23 Guests, 0 Users

Author Topic: 2.3 turbo roller cam  (Read 4226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jonz2pinto

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Linux User Mobile User
2.3 turbo roller cam
« on: May 03, 2014, 08:57:28 PM »
is there a benefit to putting a 2.3t rollercam in a non turbo 2.3 non roller?bought the cam years ago(used) but never used.
Pinto-is short for pint-o-fun.

Offline oldkayaker

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • FeedBack: +113/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Windows User Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2014, 07:33:24 AM »
I believe the Ford roller cams came after they stopped making the turbo 2.3 engines.  If correct, you may have a after market cam with unknown lift and duration.  The stock Ford NA sliders, turbo sliders, and NA roller cams have roughly the same lift and performance.   In my opinion, the advantage of the stock roller cam is durability/reliability (fewer flattened lobes) and a slight reduction in friction.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2222
  • FeedBack: +241/-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: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2014, 12:40:42 PM »
At least according to "published specs." the roller cam actually has less lift than a stock cam.  And, someone in the know please chime in..., but is there even any difference between the stock N/A cam and the cam in the turbo motor??

I'll take a guess and assume that the lobe ramp speed is faster on the roller cam.  Thus, even though it has less lift, it may still pass more air because during the opening/closing process the lift is comparatively higher at given points on the lobe ramp (except those at, and approaching TDC).

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: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2014, 01:23:10 PM »
One thing for sure, I'd be using roller followers on that roller cam, I would NOT use the conventional ones.

Offline Pinturbo75

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • FeedBack: +26/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2014, 03:23:22 PM »
the stock turbo slider cam is .400 lift and a ranger roller is .390 lift.... the turbo cam has less duration than a n/a cam...
75 turbo pinto trunk, megasquirt2, 133lb injectors, bv head, precision 6265 turbo, 3" exhaust,bobs log, 8.8, t5,, subframe connectors, 65 mm tb, frontmount ic, traction bars, 255 lph walbro,
73 turbo pinto panel wagon, ms1, 85 lb inj, fmic, holset hy35, 3" exhaust, msd, bov,

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2014, 04:36:00 PM »
Firstly, none of the 2.3Ts came with roller cams.

Second, slider followers can not be used on a roller cam.

Lastly, no, there is not much benefit to using a stock roller cam that wasn't already mentioned. The ranger roller is generally considered to be milder than a stock turbo cam.

There is slightly less friction, but the main advantage (which is still small) is not being sensitive to modern "energy-conserving" oils with reduced levels of zinc. you're not likely to flatten a lobe with any decent "regular" oil, however.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

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: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2014, 12:03:32 AM »
I noticed long ago that most manufacturers switching to roller cams in their stuff seem to do it right around the time the fed started really pushing any emission repairs necessary before 50K miles as being done for free by the manufacturer. They were making the cam train more reliable to avoid going deep into engines for emission repairs. The energy conserving oil thing was still a ways off yet.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2014, 12:41:27 AM »
Roller cam geometries also provided more flexibility in profiles that flat followers cannot, which translated directly into designs that make more power and less emissions.

It's my understanding that roller lifters as we know them didn't start emerging until the heyday of Trans-Am in the early '70s. Ford didn't put them in a production engine until 1985, which is around the time that (arguably) horsepower numbers were finally recovering from the emissions and economy stranglehold that began, there again, in the early '70s.

That, and the zinc in oil isn't good for cat converters. Reducing zinc is tough on slider followers, so rollers are the obvious solution with all the aforementioned benefits.

What I haven't discovered yet is why newer bucket followers don't seem to suffer.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

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: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2014, 08:16:25 AM »
Chet Herbet was selling roller cams in the early 50's. Cams were listed as 270 / 280 / 290 / etc / etc. Every body racing with an Olds or Cad were using them at that time. Had one in my Olds powered 50 Ford. People would hear you coming down the street as they were noisy. Sounded like a bucket of ball bearings. The good ole days!
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2014, 09:16:35 AM »
You're right. I learned something today and that makes this a good day.  8)

I also learned that Chet Herbert originally borrowed the roller lifters out of a 1929 Harley-Davidson. I guess technically they were doing it first.

That was the last time Harley-Davidson had a new idea.  ;D
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2222
  • FeedBack: +241/-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: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2014, 11:17:13 AM »
"What I haven't discovered yet is why newer bucket followers don't seem to suffer."

I'll just take a guess, maybe it has something to do with the larger circle of the buckets vs the smaller circle of the OHC lifter.  Also, though minor, the bucket type (assuming non-hydraulic) it not always in direct contact with the cam.  Thus, there is an opportunity to build up a layer of oil as the base circle travels over the lift.  With the OHC configuration the cam is always in contact with the lifter.

Anyway, no science behind this, just some thought was to why.

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: 2.3 turbo roller cam
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2014, 04:35:25 AM »
'That was the last time Harley-Davidson had a new idea.'

ROTFL, that one made my day. So with you on that, I loathe HD simply because they refuse to exit the thirties in design. But then I was whuppin' up on 900 Sportsters in the '70s on hot 400 cc. bikes.

Yes, Herbert made rollers long ago, I refer to the OEM doing it though. They do nothing without good reason. The rollers they made were stock acceleration ramps too until they started using the idea further on hotrod like Camaro, Vette and Mustang engines. We used to be W/D on General Kinetics rollers back in the '70s.

The second resurgence of HP in the 80s makes sense if combined with the emissions idea as well, the feds passed law saying the cars must hit emissions for 50,0000 miles and they still wanted more power to combat the other car makers, the two fit together. If you make hi-po car it as well must pass the emission spec.

"What I haven't discovered yet is why newer bucket followers don't seem to suffer."

If referring to modern 16 valve engine buckets, it's the weak -ssed springs, you can easily push a valve half lift by hand. Not enough load to wear the bucket or shim. Bucket also still spins, the half lobe on one side ala zetec. Cam is full width lobe only part way round. ALL cams including OHC must have clearance at some point if mechanical (the 2.0 does), the lobe is lubed by that. Juice lifters technically have clearance, loose enough that they still do not wipe lobe absolutely clean of oil. They tighten up internally on compression. Why they don't hold the valves open. Modern day buckets and/or shims on top of them are heat treated now enough to let solid lifters run forever with virtually no maintenance at all. No lead in fuel and engine design have allowed the valve recession rate to about equal the tappet/lobe wear rate to let the clearances stay the same forever. Often now the clearances close up instead of get looser like old school, the valve recedes more than the wear on bucket. Why exhaust valves on buckets are so dang loose now (zetecs set up to .013"). There are issues with cams rocking around in cam cap clearances too to alter clearances at valves too. All that bucket stuff from the Japanese hotrod bikes, been doing that for many years. Working on a '02 zetec just like working on my old Honda CBF bike in 1980.

Zinc removal didn't happen until maybe 95-00 or so, not the zinc so much as the carrier of it, the phosphates (zinc dithiophosphat e). EPA started a war on roadside phosphate pollution around then.