Stupid Cams....
10-06-2008, 06:05 PM
#22
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 196
what would be wrong with running a flat tappet cam? My dads 70 mustang has a nasty 302 with a flat tappet and that thing is retarded fast (not sure of motor specs, my uncle built the motor when I was too young to understand what any of it was)
10-06-2008, 07:03 PM
#23
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 178
the heads I have came with AFM hi rev springs - to stiff for a flat tappet. so I would have to change, downgrade, the BRAND NEW setup to stick with flat tappet. If I go with a conversion or a roller block, I can use a roller cam and get a few more rpm's and 2-3mpg more!!
10-06-2008, 07:49 PM
#24
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 30,863
with the removal of zddp from oil it is now ever so important to run a replacement additive when breaking in flat tappet cams, where as roller cams need not.....and roller cams rev quicker = less friction and wear on valvetrain parts
10-06-2008, 08:39 PM
#25
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,926
AFR 165's = a 302/310 setup, strokers require a better set of lungs. Since you have a non-roller block, another alternative you could check is a TLSR (Tight Lash Solid Roller) cam from Jay. Will you have to upgrade the springs?.... yep, yet it'll be worth it due to the HR link lifters vs SR link lifters cost difference..... - OR - you could sell those AFR 165's and upgrade to a TFS 190's "fast as cast" + custom cam package from Jay........ correct springs for the TLSR cam included at no extra cost for either set of heads. Just a thought. BTW.... total valve lift has nothing to do with possible PtV issues.
10-07-2008, 12:43 AM
#26
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 178
Will you have to upgrade the springs?.... yep,
yet it'll be worth it due to the HR link lifters vs SR link lifters
BTW.... total valve lift has nothing to do with possible PtV issues.
thanks for your input
10-07-2008, 09:26 AM
#28
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,926
Not enough pressure for the more aggressive lobes in a TLSR cam, that is something that is known after the cam is designed though + it's not only a "spring good to .xxx" lift" spec, valve closed/opened pressure and pressure rate is more important.
Like MJ said, the SR linked lifters height is compatible with a non-roller block and less expensive than the HR linked lifters you need to stay away from a smal base circle HR cam.
10-08-2008, 10:14 AM
#30
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,926
SR = Solid Roller
I know, reason why you always "plan for the worse, and expect for the best"..... - OR - what if the AFM springs you have don't cut it for the cam design. BTW.... I only see 2 AFM valve spring choices
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HorsePower99
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
1
08-26-2015 11:29 PM
