HO CFI Cam?

[1987cp]

What's wrong with running vacuum accessories off a 1/4-NPT port? Or is it primarily just a dedicated PCV port? (not that I know any reason why PCV and accessories have to be separate)

[gadget73]

Nothing, but you cannot install a sensor that needs a 3/8 NPT port in a 1/4 hose barb. It just don't fit. The ACT does not need vacuum, its the air charge temperature sensor, and it just needs to be in the air stream to monitor air temperature in the intake.

[1987cp]

Nothing, but you cannot install a sensor that needs a 3/8 NPT port in a 1/4 hose barb. It just don't fit. The ACT does not need vacuum, its the air charge temperature sensor, and it just needs to be in the air stream to monitor air temperature in the intake.

I see your point, but that's not what I meant. Am I really babbling that badly?


My thought, more exhaustively spelled out, was this:

1) The ACT sensor should be able to be installed directly into the existing vacuum provision on the intake manifold itself. This port is usually 3/8" or 1/2" NPT and goes directly into an intake runner, very much like the stock ACT provision on a SEFI manifold.

2) IF the throttle body has a suitable vacuum provision, all vacuum accessories could be run directly off of the throttle body, just like torquelover did with the Edelbrock 1406 on my P72.

[Leo]

the whole im referring to isn't the erg
or act. it looks like a hose, maybe a vacum??. this whole is diagonal and the opening of the whole faces the windshield and goes diagonally into the center of the intake manifold. another way to describe it is the whole is between the four legs of the intake manifold right under the egr. ill take some pictures of to help clarify.

[Leo]

cam Q's 351 vs Sealed Power CS761

heres a picture of my stock manifold. I'm also pointing at the hole the mechanic had to drill on the eddy intake manifold. its located at the rear of the manifold. near the atc




CAM Q
My question is: if i wanted to do a Ho conversion which cam would give me better results. i know an ho cfi wont give me that much bang for my buck but i was just curious to know which of the two is better?!

Sealed Power CS761 cam vs a 351 cam

[88grandmarq]

You have an 85 engine block, so it should already be hydraulic roller compatible. meaning the block is already machine and drilled for the retainer plate.
pretty sure I have all the parts you would need to convert it over, minus the cam.

Not so sure the stock CFI unit would be able to handle a stock EFI HO cam. it would probably run lean since the injectors are fairly small.

[Smokestacklightnin]

I'm glad they dont do emissions where I live just a visual, when i get inspected the people dont know what's supposed to be there anyway (underhood). If they did emissions testing i would be exempt due to my cars age.

[1987cp]

Define "351 cam". That phrase could mean anything.

Also, your mechanic is slighly air-headed if he thinks he has to have a vacuum port in the exact same location as stock. A Performer 2121 manifold comes with two handy vacuum ports in the back; no need to drill more.

[Leo]

"351 cam"
im reffering to a stock flattappet cam off of a 351, 5.8 engine.

[1987cp]

That assumes they only used one grind in any year 351W. I know of two off the top of my head, and they're quite different. Info on those two is in my Sealed Power cams thread ... should go dig up a link.

Edit ... part numbers I'm thinking of are Sealed Power CS674 and CS764, and if my info is correct, they were used side by side for several years in Crown Vics alone.

Linky with specs and discussion: http://www.grandmarq.net/vb/showthread.php?t=30232 You'll quickly note that the 764 is fairly small, and the 674 is teensy (smaller than the 761 you've been considering).

[Leo]

thanks for the info! you must really be into these panthers.
now between the two cams which one does what exactly, which one has significant differences over the other?!? the only thing that i know is that a ho cam can add addition rpms. from what i remember a lopo cam red lines at 3,500 rpm and a ho cam red lines at 5,500 rpms. in your opinion which one would be more effcient? my apologies mang, im a complete noob.

CS674
Cam Type : Hydraulic
Exhaust Duration : 195 Deg.
Exhaust Lift (Inches) : .260"
Exhaust Lift (mm) : 6.604 mm
Intake Duration : 195 Deg.
Intake Lift (Inches) : .260"
Intake Lift (mm) : 6.604 mm
Lobe Centerline (Exhaust) : 112 Deg.
Lobe Centerline (Intake) : 103 Deg.
Lope Separation : 108 Deg.
Overlap : 55 Deg.

CS764
Cam Type : Hydraulic
Exhaust Duration : 221 Deg.
Exhaust Lift (Inches) : .283"
Exhaust Lift (mm) : 7.188 mm
Intake Duration : 206 Deg.
Intake Lift (Inches) : .278"
Intake Lift (mm) : 7.061 mm
Lobe Centerline (Exhaust) : 114 Deg.
Lobe Centerline (Intake) : 116 Deg.
Lope Separation : 115 Deg.
Overlap : 46 Deg.

[1987cp]

If you're intent on using a different cam than your CFI system is anticipating (and may not like), I'd just toss in a Summit 4400, as it's somewhat similar to the CFI HO cam, being a little higher lift and just six degrees fatter on both intake and exhaust. If you want to stay flat-tappet, that is.