133 Guests, 1 User
72pintoproject

Author Topic: My pinto plan, up for review.  (Read 4098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sleepypinto

  • Pinto Driver
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FeedBack: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter
My pinto plan, up for review.
« on: February 28, 2014, 06:13:27 PM »
Hello everyone, I am new here and would like to say hi and maybe bounce some ideas off you guys.

I am going to keep the 2.3 Lima in my 1979 pinto and would like to muster a little more power.

From my research I plan to get a roller cam from a 1989-1994 ford ranger with .2381 lobe lift

And I am wanting to use the followers from a 1995-2000 this will require some machine work to make them fit but they will give me a little extra lift.

I want to shave the head as much as possible, it will become an interference engine when I am done. That being said how much have you guys shaved off with good luck?

I want to raise the compression as much as possible, while running 93 octane pump gas, but I am not opposed to buying octane boost to keep the pre detonation down.

I will be getting an adjustable cam pulley to advance the am timing 6deg.

I also plan to get good valve springs and keepers from esslinger engineering.

I will probably run a ranger factory header, and for now I will keep the factory intake and carb. Because I am on a budget.

I am not looking to drag race this car, I just want it to look stock and be fun to drive.  With the pinto being only 1900 lbs it has the potential to be a fun little play toy.

So I guess what I am asking is, am I on the right track to getting more torque and a little more hp out of the four banger? My goal is to be able to step into the gas and spin one of the skinny little factory tires off, and have it look pretty stock under the hood.

Thanks in advance. And feel free to speak your mind, I am not extremely experienced in building engines, but I have got to start somewhere. -Bob
1979 ford pinto

Offline Jerry merrill

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • FeedBack: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2014, 06:59:56 PM »
I would not shave more than 30-40 thousands off to avoid pinging on pump gas. Why don't you use the roller cam and roller followers from the 89-91 (not sure of exact years) which don't need machining. What rear gear do you have as this will make a big difference. Also the 38/38 weber carb works great. Also what trans do you have?

Offline sleepypinto

  • Pinto Driver
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FeedBack: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2014, 07:30:03 PM »
From the information I have read, the followers from the 95 to 2000 have a higher rate and will give me more lift. Using that set up I should be at .44 lift

Supposedly the right followers for the cam are at 1.64 to 1 and the newer followers are 1.86 to 1

The trans is automatic I am guessing its a c3 but I have not counted bolts

The rear end gear is high (have not checked it yet)but it cruises really nice at 65 mph so I am not sure if I want to sacrifice that yet. I also want to switch to a stronger rear in the future so I could put in a full spool if my power proves worthy of needing both wheels to spin.

I also plan to upgrade driveline parts as they fall out on the ground, but I am usually pretty easy on breaking stuff so my hope is that most driveline will hold up.
1979 ford pinto

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2014, 07:49:17 PM »
  Yep, here is a link basically describing the later rockers. Kind of cool I think.
http://www.route66hotrodhigh.com/2300Cams.html
  Pick Your Part sells the rockers for $1.99 each.  At their 50% off sales that would be all of $8 for a set!!!  Roughly each side of the rocker tip needs .030 ground out to clear the valve stem width.  Hummm..., my son is a machinist..., maybe I can get him to make a jig and cut them for me.  If not, a Dremel with a cut off disk can be used to cut the sides.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2014, 08:15:49 PM »
The rockers are case hardened, you may not want to do that. Grinding on case hardening can make parts crack later on. You will be removing the outer hardcoat and the outside of sides will be softer. The radius up inside the cut corner will be stressed depending on the quality of the cut. You won't be using machine tools at all to do it, must be ground to have a chance of working. Softer cut may not agree with valve tip hardness either.

If he gains 2 degrees on both rise and fall of lobe the overlap INCREASES, not decrease like he says.

Planet earth makes its' presence know just like always........ .............

Uh, you can't run a spool on the street, buy one, spend plenty to put it in and then find out the huge expensive mistake. The tires jump off the pavement taking tight corners. Watch racers at a track pushing a drag car by hand and what happens when they try to turn it. It quickly locks up like brakes put on and cannot be pushed. The two rear wheels lock up fighting each other. Wider the tire, the worse it is.

You are looking for a positraction rear end, which locks upon power application but releases going around corners.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2014, 08:39:03 PM »
More. The article goes so far then stops with no resolution.... .........curio us. Maybe it will work and then maybe......... ...

