N/A 2.3 cam - Ford Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-16-2014 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
firstcar89's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Location: Seven Valleys
Posts: 7
 
N/A 2.3 cam

i have a 89 N/A 2.3 with a cold air intake and full exhaust (Speedway Header, high flow cat and flowmaster muffler). i want a cam next and i do not want to put a ranger cam in it. id like something with a lope idle and good power increases through the whole power band. i plan to port and polish my head also. the cams i find that i like are for a turbo 2.3. Will a cam meant for a turbo 2.3 help my N/A at all? or if you know of a cam that fits my list then please share.

firstcar89 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-16-2014
PONY Member
 
ohc230's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Napa
Posts: 621
 
First off, the next move for you would likely involve some engine management upgrades and a larger set of injectors, since any power gains will be severely limited by the stock injectors. Your speed density system is extremely sensitive to changes in engine vacuum, so even a mild cam will adversely affect the way your car runs, unless you make changes to the ECU via a tuner of some kind.

The Moates 1/4 horse would be the least costly way of controlling the ECU. Initially, many people are intimidated by ECU tuning, but like anything, it can be learned step by step. Having the ability to tune the ECU, unlocks pretty much all of the performance potential of your engine and will allow you to make future changes to your engine as you build it up.

In order to get the most possible power our of a cam, it's a really good idea to increase compression as well.



89' Mustang convertible, high compression N/A 2.3.

85' SVO under s l o w deconstruction.

93' hatch currently under development


ohc230 is offline  
post #3 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-16-2014 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
firstcar89's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Location: Seven Valleys
Posts: 7
 
i am getting a set of 17 injectors Saturday. and after i got the cam i would probably try some around 19. i know i need them from the way there is no difference weather the throttle is pushed half way or wide open. and i knew id need to bring the compression up. as for the ECU i know some people that would help me out with that.

thank you.
firstcar89 is offline  
 
post #4 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-16-2014
PONY Member
 
ohc230's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Napa
Posts: 621
 
Quote:
Will a cam meant for a turbo 2.3 help my N/A at all? or if you know of a cam that fits my list then please share
Turbo cams don't usually have much in the way of duration and aren't well suited to N/A applications.

Crane cams makes a very nice roller grind for your engine;

part number 199511 Hydraulic Roller Follower Camshaft; RPM 2000-5600; Adv. Dur. 282 Int./Exh.; Valve Lift .450 Int./Exh.; Lobe Angle 108 deg.

I have used this cam in several engines and I am impressed with the mid-range power it produces. With the right supporting mods, it can really push your engine to a whole new level. Any cam with more than .420" valve lift will require stiffer springs.

There is a flat follower version of this cam made by several companies, which is half the cost. Performance with either one is similar.

Keep in mind that 19lb. injectors will only fuel about 125ish HP at 35 PSI fuel pressure and just a hair more at 43 PSI.

89' Mustang convertible, high compression N/A 2.3.

85' SVO under s l o w deconstruction.

93' hatch currently under development



Last edited by ohc230; 10-16-2014 at 10:33 PM.
ohc230 is offline  
post #5 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-17-2014 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
firstcar89's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Location: Seven Valleys
Posts: 7
 
So if I got the 199511 crane cam. Did head work and all the supporting mods. What size injectors do you think I should try without it running to rich? I'd obviously like to get as much out of it as I could.
firstcar89 is offline  
post #6 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-17-2014
PONY Member
 
