stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

i just picked up my 90 GT, aod. first thing on the list is a converter, shift kit and gear but obviously i wanna hold off on the converter untill i get the head/cam/intake thing sorted out.
i dont have a big chunk to throw at the car but i make enough money to where i can get new stuff every check (heads might take me about 2 weeks to save for).
for the cam, i might buy my buddys Crane Compucam, which is similar specs to the E303 (.498 lift).
as far as intakes the 2 i had in mind are the TrickFlow track heat and the Edelbrock Performer RPM. for the first summer the car is out it will be a stock bottom end, but either late 05 or sooner depending on when the motor goes on me i'll be putting a new short block in it and spray the garden hose at it.
now with heads its a toss up. How big is too big with the intakes and cam i listed? and what heads will allow me to have good piston to valve clearance? i like the Jegs aluminum heads for the price, but they are 2.02's and im thinking MAYBE that might be a little much. and the other 2 obvious choices are the AFR 165s and the TFS twisted wedge.
im aiming for, but not limiting it to, low 13's/high 12's on a stock bottom end which i hope is possible (iv seen a few go low 12's). of course all the other basic stuff included, headers, mass air, tbody, injectors, 4.10 gear etc.

sorry for the long post, any help would be really apreciated.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

Not a stupid ques at all. Stock bottom, 12.20s - 11.80s
1. AFR 165
2. Holly intake
3. HR266 cam
4. 24lb injectors
5. 4.11s
6. P.I. 2800 stall
7. a 65mm tb, or stock is still good :)

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

IMO the Holley intake and the Trick Flow R intake suck. The ports on these intakes are way bigger than the ports on even my Canfields with 192cc runners. Its hard to get a gasket to seal and this also isnt good for HP.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

yeah already have the 65mm tbody. i dont know much about the holly intake and never heard of the HR266 cam. whats the rpm ranges?

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

just installed trickflow's engine kit for 5.0 3weeks ago works very nice and is a very good price too, they have 2 kits street or track you get heads, intake, cam,1.6 roller rockers,push rods,timing set,valve covers,and,felpro gasket set all I had to get was the gasket for the timing cover and water pump, it's rated at 350hp/370tq flywheel for the street one,track is more hp think it's360hp needs big fuel pump and 24# injectors still runniin my 19# so keeping the rpm low till then, good luck!

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

This set up is proven. 11.99 on radials is hart to beat.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

i still cant find anything on the cam u sugested. any help?

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

okay one more question i need. whats the biggest cam i can go with the non emission AFR 165's and a stock bottom end? also what size rocker arms would be fitting.
after this im all ready to order parts. ;)

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

I beleive you can run the F303 cutting it close. I wouldn't go with anything that is going to put the lift over .520, you will need to ensure your valve train is new/refreshed when coming this close.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

well i wouldnt put a new cam in a car without getting almost all new valvetrain components. think im going iwth the tfs stage 2.

thanks for all the help everyone.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

Piston to valve clearance almost has nothing to do with max lift. When the cam is at max lift, the piston is down the bore. You should be concerned with duration and the cam timing itself and even moreso, the size of the intake valve. I had GT-40's with 1.84" valves and I was running a Comp XE270HR with .544" lift and stock pistons. I had .130" of clearance on the intake and .145" on the exhaust (in other words, I wasn't close to being in danger).

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

I think the TF stage 2 is a good choice, I just recently bought the same one, yet to start it up though.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

Piston to valve clearance almost has nothing to do with max lift. When the cam is at max lift, the piston is down the bore. You should be concerned with duration and the cam timing itself and even moreso, the size of the intake valve. I had GT-40's with 1.84" valves and I was running a Comp XE270HR with .544" lift and stock pistons. I had .130" of clearance on the intake and .145" on the exhaust (in other words, I wasn't close to being in danger).

TFS Stage 2 is an advertised 236/248 duration at .50
The intake valve on the AFR 165 is 1.9
He said he would also like to run RR's.
You had .130 and .145 left for clearance with stock RR's(cool)
If he runs 1.6's he will be at .574"/.595" of lift on stock pistons with the stage 2 cam..
FORD recommends .100 and .125 of clearance.
What would his clearance be now?

Just suggesting being safe than sorry. Do you think he'd be safe to run that on stock pistons? Trickflow told me to go with the stage one until I got them notched.

Thanks

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

I was running 1.7's RR's by the way (that means .544" lift with the 1.7 rockers). With 1.6's there will only be the advertised lift of the cam (1.6's are stock on a ford). The cam you gave specs for is the TFS stage 3 by the way, the stage 2 is 224/232, .542/.563. The 236/248 of duration would probably be trouble with stock pistons-max lift still has nothing to do with it though.
The stage 3 would not work well with the AFR 165's, the flow of the AFR's stops increasing after .550" and the duration would push the powerband of a 302 well beyond what the vavlesprings could effectively control. With the 165's I'd use a Comp XE266HR if I was to use an off the shelf cam.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

Great thanks for all the info! I was under the impression that stock ratio on ford RR's were 1.52.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

1.52 gives you away as an ex-chevy guy....... ;)



Like me....... :D

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

That's where I read that!!! CHEVY.

nope, never owned one though been blown away by maybe a handful.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

My last car was a Lingenfelter 383 ci 67 Camaro with a turbo 350/3,000 stall and 4:10s. Never could get traction with anything other than slicks with that much gear and torque. 381HP and 460ft-lbs.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

OMG beautiful, if I had a chevy that would be it, 67-69 camaro, very nice. What happened to it, I know this forum is for tech stuff but just give the scoop real quick.

Re: stupid head/cam/intake choices LONG POST
 

Sold it to finance my daughter's education. My Aunt bought me my 88 GT kinda rough in the body for $2,500 after a year of not being able to afford another "muscle" car which I have owned one of since 1966.