The followers MUST be different to change ratio, if the roller location moves then the contact point as far as where cam moves it must as well, meaning the cam timing will be messed up. You'll NEED the adjustable sprocket in that case. The roller could change in size as well and more complication. BUT, suppose the cam base circle changed to add some of that perceived lift??? Meaning you lose that part when going back to the other cam with different circle. Suppose the valve stem location in head changed to suit the different ratio? Suppose the higher lift then runs follower on on the end to edge ride the tip to rapid destruction? ANYTHING you do to one of these either lowers or raises lift, shortening valves, grinding new seats deeper in head, length of tappet, the increased lift may contact retainer as well to knock valve keepers loose and instant motor destruction again.

No way would I be accepting that idea as solid without a WHOLE LOT more checking there. The two rockers at the least need to be carefully checked and scienced out as to what exactly changed there. Not saying it won't work, but planet earth has taught me to guarantee everything first, that's how you put together things that last forever.

FYI, the factory intake is one of the biggest power killers on the car........... .............. ......

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2014, 09:00:54 PM »
I'd agree with you if it was a new idea. But, as far as I can tell it isn't. Seems a number of people out there have done it without issues. At least I didn't see any red flag comments.  And for me, I drive my collector cars maybe... 200-400 miles a year.  I got my Pinto in '07 and I have yet to put 1,000 miles on it as of '14. I'm 56 now. So, my "forever" isn't too far down the road.

Also, from what I gather most of the time folks are advancing the cam to get desirable result.  If the fulcrum point of the rocker is moved as you speculate (and I'd agree with that) it would be towards advancing the cam.  So, while there is nothing scientific about these generalities I'd say they are all "inclined" to positive results with generally subtle changes.

I understand that there is the "ideal" way of doing things, but I have found that there is also the "acceptable" way as well.  For me the potential reward is worth the risk.  For others it may not be and it is wise that you bring out those issues too.

Respectfully, Tom

Offline sleepypinto

  • Pinto Driver
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FeedBack: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2014, 09:20:42 PM »
Ok cool, so now I am looking at shaving 40 thousandths off head, staying with correct cam and followers, using ranger exhaust header, I like the idea of the weber carburetor I had a weber redline on a amc 258 and really liked it. Any suggestions on intake with that carb ?

So with higher compression, the roller cam with proper followers, a better carb and intake I could probably hope to match or even better the torque and hp ratings of the newer ranger engine. Even doing that should make a massive improvement with the little pinto.

Thanks to everyone, having the right plan in place can really make or break a project.
1979 ford pinto

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2014, 02:05:23 AM »
I guess I should mention right about now all the engines I have had to rebuild that others found 'acceptable' as far as modding  they did and they then lasted maybe a week. Can't count them all. No slight to anyone here of course.

I would be looking to trim the valve tips smaller rather than open up the rocker slot FYI, should be quite a bit cheaper if the valve end allows for it. I bet I could even do it on a bench grinder and have it work perfectly ( I shorten 2.3 and zetec valves on one all day long and they work perfectly). I would NOT be cutting on those followers, SOHCs have enough follower issues as it is though the roller should improve things. The follower valve end is curved, not flat, it pivots on valve end to let follower seat dead flat against the cam lobe, if the cut made in follower messes that up you will be making the valve tip and lobe fight each other. You definitely do NOT want to make the cut all the way across to remove the curve there.

Advancing the cam? OP talks six degrees and then the mod advances more, you're killing top end power there, that's quite a chunk of advance. No need for hi-perf springs,  the 4500 rpm cam is now going to be at 4000. If you have to advance more than 4 you have wrong cam in motor.

A dead stock 2.3 will rev cleanly and make power till at least 5500 rpm if you give it a decent intake and header ONLY, using same carb. BTDT.......... .......and yes if you have a clue as to what you are doing there is a big 'acceptable' area in there, but many don't know how to weed non-issues out from serious flaws.

Offline oldkayaker

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • FeedBack: +113/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Windows User Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2014, 08:39:02 AM »
That route66 link has some questionable info.  From reading the links below and others, the early and late roller cams have the same lift and rocker ratios to within a few thousandths.
http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055464#000009
http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=054987#000020

According to the sales brochure, the 1979 Pinto sedan curb weight was 2,449 lbs. and not 1,900lbs.  But they still are fun to drive.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2014, 04:07:32 PM »
 Well, sorry to say that I read both links and frankly all it seems people are saying "it isn't so" without really backing it up (example - show a dial indicator at full lift with both rockers).  And I'd concur that the other (pro) side lacks as much.  The real dispute seems to come from whether the early and late roller rockers are actually the same ratio - or not.  But, again no one is showing proof of that either way.  If the ratios are the same, then yes, it is all a mote point. Same equals same.

