MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

red82gt · 12-16-2004, 02:02 PM

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.

12-16-2004, 02:02 PM	#14
red82gt Sober voice of Reason Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada Posts: 1,514	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. __________________ 393W: AFR 205's, hydraulic roller, TKO600.