the 302 intake flows about the same as the GT40 intake

the Lightning heads will have 1/2" headbolt holes for a 351w. you will need bushings or headbolts to use them on a 302 with 7/16" heabolts. so an additional cost. if you buy aluminum heads, most of them come with these bushings.

the truck being a 93 ideally should not have a roller cam tho i think i have heard of some 93 with them. tho it should be a 'roller ready' block originally regardless. now the problem is since you have a crate engine installed, there is no guearentee the block even 'roller ready'. you should really check the casting number on the block to make sure if its a roller ready block or not. i suppsoe it is possible the engine could have a roller cam in it, easy way to tell is the firing order as they said. other way would be pulling a valve cover and measuring pushrod length to see if its using a pushrod for a roller or flat tappet lifter but thats defiantly more work.

since you probably dont have a roller cam in the block now but you want to put one in, you will either need to buy the OE style spider tray and dogbones. FRPP and CompCams sell them about $50-60.

you will also need to change the distributor gear to a steel gear instead of the iron gear used for flat tappet, or change the distriburor to one with steel gear. pushrods will defiantly be different length but as i sad i before, you really need to measure them before buying. if your block is not a 'roller ready' block, then you will either need to stay flat tappet, use a small base circle cam (i dont recommend), or you buy linkbar lifters. linkbar lifters are nice and allow any block to use roller cam and without buying the spidertray kit. problem is they are expensive at normally 400-500 bucks where normal roller lifters will be significantly cheaper for the set some over $100

otherwise you can go with a flat tappet cam. alot cheaper in the end and work fine. jsut make sure break-in is done good an use good oil.

i saw you menton planning doing 4.10 gears. that will defiantly help. now everyone has different opinions on this kinda thing but if you plan on towing and want some good torque, you might look at doing 4.56 gears instead. alot of people see this is too much gear while others say its amazing. for comparison, i have 33" tires in my F250 with its 302 and 4.56 gears. i occasionally tow my mud truck and its defiantly possible, especially with overdrive off. BUT with overdrive off, you will be in the 3k rpm range at highway speed and with OD on it might not have enough torque to maintain speed. also the added rpm from more gear also lets you put in abit bigger of a cam because you are now raising the rpm range abit higher. 302 can easilyl handle high rpm, they were built to handle highway cruising at over 3k rpm before overdrive transmissions came along, so do not fear that it will not hold up
 

·
Registered
95 5.8L XLT, Hedman Shorties/MF SS Y & Muff, E4OD, Manual hubs, KYB Quads, 31x10.5x15's, 301K miles
Joined
·
737 Posts
Yo, @[U]TorqueO[/U], from reading your last post it appears you have a lot to learn and have learned a lot already up to this point. I praise you on your effort to gather knowledge and info but before doing your engine I think you should spend more time gathering factual information on this Adventure you are getting ready to begin. As you said do it right one time!!! You also state about keeping the weight instead of getting rid of weight as in Iron vs Alum heads because of Towing, I imagine you saw/read somewhere where they said a Heavier vehicle is better to tow with than a Lighter vehicle if you are going to be towing something Heavy! Well the heads iron vs alum pound for pound the alum aftermarket one's yes are lighter but will also allow you to produce more power for your towing need that greatly out weighs the weight savings penalty you are eluding to.