If (for some reason) the cam is vertically offset from the roller towards the valve side..., and moving the roller places it directly under the cam, then yes you would see greater lift both from the leverage and the relation of the cam to the roller.  But that is a lot to hope for.

  However, if they are different ratios, and the lifter and the valve stem are all in the same place then "mathematically" the cam would have to have a higher lift and the timing events would have to occur earlier.  If the "Route 66" article was flawed it would be that the poster:
1.  assumed the ratio was different without confirming it.
2.  the extra lift actually did equate to more power.
   To the extent that he had differing ratio numbers (valid or not - who really knows), I think the guy did a decent job of stating his case. 

For me to now believe either way I'd have to see lift with both rockers and then see measurable "real world" results (dyno or ET) to know if the lift even added anything.

  Next time I'm at Pick A Part I'm going to get a late roller rocker (1). I'll widen the slot. Frankly I don't want to pull my valve cover. But, if someone has a spare early roller setup sitting around I'll mail you the rocker.  You can pop it in and see if there is any measurable difference in lift alone.  If I can get an early and late rocker without much trouble, I'll do it here on a spare head I have. It will be a slider cam, but we are only looking for measurable (lift) difference, not true numbers anyway.

It may be asking a lot, but if someone has a (spare) late roller setup all they would have to do is slide a early roller rocker in (nothing to grind) and use a dial indicator to measure the difference.  As Ben Stien says, "ANYONE, Anyone, anyone?"   Then at least we can "yes" or "no" this (lift) myth.

From there (if there is a lift increase) the debate over methods of widening the slot (or narrowing the valve - a better option for a head off a car) - and if it even equates to more power can continue.

UPDATE (an hour later)  I have been thinking this through a lot.  My speculation that the ratio increase can be obtainable is based on moving the roller in the rocker closer to the pivot point (lifter side).  Yes, the roller moving closer to the lifter would provide greater lift  - IF the cam was centered over it. 

But the cam position stays stationary and thus the roller is (likely) farther from the cam and thus would be providing less lift.  It seems to be like a dog chasing its tail.  I guess a shim could be put under the lifter to restore the distance, but that would likely throw odd angles at the valve end and all the resulting side loading problems.

If for some reason the roller was originally offset (vertically) from the cam center (towards the valve) and the roller was moved directly center under the valve, then there would be lift gain both from the ratio increase and the cam to roller relationship.  But, I guess that is too much to hope for.

Tom

Offline dick1172762

  • Vintage Pinto Racer
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2623
  • FeedBack: +362/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2014, 05:49:09 PM »
NEVER, never, never, mill / cut / surface the 2.3L head and try to run a stock or Ranger cam. When you up the compression, you must run a more radical cam to bleed the pressure off with cam over lap. If you don't, you'll blow head gasket's, and the engine will not run one bit better anyway. Every mod on an engine must be done while  thinking about the remainder of the parts. NO ONE thing will work to improve an engine very much by its self.
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2014, 06:06:11 PM »
I'm going to get a late roller rocker (1). I'll widen the slot.
Not trying to tell you what to do here but I would think about that a bit, I've done that before and removing material weakens the rocker and I ended up breaking a few.. Just so you're aware..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2014, 07:09:56 PM »
Not too concern as I would only be using the rocker for one hand turned revolution just to see if the stated ratio difference is detectable.    And as I stated in my "Update" the possibility exists that even if the rocker ratio is different it might be like a dog chasing its tail.

At this point a dollar for the single rocker and a few minutes to widen the slot will let me know what the truth is rather than reading hundreds of posts stating it will or won't work and not showing the data (proof) to back the reasoning up.  I'm just curious and so far no one convinced me one way or the other.  So, I'm determined to find out for myself.

I'll throw this out for thought too.  From what I've read the slider cam ratio is 1.50. Not sure if that is true (would appreciate confirmation), but if it is, and people are putting in Ranger Rollers at 1.68 shouldn't there be issues with that too?

  What I'm saying is the fulcrum point (lifter) and the valve location isn't changing on these slider heads, but people are using Ranger Rollers at 1.68.  The only way you will get that ratio increase is to move the roller towards the lifter.  No one seems to have an issue with that.  But move it a bit farther with a 1.86 rocker and all of a sudden there are problems?  Again these are all based on the rocker ratios stated (1.50, 1.68, 1.86) being true.

Just so you guys know I'm not trying to argue with anyone.  I'm just trying to think (and eventually test) this through.  If there is someone with pictures and viable data out there I'd rather see that then to do the testing myself.  But as I said it is all, "I think I recall," "so and so said," etc. etc. and lacking data and images to back it up.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2014, 08:24:56 PM »
Very common to change rocker arm ratios, it just increases lift do it all the time on V8's split intake and exhaust, don't hurt anything at all unless you're pushing the limits on VP clearance..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2014, 09:04:46 PM »
No problem. And pretty much where I was going too.