Crak88lx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 946
 
Not trying to slam you or stir the pot, we all have our reasons. But why not spend that money on a turbo motor? You get all the power plus greater potential with money thrown at it.
Crak88lx is offline  
post #7 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-17-2014 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
firstcar89's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Location: Seven Valleys
Posts: 7
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crak88lx View Post
Not trying to slam you or stir the pot, we all have our reasons. But why not spend that money on a turbo motor? You get all the power plus greater potential with money thrown at it.
i want to be different. i considered doing a turbo swap. almost bought a turbo couple to swap everything out of. but i feel like turbo swaps are becoming pretty common. so i want to see what i can get out of it without forced induction then if i still am not pleased i might go that root. and by that point the motor i have now will probably be built to handle forced induction after i have forged pistons and all that so if i do go to forced induction im thinking about a vortech supercharger (or something similar) just to stay different. dont say how a superchargers no good on a 4 because it robs power to make power. i already know all that. this would all be way in the future anyways
firstcar89 is offline  
post #8 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-17-2014
PONY Member
 
ohc230's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Napa
Posts: 621
 
The Crane cam I suggested with the right supporting mods will put you close to 180 HP, so I would go with a minimum of 30 lb. per hour injectors. Your stock ECU won't work with these injectors or the 199511 grind, so I would put the tuner at the very top of your shopping list. The 19# injectors tend to run a bit rich with the stock ECU but they will work. Right now, I'd say your best option to make HP with what you have, would be to mill the head; .090"-.110", leave the stock cam in the head and bump the initial ignition timing up about 8-10 degrees. Some minor port work would help as well and if you want to do this yourself, I can give you some guidance.



Quote:
But why not spend that money on a turbo motor?

Cost and reliability might be key considerations. I think it's a common misconception in the 2.3L Mustang community, to assume that a turbo swap is easier, cheaper and more reliable than it actually is and that any turbo swap will allow the owner to produce large amounts of power for little relative cost or work required. Of course we know that's not exactly the case. The performance mods required to bring a turbo 2.3 to the next level will entail a fair amount of cash as well. A strong nitrous kit added to a well built N/A motor will level things out a bit in the HP department and the cost to build a N/A motor to a moderate power level may actually be less, depending on the part choices you make.


There are so many variables here, it's almost impossible to make a definitive statement about this topic. I think it's more logical to look at it on a case by case basis, thinking about how the car is going to be used.

89' Mustang convertible, high compression N/A 2.3.

85' SVO under s l o w deconstruction.

93' hatch currently under development


ohc230 is offline  
post #9 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-17-2014
PONY Member
 
Crak88lx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 946
 
Not hating, I'm all for a n/a I was just wondering. And a supercharged 4 would be quite the sight. Good luck with your build. If I have any advise triple check your head for cracks its very common on these.
Crak88lx is offline  
PONY Member
 
ohc230's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Napa
Posts: 621
 
Quote:
Not hating

Yeah, didn't get that at all from your comments.

As for supercharging, look under my profile and you'll see a pic of my SVO during construction with the supercharger in place. I've built a few supercharged 2.3's.

89' Mustang convertible, high compression N/A 2.3.

85' SVO under s l o w deconstruction.

93' hatch currently under development


ohc230 is offline  
Boss Member
2.3L Member
 
mg man 75's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Elkhorn
Posts: 4,627
           
Interesting reading. Moving to tech lot of good info. I seen a Ranger with supercharger on net once. Probably still there it may give idea's but we got someone who already done it. So take his advice. Maurice

1989 Mustang 2.3 turbo, rebuilt SVO motor, 88 computer,vam upgrade, adjustable boost control, intercooler, c-4 trans, 7.5 345 turbocoupe rearend, motorsport driveshaft, Black interior.
http://s177.photobucket.com/user/mgman75/library/?sort=6&page=1



AFM FORUM MODERATOR
mg man 75 is offline  
PONY Member
 
ohc230's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Napa
Posts: 621
 
Quote:
Interesting reading. Moving to tech lot of good info. I've seen a Ranger with supercharger on net once. Probably still there it may give idea's but we got someone who already done it. So take his advice.
Maurice, yeah I have seen a couple of 2.3L supercharger attempts and most have some fundamental flaws in their execution. I have designed and built a few supercharged 2.3's, testing various components. It's become clear to me why people in the 2.3L Mustang community have shunned them in the past. It really does take the right combination of parts to make one work properly.


89' Mustang convertible, high compression N/A 2.3.

85' SVO under s l o w deconstruction.

