89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
05-14-2008, 11:04 PM
#11
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,250
RE: 89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
ORIGINAL: woodsy
no they dont
ORIGINAL: 89Ford
woodsy Im pretty damn sure Comp cams makes lifters specificly for std. base roller cams in a non-roller block. And they are considered conversion or some other word that pretty much means the same thing. And I'm not talking about the link bar style, these lifters do use the lifter but they are specific to non roller blocks, so there is no issue with oil pressure. They are pricey however.
Ive also heard that the F4 casting started in 92, so if thats true then 92-93 blocks are roller capable. Kind of like what ford did with the 302, it was roller capable for a few years b4 ford started pointing the roller setups in. atleast thats what Ive read in books.
ORIGINAL: woodsy
No such thing as a conversion kit, I hate how they market that crap. You use the dogbones, tray and lifters from a 302 BUT you must use a small base circle cam, which is absolute junk. Just find an F4 block, there everywhere just look
No such thing as a conversion kit, I hate how they market that crap. You use the dogbones, tray and lifters from a 302 BUT you must use a small base circle cam, which is absolute junk. Just find an F4 block, there everywhere just look
Ive also heard that the F4 casting started in 92, so if thats true then 92-93 blocks are roller capable. Kind of like what ford did with the 302, it was roller capable for a few years b4 ford started pointing the roller setups in. atleast thats what Ive read in books.
05-15-2008, 12:53 PM
#13
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 755
RE: 89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
ORIGINAL: 5.0kid
so can i use a large flat tappet then? or am i stuck with the small cams
so can i use a large flat tappet then? or am i stuck with the small cams
05-15-2008, 03:14 PM
#14
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 939
RE: 89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
>> Drilling and installing the tray and dogbones in a no roller block is a bad idea. Stock roller lifters will not work properly. The reason is an oiling issue. That is one for the reasons they offer reduced base circle camshafts. With a reduced base circle cam you don't need the tray and dogbones. <<
Again, not true. Stock roller lifters work just fine. The interchange issue is the heights of the lifter bores. Rollers are taller than flat tappets. That move the oiling hole too low on the lifter body to work correctly. The small base circle cam moves the lifter further down in the bores to fix that issue.
With a roller lifter, the lifter has to be perfectly aligned to the cam. For that, you need to use the spider and dog bones or a link bar. Doesn't matter what engine or what cam, if it's a roller it has to be aligned.
Yes, 550hp is a lot for a small block in a NA street cruiser.Especially using unmodified off the shelf parts and pump gas. This car will cruise in traffic all day without overheating. At 80mph, it gets 14mpg - that's better than my truck! How many people on this board can make that claim, and have the dyno sheet to back it up?
Again, not true. Stock roller lifters work just fine. The interchange issue is the heights of the lifter bores. Rollers are taller than flat tappets. That move the oiling hole too low on the lifter body to work correctly. The small base circle cam moves the lifter further down in the bores to fix that issue.
With a roller lifter, the lifter has to be perfectly aligned to the cam. For that, you need to use the spider and dog bones or a link bar. Doesn't matter what engine or what cam, if it's a roller it has to be aligned.
Yes, 550hp is a lot for a small block in a NA street cruiser.Especially using unmodified off the shelf parts and pump gas. This car will cruise in traffic all day without overheating. At 80mph, it gets 14mpg - that's better than my truck! How many people on this board can make that claim, and have the dyno sheet to back it up?
05-15-2008, 03:34 PM
#15
RE: 89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
ok thats relieving right now with my 302 n v-1 im making 474.4 hp im looking to increase to around 700 hopefully with pump gas n drive it daily as i do now
05-15-2008, 06:21 PM
#16
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Posts: 463
RE: 89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
99 - 540 rwhp pump gas street car on 12lbs of boost. 14 city and 18 highway. The T-56 help. Bone stock except for off road X-pipe.
96 - 632 rwhp pump gas on 7 lbs of boost. 12 mpg city and 16 highway. TKO and 3.55 gear. Stock cubic inches. Ported stock heads, custom cam, extrude honed intake, 72 lbs injectors.
96 - 632 rwhp pump gas on 7 lbs of boost. 12 mpg city and 16 highway. TKO and 3.55 gear. Stock cubic inches. Ported stock heads, custom cam, extrude honed intake, 72 lbs injectors.
05-15-2008, 06:24 PM
#17
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Posts: 463
RE: 89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
When using the dogbones and spider it is ok if you use a reduced base circle cam. You can't do this is you use a standard roller cam.
Remember that when you change cams you have to make sure you have the right valve springs for the camshaft. Roller cams use different springs in alot of cases.
Remember that when you change cams you have to make sure you have the right valve springs for the camshaft. Roller cams use different springs in alot of cases.
05-21-2008, 09:20 AM
#19
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 939
RE: 89-92 351w roller or flat tappet block?
ORIGINAL: PJC Racing
You can use a standard base circle roller on a non-roller block but you have to use link bar lifters. And small base circle cams ARE junk.
You can use a standard base circle roller on a non-roller block but you have to use link bar lifters. And small base circle cams ARE junk.