Sealed Power OE replacement cam trivia

[1987cp]

Fun - so we still don't know for sure what SpeedPro part number is a direct replacement for '86-'91 lowpo rollers. I wonder why someone in the replacement-parts business seems to be in denial about lowpos ever having been rollerized? Granted, not many people ever reinstall a lowpo roller cam .....

What book was this? Just curious, since the cheap service manuals I have (Haynes and Chilton vehicle-specific books that cover box Crown Vics) list lobe lift and nothing else. Granted, that may be all a lazy mechanic needs to know to determine whether an ancient flat cam is badly worn, but there's no way to tell whether lining up the dots really places the cam straight up (as supposedly, in a great many cases, it doesn't).

[johnunit]

It didn't actually telll me anything beyond lobe lift (and things derived from it like lift@ the valve), but the fact I could match up all 3 cams listed with the specs you listed made it clear which was which. I suppose there could be some tweak like adding or removing a built in advance or retard though.

This is the 1985 ford Specification Book. Covers all Ford passenger vehicles. Lots of nifty info, from curb weights to valvespring specs to a ridiculously detailed VIN/ID tag decoder. Torque specs for almost literally every bolt. It even tells you how to adjust a bumper for proper alignment. Weird, but neat.

Amazingly, a Crown Victoria with a full tank of gas and all fluids supposedly only weighs 3730lb for a 4door. That goes up in a hurry with options though. I have another book that lists curb weights and the listed weight jumps by 50 more more pounds in some years, probably from making options standard. A 79 tudor could come in under 3500 pounds, but a 91 country squire was around a thousand pounds heavier.

[1987cp]

So there really was a Squire listed at near 4500 pounds? Makes sense, since Mike has always maintained that his '90 is quite heavy.

And yep, my '81 tudor was supposedly 3460 stock. That's lighter than a '95 Mustang GT convertible. And that's with the original 255 engine, which weighed a lot ....

[johnunit]

yeah 90-91 squires list at around 4400lbs, maybe 4450, so tick one option box and you could be over 4500lbs.

[Tiggie]

I found some cam specs long ago in several Motor manual. They said the '81-'91 302 used the same cam specs as far as lift and duration. I posted the stuff somewhere. That might be the cause for listing them the same in the sealed power catalog. Same specs just one is roller. Only diehards like us would know the differences?

Basically, assume your stock panther cam sucks for any kind of use.

As far as weights, they generally increased in the books over the years due to increasing standard equipment. 1979 you got 14in wheels, thin seats, little insulation, manual everything, single speaker AM radio, and a heater. 1991 you got standard power windows, locks, mirrors, heat/air, at least four radio speakers, and airbags.

A wagon adds at least 200 pounds. A third seat in that wagon adds another 40. 1987-1991 seem to peak the wagon weights right around 4000 lbs give which actually doesn't count the rear seats since it wasn't standard.

johnunit, that figure you list for the '85 sedan adds about 170 lbs over my empty weight figure.

So if you were to take the 4000lb wagon and add 170lbs for the fluids, 40lbs for the third seat most had you get 4220lbs. Then add some optional goodies and a driver and you're right at 4500lbs or more!

[P72Ford]

What are you seeing for base weights for an '87 tudor?

[johnunit]

3724lbs

Dave/87GTvic and I guesstimated that his car was somewhere a little shy of 4000lbs without him in it, if that helps.

Assuming my book with a wider range of years (everything from the first ford to 1991) uses the same Ford data source, that number is "the weight of standard-equipped vehicle with water, oil, and full tank of gas" so add weight (or subtract) as needed.

That book too has lots of great info, especially along the lines of options and yearly changes. If anyone wants info from either book feel free to ask.

[P72Ford]

Thanks, John.

In the spring I'll be weighing mine, and then it will go on a diet.

I'd like to get the weight down to 3600. Not sure how possible that will be this year, but soon enough.

The smog stuff is ditched, I am going to totally remove the a/c (the right way), dumping the stereo, gutted bumper mod, lightweight seat belts (saves a few pounds), maybe remove some sound deadening, etc.

[cld783]

pricey little suckers

[1987cp]

My '87 P72 was supposedly just over 3700ish stock. With a 351. TOTCG verified this with a weigh-in of 3900 pounds several years ago when he weighed almost exactly 200. And 302s weigh maybe 100 lbs. less than 351s. Just saying.

[johnunit]

I think the intake weighs less on the 351.

Also, those numbers are full tank of gas, and that's over 100lbs, so if he was at a half tank or less that accounts for a big chunk. Add in features a P72 might not have had that a base civilian model did (I'm thinking carpeting, vinyl roof, wheel covers) and that could account for the difference.

[1987cp]

Let's take this discussion over to one of the weight-savings threads, shall we? (and we're not considering those big stupid snaky intakes they put on injected cars)

[Mercracer]

I know this is an ancient thread, but is there any way of figuring out what cam actually came in the cars from the factory?

Specifically, I'm tinkering with a Desktop Dyno type program and the CS674 shows up as making an average of 20-25HP less than the 764, and apparently either one could be in my engine.

If there is any truth, it is that NOBODY (parts stores) have 100% correct parts listings in their computers. What they place on-line is worse. The printed parts books are better although not 100% accurate either.
It is an absolute fact that the Explorer 5.0 and all truck 5.0 and 5.8 motors with the exception of the Lightning used the same roller camshaft (5.8/5.0HO firing order). I can provide information from the Ford Master Parts Catalog to support this. The Lightning used a flat tappet marine camshaft from the 70s. The 1993 5.0 used the CV/GM roller camshaft.

[Mercracer]

I think the intake weighs less on the 351.

Also, those numbers are full tank of gas, and that's over 100lbs, so if he was at a half tank or less that accounts for a big chunk. Add in features a P72 might not have had that a base civilian model did (I'm thinking carpeting, vinyl roof, wheel covers) and that could account for the difference.

The carb intake on the 5.8 is definitely lighter than an EFI intake. Just the 5.0 lower weighs near as much as the 5.8 intake.

[Mercracer]

Fun - so we still don't know for sure what SpeedPro part number is a direct replacement for '86-'91 lowpo rollers. I wonder why someone in the replacement-parts business seems to be in denial about lowpos ever having been rollerized? Granted, not many people ever reinstall a lowpo roller cam .....
.

According to Federal Mogul's catalog, The CS-759 camshaft is a hydraulic roller camshaft. Part numbers are HT-2205 for the lifters or KC-759 for the cam and lifter kit (hydraulic roller).
They list KC-668 for the flat tappet cam/lifter kit for the 1991 F150 and KC-761 for the 1985 CV/GM and KC-760 for the Hyd Roller HO motor in 1985+.
One thing to remember is that just because an aftermarket company lists a cam for a certain application does NOT mean that it is intended to be exactly OEM specs. It just means that it will work in that application with no guarantees that it will perform as well as the OEM one did.