As you stated: "Dont know if this helps though - Will be going with 4.10 gears (front / back) later this year. Right now running on 32x11.5x15 with a 3.55 open differential n it really sucks." So with increasing the Torque/Power output of your engine because of the weight of your vehicle, size of your engine and any towing weight with the 3.55 gears and 32x11.5 tires you won't see much of a difference as you would if you changed your gearing first as everyone has suggested that you do (first).. Gearing is a Mechanical advantage all the way through the rpm range/from 0 mph on up, it is available instantly, whereas the engine has to build up some rpm's to give you increases in Torque/Power. If you change the gears now/first the engine you have now AFTER you sort out all the possible problems like firing order and wire placement you might find that it works so much better than it does now and save yourself a WHOLE lotta money in the process. We're not trying to RAIN on your parade, we are just trying to give you GOOD sound advise from life experiences that you are just now going through on your own. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, you can still build up your engine after you switch gears either way in the end it will still cost the same or might cost less depending on your findings. You will also learn a lot by doing the gears first and EXPERIENCING their Effect on the vehicle's characteristics and then doing the engine second and seeing it's Effect in combination with the gears, or never if the gears workout for you. If you do the engine first you'll still need the gears, but if you do the gears first you might NOT need the extra engine output. It's all up to you Grasshopper!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
Yes, its a 302 and I will call Jasper on Tuesday to get the cam specs. My mechanic put the wires back in as for a 302, though if Jasper did put in the 302HO/351 cam,
You would definitely know if the firing order was wrong, so that's not likely it.

Will be interesting to hear back with what Jasper says and where they were picking up that extra 10hp. I emailed them about their warranty when shopping for a crate engine and found them to be responsive.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if it were me I'd would sort the surging problem (or at least positively identify what it is) before any upgrades. As a matter of fact, I'd be squealing like a stuck pig with Jasper and the installer to make it right.

the truck being a 93 ideally should not have a roller cam tho i think i have heard of some 93 with them. tho it should be a 'roller ready' block originally regardless.
Yo Kingfisher, that would be spot on for a 351, however a '93 Bronco 5.0L/302 came with a roller cam, so the OP should be good to go.

302 truck engines were roller ready starting in '86 and full roller starting in 1992. Not that familiar with 351's but I have seen the same general reference their use started in late '93 as well.

That having been said, there is always the potential the reman'd Jasper could be an earlier spec... but a straight swap should already have a roller cam.
 

·
Man of endless projects
Joined
·
9,055 Posts
351w were roller in 94, thats why the blocks have a casting of F4TE the F4 designating 94.

302 were always something i was never really sure about. i know that roller ready blocks were available in cars for a long time, but dont believe that trucks used them till like 88 probably trying to use up old blocks. but i assumed that the trucks did not see roller cams till 94 when they also went MAF which means they went to sequential injection to deal with different firing order. so would that means that these 92-93 engines use 302 or 351/302ho order? when you look up stock replacement camshafts for these years they seem to have thier own camshaft. they do seem to use roller but do they use non-HO order? i know there were some early roller non-HO cams as well as non-roller HO cams
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
351w were roller in 94, thats why the blocks have a casting of F4TE the F4 designating 94.

302 were always something i was never really sure about. i know that roller ready blocks were available in cars for a long time, but dont believe that trucks used them till like 88 probably trying to use up old blocks. but i assumed that the trucks did not see roller cams till 94 when they also went MAF which means they went to sequential injection to deal with different firing order. so would that means that these 92-93 engines use 302 or 351/302ho order? when you look up stock replacement camshafts for these years they seem to have thier own camshaft. they do seem to use roller but do they use non-HO order? i know there were some early roller non-HO cams as well as non-roller HO cams
Yep, non-HO firing order. Hydraulic rollers, SD, batch firing...

Builder actually used a mild 351 RV cam in my 347 build so I could retain the SD computer. That required changing the firing order from standard to 302HO/351 order.

That's sounds exotic but it's nothing more than switching spark plug wires around (FWIW something the Ford Racing wire set easily accommodates).

 

·
Registered
1989 Bronco, Eddie Bauer, Raven Black
Joined
·
171 Posts
I’d re-gear first, 4.10s like you said or 4.56. Why do all that engine work on a practically new engine.

BTW, what 36’ boat do you plan on towing with a Bronco? I’d get a 4x4 dually...IMO, a Bronc won’t cut it for towing such a rig.
 