The rockers can be carefully looked at and compared with like dial indicator in hand to determine any differences without putting on a head. Of course the head assembly tells all.

Simply shortening the valvetips to clear lifter needs for the piddle valve can alter lift after a valvejob that lowers seats in head. You shorten for more.

Extreme rocker ratios can cause other issues other than VP clearance, depends on the setup, the tip can begin to push on retainer (explosive), the valve spring can load solid where cleared before (explosive again), the retainer can strike solid on the seal top, more lobe wear if loaded harder than factory intended (these are pretty hard though). Maybe even issues with the radius running out on the tappet end (unlikely). We see the outside of roller but what about bearing inside? They generally break with no warning at all until engine grenades from material going through head. Like V-8 roller rocker bearings, great until they give up the ghost.

If they move roller alone and all else stays the same the cam timing changes, roller will be advanced or retarded on lobe as compared to before and what got done. They may well re-index in the front timing pin to be able to still use exact same sprocket on front.

I wouldn't hesitate to surface head .040", that won't hurt anything, if you fire a gasket on that you were going to fire it pretty quick anyway. It may ping depending on your gas quality. Only raises compression maybe 1/2 point. Cut .100"? I'd be looking at chamber pressure issues like said, need bigger cam or retarded a bit to help out there. Cut head AND advance cam 6? Too much. a 8.5/engine makes maybe 170-190 psi compression squeeze, you can run WAY over that if you put it together right. No reason at all why an SOHC can't run 10/1 except for the gas quality alone, and using the exact same stock cam timings.

Swapping cams around a great idea if the parts work and so far I haven't seen why they don't, one just treads careful there. I'd be leery of heavy advancing of the cam with the head cut, throwing away top end power there and getting closer to any pressure problem. The extra lift with the short duration numbers could be just the thing for an ATX backed motor. These motors under certain conditions can get real b-tchy as far as driveability with just a little too much cam advance, the mid range gets funky and hard to carb correctly for it.

The end? Hey it's your stuff, do as you will. I used to look for oddball combinations like that at the shop all the time, we put 307 SBC pistons in 304 and 258 AMC jeeps and BBC rods in the 401s to better the L/R ratio. The engines were already a mishmash of parts from both GM and Ford right off the showroom floor, I had a Chrysler Hemi Torqueflite A727 in my 360 Hornet. Ford starter, GM distributor, coil, Ford carb, the list goes on.

Offline pintoguy76

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
  • FeedBack: +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Mobile User Poll Voter Tenth year Anniversary Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2014, 09:30:35 PM »
Why not do what I did. 91 mustang 2.3 distributorles s ignition EFI swap. Its easy to do, and provides 115hp vs the stock 90-ish hp. You get the roller cam and lifters  already that way. I spent maybe $500 on this swap, including the engine, computer, harness, fuel pump and exhaust. I'm VERY happy with it. And you can do more with it later on. It is mass air flow type fuel injection and so it will compensate better with any modifications you do to it. You could still add the header and stuff as well. It would handle a turbo too..
1974 Ford Pinto Wagon with 1991 Mustang DIS EFI 2.3 and stock Pinto 4 Speed
 
1996 Chevy C2500 Suburban with 6.5L Turbo Diesel/4L80E 4x2

1980 Volvo 265 with 1997 S-10 4.3 and a modified 700R4

2010 GMC Sierra SLE 1500 4x2 5.3 6L80E

Offline sleepypinto

  • Pinto Driver
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FeedBack: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter
Re: My pinto plan, up for review.
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2014, 07:03:39 PM »
[quotWhy not do what I did. 91 mustang 2.3 distributorles s ignition EFI swap. Its easy to do, and provides 115hp vs the stock 90-ish hp. You get the roller cam and lifters  already that way. I spent maybe $500 on this swap, including the engine, computer, harness, fuel pump and exhaust. I'm VERY happy with it. And you can do more with it later on. It is mass air flow type fuel injection and so it will compensate better with any modifications you do to it. You could still add the header and stuff as well. It would handle a turbo too..e][/quote]

I had considered doing that, I had found a 1986 ford merkur xr4ti within an hour of me for $700 and I almost pulled the trigger on it, but since I have limited experience with fuel injection I decided building up my engine would be a little more toward my comfort zone. And if something went wrong with the swap I don't think the wife would let me live it down, ha ha it would be just another one of my "crazy ideas" lol but I guess she is right I do have a-lot of those.  ;D
1979 ford pinto