93' hatch currently under development


ohc230 is offline  
BOSS Member
2.3L Member
 
TOM RENZO's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Danbury
Posts: 3,902
 
Only problem with superchargers is you loose HP to make HP. You have to spin the thing. So a turbo is in most cases much better. Turbose on the other hand will always make more HP than a supercharger. Just saying. I like a high lift short duration cam around 112* CL to keep the 2.3 torquey in the RPM band. Remember the roller rockers or followers are OBSOLETE. Do not buy a roller cam till you can locate a set of roller units. In my view a roller is mandatory for engine reliability. With ZINC gone in oils there is no way i would run a slider. Remember high lift moderate duration and never under 110* CL for a 2.3, I would install bigger exhaust valves and mill the head .120-.140 to bring up the squeeze. Just a different thought on the issue. Stand alone is mandatory.


HAVE YOU DRIVEN A FORD LATELY!!!

"As I lay rubber down the street, I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God protect my ride"

I SPEND MONEY I DON'T HAVE, TO BUILD CARS I DON'T NEED,TO IMPRESS PEOPLE I DON'T KNOW.
TOM RENZO is offline  
PONY Member
 
ohc230's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Napa
Posts: 621
 
Quote:
With ZINC gone in oils there is no way i would run a slider.

Shell Rotella T, non-synthetic can be used. The American Petroleum institute (API) has a mandate which allows for CJ-4 oils to contain up to 1200 ppm for diesel engine oil formulations.

Redline and Royal Purple racing oils are exempt from DOT /API mandates and have a higher zinc/phosphorus levels as well, but the Rotella T has worked very well for my customers with older engines and is a bit cheaper.



New replacement rollers can be found, see link below, but Ford's O.E rollers can be re-used again and again without worry. I have taken these things apart on numerous occasions for inspection purposes. Even after 350K mi. they show little to no sign of wear. I would be perfectly comfortable in re-using these again and again.

Tom, you might find this interesting; many moons ago, I designed some titanium 2.3L rockers for a very high RPM application. To stabilize vibrations at the rocker pivot, I utilized a needle bearing assembly instead of your typical lash adjuster ball socket. I wish that I would had made a set for myself. I posted a pic below of the analysis model. The customer ran the engine up to 11,500 RPM



Quote:
mill the head .120-.140 to bring up the squeeze.
Tom, I start pulling material off the block deck when I get to .110" mostly for reasons of reliability. With the average thickness of the deck surface on the head measuring in at just .370" to begin with; taking off more than a third, pretty much removes the factor of safety from the equation. I've done it for many customers and it sometimes leads to blown head gaskets or cracks. We can safely take .040" off the block deck and see a nice increase in CR without ill affects + volume removal area of the cylinder is much greater than the chamber. Work-wise, it's a little bit more labor than the head. I posted a picture link below which shows a scanned cut view of an iron D port 2.3 head.







Cam Followers Roller Heavy Duty (Each)

89' Mustang convertible, high compression N/A 2.3.

85' SVO under s l o w deconstruction.

93' hatch currently under development


ohc230 is offline  
BOSS Member
2.3L Member
 
TOM RENZO's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Danbury
Posts: 3,902
 
Diesels do not use ZINC any more. DEF and cats will not allow it. It messes up the converters and regen. As far as milling we used to mill 100 with no issues. john Morris has a respectable 2.3 in the midget circles and mills 140-180 all the time on D ports. I have done it many times. Truthfully i do not know about the Turbo head. never did it on those. The core shift is negligible on NA heads and we used to mill right down to the intake bolt holes. If that makes him nervious then just go 40-60 and play it safe. peace tom


HAVE YOU DRIVEN A FORD LATELY!!!

"As I lay rubber down the street, I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God protect my ride"

I SPEND MONEY I DON'T HAVE, TO BUILD CARS I DON'T NEED,TO IMPRESS PEOPLE I DON'T KNOW.

Last edited by TOM RENZO; 10-23-2014 at 08:07 AM.
TOM RENZO is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1