·
Eric
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
I'm guessing the subject engine is a 302, based on the HP/TQ numbers the OP stated were 185/270. I didn't read through all the posts, but I'm sure it's been mentioned already:

Getting 400 TQ from a 302 is going to need a big cam, high-flowing heads (well beyond the capability of GT40's), and a higher RPM band that you're probably not willing to commit to for a towing/wheeling rig. HP is not as hard to get with a smaller displacement engine, like the 5.0, because it can spin fast and that'll move air in and out quickly. However, it just doesn't have the volume available for air charge capacity within the cylinders without some serious help from valve overlap and huge lift from the cam. A smaller LSA from the cam will ensure a complete evacuation of spent fumes on the exhaust stroke, thus maintaining fresh A/F mixture density as much as possible for a solid and potent cylinder fill on the intake stroke. This means you'll generate as much energy as possible from that ignition sequence. High valve lift means you'll be able to stuff a higher volume of A/F mixture into the cylinder on the intake stroke. For this you will need free flowing, but smaller intake runners on the heads. You want to keep that air speed up as much as possible for a "ram" effect, but ensure you're moving enough volume to completely fill the cylinder. I think the parts you're going to want to look at are, for the TQ number you're after, a lot closer to what a mud truck runs.

The other option for making bigger low-end TQ on a small displacement engine, with reasonable cam/head specs and driveability, is supercharging. That might be something to consider. The blower does the job of the performance modifications I mentioned above. It increases intake air speed and volume mechanically. It doesn't rely on design-forced physics. The third option for large TQ numbers, combined with driveability, is simply a larger displacement engine. For the 5.0 with the parts you listed, just from my personal experience, you might be at 240-270 HP/280-310 TQ at the flexplate. You're basically building the 5.0 engine from a '93 Cobra, with some added port work. You can look up the specs from that car and get an idea of what it was running.

I'm just offering an opinion based on building the engine, which is what seems to be the subject-at-hand. You can have a higher "realized" TQ (TQ-multiplication) at the wheels, beyond the engine's capability, from gear changes in the trans and diffs. It's how all those little 4.6/4.7 OHC engines were able to be used in full-size trucks, in the early-2000's, while still only making 250 HP/300 TQ. That's another road entirely, though.

Just my $0.02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
Ok, called Jasper and found out the intake is 278 and the exhaust is 294 on their 10% power cam.

(EDIT: For their 302 engines with this cam for extra torque)

Thought bout everything this weekend with taking in everyone's advise who posted here, thank you. I'm going to leave the cam alone for now and just run what Jasper installed and go with 1.7 pedestal roller rockers. Will have the head milled .020 then ported with 1.90 intake and 1.60 exhaust valves installed, new springs, retainer, spacers, and what nots.

Going to call Alex's Parts on spring rates, valves, pretty much stuff I need to refresh the head. Long with head bolts and spacers seeing these heads were off a '94 Lightning, yet the casting number on them suggests different.
 

·
Man of endless projects
Joined
·
9,055 Posts
jsut a thought, ifthe engine has any warranty left, it will be void after any work

did you ask about how much lift the cam has? that way you will know how much lift 1.7 would get you. dont want to have more lift than springs can handle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
Yes, Jaspers warranty I'm sure is gone seeing its been close to two years now. I would be lucky to have 10K miles on this engine, still I never was the one for taking something in on warranty if I wanted to build it.

My mustang I purchased new. One of the first things I swapped after I bought it was gears. Then this and that now its turdo'd ... yall know the want to build. Me leaving something stock for long wont happen. My wife wanted … forced me to stop when I was planning on turbocharging her Ford Edge lol.

Someone said here, or in another thread on here, to get the thing running right. They're right, I get side tracked a lot though my attention is focused. I plan a lot so when it comes time to get it done I know what I want. This site has helped me tons and I have a better understanding and direction now with these heads. SO these heads will go on the back burner for now.

Getting it running right, installing the MAF conversion, and getting gears (in this order) is the main objective for this year snd if money is there then I will get the heads finished.

EDIT: objecting to objective
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top